Herr Farrage and the purple prose

Reply to a home office "go home" campaign

It's been a strange election campaign. Lots of things are wrong with the economy, with the country, with Europe, and with the world. And yet, to hear the media, you'd think that the only problem was too much immigration. But that nice, smiley Mr Farrage has a point, doesn't he? All those foreigners flocking over taking our jobs, when the country is full? And didn't the people vote for him - surely he's doing something right?

He's almost completely wrong - and wrong in almost all respects. Let me explain...

Yes, there are problems, but Immigration isn't the cause. On balance, Immigration is a good thing. And the down sides are not really problems with Immigration as such.

We have a falling birth rate, skill shortages in some sectors, and not enough workers to pay for pensions and healthcare for the existing workforce as it ages and retires. We need either a higher birthrate, or some immigration, or an extension of working life until much closer to death - basically a shorter retirement! Suddenly immigration may not seem such an unmitigated evil.

The figures show that most immigrants are young, healthy workers. They pay tax, and are not a drain on the NHS. Mr Farrage has admitted this - he even married one of them. But he says he doesn't care whether it costs the country money - he just wants to cut immigration. It seems that Immigration is more important than the economy!

But what about the supposed evils of immigration?

If Immigrants seem to be taking up the available housing, it is because as a country we have systematically under-invested in new houses. The consequences are devastating - housing price bubbles and collapses, a shortage of quality housing for locals and incomers alike, and inflated rents in the private rented sector. We need more (and better) housing, not fewer people!

If immigrants seem to be undercutting local labour, this is too often due to local employers paying illegally low wages to immigrants who are powerless to protest. Wages that will not give a local family an acceptable standard of living, but which can (if you're prepared to be packed like sardines into a privately rented doss house) allow migrant workers to barely subsist until they can qualify for family benefits.

Which brings us on to the problem of Immigrant Benefit Tourism. Again, not a problem with "hard-working immigrants" so much as a crazy benefit system that pays people to move to the country and NOT work. We need a rational benefit system, not fewer workers and taxpayers.

So if all this is true, why did Herr Farrage get so many votes? Why did the press parrot his story? Where were the alternative voices?

Another campaign lorry

I feel the problem is a catastrophic lack of leadership, and moral compass, on the part of the main political parties (only the Lib Dems made an effort). They all know the figures on immigration, and are aware of the balance of benefits and disadvantages. But they don't want to risk sending a "courageous" but potentially unpopular message.

Maybe they deserve the drubbing that Herr and Frau Farrage inflicted on them in England and Wales.

Of course, the press must shoulder part of the blame. We are supposed to have a free press, that will speak truth to power, and challenge hypocrisy and humbug. But too often we get a sleaze-obsessed group-thinking press pack, that churns the press releases it is fed, or follows the prejudices of wealthy proprietors (Murdoch and his ilk live on, untroubled, in the post-Levenson media). It sometimes seem that once one or two outlets have framed a story, the rest race to catch up, without challenging the presuppositions, or questioning whose narrative is being peddled.

During this campaign, nobody seemed interested in asking UKIP about their other priorities and policies (apart from cutting immigration at any cost). The coverage of alternative economic approaches was deafening in its silence. The fact that too many UK governments have been all too happy to use the EU as an excuse to pass legislation that was deeply unpopular at home was not mentioned. And nobody even asked, "What have the Europeans done for us?"

But now the question must be how will the political establishment respond - for respond they must. Will they trail in the wake of UKIP with an inward-looking "populist" message, that scapegoats the innocent and harms the economy? Will they try to out-UKIP UKIP themselves? Will they continue to pander to the UKIP "policy vacuum"? Or will they engage with the real problems that are driving the collapse in voter trust and the protest vote we saw last Thursday?

Charity begins at home?

Recently I noticed the Daily Mail had a front-page article calling for the UK Foreign Aid budget to be spent on flood damage within the UK. Today I realised they have made it into a petition! I'm slightly sickened that the opportunistic rabble-rousers at the Mail think it's appropriate to attack some of the world's poorest people in such an unnecesary way.

They are wrong, and here's why.

The UK is NOT facing a choice between supporting UK flood victims on one hand, and taking tiny steps to alleviate grinding third-world poverty and assist with natural disasters abroad on the other. We CAN do both.

Even if we need to cut SOME spending to afford the extra cost of the floods in the UK, does it really make sense to target something that gets less that 0.7% of the budget? After all, that is less than 70p out of every £100 of tax we pay. Surely there are budgets with more fat to trim?

If the Mail wants to pick on someone, why not campaign for the money to come out of MP's latest payrises or pensions, or from a tax on the businesses which made profits building in the flood plains in the first place, or from pay and bonus cuts for what are effectively "civil servants" running the nationalised failing Banks which got us into this recession in the first place, or maybe even a windfall tax on those who profited the most as the rest of us lost out, through falling house prices, real-price pay cuts, and austerity?

There is something unsavoury about journalists, exploiting the suffering of flood victims in the UK, to call for cuts on those who are even poorer, even worse off. We - even those in flooded areas - are still part of the world's richest 1%. If we in the West expect our 1% to shoulder their share of the burden, can we deny our responsibility to the World's 99%?
Surely the remaining 99.5% or so of the UK's budget can somehow stand the strain of solidarity with those among us who are in need?

(picture: Flickr user kilinochchi, some rights reserved)

The real reason for payment terminals in A&E?

The BBC reports that the government want to start charging migrants when they go to Accident and Emergency. Doctors have pointed out that this will cost more than it raises.

But wouldn't it be handy in a privatised health service?

Never believe it until it's been officially denied

It's official. The government has denied they are privatising the courts in the UK. At least they won't "engage in the 'wholesale privatization' of courts in England and Wales." So it's just retail privatization then!

I should have realised that a party which worships the Market, which thinks that there are no moral limits to what can be sold, would eventually come up with this plan.  But it's still a shock.

More later. I think I'll be blogging a bit more these days.

For evil to triumph, it is merely necessary that good men do nothing.  Blogging may not be much. But it's a start.

Time to let the politicians know how bad an idea this is.

http://www.writetothem.com/

Just when you think it can't get much worse

It's not like everything is rosy, here in the Coalition-powered UK. But somehow I've not been able to summon the energy to write about it.

Then something happens that seems too incredible, too wrong-headed, too cynically dishonest to let pass. And sometimes - like buses - more than one comes along at the same time. Like now, in fact!

First two fanatics decide to kill a soldier on the streets of Britain. Islam, apparently, demanded it. Or not - more mainstream Islamic voices quickly disowned and condemned the action. So far so bad.

Then "the voices" started. If only we knew who everyone was emailing, phoning and texting, we could have stopped the murder. The police, said the voices, need more powers. Bring back the snoopers' charter, or Interception "modernisation" Programme, or (better make it sound harmless) Communications Data Bill! It seems that not every communication on the Internet is being monitored by the authorities. And it seems this is a bad thing.

The Tories tried to expand the already huge amount of surveillance back in 2008 and 2009, but after a backlash, the Lib Dems forced them to ditch the plan. Now, the plans are back. And the whole project is still as unnecessary as it ever was. The main problem in tracking down terror plots and terrorists on the internet seem to be too information to sift through. And adding more will hardly make the job easier. We'll just have more stories like "they should have known" and "the authorities were told" and "they ignored the evidence". And, as a side effect, privacy will be more and more eroded.

The dishonesty of pretending that the two misguided muslims could have been stopped if only the department of pre-crime had access to every communication in the UK is staggering. It's just not very surprising any more.

But just when you thought you'd seen it all, another sorry story leaks out, seeping from the heart of government...

Who else should be shot while we're at it?

It seems that Jeremy Clarkson has said that the Public Sector strikers should be shot. Cue waves of outrage from people who don't watch Clarkson, and didn't hear what he said.

"Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"

The Beeb is clearly nervous: the One Show episode seems to be blocked on iPlayer, but you should be able to find it on You Tube - I did.

Of course, anyone who watches Top Gear will know better than to take what he says seriously. But really, you don't have to be a fan of Top Gear to realise that the rent-a-rant brigade have escaped the orbit of Planet Perspective.

The curly one had just been saying how great the strike was:

Presenter: Do you think the strikes have been a good idea?
Top Bloke: I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty... Airports, people streaming through with no problems at all. And it's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow.

Remember when we didn't have to cope with useless security theatre every plane journey? How much safer are we really because our shoes and belts are x-rayed instead of going through a metal detector?

And then, in a gentle reference to the BBC's tendency to indulge in a slightly spurious balance on any issue, he continued:

Clarkson: ...But we have to balance this though, because this is
the BBC.
Prestenter: Yes, exactly.
Clarkson: Frankly, I'd have them all shot...

Has our culture of political correctness gone a bit too far? Even the PM
has had to say this was a silly remark. But really, all he needed to say was
that it wasn't government policy.

I'm not sure that the semi-hysterical cries in the media for sackings and apologies are really necessary. Get over it.

Enough ranting from me. I'm sure there are people who, even more than the strikers, should be rounded up and shot. Any ideas?

#superinjunction

Indignation in the mainstream media, and gloating by the twitterati - that's pretty much how the superinjunction story has run so far. The press are indignant that they cannot publish what the twitterer on the street seems to know about #ctb and Imogen someone-or-other. And the idea that the courts can apply sweeping injunctions to silence discussion of the peccadillos of the rich strikes the press where it hurts - in their pride, and their pockets!

Injunctions are bad enough, the story goes, but superinjunctions are a step too far in a free society. Are they, though? What is actually going on? Is this really one law for the rich and famous, and another for the rest of us?

Actually, not so much. We normal people expect that the press won't print details of our personal lives - we rarely have to deal with more than gossip from those we know. The press, by and large, go along with this. They even extend this courtesy (or legal protection) to the children of the rich or famous.

And then something strange happens... The tabloids have somehow convinced us that the freedom of the press is at stake if they cannot write freely about people's private lives where that will sell more papers. People in whom people are interested, it seems, no longer have any privacy. But do they - and should they?

In France there is a different approach. The press turns a blind eye when the rich and famous have extra-marital flings. That, they consider, is their own... affair. Public figures, like the rest of us, can have a private life. But this can go too far - apparently allegations of rape, like those against M. Strauss-Kahn in the US, are often also brushed aside.

Private individuals do not have a right to privacy in such cases - but it seems to me that the same standard should apply to "public figures" (whatever that means). They should not expect impunity for criminal behaviour.

On the other hand, why does a person's right to privacy vanish just because the tabloids can make money by selling us the details?

Does speaking to the press on any issue whatsoever strip you of the right to a private life?

Can any accomplishment or achievement whatsoever really give the media carte-blanche to air all the details of your private life?

And where would that take us as a society? What sort of shallow narcissism are we demanding of our public figures, politicians, sportsmen, that they must agree to such intrusion, as the price for exercising their skills and abilities in the public sphere?

A free press is in the public interest, and the public interest demands that criminal activity be brought to light, that conflicts of interest by our leaders be exposed, that blatant hypocrisy by our moral guardians (in the press and outside) be shown up.

But the public interest is not the same as what the public might like to know. There is a difference between news and gossip, and our press has lost sight of this.

Please may I use the facilities?

I went to look up the opening hours of a local Barclays Bank branch, and I noticed there was a wee tab I could click on, called "Facilities". Wondering what facilities the branch offered, I clicked on it.

"Facilities: Yes"

I'm still slightly mystified. But I wonder what they would do if someone came in asking to use their facilities.

At least they are open on Saturdays.

Tumbleweed

Some tumbleweed rolls past...

Don't you know there's an Election on?

Maithrie was blogging about the election, so I thought I'd mention an interesting site from they work for you. You put in your postcode of constituency, and they give you a quiz where you compare your views on policies - many of them local - with those of the candidates.

An excellent idea.... except that the DUP, UUP/Tories, and the SDLP can't be bothered telling us what they think. Poor show, Alasdair McDonnell, Jimmy Spratt and Paula Bradshaw. Looks like the Greens or the Alliance then?

There are also similar quizzes from http://www.votematch.org.uk/2010/ and http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ - you can't have too much information (though you can have too little time to read it all, I've found).

Bloke colours vs Girlie Colours

We've "known" for ages that Girls can name colours that we men are quite certain are actually animals, plants, or basically almost anything but colours. But is it true?

The Doghouse Diary recently posted a cartoon to show how this works.

But XKCD have gone one further, with a survey that investigates this phenomenon.

And is it real?

For full details, you'll need to check their blog - but in a word (or two (or three)) Yes... and No....

So there we have it. Women know slightly more colours - and they can apparently spell better as well.

What's going wrong with the Police?

As M3 and I were returning to the UK a few weeks ago, we saw two Metropolitan Police officers behaving in an aggressive and intimidating manner to a young Spanish visitor - fortunately, after about half an hour of throwing their weight around and abusing their authority (and snapping at any members of the public who, they felt, were standing too close, or looking to see what the fuss was about), they let her go.

Most of the police officers I've met have been civil and helpful. But there seems to be an increasing number of uniformed thugs who enjoy throwing their weight around. And it's not just jumpy airport police either.

Soon afterwards I read on the Granuiad Online about police officers harassing ordinary members of the public who were taking photographs in public. The Register has been covering this issue for a while.

And then there was the would-be airline passenger who, annoyed by the way Doncaster Airport collapses under the UK's meagre snowfall, and fearing he would not be able to fly the following week, posted the following irate nonsense to his friends and "followers" on twitter:

"Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

Twitter is a network that people use to update their friends and acquaintances on what flavour of coffee they are drinking, or whether they are cycling to work, or taking the train. You can "follow" your friends, and receive a stream of conciousness from their daily life. It's not where you'd normally expect to find secret plots to destroy western civilisation.

Paul Chambers was clearly venting. This was not the act of any sort of credible terrorist - and certainly not a public threat calculated to strike fear into the heart of anyone with the slightest amount of common sense. So what do you imagine the defenders of our free society made of it?

A week later, the South Yorkshire Police arrested the unfortunate Mr Chambers under the Terrorism Act and questioned him for nearly 7 hours. It seems he actually had to explain to the officers interrogating him what Twitter was. You'd think if the police were investigating Internet bomb threats they'd have someone who actually knew something about, you know, the Interwebs, and, like, computer stuff. But that might be perilously close to doing their job, and protecting society from actual real threats.

After he was released on bail, he was suspended from work pending an internal investigation, and he has, it seems, been banned from the Doncaster airport for life. So no sense of perspective at the Airport either (if you're curious about their thought processes or reasoning in this case, the airport's contact page is online here).

The Independent reports that the South Yorkshire Police went so far as to charge Mr Chambers with "sending by a public communications network a message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003."

For goodness sake!

It's a shame that the police are wasting their time and abusing their powers by harassing innocent people - whether photographers, visitors to the UK, or twitterers - instead of serving society, and protecting our freedoms.

A new kind of spam?

I was wondering about the newfound popularity (slight though it was) of my blog from Japanese-language bloggers. By "popularity" I mean that there had been about one kind and apparently relevant comment on a number of my posts.

Then I noticed that their blogs all seemed to relate to eye clinics.

It could be a coincidence, I suppose - but somehow I'm not so sure. Spammers are getting cleverer... or at least more devious.

The thing is, if blogger uses "nofollow" links in comments, to prevent spammy links from contributing to better placements in search engines, I'm not sure what the point of the spam is. Perhaps it's more old-school than that. Maybe they are hoping actual humans will follow the links, Flattering, if they think my blog will help with that. I doubt it, though.

Checkpoints

Yesterday we had traffic cops checking our passports and my driving licence. One grumpy "get out of the car" cop, possibly peeved that he'd been waving his torch around and been ignored. One polite cop. We ignored the grumpy one even harder and showed the documents to the good cop, who wished us a good evening and sent us on our way.

Today we were stopped at a Navy checkpoint. They must not have so much to do after the collapse of the Tigers - but I'm not sure why they need to do the Army's job for them - especially as the President is increasing the size of the Army (peace dividend, it seems...)

Such is the aftermath of the Presdential election here in Colombo.