Risk Management

Like several other people I am very pleased to discover, originally via Mr Paine, the return of Theo Spark in a new blog guise. Not only is it as much of a visual delight as its predecessor, but his much hat-tipped publicising of a very funny presentation on the dangers of blogging was a valuable reminder to go and pay a long overdue visit to the TED website.

I have to admit that for me, Yossi Vardi's warnings of blogging biohazards was pipped at the post by this, from Gever Tulley, on 5 dangerous things you should let your kids do:



I just wish the live audience had been full of UK health and safety fruitcakes, so I could have enjoyed the the thuds of them hitting the floor as they collapsed and the sounds of their heads exploding.

I'm not sure about the idea of giving kids pocket knives but I know I did all of the others and, as much as it may beyond the capability of the killjoy brigade to understand, playing with fire did not make me into an arsonist, driving my dad's car a little in an empty car park didn't make me into a joy rider, and so on and so forth. As for dismantling obsolete domestic appliances, it did actually help create an interest in engineering, even if it was ultimately bacterial genomes that I learned to pull apart at university rather than old TV sets.

The only trouble we got in to from any of these activities was when my friends and I burned a dozen copies of one of our school books. In my defence, I should say this was long before I had any knowledge of the negative connotations of book burning and as an English set-book I still feel that Steinbeck's 'The Pearl' is a rare exception that more than merits such treatment.

Usually when you hear children asked why they get involved in various kinds anti-social behaviour or crime, the word 'bored' appears more often than any appeal about poverty or 'social exclusion'. If I'd grown up in the risk-averse, antiseptic kind of environment the government and a hundred and one self-important campaign groups seem to think is best world for kids I know I'd have been bloody bored too.

What the Jobsworths Don't Know...

A Rare Privilege

It was a pleasant night in the Village yesterday. It was rounded of in fine style in a local pub that is a bit off my usual well-beaten path and I shall not name it, or even pseudoname it for reasons that will soon become apparent.

Not only was the drink sensibly priced by local standards, but once the crowd had dwindled to a half a dozen and three staff, the doors were locked and curtains closed. Not because it had reached the end of it's licensed hours, but it was about to become 'no longer a public space'. Ashtrays appeared and everyone, including the staff lit up.

I'm not entirely sure if the manager's interpretation of the law was correct, but nobody was going to complain and it was a strange delight to enjoy a cigarette in the time-honoured manner, knowing that what you were doing would drive some small minded jobsworth at the local council offices in to a fit of apoplexy if they knew.

In tribute to this act of common sense, I've temporarily abandoned my policy of only using images from sources where no copyright has been asserted, and have instead lifted the image for this posting right off the 'new anti-smoking laws' page from the local borough council's website. Sod it, I pay enough to them.

All nit-picking, jobsworth, killjoys can go and...well, pick your own favourite epithet for these sad individuals.

Nanny on the March

Cigarettes gone, health nazis move on

I often comment about things I hear on Radio 4; it's simply what I've got used to waking up to in the mornings, and on occasion I catch the early evening news there too. I've generally avoided the lunchtime coverage, mainly due to the fact that I tend to be out at lunch, but also because of dire warnings about the nature of a particular programme entitled 'You and Yours'.

Feeling under the weather on Tuesday I was, for a while under the impression I may have been mistaken. The show in question in fact appeared to be a well written parody, taking the form of an apparently innocuous current affairs programme which had been hijacked to become a vehicle for mindless government propaganda. To add a topical element there was even a clearly rigged phone-in element to add that bit of authenticity.

The topic of Tuesday's episode was the alleged problem of alcohol abuse in the UK. Featured guests included a 'Dr Foster' (presumably created by one of the less creative thinking members of the script writing team who couldn't get past the nursery rhyme), who was meant to be Principal Lecturer in the School of Health and Social Sciences at, what I presume to be a fictional, Middlesex University. The part was brilliantly played, as the actor exhorted the nation to face its demons and accept its problems. He and the phone-in guests fell over each other to accept a clichéd litany of New Labour solutions to everything they are not keen on: tax it, restrict advertising of it, make it the employers' responsibility, and if all else fails ban it.

Another highlight was their comparison with drinking cultures in other countries. In a brave piece of self parody, two alleged reporters purported to have been dispatched to the US and Spain respectively. Naturally all aspects of the other cultures were superior to Britain's own, even the Spanish teenagers' custom of hanging around in the street swilling a Coca-Cola and red wine mixture in residential streets to save money on bar prices. Back in the studio presenters and guests agreed that both Spain's younger minimum age for drinking, and the US's much later one were both superior to our own.

Sadly the piece tailed off a little towards the end as a parade of unconvincing voice actors told unconvincing evangelical tales on the superiority of everything non-British. I suspect the idea was that they were meant to be the 'men from the ministry' calling in incognito, but it didn't quite work. The rubbishing of the views of a character claiming to be a landlady who countered the prevailing view of the panel and someone who simply wanted to be left alone to get on with his own life was done too crudely in what was otherwise a well constructed pastiche of this type of radio show.


Of course thought it was not a parody at all, nor a bad dream. The show, which you'll be able to 'listen again' to here for another week or so, was yet another example of the march of the nanny state and an exemplification of the prevailing attitude that because a few limited parts of society are having a problem that the whole of society must wear the hair shirt. Socialism's one great virtue, as Winston Churchill was alleged to have said was in the equal sharing of misery; in its modern incarnation, if that misery is in the form of taxation to mask the incompetence of the spending of existing revenues, then so much the better.

The smoking ban's greatest evil was the encouragement it gave to the control freaks. For the time being their progress seems almost unstoppable given the green light this government has given to their controlling instincts. It is now abundantly clear that the health community's next move is to attach the same stigma to alcohol consumption as they managed to achieve with smoking. Once that is achieved they will push for the same prohibitive measures to be taken against it.

I guess in part the problem I have with some of these idiot's views is their mindless assumption that the maximisation of one's lifespan should be the prime factor in guiding how we live our lives. Anything that interferes with this 'prime directive' must be discouraged, by persuasion at first, and if that fails by legislation and then prohibition.

I suspect that despite having no particular problem I can identify, my alcohol consumption will shorten my lifespan. It's a choice I'm happy to make and will not change it. Better ten good years now than ten bad ones tagged on the end. Frankly they can take their 'cost' argument and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Barring some many miracle the exchequer will have taken far more from me than I shall ever take from it.

My personal nirvana is not one where people eat their five a day, drink in extreme moderation, eat a bland diet and do not smoke, drink, ski, box or play rugby, but in return live to be 150. It is one where people are free to make their own choices about their own bodies and accept the responsibility of their decisions.

It is also one where puritanical bigots like Dr Foster who want to assert their life choices on others through the mechanisms of the state are the ones who are shunned by society. I may not live as long as him and his ilk, but I shall most certainly have lived more.

The Lingering Death of Common Sense

If only I had the artistic talent to replace
Uncle Sam with a moronic health minister

It's three days into the smoking ban already and in terms of the target which is its raison d'être, its impact seems to be limited at least as far as I am concerned. The same people are smoking, just outside in clumps round the doors and I've never thought having large numbers of people out on the street with glasses of alcohol is an especially brilliant idea. Everywhere looks like one pub that's renowned for being the Village's only underage drinking age hotspot, where sundry junior pikeys linger in scowling groups just far enough from the pub door to give plausible deniability over where they sourced their lurid coloured bottles of assorted alcopops, while they abuse passer-bys.

Never mind, I'm sure this practise will soon be banned too - this is what the current muppets occupying the corridors of power see as 'joined up government'. If one policy has unforeseen, if entirely foreseeable, consequences then just introduce further illiberal legislation rather than looking at the faults in the original policy.

I think it has cut down a little on the amount I smoke while I am in the pub but, just as when various places I've worked went no-smoking, the law of conservation of nicotine intake seems to remain unchallenged. In the absence of any other change, and given the fact that I seem to get through exactly the same number of cigarettes in any given 24 hour period, it can only mean I'm smoking more at home. The idea that this would happen was ridiculed by various ministers and I must admit I had my doubts, but albeit on a very small scale there does seem to be some evidence that the legislation may have a very significant downside. At least I see drinking primarily as a social exercise and so I haven't gone, and probably will never go so far to start drinking at home, the one missing vice that stops me becoming a fully-fledged alcoholic; I'm not convinced that there will not be people who won't be so lucky.

The only thing I've found utterly ridiculous though is the plastering of the compulsory 'No Smoking' signs on almost every shop door in the Village. There are a few that still do not sport one, but I'm sure before long some council jobsworth will be pouncing on them, bringing a little joy to their sad and meaningless little lives.

It made me stop to think when I last saw someone smoking inside a business establishment other than somewhere serving food and drink, or offices with a smoking room. It was a real struggle. I couldn't think of a single instance since I've lived in the south of England, but if I really, really strain, I can just about remember one old fashioned DIY shop back in Leeds where a few tradesmen would light up while chatting with the manager. The shop was not just as big as a church, it actually was a converted former chapel with a ceiling so high and a volume of air so large nobody really noticed anyway.

It's not just forcing churches to display the signs that is pointless visual vandalism, it's equally stupid for any business where there never was a culture of smoking within its four walls and for decades now that has been almost every establishment. It's just another little symptom of the dumbed-down Britain that seems to be the goal of every NuLab initiative, though given that that they seem intent on producing a generation of dumbed-down Britons, presumably because they will be grateful for the actions of their (relatively) more intelligent masters, there may be at least the merit of consistency in their actions.

Update, Just before Posting: I was listening to the rerun of Blogger TV on 18DS as I finished this off and heard someone, I think the ever enthusiastic Caroline Hunt, laying into the same moronic attitudes in reference to a missal from his Grace the Archbishop Cranmer. Go and watch it in the archive, or see the original post here

Update, Thursday: Zorba and his performing black bear have arrived at the Mother Ship and are distinctly displeased at having to smoke outside.

A New Day at Midnight

Another day, another ban

It's just a few hours since the timid new world of NuLab came a step closer, with the introduction of the smoking ban.

I've smoked since I was twenty-one, a rather bizarre age for someone to take up the habit having survived the peer pressure of teenage years, especially for someone who was just completing three years of university where the genetics of cancer related oncogenes had been a popular topic.

In terms of real practical impact on my life it isn't actually a big deal. I never smoke indoors at home and so I'm pretty conditioned to going outside for a cigarette and even in pubs and bars I've always tried to be as considerate as possible about my habit. As it happens, I've actually quite enjoyed the post-ban smoking culture in Edinburgh when I've been working there, as I tended to find most of the best people outside with me practising our filthy habit under the climate change inducing patio heater. Even non-smokers often voted with their feet and joined us. The only slight personal irritant of the ban per se is that before the prospect of the ban came along I was thinking of giving kicking the habit a go, but right now the prospect of anyone wrongly attributing a successful attempt to nannying, illiberal legislation is enough to keep me lighting up.

It is, at the end of the day, the illiberal nature of the ban that does irk. A friend of mine who provides consultancy services to the told me that the new push for a ban by the BMA and their suppernanny friends came along just as several major pub chains were considering introducing a ban across all their premises. I've got a suspicion that this timing is not coincidental. Looking at the names he mentioned it is pretty clear that there would have been an effective marketplace of smoking pubs, non-smoking pubs and once with a mixture of areas, where people could choose the type of establishment they drank or worked in. Such a satisfactory arrangement would obviously have been an anathema to the totalitarian instincts of the current government, backed by those of a similar disposition in other parties, in areas like this, which I suspect was one of the factors in the unholy rush to implement the legislation while they could still argue that there was no effective choice.

Coming soon, the BMA approved pub

On top the act's immediate intent, it also has given to succour to those who want to further restrict the scope within which we make decisions about our lives, from the brainless massed ranks of zombie officialdom to that past master finger wagging, the BMA again. The Thunder Dragon reports on local councils who are seeking to impose wholly unlawful bans on lighting up in public spaces, while up and down the country there have been stories of planning applications for outdoor provision for smokers at pubs being turned down or delayed. I said to a lot of people at the time, that having got its way on this one the BMA would be back on the case of boxing, a sport I don't really care about one way or the other, and the scrum in rugby union, one I care passionately about. It took almost a fortnight from the passage of the smoking ban through it's final Commons stages for the latter to come under attack from doctor's representatives again, just a few days for the former.

The risk averse, "if we don't like it ban it" society we seem hell bent on creating is going to be an increasingly sterile one. Already it is commonly acknowledged that children going through school have less rich experience, not only because of the drive to reach pointless political targets whose results are bastardised anyway, but also because a huge range of activities have been axed in face of the risk assessments required. Likewise out of school activities are curtailed as various child protection initiatives makes every adult volunteer feel like a suspected child abuser. Ludicrous compensation awards to people who often have been patently foolish have made certain activities or businesses effectively uninsurable. In the background sit the government ready as ever to bring the clunking fist of the law to bear, whenever mass tabloid hysteria has not done its work for it.

It's not the country I was born in but, with the focus of so many 'safety first' initiatives being the young, I suspect there will be few in succeeding generations who will ever realise this other more tolerant world ever existed, where people were prepared to weigh up risks and rewards for themselves and make their own judgements.

Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of...Lemonade

New Labour, New Puritanism

It looks like nanny has taken to the waves. This time it's Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman about to send drunken sailors to bed with no supper. According to the BBC, the government is about to impose the same alcohol levels on amateur yachtsmen as upon drivers of motor vehicles, for everyone navigating a vessel with a length in excess of seven meters and capable of a top speed of over seven knots. I should be grateful I suppose that it wasn't a speed limit of 3.5 meters per second, but I suppose the seven/seven rule sounded better to his spin-meister.

Mr Ladyman is

"...satisfied that in bringing in an alcohol limit for non-professional mariners and in setting the exclusion limit at 7 metres and 7 knots we are providing the best balance between improving safety and avoiding unnecessary regulation."
BBC News

Hmm, a NuLab Minister "avoiding unnecessary regulation", that's like a tramp avoiding a Wetherspoons pub, so even for those who might be inclined to see this as something approaching common sense (myself not included) this announcement deserves a second look.

I do have a personal interest in this. I used to go sailing on a fairly regular basis, and enjoyed every minute of it. I was introduced to it by a colleague at work who, in addition to doing good work with the London Sailing project for the young and disabled, organised a fair number of fairly boozy cruises usually over a long weekend. Sadly I haven't been for a while, but he's a top bloke so I can't really be anything but slightly jealous about the fact that he had the chance to move away to work full time in the nautical world, escaping the life of IT sales.

The general itinerary was to for a dozen of us to get down to Lymington straight after work on a Thursday, provision up some 34-42 foot yacht with food and beer, then head down to a local pub to wait for the tide to turn. With luck there would be time for a trip to the sub-continental food emporium to fill bellies with something better than what we could rustle up in the galley. The trip to the Indian usually raised the most eyebrows as the traditional "same again, to take away" was asked for at the same time as the bill; another meal sorted out. After that it would be into the oily blackness of the Solent, far from pissed, but we had certainly taken cabs to and from the town, being over the limit that Mr Ladyman proposes. Wind and tide permitting the sails would soon be up, the engine off, and seven knots comfortably exceeded perhaps reaching such breakneck speeds as 18mph.

Wait till you see it with
police stripes down the side

We would spend a few days visiting the fleshpots of Guernsey and the fleshpot of Alderney, depleting their alcohol stocks and adding needed variety to the local gene pools. The later was much assisted by the size of our vessel, being among the largest of those tendering invitations aboard to girls in various ports. After the traditional wind-down drinks in Yarmouth, we'd be home in time for a few more pints reviewing old sea dog tales in the local by the Tuesday evening. The total cost, including yacht hire and so forth, about £100, excluding food and drink ashore. If Mr Ladyman is quietly congratulating himself on a bit of toff-bashing he might want to compare that figure with 5 nights in Ibiza.

When we were afloat, those in charge knew what they were doing. and took it seriously, even if they had had a couple more pints than they would drive on. Many had prestigious levels of Yachtmaster qualifications, two were even Royal Navy professionals, but there is something unnerving about sharing a watch with people who's main job is keeping their particular class of vessel under water. Safety was paramount, was emphasised before every trip even before you got instructed on how to operate the toilethead. They wouldn't stand for dangerous levels of alcohol fueled behaviour, and one person had to dump his stash of exotic tobacco before each trip, though this was more for fear of having the boat confiscated than sunk.

One person's experience should not though define what the law should be, even if it does seem to drive a lot of the current government's thinking. I'm sure Broon, as the local minister's son probably spent many of his school days with his head shoved down the toilet bowl, but that's still no excuse for the misery he is about to inflict on us soon. So let's look more objectively at Mr Ladyman's proposals, let's even assume their may be some types of alcohol related behaviour that should be restricted whilst in charge of a boat.

So, seven knots then, speed kills after all...doesn't it? Seven knots is roughly 8 miles per hour or in other words twice as fast as a brisk walking pace and little over half the pace of someone trying to set a four minute mile. Woah! better start thinking about the havoc someone running for the bus after a few pints could cause. If anyone from the Department of Health has Googled on to this site, due the number of references to their useless Ministers it now contains, this is is not a suggestion. An act restricting people to walking pace after a skinful is not in the public interest.

Small Catamarans - Not Covered

How about seven meters then? Little boats are cute and they must be safe then, surely? Well let's leave aside the fact that, lets say a catamaran like the Dart 18 is well under the length limit but can comfortably exceed the speed limit suggested, it also has lots of sharp pointy endie bits, at least until Mr Ladyman has corks stuck on the end of them. Seriously though, is Mr Ladyman really suggesting larger boats are more dangerous? Remember we are not talking about supertankers here. Go out on something like a Dart under the influence and end up drifting too far off shore and you could be in deep shit, do the same in a decent size yacht and you'll probably be fine. Go out of your way, even sober, and try and capsize a 34 footer; without the help of very adverse weather conditions and you will fail. One little surprise squall and your little dinghy will be over. Things also tend to happen at a much lower pace and in an easier working environment as boats become larger.

Now all of this could be construed as an argument for applying the same regulations to all sailing craft, and so it could be if it wasn't for the ridiculously prescriptive nature of the regulation, tying the limit as it does to the same one applied for driving a car at 60 miles an hour along a winding country road. The drink driving limit is predicated on a number of factors, including: the relationship between alcohol levels, reaction times and speed, the nature of the physical skills that may be impaired under the influence of alcohol, and the potential risks to someone who drives under the influence, passengers or others they may encounter. On all of these criteria, being in control of a boat does not merit the same restrictive approach as applied to driving a car. Decisions do not need to be taken in fractions of a second, but over several seconds where a vastly higher level of inebriation would be required to produce dangerous impairment. The chance of a drink impaired decision leading to a negative outcome is also vastly lower, as is how serious such an outcome is likely to be.

Was a law to be proposed that suggested an offshore offence akin to reckless endangerment (which may already apply or have a maritime equivalent for all I know), and were that law to allow for the level of inebriation, as evidenced by clear impairment of abilities, to be considered relevant evidence in determining guilt or sentencing the guilty, it would seem reasonable enough to me. A jury could rightly send a message to the CPS should they seek to prosecute a few young men who had been caught sailing a yacht of significant size, safely albeit with one pint over the drink driving level. They could send a very different message to a defendant who was clearly off his head as he took a 6.9 meter speedboat for a 30 knot spin round a busy harbour. To be honest I suspect legislation to this effect exists, but is simply not nit-picking and rigid enough for the minds of the current government and the Skoda minds of the British Civil Service.

It might even be permissive enough to allow people to have a little fun, which would never do, would it?

If you do want something to keep your tiny little minds occupied, maybe ponder on the way we allow people to hire small but fast sailing dingies on along every beach front, regardless of experience or qualifications. I bet quite a few incidents involve such rentals. I don't suggest a harsh licencing regime, but perhaps encouraging a greater duty of care on those who offer such rentals. Most dive shops won't hand over scuba gear unless you show you have at least basic qualifications and nor should they. I wonder how many incidents that exercise Mr Ladyman's mind did involve alcohol, but where the alcohol was a minor issue when set aside a lack of experience. I'd be happy to be on a boat with some of my experienced friends if they were off their faces, but know I wouldn't risk taking out other people myself stone cold sober. It's not the same as saying "he's a good driver, it's OK for him to drive drunk", it's a different and rarer skill set, one taken very seriously and in which there has never been an acceptance of excess among those who practice it.

As a final comment, I notice that the evidence presented by Ladyman for the need to introduce new rules does not consist of clear unambiguous statistics about current problems of people at sea after a few pints, nor even a couple of illustrative examples. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch is mentioned, but as a branch of officialdom I'd like to see the data, and to assume that they are likely to have put forward a fully balanced position is to take far too rosy a view of such people. How long do the police want to lock people up without charge again? What drink drive alcohol level would they prefer?

He also rolls out that old hoary chestnut, that he:

...considered submissions from MPs on behalf of their constituents "who have had personal experience of the tragic consequences of accidents involving vessels, where alcohol was thought to be a causal factor"
BBC News

Ah, that will be the usual 'bulging postbag' that they are so keen to keep even statistical data on secret, and is always rolled out when objective data may be thin on the ground.

Update 14th June, Early Hours: To answer the same question from 8 different e-mails at once, yes, it was hard not to use the word 'ladyboy' once in the whole of that posting.

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.

Back in the Fold

Murrayfield rejoins the
international rugby community

I might be only half Scottish and live in London, but the SNP is really beginning to grow on me. It's not even just the fact that Alex Salmond seems vaguely human by politician standards and some of their supporters post great campaign songs on YouTube. It's early days, but they really do seem to be setting the Scottish nation free and seem in no great rush to turn the country in to the hard left hell hole'paradise' that some of their erstwhile policies suggested they might. They even seem to be more concerned with getting on with governing Scotland than making cheap shots at their southern neighbours.

Their latest act is to announce that it might once again be allowed to have a beer during rugby games at Murrayfield. Kenny MacAskill, the SNP justice secretary announced:

"There is a world of difference between people drinking a bottle of cheap cider in a park to get drunk and enjoying a pint of beer at half-time of a rugby match.

"We've listened to representations from fans, Scottish Rugby and the police.

"The fans can't understand why they can have a drink at Twickenham and at Millennium Stadium and at some rugby games and not others.

"They want to be able to enjoy a civilised drink during international matches at Murrayfield."

Quite right Mr MacAskill. Flint and Hewitt please note this is not 'Blue Skys Thinking' this is what normal people call 'Common Sense', that part of higher brain function whose absence is a prerequisite for high office in the NuLab ranks. Sadly I can only imagine the low hum of excitement that would go round the Department of Health if someone got it into their minds that there was half a chance of getting away with banning alcohol in the whole of TW1 on match days.

It's true that Murrayfield will still need permission from Edinburgh Council, but after the recent elections this should hopefully not be too much of an issue. ScotNuLab lost half its seats, losing overall control, the Nats went from 1 to 12 seats, and the Lib Dems gained 3 to 17. The Lib Dems are now the largest party, but they've done an almost complete Pontius Pilate act on the actions of the last Holyrood government, of which they were part, so this should be no obstacle. It shouldn't be forgotten though that the 'Liberal' Democrats were part of Jack 'Best Wee Numpty in the World' McConnell's government, which could have done what the Nats have now done, but instead saw fit to some introduce Nanny State legislation that would make Westminister NuLab's busybodies blushfeel green with envy.

The ban was introduced after an old firm clash in the 1980 Scottish Cup final which saw an on pitch battle between Rangers fans, their Celtic opponents and the police. It was not originally intended to cover Murrayfield, but was extended to cover all major venues after representations from the police, demonstrating once again their regrettable tendency to seek ridiculous new powers off the back of sensible attempts to tackle a real problem.

I'm not going to have a pop at kevball this time around. To be honest from the little I know on the subject most of the clubs seem to have improved immeasurably in recent years and this seems to have been accompanied a gradual slackening off of alcohol restrictions. The only time I've been to a football match I enjoyed my beer both at the Emirates Stadium and in the first pub we came to outside the dispersal zone after the match, despite what was apparently substandard Arsenal performance. Even the remaining restrictions on having alcohol within sight of the pitch seemed slightly absurd, with various shutters and blinds having to be closed at half time to allow us to consume our free beer while staying within the letter of the law.

The key thing is that while there were a few ill considered knee-jerk reactions to the problems in the English game, over time pragmatism has prevailed. Local solutions have to local problems has taken the place of sweeping catch-all national diktat. The clubs and authorities played their own part in proving they deserved such pragmatism by taking responsibility for the problems, and taking their own initiatives to deal with them. In areas like this, national legislation should constrain itself to setting basic minimum standards, while giving legal basis for further more draconian action where it is warranted on a local level, with a clear presumption that such action should only be taken where circumstance demonstrably prove it to be necessary.

Having said all that there is still a bit of pride in me every time I see the "No Alcohol Beyond This Point During Football Matches" signs at Vicarage Road when I go to watch Saracens. Also, having praised the Nats, it should be noted that there may be a little self-interest in play. According to BBC,

'Mr MacAskill was arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly before the England versus Scotland Euro 2000 play-off at Wembley stadium.

'He had intended on going to the game but spent the night in police cells. He was not charged or cautioned and later claimed his arrest was due to a misunderstanding.'
BBC News

I'll put it down to enlightened self-interest, not that it really matters anyway. Even if it wasn't a misunderstanding, it is history, and anyway, it's outcomes that count, and this can only be a good outcome for Edinburgh. I suppose that in this case, in the words of Blur "I'm a professional cynic but my heart's not in it". I've been to the Calcutta Cup game at Murrayfield, had a great time, and the alcohol ban, while not an especially big deal, was just plain silly. There were thousands drinking into the early hours afterwards, without any incidents I could see that wouldn't happen in any city centre on any Saturday night.

Despite now living in one of the 'World Cities' I find the 'Burgh something special. For me it was a place where as a young boy, heading up to visit grandparents, you'd emerge from the strange semi-subterranean world of Waverley station to be confronted with everything to a child’s eye that a city should be. It was often near Christmas so the imposing and garishly illuminated shop façades of Princess Street to the right tended to catch the eye first of all, as they were designed to, followed by the soaring buildings that seemed to cling improbably some kind of mountain to the left, and, best of all, a real castle dominating the skyline at its summit. Work now takes me up there from time to time and even as an adult there’s something I love about the place. Some of it is a nostalgia I suppose, but there are also great people, great bars, pubs and eating spots, all mingled together with the great historical sites and the places where the modern business of the city takes place.

Lets hope that, come the next internationals, we'll hear Auld Reekie say nae mair pish to this particular bit of Nanny State nonsense.

Update 10th June: Oh dear the SNP seem to making worrying noises on retaining DNA samples from the innocent...I'm going to have to come back to that one.

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...