The children's Charity Barnardo’s is complaining that the UK Government will fail to halve child poverty in Britain by 2010, as promised - unless it spends an extra £3.8bn of taxpayers money over the £1bn already set aside for tax credits in the 2007 budget.
Apparently the charity's research indicates there are one million children who should have been lifted out of deprivation by the end of the decade who will still be in poverty. They warn that while the number of children living in poor families fell slowly but steadily in the late 1990s, progress has now stalled.
Terrible, you may think – Poverty, in Britain, in this day and age. Why is the State failing in this?
Basically because they have set themselves a much more difficult task that it seems.
A household is considered to be officially below the poverty line if they are living on less than 60% of the UK’s median (average) level of household income. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid. Curiously the EU apparently use the same measure...
So the Poverty line is actually a moving target then. For a start, every time interest rates go up a few more people slip below this poverty line.
Let's conduct a thought experiment - Imagine you were to take every single household, that is officially poor by this definition and were to supplement their income, so it that was £1 above the ‘poverty line’.
At the end of the exercise, when you re-did your sums, you would almost certainly find that you had only actually reduced poverty by a tiny amount and that the official poverty line had become slightly higher.
You would probably have to repeat the process quite a number of times before you had evened out household incomes enough for this measure to show a significant drop off.
Another problem with this measure of poverty is that by redistributing benefits, or services away from the very poorest (who are so far below the poverty line they are likely to stay poor anyway) to those just below the poverty line (who have the greatest chance of being moved over the line), politicians can reduce the poverty rate - Hurrah! - even while deepening the deprivation of the worst off - Oh!
So now you may have an inkling as to at least one possible reason why Chancellor Gordon Brown decided to reduce the basic rate of income tax from 22% to 20% but extended the new basic rate to cover the old 10% Starter rate, more than doubling taxation on the first £2000 of taxable income in the last budget - Busted!
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
A Free Primer
It’s an oldie but a goodie. A nice animation clearly and concisely, running through the concepts of liberty and self-ownership.
Maybe it ought to be turned into a DVD and circulated to schools… or would that be ;-) an inconvenient truth - State-ing the obvious really?
Maybe it ought to be turned into a DVD and circulated to schools… or would that be ;-) an inconvenient truth - State-ing the obvious really?
Hip chick Ruth Kelly makes an announcement...
Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly announced today that the introduction of Home Information Packs (HIPs) is now to be delayed until 1 August.
They will also be for sales of four bedroom and above properties only, presumably this will change later.
Initially sellers would just have to have commissioned a pack, before marketing their property. It would not be necessary to actually have one. So provided you had paid, the sale could go through with never an actual physical pack changing hands.
That telling point suggests where Nu-Lab's heart really lies ;-) a sordid tale of stealth taxation all on it's own.
The packs had been due to become compulsory for all home sales in England and Wales from 1 June.
Packs are to contain: Evidence of title (I would rather trust my solicitor on that one), Copies of any planning consents (they would use that as a selling point anyway), listed building, or building regulations consents (my solicitor). A local search (my solicitor again), Guarantees for any work on the property (fall over themselves - again) plus an energy performance certificate (more interested in last year's gas, electric & council tax bills, also again - from experience - falling over themselves).
So then - utterly pointless legislation really, with a hint of FacismLite - "The fragrance for Statists everywhere.".
Ministers have increasingly tried to justify pushing the packs on the grounds they are a sure fire way to persuade people to make their homes more energy efficient and thus cut carbon emissions and save the world!! – Absolutely.
Has anyone noticed ‘They’ (particularly politicians) are increasingly using anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to justify - and try to stampede voters into - accepting chains round their necks that even the ‘war on terror’ couldn’t make them stomach.
If there were actually any demand for HIPs then surely market forces would have already forced (probably) estate agents into providing them.
Quite frankly, if I were buying a property and wanted a HIP I would get it done myself. I wouldn’t want the seller to provide it - and if I didn’t want one then why should I be forced to have one?
I suppose these inspectors will be yet another cohort, of the army of state clients, dependant on Government force to keep their livelihood milking the rest of us.
They will also be for sales of four bedroom and above properties only, presumably this will change later.
Initially sellers would just have to have commissioned a pack, before marketing their property. It would not be necessary to actually have one. So provided you had paid, the sale could go through with never an actual physical pack changing hands.
That telling point suggests where Nu-Lab's heart really lies ;-) a sordid tale of stealth taxation all on it's own.
The packs had been due to become compulsory for all home sales in England and Wales from 1 June.
Packs are to contain: Evidence of title (I would rather trust my solicitor on that one), Copies of any planning consents (they would use that as a selling point anyway), listed building, or building regulations consents (my solicitor). A local search (my solicitor again), Guarantees for any work on the property (fall over themselves - again) plus an energy performance certificate (more interested in last year's gas, electric & council tax bills, also again - from experience - falling over themselves).
So then - utterly pointless legislation really, with a hint of FacismLite
Ministers have increasingly tried to justify pushing the packs on the grounds they are a sure fire way to persuade people to make their homes more energy efficient and thus cut carbon emissions and save the world!! – Absolutely.
Has anyone noticed ‘They’ (particularly politicians) are increasingly using anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to justify - and try to stampede voters into - accepting chains round their necks that even the ‘war on terror’ couldn’t make them stomach.
If there were actually any demand for HIPs then surely market forces would have already forced (probably) estate agents into providing them.
Quite frankly, if I were buying a property and wanted a HIP I would get it done myself. I wouldn’t want the seller to provide it - and if I didn’t want one then why should I be forced to have one?
I suppose these inspectors will be yet another cohort, of the army of state clients, dependant on Government force to keep their livelihood milking the rest of us.
Monday, 21 May 2007
World's largest 'Low Emission Zone’
Ken Livingstone, Greater London’s Mayor, has approved plans for the ‘World's largest Low Emission Zone’ on May the 3rd 2007, to be launched in February 2008.
The stated aim is to reduce harmful emissions from the most polluting (large diesel vehicles)lorries/trucks, coaches and buses by ‘encouraging’ operators to clean up their fleets. Sounds ok so far...
Initially the Low Emission Zone will apply to lorries/trucks over 12 tonnes.
Broadening in scope by July 2008, to take in lighter lorries/trucks, buses, coaches, and other other heavy vehicles.
How is this all to come about? Surprise, surprise - an enormous charge/tax of £200 for each day vehicles that don’t meet the standards enter the zone.
You can register your vehicle, but don’t worry if you don’t, as Transport for London (TfL) will use data you previously provided for other reasons to other agencies and organisations such as:
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT)
to decide if your vehicle meets the emissions standards.
There is no real mention of the possible economic costs of imposing the zone. It is difficult to imagine that the costs of becoming compliant will not be substantial and in the end, be passed on to those who live and work in London.
More disturbing still is the harvesting of information, previously provided to others for entirely different purposes (presumably in confidence), to be used against the providers.
Also the fact that, if TfL decide, based on the information, that you are a polluter - even if you are not, you will have to prove it.
The stated aim is to reduce harmful emissions from the most polluting (large diesel vehicles)lorries/trucks, coaches and buses by ‘encouraging’ operators to clean up their fleets. Sounds ok so far...
Initially the Low Emission Zone will apply to lorries/trucks over 12 tonnes.
Broadening in scope by July 2008, to take in lighter lorries/trucks, buses, coaches, and other other heavy vehicles.
How is this all to come about? Surprise, surprise - an enormous charge/tax of £200 for each day vehicles that don’t meet the standards enter the zone.
You can register your vehicle, but don’t worry if you don’t, as Transport for London (TfL) will use data you previously provided for other reasons to other agencies and organisations such as:
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT)
to decide if your vehicle meets the emissions standards.
There is no real mention of the possible economic costs of imposing the zone. It is difficult to imagine that the costs of becoming compliant will not be substantial and in the end, be passed on to those who live and work in London.
More disturbing still is the harvesting of information, previously provided to others for entirely different purposes (presumably in confidence), to be used against the providers.
Also the fact that, if TfL decide, based on the information, that you are a polluter - even if you are not, you will have to prove it.
Taxing viewing?
Professor Paul Ekins, of the University of Westminster, speaking at a news conference in London, concerning the government's forthcoming Energy White Paper, expected to be released in the next few weeks, is calling for yet more taxation.
Ekins is billed as a leading expert on the economics of climate change and co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre
He wants the Government to put a tax on plasma screen televisions, insisting taxing plasma screens would reflect their ‘greater climate change burden’.
Plasma TVs, according to the government-funded Energy Saving Trust, consume about four times more energy than conventional cathode-ray tube TVs.
However researchers point out that exact comparisons are not quite so easy as that, because of the size difference between plasmas which are 50% bigger than their equivalents.
It has been estimated that on average a ‘conventional’ TV costs about £25 per year to run accounting for 100kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, whereas a plasma TV costs about £100 per year produces around 400kg of CO2 - All assuming the electricity is not sourced from nuclear, or renewable power sources.
Prof. Ekins, rather stating the obvious, also singled out patio heaters as especially energy-intensive.
The UK Energy Research Centre is essentially government funded being funded through:
The Natural Environment Research Council NERC - ‘Funding world-class science tackling the 21st century's major environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity and natural hazards.’
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) - ‘The UK Government's leading funding agency for research and training in engineering and the physical sciences.’
and The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - The UK's leading research funding and training agency addressing economic and social concerns.
So, a Professor, indirectly funded by the government, calling for extra taxation – No cause for comment there then.
After all it’s not as if anyone would call into doubt, say, a professor funded by the tobacco industry who had done research suggesting there might be some benefits to smoking.
Why is it that the answer to any perceived problem always seems to be more taxation, more laws & regulations and ever increasing Government Control?
Ekins is billed as a leading expert on the economics of climate change and co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre
He wants the Government to put a tax on plasma screen televisions, insisting taxing plasma screens would reflect their ‘greater climate change burden’.
Plasma TVs, according to the government-funded Energy Saving Trust, consume about four times more energy than conventional cathode-ray tube TVs.
However researchers point out that exact comparisons are not quite so easy as that, because of the size difference between plasmas which are 50% bigger than their equivalents.
It has been estimated that on average a ‘conventional’ TV costs about £25 per year to run accounting for 100kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, whereas a plasma TV costs about £100 per year produces around 400kg of CO2 - All assuming the electricity is not sourced from nuclear, or renewable power sources.
Prof. Ekins, rather stating the obvious, also singled out patio heaters as especially energy-intensive.
The UK Energy Research Centre is essentially government funded being funded through:
The Natural Environment Research Council NERC - ‘Funding world-class science tackling the 21st century's major environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity and natural hazards.’
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) - ‘The UK Government's leading funding agency for research and training in engineering and the physical sciences.’
and The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - The UK's leading research funding and training agency addressing economic and social concerns.
So, a Professor, indirectly funded by the government, calling for extra taxation – No cause for comment there then.
After all it’s not as if anyone would call into doubt, say, a professor funded by the tobacco industry who had done research suggesting there might be some benefits to smoking.
Why is it that the answer to any perceived problem always seems to be more taxation, more laws & regulations and ever increasing Government Control?
Friday, 18 May 2007
You couldn't make it up.
Words really do fail me. Politicians wonder, with an apparent air of hurt bemused innocence why no one trusts them. Gordon brown talks absolute tosh about re-building trust.
Well the Tories don’t quite seem to have kicked old habits, as one of their backbenchers, David Maclean, has sponsored a private member’s bill that he claims is “necessary to give an absolute guarantee that the correspondence of members of parliament, on behalf of our constituents and others, to a public authority remains confidential “.
By a complete coincidence I am sure did not occur to him it also has the effect of exempting the Commons and House of Lords from the list of public authorities obliged to release information under the Freedom of Information Act and also – as a, no doubt, entirely unintended side effect – allow MPs to keep their expenses secret.
It has to be said support for the bill is not limited to the Tories by any means.
Gordon Brown has said he will not block secrecy bid has pledged to respect MPs' decisions. A spokesman for the chancellor said he had also promised not to dictate to MPs. Labour Backbenchers have also emailed colleagues to say they "feel strongly" that the bill's measures were "worthy of support".
Critics suggest that despite it’s apparently neutral stance, the government is in favour of the Bill and has ensured it has the time to progress through Parliament.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker plans to make a formal complaint to the Commons speaker after MPs voted for the bill, by 96 to 25, to give the bill a third reading.
Well the Tories don’t quite seem to have kicked old habits, as one of their backbenchers, David Maclean, has sponsored a private member’s bill that he claims is “necessary to give an absolute guarantee that the correspondence of members of parliament, on behalf of our constituents and others, to a public authority remains confidential “.
By a complete coincidence I am sure did not occur to him it also has the effect of exempting the Commons and House of Lords from the list of public authorities obliged to release information under the Freedom of Information Act and also – as a, no doubt, entirely unintended side effect – allow MPs to keep their expenses secret.
It has to be said support for the bill is not limited to the Tories by any means.
Gordon Brown has said he will not block secrecy bid has pledged to respect MPs' decisions. A spokesman for the chancellor said he had also promised not to dictate to MPs. Labour Backbenchers have also emailed colleagues to say they "feel strongly" that the bill's measures were "worthy of support".
Critics suggest that despite it’s apparently neutral stance, the government is in favour of the Bill and has ensured it has the time to progress through Parliament.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker plans to make a formal complaint to the Commons speaker after MPs voted for the bill, by 96 to 25, to give the bill a third reading.
Big Brother is censoring you
Here is something a little disturbing.
A recent report , from the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society, indicates that state-mandated internet filtering is being introduced by a growing number of states around the world.
John Palfrey, at Harvard Law School, said that the report was an attempt to shine a spotlight on filtering to make it more transparent.
He indicated that in the last five years net filtering has risen from a couple of states doing it to twenty five. "There has also been an increase in the scale, scope and sophistication of internet filtering."
The filtering has three main justifications: politics and power, security concerns and social norms. Apparently it almost always happens in the shadows and the levels of censorship are expected to increase.
He said: "What's regrettable about net filtering is that almost always this is happening in the shadows. There's no place you can get an answer as a citizen from your state about how they are filtering and what is being filtered."
Rafal Rohozinski, a Research Fellow of the Cambridge Security Programme stated that "Few states restrict their activities to one type of content.". Apparently once a state starts filtering, it does it on a broad range of content.
States carrying out the broadest range of filtering included Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. No real surprises there then.
States the survey detected censoring the net are: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma/Myanmar, China, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, UAE, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Yemen.
Before you feel all warm, smug and safe though keep in mind that the report also said that the US and a number of European States were not tested because the private sector tends to carry out filtering, instead of the Government.
A recent report , from the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society, indicates that state-mandated internet filtering is being introduced by a growing number of states around the world.
John Palfrey, at Harvard Law School, said that the report was an attempt to shine a spotlight on filtering to make it more transparent.
He indicated that in the last five years net filtering has risen from a couple of states doing it to twenty five. "There has also been an increase in the scale, scope and sophistication of internet filtering."
The filtering has three main justifications: politics and power, security concerns and social norms. Apparently it almost always happens in the shadows and the levels of censorship are expected to increase.
He said: "What's regrettable about net filtering is that almost always this is happening in the shadows. There's no place you can get an answer as a citizen from your state about how they are filtering and what is being filtered."
Rafal Rohozinski, a Research Fellow of the Cambridge Security Programme stated that "Few states restrict their activities to one type of content.". Apparently once a state starts filtering, it does it on a broad range of content.
States carrying out the broadest range of filtering included Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. No real surprises there then.
States the survey detected censoring the net are: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma/Myanmar, China, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, UAE, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Yemen.
Before you feel all warm, smug and safe though keep in mind that the report also said that the US and a number of European States were not tested because the private sector tends to carry out filtering, instead of the Government.
You really can't tell the difference
It looks like Dave the Chameleon’s shadow education secretary David Willetts has stepped on a hornets nest, pushing the unpopular anti selective education/Grammar School line.
A YouGov poll has revealed that 49% of all voters and 71% Conservative voters support selective education. Apparently only 19% of all voters and just 13% of Conservative voters are actually against the idea of selective education of some sort.
After ‘private discussions’ with a number of Conservative MPs and a pretty rough ride from the 1922 committee. Mr Willetts in an attempt to placate his many critics he said he would be willing to do more to protect Grammar Schools.
He hasn’t actually gone back on it, mind you - just spun it differently. No you really can’t tell the difference…
A YouGov poll has revealed that 49% of all voters and 71% Conservative voters support selective education. Apparently only 19% of all voters and just 13% of Conservative voters are actually against the idea of selective education of some sort.
After ‘private discussions’ with a number of Conservative MPs and a pretty rough ride from the 1922 committee. Mr Willetts in an attempt to placate his many critics he said he would be willing to do more to protect Grammar Schools.
He hasn’t actually gone back on it, mind you - just spun it differently. No you really can’t tell the difference…
A resounding success?
Apparently the Electoral Reform Society has hailed Scotland's council election as a resounding success!
A report from the society is set to claim that the single transferable vote (STV) system used in the 2007 Council elections worked well.
They do concede that there were "major inadequacies" in the vote for the Scottish Parliament, with over than 140,000 rejected/spoiled ballots.
Given that there were 45,687 rejected/spoiled ballot papers in the local government elections for Scotland, this means the local government elections were actually only one third as bad as the parliamentary election - and that has surely at least got to qualify as, “minor inadequacies”.
A report from the society is set to claim that the single transferable vote (STV) system used in the 2007 Council elections worked well.
They do concede that there were "major inadequacies" in the vote for the Scottish Parliament, with over than 140,000 rejected/spoiled ballots.
Given that there were 45,687 rejected/spoiled ballot papers in the local government elections for Scotland, this means the local government elections were actually only one third as bad as the parliamentary election - and that has surely at least got to qualify as, “minor inadequacies”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
