Bishop Hill Jun 14, 2007 Labour Alistair Campbell surely. Michael White of the Graun is a shoo-in too.
More suggestions in the comments please.
Bishop Hill Jun 14, 2007 Liberalism Guido and Iain Dale both stick the boot in to the senile old git leader of the (allegedly) Liberal Democrats. Once again, they've seen a problem caused by illiberalism and have adopted a policy of further illiberalism to deal with it. One really does wonder whether they can mention their own party's name without putting their tongues in their cheeks. (Perhaps they should rename themselves the "Liberal" Democrats or even the Liberal
Democrats).
The latest wheeze is to only permit farmers to sell development land to the council. It will be for a "fair" price, of course - apparently ten times the agricultural value is what the Commisar party feels it's worth. It's so illiberal I don't know where to start. Do the People's Revolutionary Liberal Democrats not understand the point of private property? That it underpins free societies? Can they not see that they are simply proposing an extension of the corruption that already engulfs the planning process - the land will simply be sold on to the developer who pays the largest bribes. (Hmm, the Liberal Revolutionary Democrat Fraction are big in local government aren't they?- perhaps I'm beginning to understand their thinking. No doubt it has also crossed their minds that the price of agricultural land is falling while development land is rising in price, so the politicians' cut should grow quite nicely in future).
Jock Coats reckons that farmers are currently engaging in rent seeking (see comment at 1.22, here). This is utterly bizarre. The state removes people's ability to do what they want with their own land, and if they try to get that right back again they are rent-seeking? Whose land is it anyway, Trotsky?
Someone called Tim Leunig (apparently from the LSE) describes the policy as "liberal and localist" (comment at 4.44 here). This is quite frankly, crap. It is simply an abomination of the language to describe price fixing as "liberal". It's liberal in the same way as incomes policies were liberal and look at the damage they did. (And don't try to impress me with Michael Gove thinking they're a good idea either - pointing me at another bunch of statists makes my case better than it does yours, Mr Leunig).
Let me spell it out. Scrap the bloody planning laws and let people build where houses are needed. (And I say this as someone who has just bought a house next to a field which may well get planning permission for the local landowner to build a load of houses on).
Liberal Democrats - pah! The Labour party with jaundice, more like.
Bishop Hill Jun 14, 2007 Greens Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth fame has one of his usual "whip up a scare" stories on Comment is Free today. The latest impending disaster is the decision of nPower to dump ash from one of its coal-burning power stations into some lakes in Oxfordshire.
Some years ago, RWE npower started to fill in the lakes with PVA [Ash], killing the wildlife and transforming a thriving ecosystem to a polluted wasteland. I saw this progressive strangulation of nature take place as I passed by on the train on journeys between Oxford and London. The lakes gradually disappeared to be replaced by toxic deserts dotted with a few hardy weeds.
Only a couple of the original dozen or so lakes now remain. One of them, Thrupp Lake, is set soon to suffer the same fate as the others, as RWE npower pipes in its waste from Didcot. The terns, the otters and everything will disappear from there, and not only will the land around Oxford have less wildlife, but people will also have been robbed of a source of inspiration as well.
Some years ago, my wife and I used to visit Musselburgh Lagoons for the birdwatching. The lagoons were something of a legend among twitchers because of the way rare species that were often seen there. Everyone who went knew exactly where the lagoons came from - they were formed and then filled in with the ash from Cockenzie Power station which is just adjacent to the site.
There's an web page about the lagoons here. And here are some excerpts from it:
Typical numbers [of birds] roosting in midwinter are:- 1600 Oystercatcher; 150 Curlew; 900 Bar-tailed Godwit; 400 Redshank; 2000 Knot; 2000 Dunlin; 80 Turnstone; 30 Ringed Plover; and the occasional Grey Plover, Black-tailed Godwit and Purple Sandpiper. Most of these roost at the lagoons...
Many gulls roost at the lagoons, with about 100 Great Black-backed Gulls and sometimes thousands of Herring, Common and Black-headed Gulls present.
The Ringed Plover breed on the old shore-line in the west and central lagoons and, despite the human disturbance of the area, 2 or 3 pairs succeed in raising a few young each year. The only other species that breed in the lagoons are Skylark, Shelduck and Wheatears, which bred for the first time in 1975.
The list of passage migrant species that visit is amazing too, and is far too long to list here. All in all, the situation at Musselburgh doesn't sound very similar to the eco-catastrophe Mr Juniper is predicting does it? Perhaps he's mistaken?
Bishop Hill Jun 13, 2007 Firearms Harry Haddock has piece today about the firearms ban, which includes a wonderful quote from George Orwell
The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
Coincidentally, 18 Doughty Street had a studio discussion featuring Chris Atkins, the director of the new documentary "Taking Liberties" and Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum. Atkins was given a pretty hard time by Whittle who seemed to think that Atkins should have made another film altogether - he would have preferred something about the fear of artists that any output seen as being critical of certain eastern religions would "have consequences".
While this did seem a bit unfair to criticise Atkins for making "the wrong film", Whittle's concerns are certainly ones that I share. Unfortunately the two of them were at complete loggerheads, with Whittle believing the threat to society was from extremists, and Atkins believing it came from the state. Poor old Iain Dale was left trying to prevent an outbreak of fisticuffs - he seems to be suffering a lot from this kind of thing recently now that Yazzer is appearing regularly.
Now, you may be wondering what the connection is between a studio dust-up and the Haddock piece on guns with which I started this posting. It's this: if we were to enforce the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Bill of RIghts, both Whittle's artists and Atkins citizens would be much, much harder to oppress. People are only forced to choose betwen liberty and security because they cannot defend themselves.
One of our rights is missing.
Bishop Hill Jun 13, 2007 Islam Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv wonders if Ramadan's requirement to fast during the hours of daylight would prevent moslems from surviving a polar summer.
This interesting conundrum is rather spoilt by a commenter who points out that the requirement is waived if it would affect the health of the faster.
Bishop Hill Jun 12, 2007 Climate: McKitrick Climate: WG3 Economics I'm just off out to the school board meeting, but before I go here's an ingenious solution to global warming, penned by Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph.
Both warmers and skeptics agree that if there is going to be any warming it will be seen first in the troposphere. Because of this consensus (a real consensus this time) a tax on carbon, linked to the temperature of the troposphere should be supported by both sides of the debate. The tax would initially be quite low. But if the temperature rises, as predicted by the warmers, then the tax goes up. If it falls, or is stable, which is what the skeptics think might happen, then the tax remains relatively trivial.
A rather neat idea, in that it calls the bluff of both sides.
Bishop Hill Jun 12, 2007 BBC A jaw-dropping piece of BBC leftism: at the end of an article describing the festivities surrounding the reopening of the Festival Hall, readers are asked to comment as follows:
Should City bankers donate a proportion of their fortunes to causes like the Royal Festival Hall? Let us know what you think using the form below.
Just remember folks, it's not a party political bias - the BBC promulgates a wide variety of left wing views.
(Via Biased BBC)
Bishop Hill Jun 7, 2007 Climate Via The Volokh Conspiracy, an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal Article (subscribers only).
The story according to which politically connected industries block economic developments that would be beneficial overall but redound to the detriment of the big players is one expounded mostly by cranks in the U.S., but is commonly accepted in Europe. This results from the fact that in Europe, this kind of thing happens. Market signals on employment, wages and production are all attenuated by government's heavy hand to a much greater extent than they are in the U.S. Stagnation in Europe has many faces, but one of the most important is the stasis of the corporate constellation: Most European economies are dominated by the same large companies that ruled the roost decades ago, while in the U.S., many of our largest and most successful companies didn't exist a generation ago.
This comparison is not new. But its relevance to the global warming debate is not well-understood. As a former Carter administration official at the conference put it, "America is, psychologically, an open-frontier society. Europe's frontier closed a millennium ago." In other words, the characteristic American response to, say, climate change, is to believe that technologies— and even companies—that do not now exist will crop up to solve the problem, assuming there is a problem. The characteristic European response, as exemplified by the German conspiracy theorist in Venice, is to focus on how to get the businesses to behave "better."
The open frontier view was captured by a Silicon Valley representative in the room. He stood up to announce that "clean tech" would be to this decade what high-tech was to the 1990s. The companies that would revolutionize our energy usage, he claimed, were now being funded by venture capitalists, and the Ciscos, Microsofts and Googles of the next decade would be the companies that solved the energy puzzle. We hadn't heard of any of them now, he insisted, but they would be huge. Is he right? Maybe. Who cares? It's his money, and the money of his colleagues in the Valley. The point is, if there's a conspiracy to keep revolutionary clean technology down, he didn't get the memo. The notion that this is simply a trans-Atlantic divide can easily be overstated. There are statist Americans and entrepreneurial Europeans. But the divide between the open-frontier camp and the closed-frontier camp is very real, and of the utmost importance to the global warming debate.
I can't help feeling that Mr Brown will shortly be appointing a "Clean-tech Czar", to be accompanied by a "Clean-tech levy" on bottles of wine, or something equally unconnected with the problem. It's coming, I tell you.
Bishop Hill Bishop Hill Jun 4, 2007 Civil liberties There seems to be some interest in the idea for a Campaign for Legal Government over in the comments at Guido's place. The idea is that it will take the buggers to court every time they do something dodgy.
They'll be busy then.
Bishop Hill Jun 3, 2007 Children There's a small park, just over the road from the episcopal palace. We use it as a kind of extension to the garden whenever we can, since our own back yard is a bit small for the kids now.
Mostly it's fine, but on all too many weekends the ground around one or more of the pieces of play apparatus are a sea of broken glass, the result of some of the local yoof relieving their boredom. Strangely enough I sympathise with them in some ways. This is a rural village, and there's literally nothing for teenagers to do on a Saturday night. Even town, which is a half-hour walk away, has nothing. Living in the country is great for small children, but for disaffected teens it is probably a nightmare that they can't wait to end.
My own childhood was in suburbia, but in many ways we had the same problems; no money, and precious few facilities. It only got better at around the age of sixteen when I was taken aback when my father suggested, in response to my regular whine about being bored, that I get myself down to the pub for a drink.
And how right he was. Suddenly we were able to join the adult world, and once you knew which pubs wouldn't ask too many questions you could be pretty sure of a night's fun whenever you wanted it. It's a way of doing things which just doesn't exist any longer, now that the police are in and out of the pubs checking for underage drinkers. Back in my day, teenagers went off to grown-up pubs and had a few pints and nobody batted an eyelid. The bars were full of adults, and if you were misbehaving you would be thrown out. Essentially you were an adult until you stepped out of line, at which point you suddenly became an child under adult supervision. It was a civil society way of dealing with the problem. You soon learned that keeping your head down and drinking quietly was the best way not to attract attention - you were taught to drink in a (relatively) civilised fashion, .
I don't mean to suggest that it was a perfect arrangement - some people are always going to step out of line - but I sometimes wonder if it was better than the current arrangement, where teenagers sup buckfast on the park benches and end the evening by smashing the bottles against the baby swings.
Bishop Hill Jun 3, 2007 Children This weekend, Mrs Bishop escaped to England for a girly shopping weekend, leaving Mr Bishop with three baby bishops. Since Granny Bishop was on holiday too, this could have been a struggle, but the possibility of having to entertain the nippers single-handed was averted by dint of inviting lots of schoolfriends and their parents round.
Amazing fact though - both of the families invited were surprised, nay shocked, that Mr and Mrs Bishop allowed their children to climb trees, and freely admitted that they were far too fearful to allow such dangerous behaviour. I wasn't aware of any other uses for trees, myself. I didn't tempt fate by letting on that one of the baby Bishops rides his bicycle without a helmet, and once managed to ride at high speed into a brick wall in the process. I will probably be reported to social services any day now.
On a similar theme, Instapundit has been blogging regularly about the Dangerous Book for Boys, which looks set to be a bestseller over on that side of the pond, and if Glenn Reynolds has it right, the start of a pardigm shift in the way boys are raised.
Bishop Hill Jun 3, 2007 Climate: other There's a very interesting article here, which summarises and indexes a series of profiles of some global warming sceptics. These are not a few obscure eggheads in out of the way colleges - there are some big name scientists in there.
My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
The consensus is a myth.
Bishop Hill Jun 3, 2007 Libertarianism Craig Murray explains some basic principles of a libertarian.
Legislating on taste and personal morality is assumed. Authoritarianism is the default setting. The anti-foxhunters and anti-smokers have got the strength to impose their will, the anti-abortionists not, at least in the UK. But why do we have to seek to impose our will by force, not reason?
Why indeed? I have sometimes wondered at the kind of sick mind that would seek to criminalise the use of imperial measures, for example.
