Fog in the Channel...

Salut France, we share you're pain(s)

...continent cut off. Sometimes it's a case of 'if only it were true', but it does seem that we are not fully cut off from hearing the news of chronically stupid ideas that in the current climate may be in danger of drifting over the channel.

I'll actually skip over Sarko's silly little idea for taxing Internet access to subsidise last generation state broadcasting operations as it's so retarded that nobody who is not a card-carrying Brownite could regard it as anything other than a badly timed April Fool's joke. I have often expressed my admiration for Sarko, in particular his disrespect for the conventions of decaying French political shibboleths and who can begrudge him throwing a bone to his old school statist classes once in a while while his mind, or at least some part of his being, may me preoccupied elsewhere - and who can blame him?

From another perspective we should also remember that M. le President's predecessor toyed with the idea of an even more impractical 'per e-mail' tax, so perhaps we should be happy with even the smallest of baby steps away from the completely wrong direction. It is true that we should be wary of the stimulation that the idea of a brand new virgin tax may be causing in Mr Darling's underpants. We should also be ready to repel the general French assumption when it comes to the EU, that anything stupid that France does should be enforced on a pan-European basis. For the moment though, I'm prepared to see this idea as being, at worst, a submerged rock that only a ship as badly piloted as the truly rotten ship 'SS Labour' coming across the channel could hit.

Like most moderate Eurosceptics, I leave swivel-eyed xenophobia to those within the EU machinery with their hatred of anything outside the tiny outcrop of Asia where we live, especially if happens to be a more functional democracy than anything Europe has to offer. For all that, even if I'm going to lay off the executive branch of French government, I can't help treating taking the piss out of this decision from their judicial branch, especially as I can equally imagine some decrepit creature in our own courts coming up with the same nonsense.

Basically, a French newspaper has been fined for a piece of journalism on the state of the French champagne industry because they failed to fit in a suitable rider on the horrors of alcohol into the same article, thanks to the legal intervention of a set of busybodies whose name transliterates to the 'National Association for the Prevention of Alcoholism and Addiction'.

This is completely nuts (some people may suffer an adverse reaction to eating nuts including breathing difficulties and, in extreme cases, anaphylactic shock reactions), but I find it hard to believe that there are not elements in our own country's common sense elimination brigades that will be going to bed over-excited over a new line of attack tonight.

The march of government for the lowest common denominator goes on.

We've Got the Message

A little of what you fancy...

I'm sure the red tops will be fighting back against Heather Mills' allegations of being hounded them in the morning, but the daily diet of harassment that has got my goat today is yet another in the seeming daily frontal attacks on our lifestyles by the medical establishment.

In this case the crack troops deployed are those of the World Cancer Research Fund, and their report on the impact of lifestyle choices on cancer risk. As reported by BBC Radio news we were told we should ideally cut out almost all red meat, all alcohol and bacon, eggs and other processed meats; to be fair, as is often the case the TV coverage and the BBC News website coverage is a little more moderate and closer to the spirit of the report. Still the drip drip of regurgitation of pretty similar research on matters such is this at best irritating and at worse has the same feeling of an organised cavalry charge to spur government into interference that presaged the smoking legislation.

Typical too is he fact the report has not gone far enough for the the Taliban elements of the medical profession. Choosing as ever to treat we infidels as five year olds they demand that 'moderation' be replaced by 'abstinence' and make calls to undefined 'government action'.

To these fundamentalists I would say there are many things that can shorten our time on this earth, such as a close encounter with the four foot length of scaffolding pole that got left in my flat after some building work.

To the moderates all I would say is fine, we get it, we're grown ups and we'll make our choices. Nobody is disputing your findings but repetition of the same messages achieves little. We could reduce road fatalites to zero by reducing the speed limit to the same round figure, we could reduce crime to pretty much zero by fully rolling out the type of police state that seems to be the wet dream of many a Labour Home Secretary, and yes, we could extend our lifespans by living the kind of sterile, joyless existance that you seem obsessed with.

We could, but we won't. Life is about more than maximising its duration and minimising its risks. Is the greatest happiness to be found in a long life of modern puritaism, or a shorter one, possibly with an uncomfortable end, enjoying all life has to offer? For me, to misuse a common phrase, in matters of taste there can be no question.

Anyway, the Base Camp is offering a fine concoction of pidgeon breast and chorizo, and I think it's time to go and avail myself of a large portion, to be washed down with some merlot, purely for its anti-oxidant properties of course.

The Greater Good

No...it's food...that's all

Most people of libertarian instincts have a degree of difficulty with large scale public health initiatives, control and rights over one's own body being surely the first and foremost battlegrounds from where the forces of an overbearing state should driven back at every opportunity.

Despite this principle all but a few people on the loopy fringe do accept the immense and undeniable good that can flow from some innovations, especially in the field of vaccination; I seem to remember an especially stirring defence of the concept, now a reality, of vaccinating teenage girls against the horrific downstream consequences of Human Papillomavirus from, if I remember rightly, that bastion of the authoritarian left, Devil's Kitchen. I think most libertarians would be rightly against absolute compulsion, but even government's tend not to seek this and in allowing vaccination to occur by default, usually at school, thereby nullifying the impact of those parents who would otherwise be too disinterested in their child's welfare, a fairly comfortable armistice can be declared.

It is not though an unconditional ceasefire. Where the risks and rewards of such initiatives are more evenly balanced the choice must remain actively in the hands' of the individual. The arguments over fluoridation of the water supply were before my time, though I understand they were quite heated for a time. I suspect that given how limited the evidence still seems to be of a potential down side, decades on, I doubt that it would be high up my list of grievances against the apparatus of the state.

The same latitude though cannot be applied to government plans, thankfully being reviewed, to add folic acid to all flour or bread even if the aim, to reduce birth defects such as spina bifida, is laudable.

The situations are not equivalent as ministers were claiming some months ago. The earlier case was one where a benefit to the vast majority of the community needed to be balanced against a rather nebulous suggestion of risk; the current proposal places a benefit to a small and relatively easily identifiable segment of the populace against risks with significant scientific support to a much larger group of people who in many cases may not even be aware that they are in the 'at risk' club.

It is true that folic acid is at its most effective in the early stages of pregnancy, but the data as quoted by the government seems not to suggest that it is not that there are legions of women unaware of their pregnancy for several months, but that despite the health advice, too many fail to take the recommended supplements.

The government instinct is, of course, that 'something must be done', and perhaps in this case it should. Look at why the information campaigns have failed. A discussion on Radio 4 this week revealed that we buy more books on pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing every year than there are live births. Most statistics on women availing themselves of neonatal services are, I'm assured by a doctor friend, very good; this will come as no surprise to anyone who has been shown more unintelligible prints of ultrasound scans than you can shake a stick by excited friends. It isn't beyond the wit of either man or woman to persuade pregnant women to take a pill each day; for god's sake a significant proportion will have only just stopped taking a pill a day to become pregnant. Don't accuse me of misogyny - it's the alternative attitude that would reflect worse on women.

If you want to ship a nine months' worth of folic acid supplement, free of charge, to every mother-to-be in the land at tax payers' expense, go right ahead - the economics of it are pretty good as it happens. Let's target effective therapies on those who need it, not subject the remainder of us to a therapy that may not be just worthless but potentially very dangerous.

I'm far from a Luddite and generally am very positive about what medical science can do for us, but this proposal looks like a pretty big throw of the dice. I don't criticise the fact this idea has been considered, but by any standards the evidence is pretty equivocal, and lies far from the levels of confidence that a measure like this should be underpinned by.

Mirror Mirror on the Wall...

Lembit Comes a Very Creditable Last

...who is the most freedom hating MP of all?

Those with a modern enough web browser, and JavaScript enabled may have noticed my new 'Rogues Gallery' feature which pops up summary information on the great and the good, as well as the not so good and totally loathsome among out Members of Parliament, all based on data from the excellent TheyWorkForYou.com. Amongst the most interesting of all of the information from this site is the voting records of MPs on several policies. Luckily from my perspective, the policy areas focused on by the site are dominated by those concerning issues of individual liberty and the transparency and openness of our political processes. The voting data comes in turn from The Public Whip and comes with a number of health warnings, especially regarding absences, which can be read on the respective sites, but it nonetheless sometimes pops up some interesting behaviour of our elected representatives in the voting lobbies.

Buoyed by my success in getting the new feature work in all supported browsers I decided to have a look at the date en masse in a hunt for Britain's most freedom loving and hating MPs, and at last I can announce the winners and losers.

First the rules of the contest. The TheyWorkForYou data contains a rating for each MP as to what extent they agree or disagree with certain policies based on their voting behaviour in all relevant divisions. I've averaged their scores covered by TheyWorkForYou on issues affecting personal liberties, namely:

• Introduction of ID Cards


• NuLab Anti Terror Legislation


• The Ban on Fox Hunting


• The Ban on Smoking


• Gay Rights

In all cases other than gay rights a low (good) score was obtained by opposing or attempting to weaken the legislation. Where no data was available for an MP, I awarded them a neutral score, which is probably pretty generous considering the number of convenient absences on these type of issues whenever personal positions have conflicted with doing the right thing. It also ignores any effect of whipping or absence through ministerial, or shadow ministerial, responsibility. Frankly, than the first two issues they were not especially heavily whipped, if at all, as I recall the votes, and if you care enough about these issues then you should stand up and be counted.

I considered including a number of other votes from TheyWorkForYou, namely:

• Exempting Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act


• The Regulatory Reform Bill


• Opposition to Investigating the Iraq War

At the end of the day I decided to exclude these. Firstly they are mainly issues of parliamentary transparency, which while a good thing, is not really the same thing as individual liberty, just a mechanism which should contribute to the maintenance of these freedoms. Secondly the data for these items is rather sparse compared to the other issues.

So, time to open the golden envelope. From the top then, the MP least likely to vote for a measure taking away personal freedom is...and I hate to say it, because I think he's a bit of a prat...is Liberal Democrat MP, Lembit Öpik, best known for having a funny name and reminding everyone at every available opportunity, even during questions in House of Commons, that he is knocking off one of the Cheeky Girls. So, he gets the inaugural Liberty's Requiem Defence of Liberty Award, to put along side his Have I Got News For You 'Biggest gap between self-perception and reality over how fully I am' trophy.

Before we get on to the villain, a few observations from the data:

• The best Conservative defender of freedoms is Mark Field (7th most pro-freedoms overall).


• The best Labour defender of freedoms is Kate Hoey (12th most pro-freedoms overall).


• Ms Hoey is also the most estranged from her team on these issues, with her nearest team mate being Mark Fisher in 141st place on the list.


• Ming the Meaningless is best rated major UK wide party leader in 20th, narrowly beating of a challenge from
  David Cameron in 22nd.


• Ming might want to think about the people he might get into bed with, with Tony Blair who ranks a modest 318th soon to be replaced by Gordon Brown who rates a miserable 424th.


• There's something of the night about Ann Widdecombe who is the worst Conservative performer at 328th, compared to her more enlightened former boss Michael Howard, who comes in at a respectable 88th place. John Pugh holds the same dishonour for the Lib Dems at 294th.


• David Amess is the only other Conservative to join Ann Widdecombe in the bottom half of the table, the remainder of which is rock solid NuLab control freak territory.


• Ed Balls is bottom of the pops of anyone with a government job at 611th, while bizarrely John Reid's cigarette habit helps see him top the government charts at 307th, other than Blair the only government member in the top half of the charts.


• Perhaps less surprisingly, with front runner Reid out of the race, Peter Hain is the cabinet champion of illiberality at 569th.


• Other than Hain, the deputy leadership contenders in NuLab's Donkey Derby come in at 568th (Harriet Harman),
  489th (Hilary Benn), 451st (Hazel Blears),
  356th (Jon Cruddas), and 350th (Alan Johnson).


• Average scores in terms of a pro-freedom position for the parties were as follows:
  
  
  • Plaid Cymru - 78.8%
  
  
  • SNP - 71.0%
  
  
  • Conservative - 67.3%
  
  
  • Liberal Democrat - 67.0%
  
  
  • DUP - 47.7%
  
  
  • SDLP - 47.3%
  
  
  • UUP - 40.0%
  
  
  • Labour - 28.7%
  
  If the issues regarding parliamentary transparency are factored in, the only thing that happens is that the Lib Dems move very marginally ahead of the Conservatives (thanks Maclean, though at least you come a reasonable 90th when it comes to personal freedoms), while NuLab distances itself further still from the people.


• The individual issue patterns were pretty predictable, the Lib Dems scoring well on everything apart from smoking and an ambivalence on fox hunting, the Conservatives scoring well on everything apart from gay rights, and NuLab scoring badly on everything apart from gay rights.

Benton - Benefit of Clergy

So who does hold the dubious record of being the least comfortable with his constituents having personal freedoms?

Who is Parliament's weakest link? Actually it turned out to be harder to pick one than expected.

Step forward Joe Benton, MP for Bootle. Quite frankly, he's not going to be too bothered, as he sits in the safest seat in the country. He's also amongst the select group of septuagenarians in the Commons which may explain some of his attitudes, as may his Roman Catholicism, Wikipedia noting that:

"He votes the Catholic conservative line on issues concerning abortion, embryo research, gay rights and euthanasia."
Wikipedia

I can't really attack someone for standing firm to their religious principles that have influenced his appalling score. While I might disagree with those principles, he's pursuing a more honest course than some within the heart of government who simply absent themselves when these decisions are made. To be fair he also seems to have led a full and varied life outside politics before entering Westminster in 1990 unlike the type of younger NuLab zombie I despise, who consider a couple of years working as a political officer for a union or some such activity as 'real life'. He also was one of the rebels on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill which I would have liked to include in the rankings had the data been available, which would have probably saved him from bottom spot. All of that said, when I look at some more peripheral issues, I stop warming to him, where anything that increases the insulation of Parliament from the people seems to be welcomed enthusiastically.

Marshall - Booby Prize

As it seems to arise from personal convictions, rather than control freakery for the sake of control freakery like some of his colleagues, I've decided not to award the medal of shame to Mr Benton. I do though disagree with most of his policies, and if he's planning to stand again and if I was a voter in Bootle, even one with instinctive Labour sympathies, I might consider voting for a monkey, even one not wearing a red rosette.

The medal has to be go somewhere though, so I will use my judges discretion and, after due consideration, I will award it to David Marshall, MP for Glasgow East and the runner-up in this particular contest, whose overall voting record, whilst still seeming to be possibly religiously influenced is less convincingly so than Mr Benton's and smacks much more of traditional authoritarian leftism, without some of Benton's redeeming features.

Nanny Back on the Sauce?

A Glass...For Now

Distressing news has recently reached me from a former colleague who now works for Accenture, but whose opinion I still trust. The evil empire has dispatched him to an English town not far from where I grew up. I shall not name it as the local rag where he read the news has no web presence so until I have his promised press clipping by snail mail I don't have documentary proof. Strangely he had no access to a scanner. Perhaps not strangely though, as he is working on a government project which probably means that it will go horribly wrong at some stage, so it might be a sensible leak control mechanism. It’s the clipping itself he is sending, not a photocopy which might also be significant.

The gist of it though is that yet again a local authority is proposing mandatory use of polycarbonate ‘glasses’ in place of the traditional ones made of, erm, glass. Now, applied in a limited sensible way this seems like good policy. Some councils are considering the measure as a licensing condition for pubs with a track record of violent incidents and plastics are certainly a little safer. In some places even without a likelihood of any trouble, like outdoors and at sporting events it makes perfect sense too.

One problem however is that a local MP is apparently quoted as saying that a national scheme merits serious attention. He couldn't remember the name of the MP when I spoke to him, but knew it was a woman. Checking on potentially interested local MPs one name sprung to the fore, the same delightful Caroline Flint I commented on earlier today. God forbid that it gets on her agenda, because experience tells us that the only thing that she will not accept any form of sensible policy. She would want to make sure that those in the leafy suburbs and the countryside suffer the same crap drinking vessels as the type of scum that create the agro and probably (if they vote at all) vote for her and her brain dead party.

The other issue is that polycarbonate really isn't that much safer. Albeit accidentally incurred I've seen some pretty nasty cuts from broken polycarbonate glasses too. The alternatives are not appealing, mainly consisting of vessels with the structural integrity of a plastic sandwich packet; you know the ones, the type where you have to stack three inside each other to make it possible to hold them crushing out the beer. There are even worse possibilities.

I've had a look and there don’t appear to be any proposals coming forward on the Westminster agenda, but its one of those areas where eternal vigilance is called for. It must be realised that being known as "the one who introduced the Tupperware pint" would actually be considered a badge of honour by the type of froth that rises to the top of the NuLab glass.

I hope I'm wrong but let us not forget these words attributed to Winston Churchill,

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Sir Winston Spencer Churchill KG (1874-1965)

NuLab cronies actually probably think the last clause is there for balance and showed that there was some hope for the great gentleman.

I shall attack more fully when I see the evidence.

Update 10:30PM: Everyone at the mother ship thinks the legislation is on the way...have I missed something? Very worrying.

Nanny in the Saloon Bar

Irresponsible New Drinks Label

TV news has had a lot of coverage of the voluntatry agreement between health ministers and the drinks issue over health lables on alcohol. I think the public health minister Caroline Flint's team must have had one too many units at lunchtime before signing off on this scheme. Looking at the minister herself's track record I don't think it would really matter whether or not she had, even for a member of this governent she has a history of backing entheusiastically any interfering, nit-picking, liberty eroding measures her colleagues can come up with.

We're already used to the enigmatic 'Contains Sulphites' cropping up on many bottles of wine we buy. I'm not sure if this is a warning or an endorsement. My chemistry is good enough to know what sulphites are, but my physiology knowledge too poor to know if they are good for me or bad for me. In the end it just takes up space that could better be used for more interesting information about the wine's pedigree. But let's put aside the aesthetics of plastering your nice bottle of burgandy with these ugly lables. Will they actually have any effect? Actually I think they will.

According to the minister.

"This landmark, voluntary agreement will help people calculate, at a glance, how much they are drinking...

"This is about helping people to make the right choices."

Irresponsible Minister

Wow, for once I find myself in agreement with Flint. Every chav in the land will no longer have to rely on anecdotal evidence to decide whether it is getting down 10 Smirnoff Ices or 12 vodka and cokes before vomitting that makes you the hardest. Even in the most moronic groups someone will be able to do the maths. Even among less unpleasant boozers I can imagine the range of new drinking games we will be able to come up with.

Yes, we have a binge drinking culture, and yes it is a problem, but when it comes to the binge drinking culture I can really see this proving more part of the problem than the solution in the long term. Anyone who has seen the way the binge drinkers use the alcohol by volume figures on premium lager pumps to help pick their drinks and peer pressure their friend's choices will know that the effect of this labeling can only be negative.

As for the government's Chief Medical Officer's recommended limits, sorry Sir Liam Donaldson, but considering the quality of recommendations from this government's professional advisors, I think I'll be sticking to my own recommended figures which are somwhat different.

Naturally, the pressure groups behind the scheme have been somewhat lukewarm in their response the proposals. According to Don Shenkar of alcohol concern,

"In terms of cans and bottles, it's a very good first step" (My emphasis)

Why is that 'first step' uttered by the representatives of pressure groups fill sane people of a libetatrian bent with such utter terror. Experience I guess. Some of the extreme fringe anti-drinking campaigners have suggested a legally enforced daily limit. Sadly with these types of organisation, what was once fringe and extreme can very quickly become mainstream thinking and then, with a suitably illiberal government, the law of the land. Already the tone of disappointment that it is a 'voluntary arrangement' is coming through loud and clear.

Another rant on the nanny in the saloon bar to follow...