The Bewilderness

OECD: Cheerleading for bloodsuckers

The OECD praises the reduction in the UK's regulatory burden even though they make reference to the "crowded regulatory structure". This is one of the most disengenuous judgments ever received from a statist thinktank funded by governments to cheerlead for them. Especially galling is the praise heaped on a government that, historically, will be recognised as a total failure. This is a judgment which can be determined now.

So what is the OECD actually praising: a reduction in regulation. Fewer quangos and regulatory agencies perhaps? Or the introduction of sunset clauses and a great repeal act? Or the simplification and withering of the tax burden within a new financial settlement, designed to reduce the debt burden. No, it is part of the whole 'investments' vs 'cuts' debate that considers our lifeblood their due.

Ministers have pledged to cut the cost to business of complying with legislation by 25pc by next year, which they say will save the economy £4bn a year.

The OECD described this reform as "impressive" and praised what it saw as a "new approach" in assessing proposed regulations more effectively.

Not even the achievement, just the announcement; another quango cheerleading for bloodsuckers. That subscription could be usefully returned to us.

Who could now tell man from pig in the Palace Yard?

One would have sympathy for Julie Kirkbride, if her life were similar to ours. But it wasn't, so we won't. Out she should go. And she should take Sir John "fill yer boots" Butterfill with her. Sir John, a Hint: you are a public servant, not the public pays for your servants. Time for you to retire (and pay back your profit).

I also hear that Downing Street is checking the tax liabilities of the Ministers who did not quite understand HMRC's rules. because none of them are the sharpest tools in the box, except when it comes to minimising their tax payments. Remember, evasion is illegal, avoidance is judicious. But the Cabinet Office checking Cabinet Ministers. This would be the Star Chamber treatment? Isn't there a conflict of interest?

At a briefing for journalists at Westminster on Wednesday morning, however, the Prime Minister’s Official spokesman said that Downing Street is now “checking” the expenses claims and tax liabilities of all other ministers.

"We will be asking all ministers to check to see if there is a tax liability that is due,” he said. “We are reminding all ministers to ensure that if they have received a benefit in kind they should pay tax on it.”

The spokesman admitted that No 10 does not know how many ministers have used their expenses to pay for tax advice and whether they have incurred a tax liability as a result.

Asked how many ministers had claimed for accountancy services, the spokesman said: “We will be checking with ministers".

The spokesman gave only a qualified assurance that all ministers have complied with the rules.

“To the best of our knowledge, ministers do appear to have honoured all of their tax liabilities,” he said.

Hmm, these need to go as well. Perhaps they could exercise collective cabinet responsibility and go at once.

Look around the Palace of Westminster and it was no longer possible to distinguish man from pig. Exit the pigs, having lived high on the hog for thirty years. Clear them out.

Why Next should tell whingers where to go

Why should one person's complaint withdraw a line of clothing, just because he is offended by an image that could look like the Nazi dictator. So what? Offence is insufficient to reduce my choice of goods on offer in whatever line. The offending image could be taken from any number of sources. It is to Next's discredit that they have pandered to one complaint.

In reality, the image formed part of a montage for underwear, redoubling the lack of public airing in person, unless the wearer had unfortunate proclivities. More laughable: the image was based upon Lenin, who died before such flights of monoplanes were incorporated into agitprop.

"We have checked with the designer who confirmed the image was inspired by Lenin. Nonetheless, if even one customer is offended or upset we are happy to withdraw the range."

The customer who complained, Ben Radomski, said he was happy the product had now been withdrawn.

This rewards activism and fails the consumer; instead of variety and innovation, such a rule rewards inoffensive blandness and low-risk grey overalls. Under such a rule, we are all losers.

The Age of Convergence

The New York Times examines the coming superbrain, and details the various schools of thought on the Singularity or artificial consciousness. Most of those fall around two axes: a hostile consciousness that is inimical or indifferent to humanity, or a friendly AI. Researchers who take the Singularity seriously work to set up the ground conditions for the latter.

This most recent flurry of media attention stems from the enthusiastic activities of Kurzweil, who has complemented book with film. This is also coupled with another product of the Terminator franchise, a popkult outgrowth of the anxiety which Vernor Vinge filled in later..

“Kurzweil will probably die, along with the rest of us not too long before the ‘great dawn,’ ” said Gary Bradski, a Silicon Valley roboticist. “Life’s not fair.”

We could argue that the debates on the singularity just pitch too far ahead. The next twenty years are a product of the age of convergence where information and research flow through the white water rapids at an ever faster pace. The formulation of such convergence will have the strongest impact on what type of collective or super-intelligence emerges:

To get any idea what the future might be like, you need to look at all the “currents” of research that are going on at the same time, and think about what might happen when they converge. These convergences can be very beneficial, or very dangerous. The CAT scan, a vital lifesaving tool of modern medicine, is a result of one such convergence (of X-ray imaging, medicine and high-speed computing). The 9/11 World Trade Center attack was made possible by another (of aviation and large-scale building).

We live in an age of convergence and divergence. So far, we have little inkling of where the divergences will appear....

A byte at the net undercounts all the digerati now

When measuring bytes, it is not dishonourable to undercount. I have already mentioned the IDC study that quantified the amount of data in existence. however, they forgot the tsunami of digital information....

With glee, IDC sizes the digital universe in 2008 at 487 billion gigabytes. People are taking pictures, making phone calls, sending emails, blogging, and putting up videos on YouTube. Enterprises are capturing daily transaction records and adding to their data warehouses. The amount of security-intensive information is on the rise. Governments are requiring more information be kept and protected, forcing the migration to digital TV, and taking surveillance photos of their citizens. A continuous gush of gigabytes springs into being: according to IDC, the binary data created last year would have filled 30 billion Apple iPod Touches.

Ali taxpayer and the forty ministers

However, in an unusual intervention, HMRC told The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday night that MPs were not exempt from tax laws and that tax must be paid on some expenses.

In a statement it said: “It’s a general principle of tax law that accountancy fees incurred in connection with the completion of a personal tax return are not deductible.

“This is because the costs of complying with the law are not an allowable expense against tax. This rule applies across the board.”

It also emerged that MPs had already been given specific guidance by HMRC prohibiting such tax- free claims, which accountants say constitute a “benefit in kind” and should be taxed.

Issued in 2005, the guidance states that “accountancy fees incurred in the preparation of the self assessment tax return or related expense claims” are “not allowed” as tax expenses.

That is forty ministers who will need to pay tax back in public. Make sure that is at a penal interest rate with additional penalties. And then sack these serial tax evaders.

Westminster tends to control, and more Westminster leads to total control

The hype over Cameron's trailed reforms on the House of Commons was slightly punctured tonight after his reforms were taken up by Jack Straw, Minister of Justice, who welcomed a valuable contribution to cross-party discussions on constitutional change. In a biased article that then lists Tory expenses, Straw downplayed some of the more radical elements and stated that Cameron's proposals were already being considered by Labour.

Given the partisan nature of this Parliament, one can view this as a neutering of Cameron's speech, spoiling the headlines with a narrative wresting reform back to the government.

Straw welcomed Cameron's article as a contribution to the debate. The government does not agree with everything the Tory leader said, but Straw believes that the cross-party talks could reach agreement on some aspects of parliamentary reform within the next few months, such as:

• Strengthening Commons select committees. Cameron said the whips should lose the power to choose the members and chairs of select committees. Straw believes there is scope for reform in this area.

• Petitions. Cameron said that if the organisers of a petition collected enough support, they should be able to get their idea debated in the Commons. Straw looked into this idea when he was leader of the Commons and he is interested in taking it forward.

• Scrutinising legislation. Cameron criticised the way every bill is "guillotined", meaning the time set aside for debate is limited in advance. Straw believes that the creation of a Commons business committee could give the Commons more say over timetabling issues.

The latest prism is the race for reform, though media pressures for leadership on constitutional debate will dissipate as debates dwell on the detail. Cameron wished to seize the narrative and direct the arguments towards democratisation, not PR. In this, he has succeeded, with fixed term parliaments and recall mechanisms entering the fray. It is to the Guardian's disadvantage that they remain wedded to Labour, downplaying the other aspects of his speech, since reform is only worthwhile if it comes from the Left.

The BBC joins in the criticism with the Liberal Democrats providing soundbites, alarmed that their role of kingmaker may be receding as they are outflanked by the other parties. Galling that the changes leave their ideas far behind.

This is a debate, not a race, with contours set by the media timetable. All governments prove less radical, and Cameron must show that the faux-Acton principle that Westminster tends to control is abolished.

 .

We need a public health movement to deal with dinosaurs

The political objectives of the 'climate change' movement is quite clear: illiberal and weak at the pont of debate. Climactic risks can be discussed within an overall debate on how societies should counter potential threats; but professional groups have an incentive to short-circuit this debate, setting themselves up as a priestly caste that wields power under emergency circumstances.

A grab for power can be the sole excuse for the inappropriate comparisons that accompany calls for a new movement on public health, since 'climate change' is inflated to the bogeyman that becomes the greatest threat to human health:

Professor Anthony Costello, a paediatrician and director of UCL Institute for Global Health, said that he had not realised the full ramifications of climate change on health until 18 months ago.

Describing the threat as a "clear and present danger" that would affect billions of lives, he said that the world needed a 21st-century public health movement to deal with climate change. He added that failure to act will result in future generations feeling the same moral outrage as is felt today towards those "who brought in and did nothing to stop slavery".

How will one stop this latest affront to world health since slavery. Without dwelling on the comparison between policy trade-offs in a liberal democracy and the buying and selling of human flesh, one can question a moral weighting that devalues freedom and idealises professional outcomes.

Their call for a public health movement and low carbon lifestyle repackages existing goals in the latest wrapper, perhaps tempted by the flows of taxpayer cash:

Professor Costello said that the health lobby "had come to the issue late and should be saying more".

The commission said that there was the need for health leaders to join the debate on mitigation strategies — policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to tackle climate change — and emphasise the importance of action. It added that there must be a focus on health systems, in particular the inequalities between developed and developing nations, and a drive by healthcare professionals to outline how adopting low-carbon lifestyles can improve human health, reducing obesity, heart and lung disease, diabetes and stress.

"We believe that all the main players — health, political, scientific, technological, and civil society must come together," Professor Costello said. "We have laid out a framework for action, and we have called for a collation of information on the health effects of climate change. We need a new 21st-century public health movement to deal with climate change."

And that final sentence is the most ridiculous of all; like saying, we need a public health movement to deal with [insert potential catastrophe); like killer rocks. .

Break with the mould or remain a cypher-politician

Andrew Sparrow in the Grauniad gives some more flesh on parts of the Cameron interview that I forgot or left out yesterday. I had forgotten the resolution to give more free votes on non-menifesto commitments but, as James Forsyth relates in Coffee House, the Tory leader gets it, on Europe and rebalancing Parliament versus the executive.:

He went on: "I think that behind the anger about expenses, there's also a deeper concern about the whole of the way our politics and our parliament works. People feel, 'hold on, I elect these MPs, they go to parliament'. They're then told by the whips how to vote, rather than voting according to their conscience. Parliament passes far too many laws, scrutinises them appallingly badly. The select committees are chaired by people who've been placed there by the whips and the prime minister rather than elected. You know they've given power to the judges, on the one hand, and Europe on the other and the whole thing, frankly, is not in my control. That's what people, I think, are angry about. They want more control over their politics and their politicians."

This is not a revelatory moment where all reformers can sing, dance and consider their job done. It is a positive first step, and reinforces the suspicion that Cemron will re-open the book on Europe. Follow Labour's route and become a cypher politician or start returning power to us.

An SOS for NKOR - a signal of strength

Am I surprised? No. North Korea is shifting towards a hardline stance as ripples of instability induce paranoia:

"It is an act that we can never tolerate," said Japan's foreign minister, Hirofumi Nakasone, after meeting his South Korean counterpart, Yu Myung-Hwan, in Hanoi.

"As it is a violation of UN Security Council resolutions, [Japan] condemns and protests it strongly. It is a challenge to the whole of the international community and increases tensions. We, as the only atomic-bombed nation, need to take stern action."

It looks like it happened, but expect too much condemnation, not enough action.