They would say that, wouldn't they?

Item 1, from Business Insider:

WeWork's CEO said your desire to go to an office depends on how "engaged" you are at work.

Sandeep Mathrani, who stepped in as CEO of the coworking startup last year, said that people most comfortable working from home are the "least engaged" with their company, while the "overly engaged" want to go to the office.

Is he seriously trying to guilt trip people into paying rent?

Item 2, from the BBC:

Queen's Speech 2021: Key points at-a-glance

A Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill will get rid of the fixed five-year period between general elections and return the power to call early elections to the prime minister.

Wow. This law came in under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition in 2011. David Cameron stuck to it, and called a General Election after his five years were up (which he won convincingly). Then his successors called snap elections in 2017 and in 2019 and made a mockery of the whole thing. It must be one of the least observed laws in living memory.

Plans to force voters in Great Britain to to prove their identity when they vote at general elections will be introduced in an Electoral Integrity Bill

A Judicial Review Bill will set out the government's plans to change how its decisions can be challenged in the courts

I do not like either of these at all, but that's Tories for you (and I'm not saying that Labour haven't been just as authoritarian).

Socialism / Not Socialism

We (or maybe just me?) got ourselves into a long discussion on an earlier post that rather lost its way.  So I thought I'd try to make a bit clearer the point I was trying to make.  First of all I would expect that all of you know about the Nolan Chart? (I accept that it is a simplification).

 

 

Top = Liberty and Personal Responsibility

 

 

Bottom = Slavery and Personal Irresponsibility 

 

Now, the key point today is that I maintain the left v right is passé.  It's old hat.  What we really need to be talking about is top v bottom.  I do not consider myself either left or right.  All the evidence tells me that the left - aka socialism - does not work.  In fact cannot work.  And similarly the Right 'conservative' does not work. And in fact cannot work.

 

If you look at the history of conservatism in the UK it is exemplified by its ability to gain power by accepting the changes made by the Left.  It has 'conserved' things that were not previously thought of as Right wing or conservative.  And it tends to be authoritarian. Witness the way Osborne handed Draconian and arbitrary power to HMRC or the constant attempts to 'control' the internet. Finally by definition Toryism grew out of land ownership - i.e. rent seeking.

 

On the left the constant failures of economic rationing by bureaucrats, and because of the skewed incentives of those bureaucrats, will tend to lead to more and more regulationism and less and less economic freedom. The left defined itself by mis-defining 'capitalism'. It looked horizontally across the Nolan Chart.  It should have been looking upwards. It decided that on the evidence of that horizontal view markets were not good enough and that central planning by wise bureaucrats was much better. Keynes did not look up either.

 

In short both left and right will tend to trend downwards over time to the bottom. They will both end up as totalitarian regimes. (Witness Corbyn's threat to requisition houses).

 

The chart implies something else.  Without both economic and personal liberty there can be no Liberty.  Property rights (including sound money which is a form of property right) are fundamental to liberty. And this is why the Left can never embrace liberty.

 

But given that the Nation State is a Good Idea what is the least worst way of paying for it that does not erode liberty and economic freedom and uses the least possible coercion?  Enter Georgism.

 

To my mind Georgism achieves two things.  One, It raises tax income in an equitable and efficient way and two, if done properly increases liberty by removing the ability of the few rent seekers to suck the wealth away from the productive in 'economic rent'.  I see no contradiction between Georgism and Liberty. But then I am not an anarcho libertarian.

 

There is a lot more than can be said about this, but I wanted to be as brief as possible and to promote discussion.

 

So what do you think?

"Duncan Smith outlines plans for pre-paid pension cards"

From the BBC:

The government is to introduce pre-paid cards to stop pensioners spending all their money on alcohol, tobacco or Lottery tickets.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said it would help those "on the margins break the cycle of poverty". The cards could only be used for some items in some stores, and would not be valid in betting shops or off licences.

The scheme will be initially piloted on a voluntary basis and will be targeted on those with spending problems. The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said government sources said the move was aimed at helping pensioners who smoked or drank and protecting their spouses.

An estimated one in 5 pension claimants in England suffer from addiction to tobacco products, such as cigarettes or cigars, while an estimated one in 4 pension claimants consumes more than the recommended maximum daily intake of alcohol.

Fun Online Polls: Radicalised children & inconsiderate car drivers

The responses to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

Boris Johnson has said that Muslim children at risk of radicalisation should be taken into care:

That just shows his authoritarian streak - 38%
He's just being his usual provocative self - 25%
That sounds like a good idea - 13%
This would only exacerbate things - 11%
Other, please specify - 13%

With the benefit of hindsight, I think it would have been better to allow multiple selections as the categories overlap, but that looks like a big thumbs-down from us.
-------------------------------------
For a bit of light relief, let's do inconsiderate car drivers, starting with German marques.

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

"The report, which was financed by Mastercard..."

Spotted by Bob E in The Guardian:

Social security benefits such as universal credit and crisis loans should be issued on debit card-style cards, despite fears that they will enable authorities to block recipients from spending the cash on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling, according to a report by the thinktank Demos...

Polling carried out by Demos for the report found that 59% of the public supported some form of state control over benefits, with support highest for controls on payments to claimants with gambling or substance addictions (77%). Over half of respondents identified "things that are bad for your health" such as smoking and booze as areas on which benefits should not be spent.(1)

The report, which was financed by Mastercard, found that use of the cards is already widespread among English local authorities, with a quarter using them to issue personal budget payments to social care service-users. Of those local authorities not using the cards for personal social care budgets, a third said they plan to introduce them over the next 12 months, with many attracted by the apparent opportunity to make substantial savings in administrative and audit costs.

1) Common sense tells us that it is impossible to spend more than a fifth of your benefits on smoking and booze, for the simple reason that four-fifths of the cost is taxes thereon. A benefit claimant - or an old age pensioner for that matter - who "spends" £20 a week on booze and fags is actually only spending £4 on tobacco and alcohol, the other £16 goes straight back to the government, so effectively, this person's benefits or pension is being reduced by £16 a week automatically.

Authoritarians missing their own point, as per usual

Spotted by Bob E in The Telegraph:

The Bill for Welfare Cash Card is designed to stop welfare claimants buying what Shelbrooke deems “NEDD” goods – Non-Essential, Desirable and often Damaging – which include cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. It would not affect those who cannot work and receive disability-related payments or those on the state pension, but it would apply to all other in-work or out-of-work benefits.

1. Yes, booze and fags are very expensive in this country, precisely because the authoritarians have burdened them with such high taxes, three-quarters (or whatever) of the cost is tax.

2. The self-same authoritarians then say "We don't like welfare claimants spending so much money on expensive booze and fags. If they have enough money to spend on things like that, then they are getting too much money."

3. The fact is, it sorts itself out. If a welfare claimant spends £30 a week on booze and fags, of which £22 is tax, then the authoritarians say that his welfare payments should be cut by £30 a week. Actually, that welfare claimant has just voluntarily reduced his own net welfare payments by £22 a week, because that money goes straight back to the government, he's only getting £8's worth of booze and fags.

4. As a thought experiment, what if booze and fags weren't taxed, and the welfare claimant was only spending £8 a week on them? Would the authoritarians then be so niggardly and judgemental as to want to cut his welfare payments by £8? Probably yes, but hey.

"Not just completely doolally but spiteful and nasty on top..."

Another one from the desk of Bob E:
------------------------------
So, thank to the sterling efforts of the ERSA crew and their sub-contractors, there you are, the proud holder of a "zero hours contract" under which you signed away your life and agreed to drop everything the minute the 'phone rang and speedily respond to that "get yer arse in 'ere pronto, yer needed for a couple of hours" order regardless of what day of the week it is and whether it is morning, noon or night, and obviously there is no way under that contract you can "increase your hours" so what His Sainted Holiness [Iain Duncan Smith] wants you to you to do is find a second job which won't clash with your "zero hours contract" job or get sanctioned.

Still, I expect every ERSA member organisation will be only too happy to provide every one of the 1.2 million affected "personalised, tailored support" in their quest to find second jobs whilst they continue to do the same for the double that number who haven't even got "a job" and the million or so people working part time who are already searching for a job offering "longer hours" or, holy or holies "full time on minimum wage".

A million working adults face benefits cuts next year

Nearly 1.2 million working adults will for the first time next year face losing some of their benefits if they do not comply with new state requirements to work longer hours, find an additional job or seek higher wages, it has emerged.

Until now benefit sanctions have only applied largely to those out of work. The new sanctions regime is an unprecedented byproduct of the government decision to introduce universal credit, merging most existing means-tested benefits and tax credits together into a single system.

The aim is to increase the incentives to work but it means that people will lose money if they don't find extra work, even if there is none available where they live...

Universal credit removes the requirement to work at least 16 hours to be entitled to benefit, so allows claimants to receive state help if they are working as little as five hours a week.

To counter the clear financial incentives for low-hours work in the new system universal credit introduces, for the first time, a bolstered system of personalised conditionality, including directed mandatory activity to help people obtain and prepare for work.

Claimants will be expected to meet a new, higher conditionality earnings threshold, equivalent to 35 hour week at national minimum rates through a combination of measures. These can include: increasing their hours or their hourly wage with their current employer, finding one or more additional jobs alongside their existing employment or finding a new job with a higher income.

Juxtaposition Of The Day

Spotted by Bob E in/at The Guardian:

In case that's whetted your appetite, the actual stories are here and here.

Militant Atheist Pensioner Of The Week

From The Boston Standard:

A DEFIANT pensioner is planning to stand up for his beliefs by putting an atheist poster in his front window – even though police have advised him not to. John Richards was told by officers that he may face arrest if he put up the sign at his Vauxhall Road home, as it could breach the Public Order Act by distressing passers by.

But Mr Richards has decided to stand up for his beliefs, and stick the poster up, saying that such action implies a threat to free speech. The sign states ‘religions are fairy stories for adults’...

The article was then updated with a sort-of-back-pedal-but-leave-our-options-open response from the local cops.

Via APILN

Something else which really pisses me off.

Janet Daley in The Telegraph highlights typical Tory muddled thinking:

In around six months’ time, £200 of unearned cash will plop into my bank account: an unsolicited gift from HM Treasury because, in spite of being a highly paid journalist, I am over 60 years old and therefore must be in need of a Winter Fuel Payment. This is clearly ridiculous. I would happily hand over my rights to this sum – as well as the value of my free prescriptions, eye tests and (unclaimed) bus pass – to those who actually need them. Perhaps more to the point, I would be particularly delighted to give them up in return for my daughters being allowed to keep the Child Benefit which the Chancellor has decided they can do without.

But what seems patently outrageous about these arrangements is precisely the fact that they are cash handouts: one is (and I am) receiving other people’s money. And ironically, it is money that has been mostly contributed by people like me – possibly even the same age as me – through tax. We are all paying in, and then we are all receiving dollops of money, or freebies. This is crazy. As Mr Duncan Smith has put it, "It’s rather daft to take tax off the middle classes and pay them a little bit back."

I do wonder how thick these people are. This sort of thing is actually very sensible. What is the point of taking away universal entitlements from the better off (as defined) if merely to fund tax cuts for the better off (as defined)?

Agreed, people don't like paying tax; but people do like claiming benefits. There are indeed some better off pensioners who genuinely say that they don't need the £200 Winter Fuel Allowance and would be happy to go without it, but I bet that most of these would gladly accept a £200 tax cut in lieu.

So let's imagine that the £200 Winter Fuel allowance were all-or-nothing. If your gross income is less than an arbitrary figure like £20,000, then you get it; and if your income is over £20,000 then you don't - but you can tick a box on your tax return to say that you'd like a £200 tax reduction instead.

Why is this system any different from just giving everybody the £200? Why do people think that the £200 tax reduction is "their" money but a £200 cash handout is "other people's money"? Doesn't Ms Daley herself [almost] say that she is getting her own money back? Would she really not tick that box and reduce her own tax bill by £200?

Or you could means-test the £200, so that for every £100 gross income a pensioner has in excess of an arbitrary figure like £15,000, the £200 cash allowance is reduced by £4. In which case, this just pushes up the marginal tax rate on pensioners with an income of between £15,000 and £20,000 to 24%, leading to a regressive tax system; pensioners with gross income above £20,000 would only pay 20% marginal.

Where people trip up is seeing the tax system (where the government takes money off you) and the welfare system (where the government gives you money) as two entirely separate things. They are not. They are quite clearly exactly the same thing, and yes, nearly everybody pays something and nearly everybody gets something but for most people there are transfers in each direction.

It would of course be much better, and would throw the issue into focus, if there were one single bureaucracy which dealt with the whole thing, then they could net off your entitlements and liabilities to give one single net figure to be either paid in tax or to be received in benefits or public-sector salary, and have done with it, in which case it would be perfectly clear that the £200 Winter Fuel Allowance is conceptually no different to the personal allowance for tax purposes, and I don't think anybody would complain if personal allowances were increased (even though higher earners would be better off if these were scrapped and tax rates reduced accordingly).

No, that's banana skins, you idiot.

From The Metro:

Mother-of-four Carlee Cartwright has been fined more than £350 in a row over littering her street with orange peel... "Although littering may not appear to be a serious offence, it is an anti-social offence," said chairman of the bench Garry Swann. "Particularly in the case of orange peel, it could cause someone to slip and maybe injure themselves quite seriously," he added.

Fun Online Polls: Localism and Xmas pantomimes

On a good turnout of 117 votes, the results to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

I'd like local people to able to decide:

None of the [below] 66 votes
Whether there should be new roads or houses in their area - 50 votes
What type of businesses can be carried on in their area - 33 votes
Who is allowed to buy a car in their area - 16 votes
How many children families in their area are allowed to have - 17 votes
What jobs children in their area should do when they leave school - 14 votes

I was delighted that over half of respondents chose 'None of the above' (which produced the message 'Congratulations! You are a libertarian'), but given the self-selecting nature of any blog's readers, I suppose that might not be too much to ask.

I can't say I'm surprised that over third thought it was a good idea to allow 'local people' to block the construction of new roads or houses in their area, as this is the rich seam of small mindedness which the Lib-Cons are trying to tap into with their whole 'localism' agenda.

But what's terrifying/depressing is that over ten per cent of people thought it was a good idea for 'local people' to be able to decide what type of businesses are carried on; who is allowed to buy a car, how many children people are allowed to have; and what jobs other people's children should do when they leave school.

If we scale the results to reflect the real world, in which only about twenty per cent of people are relaxed about new developments in their area, the findings are pretty scary indeed. Is it really possible that well over ten per cent of the people in this country are authoritarian to the point of being an actual fascist, or who think that the Soviet Union or PR China was/is a good way to run a country?
-----------------------------------------------
Anyway, I shall resist the temptation to do a Fun Online Poll "Are you stuck at the airport?" and reinstate the previous poll to the sidebar, let's see how much more hilarity we can wring out of that (some good comments so far).

Daily Mash nails it

From The Daily Mash:

MEN cannot resist touching themselves while watching Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell's anti-masturbation diatribe, it has emerged. The movement's leading maniac was filmed talking about the evils of self-pleasurement in a 1996 TV interview... Now traditional Americans who work damn hard to keep a roof over their family's heads while disliking homos and science have been compelled to engage in bouts of guilt-heavy onanism while watching the interview on Youtube.

Judge for yourselves. The sultry sideways glance at the John Travolta look-a-like after 1 minute is especially hot:

Boo! There's no 'but' this time.

From The Daily Mail:

David Cameron will today launch a national citizen service that will see hundreds of thousands of 16-year-olds sent on summer camps at a cost of up to £1,400 each.

The £50million scheme aims to get a disaffected generation of teenagers from different racial and social backgrounds to join in local community activities. The Prime Minister will announce that 10,000 school leavers will be able to take part in a summer volunteering programme from next year...

"Government by international treaty"

Denis Cooper coined this phrase a few years ago, and he emailed me a good example today, (which he also posted on the relevant thread at Con Home). From Hansard:

Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): The European investigation order would allow police and prosecutors throughout Europe to order British police to collect and hand over evidence... Britain has until 28 July to decide whether to opt in or, like Denmark, to opt out. Will the Leader of the House indicate when the Government's decision will be made, and will the House have an opportunity to debate the measure in advance?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He says that the Government must decide by 28 July what action to take. I will certainly ascertain from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Home Office, whichever Department is the appropriate one, what action they propose to take in response to my hon. Friend's question.

As D says, "That the Leader of the House is unclear which department of the British government now has responsibility for the activities of the British police speaks volumes about the constitutional confusion created by EU membership.... We seem to have entered a new phase where the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in part a kind of Colonial Office in reverse, with the instructions coming in rather than going out."

Doctor knows best!

From The Metro:

As well as supporting a minimum price for a unit of alcohol, medics called for a complete ban on drink advertising as well as scrapping supermarket loyalty points for alcohol purchases. They also voted for a "properly enforced ban on drunkenness on public transport" at the British Medical Association (BMA) conference in Brighton.

But calls for a UK-wide ban on drinking on public transport failed. The BMA already has a strong stance on alcohol, and supports a complete ban on advertising as well as minimum pricing. Today's vote on loyalty points and cracking down on drunken behaviour on trains and buses adds another dimension to BMA policy.

Note to self: add the British Medical Association to this list.

I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot less of this sort of thing, now that David Cameron is in charge...

From The Daily Mail:

A hospital worker who rescued 60 fish from their ornamental pond when it was being drained has claimed he is facing prosecution and a £1,000 fine. Clive Roberts saved the fish in an act of mercy by scooping them into a bucket to move them to his own garden pond. The 58-year-old said officials at the Environment Agency told him he needed to go through red tape to get a formal licence to move the goldfish.

Mr Roberts, who has maintained the pond at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff for 12 years, said: 'It is ridiculous. The pond was being drained for maintenance work - they would have died if I hadn't got them out. The plan was to return them in six weeks when the work is finished. But I've been told I could be prosecuted - it seems a bit unfair when all I was trying to do was help. I look after the fish at the hospital and now I'm looking after them at my own home.'

The Environment Agency say it is illegal to remove fish from their habitat without permission. Officials say the law is designed to prevent the spread of lethal fish diseases. Mr Roberts, a window cleaner, has been told he should have applied for a licence to move the fish.

'This was an emergency,' he said. 'The fish were already distressed by the falling water levels when I took them out. I maintain the pond at the hospital - it is a simple plastic-lined ornamental pond. Do gardeners break the law whey they remove fish from their back garden pond to clean it out?'

The fish are now in his garden pond in Adamsdown, Cardiff. Mr Roberts is worried he may be interviewed under caution by Environment Agency officials...

OK, you might think, this is just getting silly, maybe Mr Roberts imagined it all or something. Let's see what the EA have to say for themselves...

An Environment Agency spokesman said: 'Mr Roberts has not been arrested or charged with any offence and will not be interviewed under caution. Moving fish short distances between garden ponds is not an offence, as it does not present a significant risk to the environment. The Environment Agency does not investigate such incidents. In situations where fish need to be moved at short notice we can offer help and advice, and would be happy to advise the hospital on the best way to maintain a healthy stock of fish.'

Jesus wept. Any sane person would have assumed that jumped up quangocrats like this wouldn't have the power to have people arrested; the fact that they use this in their defence is telling enough. As to 'offering help and advice', it is Mr Roberts' job to look after fish, it is what he does for a living (and it's not exactly rocket science), he doesn't need 'help and advice' from some political appointee.

But of course, in iDave's Big Society, this sort of thing will never happen again. Ever.

Don't forget your photographic ID on 6 May!

See over at the El Comm website.

OK, it only applies to Northern Ireland this time round, but give it a year or two...

"Ask not what you can do for your country..."

iDave trotted out JFK's famous sentence today:

“ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

... and not for the first time either (he did it in October 2006 as well) but he's still missing the point. The sentence should actually read as follows:

“ask not what your country can do for you - and ask not what you can do for your country - ask what you can do for yourself and ask what other people would be able to do for themselves if the vested interest weren't going out of their way to stifle their freedoms."

NuLab BluLab LibLab

Hot on the heels of one party's idea for a National Citizen's Service for 16-year olds, another 'failed old' party includes this in their manifesto:

"Teenagers will ... be encouraged to do 50 hours of community service by the age of 19."