Christmas

May soon be changing the way I write my posts into more long winded political thought posts rather than always topical newsy type posts.

Took my political spectrum quiz, not quite so easy to say that almost everything is very important... but here it is:

My Political Views
I am a far-right social libertarian
Right: 7.77, Libertarian: 6.31

Political Spectrum Quiz

Oh and Happy Christmas!

Bankers Bonuses

Seems that my thoughts on bankers bonuses may have been slightly misguided. Sky are reporting that Tullett Prebon:

"One of the biggest trading firms in London is allowing staff to move abroad to avoid the "uncertainty" over the Government's bonus tax..."

This is exactly the sort of thing that I am worried about with the legislation. We do not want a 'brain drain' where top firms and highly talented individuals move elsewhere as a result of increasing taxation etc.

Cut taxes, cut regulation, cut the public sector. Growth will result :)

Tamiflu

Turns out that firm Roche has been withholding information regarding Tamiflu which has "made it impossible for scientists to assess how well the anti-flu drug stockpiled around the globe works by withholding the evidence the company has gained from trials, doctors alleged today ."

How familiar this sounds. Thaddeus has an excellent post regarding the matter over at Anna Raccoon.

Pre Budget Report

So this year's pre-budget report is now out. Not sure how interested we should be, but it appears that MPs really aren't that bothered: (from Obo)

 
So NI is to rise by 0.5% to raise another £3bn a year, which is excellent, more taxes is always good news.

VAT is to go back to 17.5%. Either they shouldn't have made the change in the first place (as the results are negligible, and consumers barely notice) or it should be kept at 15%.

I'm slowly turning towards the opinion that huge government spending may not be thes best way out of recession, I'd prefer a method of lower taxation and reduced regulation to let the free market find it's way out of the recession, this also doesn't have the unfortunate side effect of racking up huge debts and being forced to increase taxes and reduce spending at a later date. Oh yes but the Labour government do not have to worry about that, as they will not be in power when the time comes to fully deal with the consequences of their decisions.

Bankers bonuses are to be taxed with a one-off 50% tax on bonuses of more than £25 000 for a year. I'm still unsure of my opinion on this matter. I understand that bankers in banks that we rescued are effectively living off the state, and paying huge bonuses is therefore ridiculous as it was excessive risk taking and irresponsible banking that have worsened the situation and lead to the necessity of our support in the first place (ish). However I fully understand that by not paying bankers bonuses talented employees will move elsewhere, this is described excellently in this Adam Smith Institute article. For once I seem to be agreeing with a labour policy, on the surface anyway. The fact that it is a single year solution may encourage employees to stay on the premise that they will be earning highly again the following year, and the plan to keep a close eye on other methods of increasing bankers pay through backdated salaries etc is also a good idea.

One thing that I found ridiculous in the PBR was the forecasts of economic performance.

• Economy forecast to shrink 4.75% in 2009, worse than 3.5% forecast in April
• Growth of 1%-1.5% expected in 2010 and 3.5% in 2011 and 2012

So the previous forecast for economic shrink was an underestimation, yet they believe that in a year the economy will recover over 5% from a shrink of 4.75% to a growth of 1-1.5%?! Really? And then a prediction of 3.5% the following year? We spent the majority of the growth years (2000-2007) between 2 and 3% growth, yet they have forecast growth of 3.5%? ARE THEY MAD?

"New 10% tax on income from patents to boost science development."

I have very little knowledge on the area, but surely patents are there to encourage scientific development, in their absence there would be no advantage to scientific innovation as others will simply copy the idea. If this is in fact the case, then surely taxing patents is like putting a tax on cycling, in order to spend the money on encouraging cycling.

Copenhagen Clip

A nice opening to the summit:

Record Companies

Devils Kitchen has an excellent post regarding a development in the music industry. It turns out that record companies have effectively been exploiting artists by using songs in compilations without obtaining the necessary rights.

"And don't, for a second, think that the artists are playing softball with the music companies. In a wonderful double irony, they are using the music companies' own assessment of damages—used against individual filesharers—as a measure of how much said companies owe in damages."

Excellent.

Copenhagen

So the Copenhagen climit summit started today, in a typical hypocritical manner:



Annoyingly it seems to be what should be expected from these people "saving" the environment. They really don't give a shit. The "poor" developing countries that will allegedly suffer are more than pleased to receive aid from all those polluting prosperous bastards in the West, whilst governments in the West are falling over themselves to give money to these countries. I fully don't understand this.

From http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2009/12/flat-earthers-and-assholes.html:

"But even if we accept that the climate is warming, nobody has yet convinced us it's mainly down to our activities. The official line is that the link has been proved, but the people who say that have never presented the evidence in an open and transparent form that we can examine for ourselves. They simply assert it, present a load of hyped up exaggerated garbage like Gore's lamentable film, and rant hysterically at anyone who dares to question their authority."

From where I am standing, there should still be a considerable amount of debate regarding AGW (anthropogenic global warming), yet governments seem to be acting as if there is a global consensus on the topic. Why are they trying to rush into this? As the venerable KB has put forward, what actually are the consequences of global warming?

Here is a nice post regarding the hockeystick graph and the medieval warm period.

If anyone remembers the Maldives Cabinet meeting underwater to highlight their "plight" and the potential damage global warming could do to their country, here is an interesting brief describing a letter from a scientist who has looked properly at the claimed "rising" sea levels.

Even Iain Dale is dubious.

More ClimateGate

A global warming advocate gets a little bit riled by common sense and logic. Shows his true colours:

Welcome to The United States of Europe!

The Lisbon Treaty is ratified today, rejoice! Further integration into the EU, check my last post for a nice speech from Nigel Farage.

I really do not like being part of the EU, I'll explain in a full and coherant manner at some point.

"If it contains the same substance, why is the Lisbon Treaty not a constitution?
The constitution attempted to replace all earlier EU treaties and start afresh, whereas the new treaty amends the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Rome).It also drops all reference to the symbols of the EU - the flag, the anthem and the motto - though these will continue to exist."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8387648.stm

A nice quote from europa.eu :

"In a rapidly changing world, Europeans look to the EU to address issues such as globalisation, climatic and demographic changes, security and energy."

Do we? Do we really? I look to my democratically elected government regarding issues that I believe are important, CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Thought this was good