The Fifth Estate Element

From imdb.com and imdb.com:

In the twenty-third century, the universe is threatened by evil. The only hope for mankind is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his colleague Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Brühl), who come to Earth every five thousand years to become underground watchdogs of the privileged and powerful

On a shoestring, they create a platform with the four elements: Fire, Water, Earth and Air. Their Mondoshawan spacecraft allows whistle-blowers to anonymously leak covert data, shining a light on the dark recesses of government secrets and corporate crimes

Soon, they are breaking more hard news than the world's most legendary media organizations combined but they are destroyed by the evil Mangalores.

However, a team of scientists use the DNA of their remains to gain access to the biggest trove of confidential intelligence documents in U.S. history and to rebuild the perfect being called Leeloo (Milla Jovovich). She escapes from the laboratory and stumbles upon the taxi driver and former elite commando major Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis).

They end up battling each other and a defining question of our time: what are the costs of keeping secrets in a free society and what are the costs of retrieving the stones?

I blame the parents.

As a general principle, I'm all in favour of the "free schools" idea, vouchers for education and so on. It's all experimentation and some experiments will fail, but without experimentation, you'll never find out what works and what doesn't.

A common objection or misgiving, which I share, is that the Islamists will hijack the scheme and set up taxpayer-funded madrassas. Well of course they will, these people have no shame and we now have an interesting live example of exactly this happening.

The Statists of course use this as a Killer Argument Against the whole system, i.e. throwing the Christian baby out with the Islamist bathwater.

Speaking in Parliament earlier, shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt said the Ofsted report was a "devastating blow to the education secretary's flagship policy".

He said: "It reveals that pupils have been failed on every possible measure and parents will want to know why the education secretary has allowed this to happen."

He described the government's free school programme as a "dangerous free-for-all".

Surely it's not too difficult to simply refuse them a licence or funding in the first place? I mean, we, the Great British taxpayers, will never all exactly agree on what constitutes a "school" and what doesn't, there are legitimate differences of opinion but only a small minority would consider that Islamist shit hole to be a "school" in any meaningful sense of the word.

But really, my final point/question is this: there is clearly demand for places at such schools, but what sort of fuckwit parent wants to send their children to a school like this in the first place? Do they hate their children that much? It's absolutely beyond me.

Well, duh!

From the day before yesterday's Metro:

It's pouring with rain and we're all huddled together in the shelter when somebody despite the sign, lights up and fills our throats and noses with smoke. Why? Dot.

From today's Metro:

Dot, surely everyone knows that lighting a cigarette at a stop makes the bus arrive much faster? Archie.

I think he meant "sooner" rather than "faster" but his point stands.

Home-Owner-Ists merrily jumbling legal and economic concepts

They'll pick and choose whatever suits them:

People who rent out their council homes to make money could be locked up for two years under new laws which come into force today. For the first time, sub-letting a council property is now a criminal offence with fraudsters also facing hefty fines.

OK, council and Housing Association tenancy agreements say that you are not allowed to sub-let; but so do most private tenancy agreements.

A private tenant has little incentive to sub-let because there's no money in it. If you are paying market rent and sub-let for market rent, there's no profit in it and a lot of hassle for you. Clearly, if a private tenant sub-lets, that is a civil offence and the landlord can terminate the agreement and evict the original tenant.

The Homeys then decide that council tenancies are a special case, and say that sub-letting is a criminal offence, which is a purely legal concept as there is no real crime involved, but hey, their gaff, their rules. The reason social tenants like sub-letting is because they can pocket the difference between the low social rent (about £80 a week) and the private rent (about £160 a week on average across the UK, call it £250 a week in London).

But the naughty social tenant's £170 a week (£9,000 a year) pure profit is no actual or legal cost to the taxpayer, he is getting the £80 a week official rent whatever happens, it is purely an economic or notional cost, i.e. in economic terms, you can view the £170 as a notional loss to the taxpayer of the rent he could be collecting.

Ministers are clamping down on the practice after discovering it costs the taxpayer £1.8 billion a year and clogs up desperately needed social housing.

When they say "it costs the taxpayer £1.8 billion a year", this is purely a notional cost, i.e. let's say that five percent of social housing is sub-let = 200,000 units @ £9,000 = £1.8 billion.

That notional cost is the same whether sub-letting is legal or illegal, it makes no difference. Notional costs are an economic concept, not a legal one.

But seeing as we have merrily segued from legal to economic concepts, what is the cost to the taxpayer of all the social housing which Thatcher and Blair sold off for cheap over the last thirty years? Average private rents across the UK are £160 a week and the taxpayer is losing all of that = £8,000 a year.

That's 1.5 million units @ £8,000 = £12 billion a year.

Hmmm, what's the larger cost to the taxpayer - £3.6 billion or £12 billion?

"Ah, but..." squeal the Homeys, "If you bought your council house, albeit at a huge discount, then it's yours to do with as you please. If people rent out their old ex-council house, that's not a cost to the taxpayer."

It's not necessarily an actual cost, no - but neither is [illegal] sub-letting of council housing, we established that.

But of course it is still a notional cost, and one four or five times as large.
-----------------------------------------------
For a rich seam of Homey DoubleThink, I refer you to Bill Quango's post.

He makes the perfectly sensible point that the majority of the council houses which were sold off are still occupied by the family had always lived there and then bought it. Seeing as they would have stayed in the house either way, that sale has no net effect on availability of social housing.

Fair enough.

But then he merrily throws in a classic bit of Home-Owner-Ism:

The idea was not to give tenants a house and then build another one for some else. It was to remove people from state dependency for their property and, as a bonus, turn socialists into capitalists through asset transfers.

We've heard this crap so many times that many people actually believe it, but it crumbles apart under closer scrutiny.

How on earth does making people pay some rent every week, even if it only £80 mean "state dependency"? Why does it make them less dependent if you effectively give them that house for free?

In my simple world view, if the state gives people stuff for free then that is truly "state dependency". If the state charges market rates, or at least some sort of contribution towards costs, like social rents, prescription charges, or charging for dentists, then those people are forced to be a little more self-reliant i.e. less dependent on the state than people who get things for free.

Our successful right-to-buyer is in the happy position of paying no rent, having paid off the laughably small mortgage years ago. So he has to be slightly less self-reliant than the tenant next door who is paying £80 a week which at least covers the costs and maintenance etc.

And this does not turn people into "capitalists" it turns them into rent-seekers. If the government can afford to forego £80 a week from a social tenant, the best thing it can do is cut their PAYE deductions by £80 a week but continue to collect the rent. That's the carrot and stick to make sure that people go out to work, to the benefit of the tenant, wider society and the taxpayer as a whole.

And even if Bill is right, that building a council house, renting it to a family for a few years for a low rent and then allowing them to buy it for a fraction of its full market value turns people "into capitalists", then why aren't we doing more of it? Why don't we do it for everybody? Why don't we just build half a million of them every year and give them to every young couple who get married as a wedding present?

How the years fly by...

I just remembered that I hadn't done my obligatory annual post on Ryanair reducing the number of its flights as a protest against Air Passenger Duty.

Of course, this only applies to the winter season, when business is quiet anyway. There's never the equal and opposite fanfare in spring when all the flights commence again.

So I checked, and to my horror, I realised that the last time I did this round up was three years ago, see here for 2008 - 2010.

So just to catch up...

2013

No-frills airline Ryanair says it will cut fares as well as some flights this winter to help keep its profits up.

The Dublin-based carrier says increased competition and Europe's continued economic problems were having an impact on fares and the amount of money it makes per passenger.

That write-up doesn't blame everything on Air Passenger Duty, maybe even the newspapers have got bored with rehashing the same old Ryanair press release every year?

2012

"Ryanair objects to the Spanish government's decision to double airport taxes at both Madrid and Barcelona airports," said Michael O'Leary, Ryanair chief executive, "Sadly, this will lead to severe traffic, tourism and job cuts at both airports this winter."

He added that the cuts would cause a "combined loss of 2.3 million passengers and over 2,000 jobs at Madrid and Barcelona El Prat airports". The reductions to services – which will amount to 492 fewer flights each week – will be made from November.

2011

Michael O'Leary's airline, Ryanair, is to make sweeping cuts to its winter services at a number of UK airports, including Prestwick and Edinburgh in Scotland, and Stansted Airport in Essex. The move, announced earlier this month, means that 9 of 32 destinations from Edinburgh, and 3 of 15 from Prestwick, will not be available during winter 2011.

Given that Michael O'Leary is a vocal critic of the Air Passenger Duty, it should come as no surprise that Ryanair has cited the tax as the impetus for the winter flight cull.

Back handed insults

Whoever wrote that speech which little Georgie gave in PR China a couple of days probably had a side bet on how many veiled insults and threats he could get away with.

 

To give you a few examples:

 

He said: I look forward to meeting later today, your Vice Premier Ma Kai, whose reputation for economic reform and diligence impresses all.

 

He meant: Ma Kai is the only one we've found so far whom we can trust.

 

He said: We are two ancient and proud civilisations, each whose culture has spread far beyond our shores.

 

He meant: There are loads of Chinese people who have fled your country and now live abroad. We used to have an Empire.

 

He said: We are two great trading nations, with a shared interest in keeping the trade routes of the world open and free.

 

He meant: Can you help us out tackling Somali pirates?

 

He said: And we should not be afraid of pointing out where we disagree. But let us do it in a way that is respectful of each other, and tries to understand each other.

 

He meant: We know that your ruler can and do as they please and listen to nobody, but please stop rubbing our noses in it.

 

He said: There are some in the West who see China growing and they are nervous. They think of the world as a cake - and the bigger the slice that China takes, the smaller the slice that they will get.

 

He meant: You seem to be taking over the world, it scares us and we hate you for it.

 

He said: I don't want Britain to resent China's success, I want us to celebrate it. I don't want us to try to resist your economic progress, I want Britain to share in it.

 

He meant: We resent your success but we still want some of your crumbs to fall off onto our table. And unless you push a few crumbs our way, we will do our damnedest to resist your economic process.

 

He said: As China reforms and grows we are more complimentary.

 

He meant: As China's rulers tighten their grip and reap all the upsides of capitalism and communism, with the downsides being suffered by your people, we are really going to have to start sucking up to you.

 

He said: And as China becomes a knowledge economy, that partnership can only deepen.

 

He meant: You are poorly educated.

 

More to follow.

"Surrey Police release Savile interview transcript"

From the BBC:

Surrey Police have released a transcript of an interview with Jimmy Savile, in which, as it 'appens, the entertainer repeatedly denied claims of abuse.

During the 2009 interview Savile said allegations against him had started in the 1950s by people "looking for a few quid, or story for the paper." The force said the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was now then, now then, now then insufficient evidence to prosecute Savile.

The late DJ is believed to have abused hundreds of guys and gals during his career. The interview was conducted at Savile's office at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire on 1 October 2009. How's about that then?

Savile was asked about touching a young girl "sexually" over her clothes at Duncroft Children's home in Staines in the 1970s, and forcing her to give him oral sex. Savile repeatedly replied: "Oh! Out of the question" when the allegations were put to him.

He said "Goodness Gracious! The main allegations are completely fictional; in fact they are made up".

Savile said that when he was presenting Top of the Pops and Radio One, "what you don't do is assault women, they assault you, that's for sure, and you don't have to, because you've got plenty of girls about... So dealing with something like this is out of the question, totally wrong.

"Eaeh eh eaeh eh eaah eh."

Mr Savile was initially cleared of all charges but later re-arrested for smoking at a bus stop.

Reader's Letter Of The Day

From this evening's Evening Standard (page 45, 15 October 2013):

AS a non-resident, Sir Richard Branson is not [liable to] UK income tax, and as far as I am aware his main UK business interest, Virgin Atlantic, pays the correct amount of corporation tax.

But there is one area where Virgin Atlantic is sorely under taxed. The airline's five percent share of Heathrow landing and take-off slots is now worth £100 million, although they were originally given away free by the government in the Eighties.

The value of these slots is dictated by Heathrow's location and enforced scarcity. Much of the true cost of air transport is borne by residents under the flight paths, and without publicly funded transport links, Heathrow would be a less attractive destination.

A tax on the slots' value would be fair compensation for public costs, and a good source of revenue, as unlike air passenger duty they would have no impact on ticket prices.

Mark Wadsworth

Satire Copies Life

From The Guardian 7th Oct 2013:

Perhaps reassured by Max Weber's claim that their Protestantism justifies their obsessive work ethics, Anglo-Saxons have long embraced work as a religion for contemporary times. As with any religion, it is not a matter of dealing with it in any effective or functional way, but rather of engaging in it with blind enthusiasm.

In an age struggling between crises of economic overproduction, environmental catastrophe, falling salaries and increasing robotisation, there cannot be any other explanation for the current culture of "hard work" than that of a burgeoning religious cult. 

From The Daily Mash 14th Oct 2013:

BRITNEY Spears has admitted her latest single Work Bitch is inspired by the writings of Karl Marx.

The star has based her latest hit on a lifetime’s study of the father of communism, and a strong desire to champion the cause of the proletariat.

Charlotte Church Slams Music Industry for Doing Its Job

From the Telegraph

The singer said she was put under considerable pressure to market her own music in ever more suggestive outfits.(1)

In a keynote speech, Church said the music industry must take responsibility for playing artists who relied on "soft porn" to boost their profile(2) as she backed calls for an age-rated system for music videos.(3)

Her address to radio executives comes as there is increasing concern about sexual imagery to sell music(4) with singer Miley Cyrus appearing naked in her video for the single Wrecking Ball.(5)

"The irony behind this is that the women generally filling these roles are very young(6), often previous child stars or Disney-tweens(7), who are simply interested in getting along in an industry glamourised to be the most desirable career for young women,”(8) she said as she delivered the John Peel Lecture at the annual Radio Festival in Salford. 

"They are encouraged to present themselves as hyper-sexualised, unrealistic, cartoonish, as objects, reducing female sexuality to a prize you can win."(9)

1. Well, if you don't have a great voice (she doesn't) or songwriting talent (she doesn't), what else do you have, especially once the brand image of being a child star disappears? Sorry, that's the free market. If you want a record deal, you've got to be better than thousands of others.
2. Anyone who thinks that someone wearing skimpy clothing is soft porn is nuts. In most cases it's not much less than what Betty Grable wore in the 1940s. Or what Kate Bush wore for Babooshka in the 1980s.
3. There is an age-rated system for music videos. If you want to buy Duran Duran Greatest on DVD, it's rated 18 for a good reason. The content in these videos is no worse than what used to get shown on Benny Hill.
4. Sexual imagery has always been used to sell music. People were complaining about what Elvis was doing, remember?
5. She's no more naked in that video than a woman lying face down on a beach.
6. Miley Cyrus is 20, and by definition, legally an adult. She can make her own choices.
7. So what? Judy Garland and Liz Taylor were child stars. Didn't stop them being a boozer and a slut.
8. Madonna is worth $500m. Britney Spears is worth $200m. OK, there's some richer women out there than that, but most of them inherited their wealth. There's very few self-made women in business worth that much.
9. And that's because that's how you win in the pop music market. In no country on earth where people are free is this not the case. Olivia Newton-John singing Physical in the 1970s, the French singer Alizee in the 1990s, or Korean K-Pop. All rely on their sexuality to sell records. Unless you're going to suggest censorship