Mark Wadsworth

Friday night gear change

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:58:00 +0000

This is a prime example of the thinking that says "Great song so far, but we have to pad it out to about three minutes". The song itself is indeed great for the first minute and a half, grinds to a natural halt during a delightful percussion section (at which stage it should have been faded out) , stops completely ... and then starts again with just percussion/vocals (see also "Living on a prayer") before the band comes back in, at which stage Messrs Chinn and Chapman think "Shit! We haven't even got two minutes' worth" so for the next minute and a half there are four (count them) gear changes, each sounding more strained that the previous one:

Watermelons

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:56:00 +0000

Photo emailed to me by M.

Luke 15:7*

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:23:00 +0000

This week's "sinner that repenteth" might well be Paul Hudson, who wrote the infamous Whatever happened to global warming? article a month ago and who has now waded into the leaked climate-change-fraud-email debate on his BBC 'blog.

OK, I'd worry about his claim that "action is needed to be taken from the world's biggest polluters to cut carbon dioxide emissions", but this will all only unravel one thread at a time**

* King James Bible: "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

** Leg Iron used this analogy a few days ago and I've finally got round to nicking it.

More bollocks

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:32:00 +0000

The Metro follows up yesterday's bollocks-related stories with this:

The [police] officer has compiled a report into the use of mephedrone across the Durham force area and part of his research has focused on online forums.

The report states: 'A large number of contributors state how addictive mephedrone is and they are constantly topping up as one individual states that after using it for 18 hours his hallucinations led him to believe that centipedes were crawling over him and biting him. This led him to receive hospital treatment after he ripped his scrotum off.'

More Xmas Tree/Elfin Safety Fun...

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:33:00 +0000

From The Metro:

The tree that normally costs £500 has been replaced by a £13,000 fake amid fears it would fall over in strong winds. The new 10m (33ft) tall variety, has no branches and decorations, is sturdier and doesn't have to be cordoned off to keep people away, authorities claim. But residents say it looks more like a gigantic traffic cone, a witch's hat, an ice-cream cornet or even something out of Doctor Who...

Richard Randall-Jones, the town centre manager, defended the new fake tree."People think you can just go into the woods, chop down a tree and put it up in the high street. But if it blows over and kills someone then somebody is liable for it," he said.

I'm not sure how many people have ever been killed by real Xmas trees, and presumably there are as yet no statistics on how many are killed by giant cones. Does anybody else suspect that somebody on the council might have a brother-in-law who happens to sell giant cones?

Reader's Letter Of The Day

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:03:00 +0000

From today's FT:

Sir,

Robert Zoellick (Heed the danger of asset bubbles*, November 25) mentions at least five ways being attempted in Singapore to dampen the property price bubble.

Strangely he does not suggest that it might be appropriate to increase the annual land value tax (currently 0.5 per cent of land market value) levied by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. As head of the World Bank Group, should he not be suggesting that this type of tax be seriously considered internationally to inhibit property (ie land) price bubbles?

In Singapore, public infrastructure is funded by land value tax, which is a fair quid pro quo, since the value of land is directly related to infrastructure improvement.

Charles Bazlinton, Alresford, Hants.

* From the earlier article: "In Singapore, the 16 per cent surge in property prices during the third quarter of this year led the authorities to release more land for development and to take steps to stop borrowers from deferring payments. Other more focused measures include setting targets for the overall rate of growth of bank credit, imposing caps on the share of bank lending for real estate and portfolio investments, or higher capital requirements for riskier lenders.

In developed countries, where central banks want to keep rates low, regulators should be considering supplementary tools such as raising margin requirements on stock, bond and futures transactions, or raising down-payment requirements on commercial or speculative real estate deals."

Tony Blair

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:46:00 +0000

Life copies satire (again)

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:52:00 +0000

Woman On A Raft (who now blogs here), in a thread about patio heaters of a year-and-a-half ago:

I picked up a green living catalogue from outside Neal's Yard and it said that fire bowls, chimineas etc were all OK, and double OK if you bought them from ethical suppliers, preferably having been made by Mexicans/Indonesians whatever, from clay or recycled bottletops...

All this time, I had assumed she was being ironic.

Nope.

sigh

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:12:00 +0000

Umbongo, in the comments to an earlier post:

Oswald then concludes (I think) that [unemployment is] somehow prevented by a flourishing O-O market. A more obvious and less laboriously constructed conclusion (again, per Friedman) is that were there not frictions in every part of the housing market then all markets (including the employment market and the transport market) would be more efficient.

Oswald is entitled to draw any conclusions he likes. I was just presenting the raw data, not saying that I agree with him in everything. The point is that high owner-occupancy rates are inimical to a "flourishing" or "frictionless" housing market, because owner-occupiers tend to strongly oppose new developments - whether that is of new executive villas, normal estates for normal families or indeed sink estates - and vote for whichever party promises the least new development. And negative equity is a real brake on (geographic) mobility.

Forgetting that O-O might be, to a large extent, a non-economic ambition. Oswald's implied solution (since it's one of the 5 "problems") must include the prevention of owner-occupiers exercising their political strength (in planning inquiries etc) so that the state (through councils/housing associations) or developers can impose their preferred solutions locally. This would certainly contribute to reducing home-ownership.

O-O is very much an economic ambition! People genuinely believe that a home should not just be somewhere to live but a source of tax-free income and capital gains. That's (partly) which O-Oer's oppose new development - to create an artificial scarcity value (or to preserve their private enjoyment of whatever public benefits accrue to people living in any area).

And what is this mantra "developers imposing their preferred solutions"? There's demand for housing from perfectly ordinary people, who'd also like to be able to afford to buy a house. The same as there's demand for cars or apples or private schools. I never hear anybody complaining about car manufacturers or farmers or private schools "imposing their preferred solutions" (except maybe the Lefties, but they're just as bad).

Such a solution might "solve" some unemployment but would certainly create some messy democratic problems.

OK, young couples who'd like to buy a house are a minority at any one time, so on a static basis, existing O-Oers can use their vote to thwart their wishes. But wasn't everybody young once? Isn't the O-O market actually a great big Ponzi scheme?

Since Oswald's paper has been posted on a blog which strongly advocates LVT as an economic panacea, Oswald's implied solution would not, of course, be a problem for fans of LVT since the downgrading of a local area would be "compensated" by a lowering of LVT.

I never said "panacea". There are two kinds of economic problems. Those that will be solved by LVT and those that are insoluble. With LVT, local councils would be doing their utmost to ensure that their area is as attractive as possible and not "downgraded", or else they choke off their only source of income, that's the whole point.

I would be happy to pay a higher LVT (as I currently pay a higher council tax) to keep my local area in the way I and my neighbours want it. However, a lower (or nil) LVT would not, I think, ever be able to compensate for the parachuting of problem families (or worse) into the neighbourhood. This lack of a true compensation mechanism is one of the basic weaknesses of LVT (unless a negative LVT is contemplated).

As to the "problem families", logic says that the best thing we could do is round them all up and make them live on some isolated army-style barracks somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Far too many people say "Oh, we can't liberalise planning laws because we'd get stuck with a council estate." How about "We don't want a council estate so we'll ask the council to allow more new housing for O-O to be built"? When did you ever hear that?

Finally, of course there's negative LVT. More LVT = less of other taxes. Whether you see that as an "income tax cut" or an "LVT refund" is a different matter.

*/sigh*

Wrong on so many levels ...

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:50:00 +0000

It's difficult to know where to start with this article in The Evening Standard...

A Town Hall is poised to ban open-plan design in new housing developments because it is unpopular with Asian families.

A six-month investigation by Tower Hamlets found affordable units in the borough — aimed at key workers and people on low incomes — were vacant. But there are more than 22,000 people on its housing waiting lists.

The council believes this is because many families, particularly those of Asian origin, are not interested in homes with a combined kitchen and living space. A report on the problem says: “Separate provision would be much more suited because the [Asian] lifestyle requires separate seating space for male and female visitors and also the type of food cooked, heavy in oil and spices, which can have strong odours.”

Despite the borough's large Asian community — almost 37 per cent of the population, according to the latest census — only 12 per cent of the open-plan units were sold to Asian buyers. Almost 70 per cent of those sold recently have gone to white people.

Tower Hamlets is now set to alter its planning guidance to specify the need for separate rooms in all new developments. The Greater London Authority has recommended separate living and kitchen areas in large family units...

Developers often prefer open-plan designs because they are cheaper to build. But if they fail to find the extra space in family-sized affordable homes in Tower Hamlets, they are unlikely to win planning permission.

Waiseul Islam, chairman of the council's group on affordable home ownership, said: “Overcrowding and the demand for social housing have continued to rise locally, and shared-ownership schemes designed to assist people into home ownership haven't been as successful as anticipated.”

... so I don't think I'll even start, because it would take me all afternoon.

FakeCharity Of The Day

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:24:00 +0000

Andrew K over at Bishop Hill has a look at The Climate Outreach and Information Network. And doesn't like what he sees.

Thanks to Banned for the tip-off.

Bollocks

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:58:00 +0000

Three from The Metro:

Thailand makes it tougher to have sex-change surgery: Transsexuals and transgender men are a common sight in Thailand, appearing on soap operas and working at all levels of Bangkok society...

But over the past two years, a spate of castrations, especially among young men, has alarmed the medical establishment and prompted the new rules. Dr Sampandh Komrit, from the Medical Council of Thailand, said the new rules came into effect yesterday and require a person to wait a year after deciding on the surgery... "This is a very important decision in their life," Sampandh said. "After the operation, there is no way to fix it."

Testicles ripped out in a jealous attack: A source told a newspaper: 'Billy was only wearing his underpants at this stage. Helen grabbed his testicles and pulled them as hard as she could. His scrotum had been ripped open and his testicles were dangling by his legs. There was blood all over the flat.'

Men who want sex no longer risk jail by promising marriage, which is ambiguous. It could mean "Men who no longer want sex risk [being sent to] jail if they promise marriage", although it doesn't, of course.

Life copies satire

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:41:00 +0000

JuliaM in the comments here:

Weren't the Aussies contemplating a camel cull a while ago, but stymied by the problem of actually finding them in the outback? Well, problem solved! Commence bombing run!

From today's Metro:

Thousands of "marauding, wild" camels will be gunned down by helicopters after over-running a small town in Australia's Outback, officials have vowed.

About 6,000 of the animals have been wreaking havoc in Docker River after invading the town in search of water - trampling fences, smashing tanks and contaminating supplies. The Northern Territory government has now announced its plan for dealing with the camels, which have been arriving daily for weeks because of drought conditions in the region....

Owner-occupation - not all it's cracked up to be

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:27:00 +0000

Here are a couple of charts from some research carried out by Andrew J Oswald for the University of Warwick in 1999. That makes the precise statistics a little out of date, but the overall picture seems pretty clear:

Quote of the day

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:13:00 +0000

At EU Referendum:

... evidence is accumulating that global warming is most definitely man-made – but not as we know it...

Everybody's offended by something

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:52:00 +0000

I'd guess the people most likely to be offended by the infamous Michelle Obama/ape montage are people with severe burns to the face, but hey...It's a pretty rubbish montage anyway. Whoever did this one was much more sophisticated about it:

Shock And Awe

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:17:00 +0000

No deaths reported so far, but that's only a matter of time ...

Emailed by Mike.

Climate money 'unaccounted for'

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:03:00 +0000

From The Metro:

A total of 20 nations pledged up to 410 million dollars (£247 million) a year in 2001, resulting in a pot that should be worth well over 1.6 billion dollars (£963 million). But only 260 million dollars (£157 million) has been paid into two United Nations funds earmarked for the purpose according to the latest figures, the BBC World Service investigation said.

The EU said the money was collected in "bilateral and multilateral deals", but was unable to provide data to back up the claim...

Artur Runge-Metzger, the senior climate change negotiator for the European Union, said the EU had done what it promised to do. "We can say we met the promise - climate finance has really been stepped up," he told the BBC. But he admitted the EU was unable to provide data to show it did pay the money. "It's sometimes very hard to say what is the climate bit of this financing."

Glorious. Two massive frauds exposed simultaneously.

Health scare story du jour

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:57:00 +0000

From The Daily Express: HEALTH SCARE: SALT KILLS 40,000 A YEAR

Are they seriously trying to say that nearly one-in-ten deaths in the UK is caused by salt?

If you go to the 'research' itself, over at The British Medical Journal, it says "Most adult populations around the world have average daily salt intakes higher than 6 g, and for many in eastern Europe and Asia higher than 12 g. International recommendations suggest that average population salt intake should be less than 5-6 g per day. "

In which case people in eastern Europe or Asia should be dropping like flies, right?

Dangerous/Not dangerous

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:17:00 +0000

Two headlines from The Metro:

Balloons are 'dangerous', trader is told

Nuclear power station shut by blaze

Channel 4 News covers the climate change fraud emails (again)

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:17:00 +0000

Channel 4 gave it another four minutes this evening.

Their clip includes a lot of excerpts from Fox News, whose tone is pretty much as you'd expect it to be, as well as an opportunity for Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose launch was announced today, to explain proper science.

Benny either speaks very good English for a German or lousy English for an American... ah... he appears to be an Israeli, that might explain it.

PS, the GWPF can't be all bad - they've got Samuel Brittan on their academic advisory council.

Private Equity Fun

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:40:00 +0000

(Prequel: I moseyed into a Borders shop yesterday to see if they'd roll out the red carpet on the off chance I was The Buyer they were looking for, but they didn't, so I quickly thumbed through Swallows and Amazons, made my excuses and left.)

Sequel: according to the BBC, things are looking a bit grim for Borders in the UK - they've stopped taking online orders and some publishers have stopped supplying them. The best bit of that article is right at the end:

... The Borders chain was originally owned by the US book giant of the same name but was sold in June 2007 to Risk Capital Partners. Risk Capital then sold it on to the private equity firm Valco earlier this year.

*ahem*

Borders Inc is a quoted US company.
Risk Capital Partners are a private equity firm.
Valco Capital is a private equity firm.

*/ahem*

As we well know, "private equity" is largely fuelled by [cheap] bank loans, and as we can see from the above example, is a bit of a pyramid scheme. It's a good job that our governments are now using taxpayers' money to bail out the banks' losses on all this, isn't it?

Footnote of the day

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:09:00 +0000

The Institute for Economic Affairs posted an article about the Child Poverty Action Group yesterday:

It is a bit tricky to criticise an organisation that describes itself as “the leading charity campaigning for the abolition of child poverty in the UK”. But when a charity enters the realm of political debate, as the Child Poverty Action Group frequently does, then their proposals ought to be examined without the kid gloves on...

*ahem*

They have since added a footnote: "A reader has pointed out that the CPAG receives a significant proportion of its income from various government departments. See Note 3 to the 2008 accounts."

*/ahem*

Reader's Letter Of The Day

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:33:00 +0000

From today's Metro:

Cynic as I undoubtedly am in matters relating to government bodies and the political correctness that now prevails, I still find it disgusting that the wishes of the tax-paying majority were ignored in favour of a non-taxpaying minority - in this case, oversexed salmon.

The people of Cockermouth which has suffered terrible flooding (Metro, Mon) had asked that the River Derwent be dug deeper to prevent this crisis but were turned down by government bodies because of the rights of salmon to procreate where they choose.

I would ask two questions. Firstly, how much money was spent by government agencies in protecting these over-libidinous salmon? Secondly, how much money was not spent on the basic maintenance of these bridges?

Sue Hudson, London W2"
----------------------------------
Not wishing to take anything at face value, I did a quick Google and find that this story was in The Daily Mail two days ago, and would appear to be true. From the article:

Jacqui White, Gote Road, Cockermouth, said: 'I attended a meeting with Natural England earlier this year when we told them we wanted to dig 10ft deeper so that the waters wouldn't flood and alleviate any flooding. But the officials there stood up and told the meeting that the salmon in the river were more important.'

Natural England have form for this. Bastards.
----------------------------------
UPDATE: if you have another half a minute to spare, please follow the link which Banned left in the comments.

Daily Politics covers the climate change fraud emails

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Wadsworth) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:08:00 +0000

Another ten minutes on yesterday's Daily Politics with Professors Bob "[temperatures have risen by] about 0.75° Celsius over the last one hundred and fifty years" Watson and Fred "why hasn't there been warming over the last ten years" Singer, interviewed by Andrew "[since 1998] temperatures have ... been static or in a modest decline" Neill.

All textbook stuff. What's particularly amusing is that Watson chose a hundred and fifty years ago as a random starting point even after Singer had explained that there was a Little Ice Age three hundred years ago since when temperatures have bounced back.

Thanks to John Page for the tip-off.

Mark Wadsworth

Friday night gear change

Watermelons

Luke 15:7*

More bollocks

More Xmas Tree/Elfin Safety Fun...

Reader's Letter Of The Day

Tony Blair

Life copies satire (again)

*sigh*

Wrong on so many levels ...

FakeCharity Of The Day

Bollocks

Life copies satire

Owner-occupation - not all it's cracked up to be

Quote of the day

Everybody's offended by something

Shock And Awe

Climate money 'unaccounted for'

Health scare story du jour

Dangerous/Not dangerous

Channel 4 News covers the climate change fraud emails (again)

Private Equity Fun

Footnote of the day

Reader's Letter Of The Day

Daily Politics covers the climate change fraud emails

sigh