This is the most important lesson we might learn in modern times

So this Wikileaks chap has finally be released on bail.

But what a challenge it was. Can you believe how much the US government has gone through to nail this guy? Quite a lot I'm guessing. But I want to look at it from another angle.

First of all, I have no idea whether the information that wikileaks publishes is damaging or not. Most of the cables that were published just say what we already knew. The only difference is, it is the political establishment that is usually so coy, saying it.

But that isn't my concern. The fact that Saudi wants the US to bomb Iraq isn't that surprising, even if it is damaging, what is surprising is the control that can, and clearly has been exerted on almost every institution that should be resilient to control, for the purpose of protecting freedom and preventing the fascist state.

Ordoliberalism is a school of thought that developed during the Nazi period in Germany. They opposed the Nazis and hated their practices. The hated them so much that they spent alot of their time thinking of ways to make sure that the fall of a republic never need happen again. They'd watched the Weimar Republic go to pot, and they wanted to make sure that sort of thing never happened again. They decided private power, was the cause and as such, this should be limited.

In this case, however, it is not private power being used to manipulate political power, but the other way around. And that has demonstrated some staggering consequences.

So here are a few huge corporations that have given in to the man in black suit from the CIA:

• Amazon;
• 'Swiss bank';
• Paypal;
• Mastercard;
• Visa.

That is before we get on to the Swedish government themselves.

Now these are huge companies. They by rights should be able to stand up to the government, but clearly are even more at risk, as after all, they have more to lose.

This is a scary situation. The only way that Julian Assange can get bail is by cash or cheque, although if a cheque is being used then he'd have to wait until it cleared, which would just leave him in prison for a week. The reason why this is so concerning is that banks, in the name of efficiency have recently decided they want to scrap cheques by 2018. Further, it is the dream of the government to one day banish cash altogether. After all, if this is done, then every transaction can always be monitored... and it would appear, stopped.

So is that it? The government leans on a company and then they stop you having access to your own money? Just think, by Mastercard not letting anyone pay for Julian Assange's bail, they are stopping everyone, you, me, anyone from spending our money. They are dictating what we can use our money for, and not just in the sense of stopping buy crack with my income, I mean buying a man's freedom.

This concerns me.

What happens if a government considers you a dissident? What if they decide that they don't like your hair colour or your accent or your passion for freedom of speech? Does that mean they will lean on the Swedish government to arrest you? What about me? Will they lean on your bank to close your account? Will they lean on your card provider to stop people from helping you? Will they make sure that "that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark" of their approval? That is an unpleasant thought.

I know this all sounds like scare mongering, but let me put it this way, the US is a country that prizes freedom above all others. I would say that in many ways they have it ingrained into them to cherrish their freedom and protect it. Now, if the US cares about freedom so much and yet even their government can act in such a tyrannical way we can learn this: any government can be turned into fascists you just have to piddle them off enough.

So next time you think that getting rid of cash is a good idea because you don't use it anyway, next time you vote laws to your government because they'd never use them irresponsibly. Just remember what I said.

I'm not an anarchist and I not anti authoritarian, but I am, seriously, pro-freedom.

Now you've gone and destroyed the bar....

When they told me the bar was dying, I thought they were joking.

Ho ho ho, I thought to myself. That just means that if you become a Barrister these days you won't earn £200,000. Instead you'll have to survive on a mere £120,000 instead. That is what I thought, how wrong could I be? Answer: incredibly wrong.

What got me thinking about this was when I saw a guy driving around, who studied at Oxford before going on to the same law school as me. He had got pupillage in a local set (a highly respected one) and was working in the independent bar. He was still practicing, I knew this because he had the White book on his parcel shelf.

So what was he driving? "A Porsche of course! He's a barrister after all! He went to Oxford, he worked his butt off, he is minted!" You're thinking. But no. Not a Porsche, or an Aston martin. Not even a Mondeo or a BMW 3 series. He was driving a banger, no seriously a real banger. Something that would probably cost between £500 and £1,000. Worse than that, I first noticed his car (when he wasn't even in it) because it was tucked away on a side street with the hazards on.... that is to say, he was dodging having to pay to park.

This is a fully qualified barrister, pretty much the top of his class in everything and after 3 years of working he can't afford to pay for parking in a city centre and this isn't in London, this is in a provincial city. "This is taking the mick" I thought to myself. So I decided to do more investigation.

I started talking to other people who also went to law school with me and started working out what the wages were like. The answer: the bar is dead. Well, ok, not dead, there are still people working as barristers, but basically if the bar was a man, he would be stumbling toward the guillotine wondering why he has not been put out of his misery.

"No, you're wrong, I've read about a barrister who charges £200 per hour!" I hear you say. Well thats nice for them, but who cares, of course newspapers are going to focus on the 30 barristers who earn more than £2,000,000. But lets face it the best of any profession is always going to be paid far more than the rest of them. And if we're going to take the highest salaries of the job why not talk about the board of Barclay's Bank who are paid over £8,000,000? The best footballers are paid £30,000,000 but these are always the freaks, the unusual amounts, that is why they are getting reported, if they were getting a normal wage, it wouldn't be in the news.

It was reported not long ago that a man called Paul Dalton charges £5,000 to wash cars. There are usually cars worth a fortune in themselves and cannot be trusted to some chump with a sponge. Now to look at the top barristers and think that all are well paid is to look at Paul Dalton and think that if you get a bucket and sponge you can have £5,000 in your pocket by lunch.

"Fine, but I still know a Barrister who makes £80-100,000." Really? Do you? I guess that sounds like a lot of money but lets put this in perspective, if you are the manager of a Tesco Extra you get £100,000 p/a and a company car. Now lets compare the lifestyles, if you are the manager of Tesco and you make a mistake the tomatoes have to be thrown away and you have to bring in new ones. If you make a mistake as a barrister then someone may lose 15 years of their life when they shouldn't, a man will never get to see his own children again or a murder will walk the streets once more. I don't know about you, but I know which one I'd rather have on my conscience; rotten tomatoes all the way.

"But £80,000 is still a good salary", well first of all, you don't earn £80,000. You start off earning £10,000-£15,000. That is about the same as what you earn while you're working in a shop full time. There are people who work at factories who earn similar amounts and they don't have to pay chambers fees or pay for the fuel to get to court 50 miles away. Some people in Criminal sets (the worst paying) in London, don't even make a profit for the first few years, that is to say their wage does not even cover the cost of living. Which means only those whose parents are going to sub them for the next 3-5 years can even attempt to work as a Barrister.

Does it even pay later on? As I was investigating I found out about one barrister excited at the prospect that by the time they were 40 they may be making £40,000! Wow, how good would that be? Except if you're any good at what you do you could be making £50,000 working for a company.... and if you're not any good then you really shouldn't be working at the bar.

The fact is the only thing left at the bar is the reputation. The latent respect for a profession once filled with intelligent, wonderful people who could use words in ways so brilliant that they alter the mind of the person to whom they speak: persuasion. This one strand of dignity remains in the bar, it means that when you tell someone you're a barrister you receive instant respect. I dearly hope that this gets destroyed sooner rather than later. Why? You ask. Simple at the moment the best people are drawn to law, and then they leave realising it is an empty shell of what it used to be. Those who remain do so either for the faux status or because they are incompetent and they get a good living for an incompetent person. Either way if this is striped away people will start to realise that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

There does need to be reform in the law. I think, this may already be on its way. I worked for a advocacy company and as a starting wage (because I moved) I was earning a decent wage. This was far more than the £10,000 that one gets for their pupillage year. I was doing the same work, I was getting paid more and I was hired on merit by a firm, not on neoptism by chambers. This it appears is far more sensible.

It could well be that some of the bread and butter of the junior bar, £60 applications for this and that, have now been usurped by advocacy companies and therefore there isn't the critical mass of work to sustain a junior member of the bar like there used to be. If there was much more working going around previously I can imagine a day when a junior used to make a decent wage. But not any more.

The problem is, Chambers have made them almost impossible to defend. Advocacy companies can provide (albeit infrequent) work to those people who are based outside of the cities with chambers. They can also dedicate staff to recruitment and essentially they hold little sway for neopotism.

It appears that the advocacy companies take on more people than they can actually provide with sufficient work. Then those who can last and succeed do and those who don't leave, leaving you with those who have lasted.

This system isn't perfect, it means that many advocates don't have much money. But then, how is that different to the rest of the bar? In fact the only thing that should change is the name. Why is a trained barrister who does a barristers work said to be 'not practicing' just because the got into a firm instead of chambers?

But the benefit of this system is that people are taken on and those who want it badly enough can stay around. It isn't glamourous, it isn't well paid but it is a bit more fair.

So you don't like cuts? Who does?

There seems to be a lot of whinging going on at the moment about cut backs to the governments budget.

Every other day there is a document or statement made by a member of a publicly funded department or organisation that says if they are forced to make cut backs [insert public service] will suffer. It is almost like they are taking it in turns, each week a new department.

Yes, we know that cut backs make services suffer, well, that is when they are in the region of 25%. Frankly small cuts of around 5% should make no difference at all if departments do things efficiently but that is another point. The fact of the matter is however, and listen when I say this, because people don't seem to understand it: WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE. Well technically that is a lie, would could just refuse to cut back and then go bankrupt. But then everyone will lose their job and we will be in anarchy. It won't be a case of "I can't afford a new car" rather "there is not point in having a new car because it will just get petrol bombed in the next set of riots".

Cuts of this magnitude suck, but then the reason why they are having to be made is because we over spent in the first place. No one complained when Labour was piddling away hundreds of millions over the years, while claiming to have abolished boom and bust (a natural and inevitable economic occurrence).

Lets do the figures to show what I mean.

You are Mr UK. You earn £100 per week and it costs £100 per week to run the country properly.

When taking advice from Mr Labour you start spending £120 per week meaning you have to borrow £20. You keep doing this until you have a dept of, say £70.

You still earn only £100 per week and it still costs £100 to run the country properly and yet you now have to find more money to pay off the £70.

You could tax more, but that will just kill more companies who won't be able to afford it. So the only thing you can really do is cut back to spending £90 on the country and use the extra £10 to pay off debt. This means that something essential (like the police) has to be cut back more than it ought to be. It is bad for the country, but it is tough luck, you piddled the money that you borrowed away and now you have to pay it back.

So yes, our public services will be cut back too much, but that is the only remedy, if you don't like it you should have kicked off when the government was spending all the money during the good times... but you didn't.

Strikes on the Tube, how refreshing.

"Everyone, stop using your cars and get on public transport!" The message has been barked by politicians and green campaigners for years. It always has been and always will be, unless someone faces the inconvenient truth, or should I say truths.

Politicians want us all to use public transport despite the fact they all have private cars, if you're a minister yours will be driven by someone else. So why don't they use public transport? Well, simply put, it is not reliable and even if it was it is not safe for people of power and it does not convey power or status.... the exact same reasons why many people can't use it. But we will ignore that for now, that is not my point today.

My point today focuses on the tube strikes. London (and big cities generally) are the only places where public transport works: FACT. I'm not saying that as soon as a bus leaves London for Guildford the engine stops, I mean as soon as that critical mass of people disappears buses become too infrequent, stops too distant and the whole system just ceases to function. It all becomes hugely expensive and hugely time consuming. There just isn't the economy of scale to support public transport in the countryside any further than some small buses to take the old and the young around when they have no deadlines to meet.

But the Tube does work in London, even buses, which I think are pointless, generally, work very well in London. They are excellent. The Tube may be smelly, hot and often crowded, but the fact is that even at busy times one is able to navigate around one of the greatest cities in the world without too much problem and do it a lot quicker than in a car (if you need proof think about that Top Gear episode?).

So what is my complaint? Well lets pretend we live in a world where public transport works everywhere. I know, that takes a lot of imagination but humour me, if you will. All the people who work on that public transport will be members of unions. Unions will inevitably have as their heads self important people with absolutely no concept of commerce but rather the communist ideals that somehow their members are entitled to do their work, and where there is no work they should be paid anyway regardless of the inefficiency that produces. I am convinced that efficiency is the very last thing on the mind of a Union leader. Currently Tube workers are going to go on strike. I don't know what working as a Tube driver is like, I'm told their wage is around £40,000 and they holidays are good to compensate for the shift system but I don't think that is enough to make any real decision about their working lives. What I do know is that their Union is the most militant around and even people from the US brought in to help found that their attitude seemed like they lived in the 1970s.

As a result London's transport network is ceasing to function while they blackmail their employers into capitulating with their demands. Frankly I think this should be banned. The police aren't allowed to strike because it is essential that they work. Likewise the Tube is essential to the running of the London. They shouldn't be able to strike without some form of external acquiescence. I don't know if people are going to be able to get to work while the strike is on, but if they can't that is not the same as BA workers going on strike. There are no other Tube operators and buses won't be able to take up the slack.

....amazingly I still haven't got to my point, how shocking. My point is this, if we all used public transport the Unions would be able to make whatever demands they wanted. Bus drivers would be wearing Armani overalls and being paid more than your local GP. Fine... I exaggerate, but truthfully if everyone used public transport the Unions would be able to make largely whatever demands they wanted. And lets not pretend they wouldn't go against public pressure, everyone knows the British Airways strikes are moronic in a time of recession, but they still happen. Logic does not constrain strikes it seems.

So what should be done? If we can't use public transport because it is ineffective outside of major cities and even if it worked it would be liable to be an easy soft spot for unions, what should we use?

Years ago people used to drive cars. Saloon cars. Cars with 4 doors, 5 seats and a big boot. Today these Saloon cars are even bigger. The BMW 3 series is now bigger than a 5 series used to be years ago, and why? Who knows. 90% of the population these days don't need a car bigger than a 3 series. Everyone has their own car. In years gone by Mum, Dad, brother and sister would all be in the same car. Now Mum and Dad have their own car, the average birthday per woman is only 1.8 and as soon as brother and sister are 17 they get their own car, either a banger or a Ford Ka. So what is the point in having big cars?

Who needs a 5 series? Who needs a 7 series? These cars are obsolete. If you need to show status and wealth then why don't we start producing cars that are small and supremely expensive? Makes gold plated Corsas for all I care.

Private transport is here and here to stay. I wish the government would realise that and get on with it. The sooner they do the sooner we can start pouring money into real solutions to traffic problems like motorcycle lanes or car parking for those with small light cars. The smaller cars get the more confident people will be to get smaller again and this will decrease congestion (see what they have done in Tokyo) and decrease emissions. Who knows eventually we can get rid of those big buses too.

Obama, what were you thinking?

Obama has recently made the 'courageous' decision to support the building of a Mosque near 911 ground zero.

For those of you not familiar with British political sit-com "Yes, Minister" I will clarify that courageous means that the decision will lose votes and/or the next election.

Now, I'm a very pro-freedom kind of guy, so why do I think he made a complete cock up? Well first of all lets be clear, freedom to worship is centrally important to every country. If you can't walk into a church and worship Jesus, then there is something wrong in your country. But I don't believe that people should limit worship in the sense of having an official relgion of the country. Such behaviour usually just attracts the wrong people and as a result the religion often becomes nothing like what it should be, because the adherents are there, not to worship God but because they want to be associated with the states religion.

So if I want to support religious freedom (where it is not damaging a country) why is there a problem with having a mosque near ground zero. Well, for the same reason that I wouldn't want people having a protest against the war at Wootton-bassett (the place where British soldiers who are killed in action are returned to the UK).

If you want to make a point and protest, or if you want to worship that is one thing that is in your choice, however if you want to deliberately offend and annoy people, provoking violence and riots that is something else. The thing is all these things can be done at another time. or another place. Protests against the war would make more sense in London that in Wootton-bassett, a Mosque can be built elsewhere in New York without needing to be near ground zero.

The difficulty with this of course is where does one draw the line. Recently Christians were arrested for giving out Christian literature at an Arab festival. Could they have done that at another time? Of course, but that is not the point, the point is to reach Arab Muslims. What about pro-gay and non-pro gay people protesting at the same time? What about the really strange decisions in the UK where they allow English Defence league (EDL- anti-Islamisiation) and anti-EDL protests to go on in the same city at the same time?

Surely the anti-EDL protest doesn't think that by having a protest themselves at the same time they are going to convince those of the EDL to change their minds? So surely it must be for the purpose of confrontation and altercation?

It is a difficult line to draw in some cases but in this case one thing is clear, Obama has made a very courageous decision.

Environmentalists, how long until they start wearing long flowing white robes?

This one is going to be a proper rant. Something needs to be said, as it is starting to really grind on me whenever this is mentioned. I speak of: environmentalism.

This is a pretty big topic. When I say big, I don't mean large, I mean controversial. One of those topics where if you bring it up at a dinner party someone is going to end up upset, someone will be annoyed, there will be tears and a few people won't talk again. Very much the same as if you talk about politics and/or religion... and there, there, lies the problem.

Why do people care so much about green issues? Is it because the sake of the earth rests on the out come of the conversation? Well no, some of those involved may believe it does but lets face it we don't really know that.

What we know is for the last ten years the earth (overall) has actually got cooler, not warmer. Is this a blip? Well maybe so, but that leads me on to my next point. How long do records of the earths overall temperature go back? 10 years? 20? 30 maybe? Lets call it 50 just to give it a good chance. Right and how long has the weather been changing on this planet? Well if you're a literal-creationist you may say 10,000 years. If you're not then you will say 4.5 Billion years old.

So at best our records cover 0.5% of the whole of history and at worst 50/45 million years my calulator cannot work out what that is but I think it works out as about 0.000001% so one millionth of the earths history. Now tell me what other complicated system you can define patterns in having only that size fraction of the data involved? Answer, none.

I'm not saying there is climate change, I'm not saying there isn't. I'm not saying it is our fault, I'm not saying its not. I'm just saying anyone who thinks they know, is probably guessing or a fraud (in light of further evidence).

So why do people (notably those who believe that it is certain and scientific fact) care so much when there is so little data. Well first of all the government don't help by backing the whole thing to the hilt. Lets remember green issues means green taxes. So climate change is the governments chance to tax everything you need, but unlike with cigarettes and alcohol it won't come back to bite them in the form of a big NHS bill.

But this doesn't explain why people themselves go for this stuff... but I think I have an answer.

Which news papers adore ranting on about green issues more than anyone? Well judging by the big green ENVIRONMENT tab in the Guardian (notably absent from my beloved 'Times') I'd say it is the left wing Guardian. Which, perhaps not coincidently is also the paper that is the most anti-god or at least most leaning to an atheist slant.

This could of course be total co-incidence. No doubt about that, but I don't think it is. If you don't believe in God then you're forced to believe that you're a worthless peon with no relevance or purpose in history and that you are essentially just the result of a giant comic fart. Since we're oddly designed with the desire for purpose this poses a problem for atheists. Accept that you're pointless and that there is little reason for you to get out of bed in the morning or make up some really important reason and then get irritate about it in dinner parties if the subject is brought up. In other words make it a religion. Not one based on love and kindness as such but one based on ritual.

Think about it, it fits so well! You need ritual so sort your plastics from your glass. You need to believe that your doing something important, so believe you're saving the world! Although try not to think about the fact that evolution should have taught you that trying to save other worthless peons is pointless and probably counter productive, since they are you competitors).

So this gives you a reason to get up in the morning, but you still need something else. You need righteousness, something to make you feel good about yourself. Something to make you feel like you can work towards your own righteousness... you need a Toyota Pious... I mean, err... Prius! What an excellent machine! You can pump slightly more carbon into the atmosphere than if you owned a small European diesel, but with the added bonus of feeling like you are good and set apart from the evil non-pious driving masses. Sure your car does the same, if not slightly more damage to the environment, but you are seen to up more upstanding in your own eyes and the eyes of other adherents to your religion.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with recycling and frankly the destruction of the rain forest is just stupidity on so many levels. The fact is we live in this environment and so it is moronic not to take care of it... but really? If you're missing God is your life then it is your call if you want to replace it with a bit faith in climate change, go plant some trees.

Why you should never trust opinion polls

Put simply, why you should never trust polls:

"A survey by Lib Dem Voice finds that 90% of some 347 party members who responded support the decision to enter talks with the Tories"

...

"The first question was asked, however, in a way that meant they could hardly say no: respondents were first asked "Do you support Nick Clegg’s decision that the party with the most seats and most votes has the right to first seek to govern, either alone or with support from other parties?"

then asked: "Given the Conservatives won most votes and most seats, do you support Nick Clegg’s decision to enter into discussions with the Conservative party?""

So, basically, first decide what you want the answer to be, then thing of a question that elicits this answer.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/election10/

Tesco is taking over the world, apparently...

Tesco is building houses now, yes, that is right, they are building thousands of houses in the South East. So soon you will be able to buy a Tesco House on a Tesco Bank Mortgage, kit it out with Tesco Home goods on a Tesco Credit Card. You may be surprised to know, the Tesco bit, I couldn't care less about.

I know the obvious thing is to take shots at how Tesco is taking over the world and how they will have more information on you than the government, etc etc. But frankly it just doesn't bother me at the moment. Tesco doesn't rule to world, it rules the UK. Which frankly is just a slice of the world (even if it is the best slice) the world has many huge retailers and Tesco is just one of them. If it doesn't grow just like the rest of them, it will be taken over by Wall Mart or Macro or something and then everyone in the UK will be out of a job. Not good.

No what I think is idiocy is building houses in the South East... yes, the South East, one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, and they want to put MORE houses in. Presumable they have found a patch of green that still exists.

But this is just the underlying problem. The reason everyone goes to the South East is two fold:

1) all the good jobs are there;

2) because then you can make fun of Northerners.

Usually people go there for one of those two reasons, or a mix of both. And don't get me wrong, we all know bashing Northerners is good fun (in a light hearted manner). You've all heard the jibes... you live in the North if you live anywhere North of Luton and all that.

But mainly people go for the work. All the best jobs go to the South this draws everyone with a brain from the rest of the UK and so as a result everyone in the South can feel like an elite little club and look down on everyone else. But there is a problem, namely this is truely, monumentally idiotic, on a Gordon Brown scale!

The South East has all the good jobs so you HAVE to go there if you want one. This means that the house prices shoot up, because whether you like the place or not you HAVE to live there if you want to earn over £3.50 per annum.

As a result houses all cost £7,000,000 even if it is for a complete dive, it could be a one bedroom flat and it would still cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. This means employers have to pay more and crucially... my main point more of your wage goes on rent/mortgage payments.

So lets look at what would happen if all the jobs were not focused in the SE. Well, your company can afford to pay you ££55,000 per year. They must be able to, because they do. Of this £55, most of it will go on your mortgage, in fact if you had a £600,000 house and you were paying it off over 20 years (interest at 3%) your annual repayments would be £39,931.08. That's right £40,000 of your Great British Pounds just to like in bricks and mortar.

That is £40,000 that you could be spending on real things, but instead you are spending on a roof, that is before you've got to higher council tax, rates, etc.

If however jobs were spread out over the whole country that means there would be less demand for houses and prices would go down. If you buy a house in Wales, the West Country or the North it would cost you a fraction of the price and you would be able to buy somewhere twice as big and twice as nice. More to the point your company is going to be paying you the same amount of money. Lets remember there is no conversion rate for taking your money to Yorkshire, you'll still be on £55,000 per year. The difference is now your house costs £300,000 so your annual mortgage bill is £19,965.48.

So lets sum up, you have the same wage, you have a bigger house, you have more room, your garden is huge, the drive to work involved less congestion (so you have more time) and you now have an extra £20,000 per year to spend on whatever your heart desires! That is a new BMW 3 series every year!

The only people who would lose out are those who have paid off their whole house in the South East already, and lets face it, they are going to be rich enough and probably own a couple of houses in the provinces anyway (which will go up in value) so everyone is a winner.

Finally, I hear you nasally whine "but then I'd have to live in the North". Well even if you do want to assume the North is a dive, filled with the tasteless and the toothless (which I'm not saying it is) as soon as the jobs are moved then the intelligent and the refined will be moving with them... all the fun of the South, but for half the cost. Frankly, I have no idea why someone hasn't done all this before.

Hurray for debates... oh wait, no BOOOO!

The first UK election TV debate ever! How exciting! 10 millions people tuned in, making the first one, the most watched program for the whole channel that night. How exciting, what a way to inspire interest into the election!

Then, Nick Clegg won. I think I was quite interested to see what happened in the debate. But after seeing what happened, I think that they are a bad idea... yes I know, that is because I'm massively bias. That is true, I'll be up front and say that I'm a Tory (despite being of a throughly working class background).

The reason why I don't like the debates (after seeing one) is because of my old simple complaint. Nick Clegg won, no, that isn't the complaint. Why did he win? He won the first debate because no one knew or cared about him. He was a nobody and so when he said something no one really criticised it, because they didn't know enough about him to know all the really stupid things that his manifesto contains. Is that his fault, not at all. But is that a good reason for someone to succeed, not really.

Let me put it this way, the policies that he made were the same ones that existed before when no one would bother voting for him. What changed was that he looked good in the debate. No new policy, no change in substance, just he looked good, he looked new.

As a result apparently he has garnered quite a following amount floating voters. He has even got lots of new people to sign up to vote. Great! most people are thinking, he has increased interest in politics.

But why is that great? The people who are voting for him couldn't care enough to be bothered to look at his policies before and yet they now want to vote. He has gathered to himself, those who can't be bothered to put any effort into voting, the 'he looks quite good' vote.

In short this debate has made politics less about policy and more about personality. This is shallow and pointless. Why not just skip out the debate and decide purely on which tie the leaders choose. Make it even more asinine?

I understand why people don't bother voting, the complexities of the economy are so difficult to grasp not even those who are trained in it get it right (inter alia the recession!) so what chance does Joe Bloggs have who doesn't know how the stock exchange works, has no idea what the IMF does and can't manage his own credit card bills let alone understand our countries credit?

I'm not being harsh, I'm not saying people are stupid, it is just a perfectly valid observation. So why do you want such people to then decide who is best to help the economy recover? Everyone is going to say they know best and everyone is going to say the other party will ruin it. How is the public going to decide? Most of them, on personality and class. The Tories are going to look out for toffs, Labour are going to look out for single mothers and Liberals.... no one knows... or should I say knew. Which is why they were failing so badly. They had failed to ally themselves to a class of the population.

Now they have the young and hip vote... anyone who doesn't really care but has decided they don't like the parties in at the moment because they are too 'mainstream'.

So that is what our countries future is going to be decided on... who has a reputation for being nice to their 'class' and who is seen as a bit alternative, a little bit edgey... suffice to say it 'does my head in'.

Independence for Scotland and Wales... just means Dependence on Germany and England.

I'm not English. Not even slightly, I don't have a drop of English blood in me. No matter which line of decent you follow I'm Celtic through and through, which is why it should be all the more notable when I say: devolution for Wales and Scotland is the most stupid idea around and people who adhere to such ideas probably try to go to toilet through their elbow.

I was listening to Radio 4 today while driving through the countryside, windows down and the sun shining like a bucolic dream listening to people ask questions of the two national parties of Scotland and Wales.

People were asking their usual questions like whether council tax could be frozen etc when someone mentioned how pointless 'independence' for Wales and Scotland is when the power of the UK is increasingly being vested in the EU.

HURAH, someone hits the nail on the head. Don't get me wrong I find is all very amusing that Scotland wants independence now that it has realised that it has a couple of million barrels of oil of its coast but what are they going to achieve if they just become a smaller nameless state in the EU.

Lets be frank, the EU cares about the UK because it is in essence a third of its money. Germany, France and the UK power Europe and the rest of Europe tags along because they get something out of it... usually money in the form of billions of Euros of subsides.

However can you really imagine the EU giving a flying' about Scotland? A country where Whiskey makes up 20% of its exports alone. Don't get me wrong I'm sure Scotland is important I'm sure Wales is important (even if it was left out of an EU map once) but they are more important as a United Kingdom, even in the EU.

Outside of the EU they are meaningless. Are we doing to have Scottish embassys across the world? Do you think Wales would make it into the G8? Do you think Scotland is going to fund its own MI6, MI5 and GCHQ? International influence would become practically 0.

As for influence through the EU, how much less influence do you think Scotland would have in the EU... a whole continent as opposed to the UK which is an island. That is like thinking that you can go into a bigger busier room speak at the same level and more people will be able to hear you. It is rubbish, your voice just gets drowned out. Ironically it wouldn't surprise me if Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland had more influence in the EU through bring part of the UK than they did individually. In other words the sum is greater than its parts.

But what is this desire for independence really about? For Scotland they want to spend their own money on themselves, they have realised they have enough oil to go out for a binge drink and they want to get drunk. They don't want to have to hand the cash over to London who will spent it on defending the country or diplomatic relations, or other things that don't seem to have an immediate pay off, but from which we all benefit.

But lets face it, I know my people. The Celts are a hard bunch, you pick any war that Britain has been involved in and it will always be the Welsh, Irish and Scottish who have done the fighting and won. The English, just point us in the direction of whoever they want us to beat. However the Celts have never excelled at ruling themselves.

The problem is if Scotland does get independence they are just going to cock it all up. They will end up like Ireland, they have independence and they have nearly bankrupted themselves and now they are selling their independence to the EU to be bailed out. So what is the point?

Independence from the UK is just dependence of Germany, only real difference is that in becoming so you lose any influence you had. To put it another way, I can name every country in the UK, I can't name every state in the US, and of the 48 I can I know only about 5 of them matter.

Does the government believe in 'climate change'?

Recently a court case in the UK decided that London Heathrow Airport could not have another runway built because it clashed with the governments papers/commitments on climate change.

Now I'm going to ignore what mot lawyers would be interested in (how can a court make such decisions on government policy) and focus on the concepts behind climate change in the first place.

Instead I'm going to focus on why the government that is so committed to leading the way in carbon emission reduction seems so happy to build new runways, even when they are in some of the most stupid places you could image.

You see climate change seems to be to a topic that divides people down the middle, purely because those who do believe in it are so fervently passionate about it that it often affects their whole lives, it is, in a manner of speaking, their religion.

It effects everything from where they go on holiday, to the brand of tea they drink. A Muslim won't buy pork, a Christian may prefer fair trade, a climate an environmentalist may buy food that has been transported the shortest distance (no Australian wine or New Zealand kiwi fruit for you!)

Then you have the issue of whether it is actually happening. The average global temperature hasn't changed for the last ten years. Considering China has become a major economic player (and pollutant producer) in that time such a result is very odd indeed. Even at this moment everyone reading this is likely to be surprised, check it out since you inevitably won't believe me.

However, my problem is not with whether or not climate change is happening or not, but rather the two faced hypocrisy of those running the government. The government wants YOU to believe in climate change because then you cannot complain each time it hikes up petrol duty, each time it refuses to build a car park (thus making you drive around for 15 minutes trying to find a space) and it gets money for ticketing your car. Each time it raises road tax. Climate change is in effect a source of free money to the government. A licence to tax at will and to do so with the moral high ground, all the while being driven around the Westminster area in a nice Jaguar paid for by the public.

But what about the behaviour of the government itself? The government wants to expand Heathrow so that it has 3 runways. It wants to do this because it will make the airport more effect, it will increase the number of flights that are possible, it will create jobs and revenue. Revenue of course being the magic word.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that is bad. Our economy needs money. Without competition the jobs just go else where. All the other European Capitols have many more runways, usually 5 or more. But the point is how can you on the one hand tax anything that produces a mg of Carbon Dioxide and then on the other accept that Carbon Dioxide is just a part of life and economy. Either you accept that it is required if we're not to live in the dark ages (literally dark in this case) or you don't.

So I went looking for more evidence that the government really believes that climate change is real. I thought about the Thames barrier. "Wait a minute! They wouldn't have built that if there was no real threat of climate change!" I thought to myself. But alas no, having looked into it the barrier is actually there to protect London against seasonal changes in tides. It was conceived in a time when the worry of climate change was largely nothing more than a glint in the environmentalists eye. So that isn't it either.

So I'm throwing it out there, can anyone think of real evidence that the government cares about carbon emissions?

Sure they like you buying low emission technology, but that is probably because such techology is made in developed Western nations where we're concerned about that sort of thing.

I was talking to a plumber about boilers once (fascinating conversation, I wish you were there) he said that the more advanced boilers use less gas, but because they are more complicated there is more to go wrong and so you end up just spending the money you saved on replacement parts, and lets not forget where those replacement parts are made; a factory.

Not just any factory either, quite possibly one on the other side of the earth. So that fuel efficient boiler you own has parts made from steel in India, shipped to Japan where it is processed (again using energy) then shipped around the world again to you. How much carbon did you say you were saving?

Don't get me wrong I don't want to get all 'Clarkson' on you, I'm not trying to convince not to believe in climate change, all I'm asking is, genuinely; does the government?

Let the BBC live?

There is a general discussion going on these days about whether or not the BBC should be funded by what is essentially a tax. Anyone who has a device capable of receiving television in the UK is automatically required to pay a 'TV licence' that goes straight to the BBC.

Now I am a free marketeer, so my instinct is that this is wrong. TV should be chosen by the people and they can pay for what they want... or even better they don't have to pay at all because there are breaks for adverts to be shown and this allows the TV companies to pay for themselves. This works in most countries including the US from where we import many fine programs (the ubiquitous 'friends', 'Scrubs' the amusing comedy 'Big bang theory'etc). So instinctively I'm inclined to look at the insane amount of money that Jonathan Ross gets from doing what I essentially do everyday (be social, out going and ask people what they have been up to/working on) and I think what a load of rubbish, make them work for a living live everyone else, but I can't quite do it!

So why does my ever present free marketing spirit become more reticent when I consider the BBC? Quite simple: TV is garbage! I mean really now, I haven't watched a program on ITV for as long as I remember, the only programs I watch on Channel four have been imported from the USA. There is literally nothing on commerical TV produced in the UK that I have, or want, to watch.

The problem with commercial TV is that it is dependent on ratings so what we get is 'lowest common denominator' programs, that is programs that are so simple that everyone can watch them without requiring the slightest use of the neglected organ in your skull. This means that UK TV is just filled with mindless 'reality TV' shows that have the same draw on me as a request to massage the feet of someone with a fungal infection. It is just nasty.

I was talking to an 'intellectual' from Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago and he was saying how everyone listens to the BBC in Saudi, people have a huge respect for it internationally and this is in places that aren't exactly 'West friendly'. Looking at my own experience, I can see why. BBC iPlayer is on my favourites list on my internet browser... I don't think I've even checked if ITV have an online content provider. That says it all.

This is before we get onto issues like iPlayer, Radio 4 and Radio 1 which while Radio 1 plays music largely available on other stations I just can't imagine a commercial radio station producing the sort of thing found on Radio 4.

Lets put it another way when I'm driving home at 1 in the morning and the only thing available of the other stations is 'nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish' I am really, really glad that the BBC radio 4 exists and it isn't paid for by the hard core dance lobby.

With the money that BBC has in excess (through a moderate tax on everyone) excellent programs are produced and technological progress can be made (iPlayer) in which it would otherwise be too expensive to invest. My favourite programs ever made in the UK are Blackadder and Yes, Minister, both produced by the BBC (albeit years ago). All the while British culture is exported through BBC worldwide which is good for the nation too.

Finally the issue of it being a tax, yes it is a tax, lets be honest, calling it a licence doesn't really make it less of tax. But it is a tax for which the money paid goes directly to the product. It is not like other taxes where the money is taken off you then funneled into a big sack where the government then gives it to whoever they fancy, you know exactly where the money is going to go. This is good, because the BBC knows that if it ever stops producing quality and starts producing rubbish it is going to get kicked out into the cold faster than you can say 'Rupert Murdoch'. As a result (unlike with most government) they have the hot breath of redundancy just close enough so that they have to work hard and yield results otherwise they'll get their P45.

The more I think about it the greater it would be if all tax was like that. How much quicker the DVLA might answer the phone if they knew that if they didn't they may end up in the dole queue? How many retarded government schemes would be dropped if there was a direct specific tax to fund them, I would love to hear the conversation to even explain it:

"well sir, we're going to take money out of your earnings so that we can pay for youths caught joy riding to have driving lessons, so that they can joy ride safely" (this actually happened)

Many useless taxes wouldn't even be started because they are so pointless no one would go for it and those that didn't work after a few years would quickly get binned.

So there you have it, want to solve the tax problems? Get yourself a 'tax licence'.

Sarkozy, you've summed it all up!

I type this in the hope that in doing so my blood pressure will lower itself and my heart rate will return to normal. I've just spent I don't know how long rumaging though the various EU/EC/EEC treaties looking up various phrases here and there... yes, I know, very exciting.

I am trying to calm myself down because just thinking about how moronic the Treaty of Lisbon is makes me what to eat my keyboard.

The French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, proposed to remove from the Treaty of Lisbon the aim of "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted" . In previous treaties the wording was that the Community would seek "a system ensuring that competition and the internal market is not distorted". But the point was the same. Nick', however wanted this removed, and this alone perfectly explains why uniting Europe is like a communist and an avid economic liberal to agree on how to run a country, because in essence that is exactly what it is.

Apparently Nick wanted to alay the fears of his country men that the EU was becoming too "Anglo-Saxon". What, pray tell, does this mean? Too Anglo-Saxon, does that mean the EU is working more efficiently?

There is a world of difference between how the UK works and how the EU works.

In the UK competition is good, it means honest fair and hard working people do better than those who are lazy and/or incompetent. While the concept isn't perfect, it is generally the model we follow. In France competition is bad, which is why they are so quick to be protectionist. Despite this protectionism their real GDP growth is consistently lower than the UK. Even in the EU what they are concerned with is protectionism, think of Champagne, it is a noun really, it means a sparkling wine. But in the EU thats to Protected Designation of Origin Champagne means a wine from the Champagne region, everything else is 'sparkling white'.

And though I hate to come across as xenophobic (I'm sorry but if people are going to be pro-Europe then I have to put them straight) I can go on:

Spain had an unemployment level of 10% even before the credit crunch started;

Iceland is now completely bankrupt (unfortunately);

Greece, Portugal, Spain (and now apparently) Italy are also going down the pan and want a bail out from the EU

The only countries that actually contribute to the EU are Germany and the UK, the UK is obviously Anglo-Saxon... and where did the Angles and the Saxons come from? Oh yes, Germany... no wonder the EU is 'becoming more Anglo-Saxon' that is the style that actually works.

Out of all of Europe the UK has the longest working hours, coming behind the US on the global stage of course (another 'Anglo-Saxon' style country?).

Now, which way is the better way of life? That is another question. If I lived in Italy, if I had a villa, a pool, a small vineyard and panoramic views down the sweeping mountain side, I probably wouldn't care so much for economics myself, I probably wouldn't be too fussed about the stock exchange either and that is fine. I understand that completely. What I don't understand is why people think that people who work in completely different ways are going to be able to work together in a Union based on a common economic policy.

Waiiiiit a minute, say what?!

In the UK we have a teenage pregnancy problem. It is easily the worst in the whole of Europe.

We have this amazing policy in the UK which is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to make sure everyone in the UK knows how to have sex. Now to me sounds like the least logical argument ever to stalk the corridors of power.

To me that is the same as; teach everyone to hotwire and car crime will go down. Or teach everyone how to shoot and gun crime will go down. Not only does it not make sense it is obviously going to make things worse and anyone could see that... anyone.

Up until now however I have always been under the illusion however that in the US, where as the behest of the religious Christian majority they teach abstinence, the situation was just as woeful. There I was lead to believe, just as here the clinics are filled with young mothers who are on their 13th unexpected pregnancy and their abstinence policy is ineffective.

But lone behold this is lies. While the pregnancy rate isn't great over in the US it has been consistently coming down since its peak in 1988

[Ventura SJ, Matthews MS and Curtin SC, Declines in teenage birth rates, 1991-1998: update of national and state trends, National Vital Statistics Reports, 1999, Vol. 47, No. 26; The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Sex and America's Teenagers, New York: AGI, 1994; and Maynard RA, Kids Having Kids,Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1997.]

Teen births, pregnancies and abortions are all constantly and almost unceasingly decreasing in the US under the policy of teaching ABCs (Abstinence, 'be' faithful, contraception, in that order).

Meanwhile in the UK, the country of 'enlightenment' we have a report stating:

"The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex ...

research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice."

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html#ixzz0ftV1BuCZ]

Well, I didn't see that coming! (on a minor note, £2,500pp, who was giving the seminar, Richard Branson!) Strangely this program originated in New York, it is just a pity they didn't try importing the ABC program instead.

Still you can understand really, just because something is tried and tested, just because it works well and would cost about £2,499pp less to implement than the other scheme that doesn't mean that is should be trialled in the UK does it!

The [in]equality bill.

The Times headline reads: "Churches win fight over discrimination". Harriet Harman has backed down and said she will not try and push the 'Equality bill' through Parliament again.

Well this is interesting, why would an 'equality bill' be prevented from becoming law? It has the word 'equality' in it and everyone likes that, right?

Essentially what was being pushed through was actually an amendment, it is a piece of law to force Churches to employ people that it deems inappropriate. Harriet Harman said that 'exceptions would be made' for ministers and priests, but essentially the other positions would of course have to be open to anyone, positions such as youth workers or the church accountant.

Now while I don't know of any church that could let alone would ensure that its accountant is Christian (unless it has an accountant amoungst its members) I am at a complete loss as to how a youth worker is different from a minister. Surely if they are leading in any real role it is essential they behave in a certain manner, just like the minister. Maybe I'm making a mistake and youth workers aren't actually roles models for the youth they lead? I don't think so though.

Does it make any difference if you have a youth worker or a minister telling you not to drink too much and then going out and getting drunk every Friday night down the local for everyone to see? I think not.

While Harriet Harman's attempts maybe considered admirable when considered in the light of 'equality' and fighting in the name of fairness, in the practical light of day the concept is hideously flawed.

Allow me to give an example of what I mean, would you think that it was unfair to give the post of head of the National Black Police Association to a black person? No, of course not, it is logical. In fact you would consider it rather remarkable if they chose a white person.

What about Stonewall hiring a person to work with 'youth' who while professionally would support the cause made it known publicly that they hated homosexuals? No, that would be ridiculous.

Would you let someone who spends most of their time intoxicated run a campaign for the government about sensible drinking, or even a temperance campaign? Not if you're sane.

The fact underlying all these points is that adhering to certain beliefs or behaviour is sometimes necessary for someone to be able to do a job, especially that of youth work, not even that of a youth worker.

The fact is if they don't adhere to that belief or behaviour they just won't be able to do the job in the same fashion as someone who does. Pretending otherwise it a logical fallacy for those who only like discrimination their way.

I know this sound unnecessarily harsh on Ms Harman and those of her ilk, but lets be honest it is true. I don't complain that I wouldn't be elected head of the Association of Libertarian Feminists because I know if they did elect me it wouldn't make sense. The same applies to churches.

Some see the equality bill as applying solely to homosexuals. But it doesn't, it applies to adulterers, alcoholics, the violent, and a host of requirements that are noted specifically in the Bible. Some of these things aren't illegal, but they would still need to be filtered out for someone to work in a church (you would hope).

I don't know why out of all the organisations mentioned in this article Harriet Harman feels the need to pick on churches specifically, but it appears that she isn't going to take it further, so on that well done to her. Maybe in future if people are going to force illogical equality upon us they would do it 'equally' and then maybe they will see what a baseless move it would be!

N.B.

Speaking of discrimination, isn't that would interviews are about? You have a number of candidates and you have to discriminate between them. I will will be discriminated against because I didn't go to Oxford for my undergraduate and others will be discriminated against because they don't have degrees. Isn't that the point? When it comes to working in a phone shop I would hope they would discriminate against people who don't have an interest in phones and in boxing I would imagine they discriminate against people who aren't violent. What about discrimination against the lazy, the stupid etc. Does a gym have to consider a trainer who is fat, smokes 50 a day and has an unhealthy lifestyle, or can you discriminate against them based on that lifestyle choice? Where is the line drawn?

How dare you seek to have the best chance in life!

So my last post was the definitive guide to class difficulties in the UK. It is excellent, I'm very pleased with it. As I read the Times article suggesting that private schools should be banned, I just wish everyone in Britain could read it (I imagine Google does too, but for different reasons).

It appears that in the wonderful world some people think equality is more useful than, well utility come to think about it. The concept that going to a school with other bright people gives you an advantage and that is unfair, so it is better to send us all to mixed school so we can all be equally stupid. It makes society worse, but at least it will suck for everyone, not just the few at the bottom of the pack.

It reminds me of what Jeremy Clarkson once said: 'socialists don't like helping the poor half as much as they like hurting the rich'. It appears he is a wise man. Grouping children together on how much their parents care about education is going to give the ones who do care an advantage over those whose parents don't. Those who are grouped in high level schools are going to have an advantage over those who are late developers and are therefore not put in high level schools. But this brings up a question, which is more important: everyone having exactly the same, or having a wholly functioning, intelligent civilised society that can support itself and those in it?

If everyone having the same is so essential then there are a few other changes that need to be made.

Parents should no longer bring up their children.
Some parents are smart others are thick, some are workaholics some are alcoholics. This isn't equal therefore all children should be brought up by the state.

Money
That is easy, time for Communism people it doesn't matter how hard you work or if your co worker is lazy, you should always be paid the same.

Intelligence
Some are born smarter than others, so not fair! If someone is more intelligent then they should be forced to drink until they kill enough brain cells so that we're all equally thick.

Good looks
We don't all look like Brad and Ange, so good looking people ought to start being forced to wear paper bags over their heads... that way everyone is equal

Hormones and fitness
Some of us have high testosterone and serotonin others have low, this isn't fair, it effects how we look, how fit we are, how strong we are, how much discipline we have. It makes a whole lot of sense to force the strong fit and healthy to smoke themselves into a state of bad health so everyone is on the same platform, after all some gifted people are so smug as to make use of their talents and succeed in sports and athletics. This is obviously unfair on those who spent their lives failing to move from the settee and so it must be rectified. After all think of when they go for a job, they will have less extra curricular activities on their CV!

This is of course an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, but nonetheless hopefully it makes a point. We are all different and life cannot be made 'fair' by state intervention. Sure we can help those at a natural disadvantage but some people are always going to have more opportunities than others. If we take that away from those people we're not helping anyone else, we're just confining our country to mediocraty and sending us back to the stone age.

The definitive guide to class in the UK.

This is starting to annoy me now. Everyone wants to express their opinion on why there is no class mobility. or why class mobility is so bad in the UK. The problem is most of the people who are expressing these opinions are journalists and politicians who chances are (by nature of their job) have no idea what problems there are for the working classes. So here it is, the definitive answer.

To begin after an introduction like that I feel I ought to explain a little about myself. Since this is the Internet and essentially anyone can read this however, it will be just that, a little.

My family heritage is based firmly in the working class. My fathers first job was digging roads and now I'm here a Barrister. So I feel I can state with confidence that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to class and class barriers.

Point number 1: Someone working class people just have an inferiority complex.

Some people who are successful in Britain still go on moping about how they don't really feel totally accepted in the middle class and how they still feel like outsiders. Allow me to put this in the plainest possible terms, just because you have an inferiority complex that doesn't mean that you don't fit in. What it means is that your insecurity is telling you that you don't fit in, despite the fact that you have in fact 'made it'. You have made the transition from one class to another. Your subjective feelings however are nothing to do with what anyone else thinks about you.

Admittedly this isn't something from which I suffer. As far as I'm concerned anyone who thinks they are better than me because they were born with money and I wasn't is actually proving the reverse. I have got to where they now are with less than what they had. This means that I'm superior, if they were as good as me then they wouldn't be where I am, they would be on a beach in Barbados living off their controlling interest in Virgin, in other words they would be Richard Branson, who now I come to think about it, wasn't born with money either, in fact he was born with very limited academic ability.

Point number 2: Some state schools are useless, but not for the reason you think.

Bla bla bla, private schools are so unfair, state schools aren't good enough bla bla bla. I'm so tired on this argument I don't know where to begin. The state school I went to was dire. I don't mean 'oh you didn't get an A*' dire, I mean 'pat that kid down for knives' dire. This got better at sixth form, but it was still no picnic. But the question to ask is why did it get better in 6th form? Th reason is that all the people who didn't want to be in school left. That is why it got better. It was still underfunded, the teachers still had to pay for their own white board pens, but the people who didn't want to be there left, and that is what counts. The attitude of the pupils who are there. Everyone in private school not only wants to be there, but wants to be there so badly that they are willing to pay £9,000 per year to be there. You don't pay that unless you really care about what you're coming out with (or you're so rich £9,000 is nothing but they often don't do well). The idea that public schools are better because they are better funded and therefore have better equipment is like me claiming that Marcel Fischer is a better fencer than me because his Épée cost more than mine. It may be true but it has nothing to do with why his is better (assuming he is of course!).

My school was rubbish because the attitude of the pupils was not one of competition and wanting to get the best marks possible. It was because it was filled with idiots, who thought school was "s***" and then left to spend their life on benefits and shop lifting, that isn't a generalisation, that is two case studies.

The fact is if these people went to a public school they would be kicked out and their backward looking educational outlook would leave with them. That just didn't happen in my school because the state makes it illegal for them not to go to school. As a result the morons must go somewhere and that somewhere was the same place that I went to learn.

Now those of a Guardian reading disposition love to say that failing state schools is a fault of the government. This is rubbish. All my teachers did their best under the circumstances and a good few went above and beyond what was required of them. But that doesn't change the fact that you're teaching an idiot, not because they aren't intelligent, but because they place no value in knowledge, to mis-quote the famous philosopher 'Chris Rock' "nothing pleases a [chav] more than not knowing something". To go slightly higher brow, Proverbs 1:22 “ How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge.

And this is something that Guardian readers can't grasp, some people are fools. They are not stupid, they do not lack resources, they lack no good only that they are fools. I don't consider these people below me or anyone else for that matter. I don't think they are particularly bad, 'but for the grace of God go I' as John Bradford once said (well technically referred to himself in the third person, but we'll ignore that for the sake of simplicity).

These people need support but it is not more money for teachers and it is most certainly not banning private education from the rich. There is little the state can do because the attitudes that these people need are instilled by their parents and their families at large, this is something that the state just cannot do, no matter how much socialists like to think it can. It is society at large which has an effect on these people, not some man in number 10 who will never see or meet them. But I guess socialists don't like that idea, because it means you can't just load the blame on Parliament and anyone who so evil as to be rich.

No, if people really wanted to reform the education system they would do thus: they would allow parents to send their children to whichever school they like. This way parents who care about education will all go to good schools with others who are the same. Those who don't care about education will let their children go to whichever school is easiest because they don't care. The former schools could then focus on the dizzy heights of accomplishment and the later could focus on providing the type ambition and life skills that they may not be getting else where. It isn't a perfect solution I know, but then as I've already said, this is just one fight that the state cannot sort out on its own. It is in the hands of their families.

Point number 3: No one asks at interviews what is your fathers occupation.

There seems to be a thought that somehow when you go for an interview you will be given the job because you are middle class or upper class. No I don't know about you but I've never been asked what is my fathers occupation in an interview, so I fail to see how they are going to know whether anyone is upper, middle or lower class (or anything in between). Dress code, language and accent can all be modified if needed rendering one class indistinguishable from the next. The only indicators are the names of the schools and the universities. Frankly if there was a new convention introduced that the name of the schools were not allowed to be put on CVs and application forms (replaced with a serial number instead) I would have no problem with this at all. As for Universities generally Oxford and Cambridge give preference to state school candidates so there is unlikely to be class bias there. There is of course the issue of contacts, but I consider nepotism separate from class discrimination, I will address this later.

Point number 4: getting more people to go to university would do nothing, in fact it would be a hindrance.

Labour thought that sending everyone to University would make things fair. It doesn't. Not even slightly. First of all, we need to face facts that not everyone is intelligent enough to do a chemistry degree, in which case teaching them media studies isn't going to cut it. Getting more people to go to University just devalues degrees, this means that the value of the degree becomes less important forcing people to decide on other factors, such as, oh I don't know, contacts! All the while we don't have any plumbers and so we have to import the whole of Poland to compensate (which I imagine the Polish aren't too happy about). Although the people who really are well off can afford to just do a masters or an MPhil putting them ahead of those who cannot afford to do so. This brings things right back to class and money, except everyone has wasted three years of their lives doing a useless degree when they could have been working. That's the thing about money, the rich always have more of it.

Point number 5: nurture or nature, logically it would make sense for middle class couples to have intelligent children.

Oh my, middle class children earn more! How can this be? Well lets just think this through shall we? Whether you think intelligence is due to DNA or whether you think it is down to your upbringing, either way this favours middle class children. Between the ages of 2 and 10 I constantly harassed my father with every question my youthful mind could muster. Since my father has the patience of Job, rather than telling me to shut up before he drove off a cliff (we were often in the car at the time I recall) he told the time and effort to answer these inane questions. When we were travelling we would have a game of 'Capitols', one person names the country the other person has to state the capitol city. To this end I was devastated the other day when I couldn't remember the capitol of Romanian was Bucharest. Anyway, the point is that my cerebral development had as much to do with my parents intelligence and reception to knowledge as it had to do with to which school I went. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that stupid parents cannot give birth to intelligent children, but logically it is going to be less likely. The result of this is obvious, intelligent children are likely to grow up and have high earning jobs. It isn't rocket science, and it isn't a class conspiracy.

While I did intend for this evaluation to be comprehensive, I didn't expect it to be so long, so I'm going to cut it in two here.

I'm not sure if you know Mr Reader but Gordon Brown is making off with your wallet.

I was planning on rambling on about poor Myleen Klass today. She recently had some guys peering through her window at mid night when only she and her daughter were home. She waved a knife at them and they left. Nothing wrong with that, until the police came around and told her off for possessing an offensive weapon.

But the thing is it is a bit too obvious. Everyone knows that a woman at home having people considering breaking into their house should be able to use most means available to scare away the intruders, and when no one is hurt in anyway they certainly should be told off for it.

All this is straight forward though, and there is something a lot more important that has come into view. It is not more important as such, but it is less obvious.

I have recently read about Labour taking money from the government foreign aid budget and giving it to the TUC.

Let me put that plainly, Labour is taking money earmarked for Orphans starving in Africa and giving it to the Trade Unions, who, pay large amounts of money to Labour.

I don't mean Labour as in the government either, I mean as a political party. Labour is taking tax that would/should/could be spent on schools hospitals and infrastructure and they are paying it into their own party bank account (indirectly).

So tax is being spent on keeping labour in power, propaganda and so on. If you are a UK citizen you are paying money to brain wash yourself that Labour aren't an incompetent bunch of morons. Why you ask?

Well it is also in the news that Labour as a party (not as a government) is all but bankrupt. They have massive debts and there is no chance of money coming in. So they are either going to go bust or use their dying moments in government to embezzle money out of the public to keep themselves afloat.

Apparently 'Jim, they're gone for door number 2!!'

Now if you're British the standard reaction you will be having now is one where you say 'typical' or 'no surprise there then!' But I resent this response even if it is wholly and completely British in nature. It is typical for a government to renege on its promises, it may be typical for the government to be less than forthcoming with the truth. But I'm sorry when they start committing out right fraud the response should not be 'no surprise there then' but rather, 'lock the cheating fraudsters up!'

We went mental when the MP's claimed for a duck island or two, we Brit's went mad when they claimed expenses for having their huge gardens tended (which technically was perfectly within the rules) but now that they are paying their supporters millions to keep themselves afloat it hardly makes the headlines. That is a bit backward.

All I can hope is this, David Cameron (leader of the Conservatives, the opposition) will hopefully make a big point out of this. Elect labour and money will be embezzled from you under the pretense of being given to the poor and then given to those who line the pockets of New Labour.... when I think about it is makes the people who were going to rob Myleens house look almost open and honest!

We'd like a carbon neutral flying train please.

While I'm on the environmentalist war path I will just briefly continue with another point.

Lord Adonis recently hyped up a new train track that would take high speed trains from London to the North of England.

Now you're probably expecting me to slate it and say that the government is incompetent and they should have done bla bla bla. But no, I'm not.

Frankly I think it is an excellent idea. Lord Adonis, far from being a stuck up pretentious prat who has never done a day of hard work in his life is actually the son of a Greek Cypriot immigrant and through his own talent, skill, hard work and blessing (a LEA grant) manged to get himself to Keable College Oxford. As such he has my respect. But that isn't a reason for endorsing his idea. No, that just comes from good sense.

What wasn't impressive was the title the Times went with when reporting the storey. It ran with how it was going to cut up the countryside and as a result the world would be a worse place (I paraphrase).

Now let me just check, what are we meant to do? If we drive out nice luxury saloon from London to the North the Greens will consider us the spawn or all that is evil. If we try to build a train that can get us there quickly and efficiently (rather than using the 18th century relic we have at the moment) then we're cutting up the countryside. And if we fly over the country side so that there is no need for either new roads or new tracks then we are supporting those evil air transport companies who so cruelly provide fast, cheap (essentially public) transport and skilled jobs for pilots and air craft control.

So the strong clear message here is stay in your homes and don't leave... especially if you live on a hill, if you do walking back your heart rate will increase and that will cause you to increase the CO2 you're producing.

It is time to face facts; people need to travel, get over it! The sooner people do get over it and accept that modern life necessitates travel then the sooner we can start focusing on which type is best so we can plough a fat wod of cash into it and make it work properly. If it is trains then great, planes great, small light cars, whatever I don't care. Just quit whining about it and get one with it. All this complaining is just pointless, besides getting stressed increases your heart rate and that increases the amount of carbon you're wasting. So shut up and calm down. Thanks.

We invented the train and yet at the moment with all the complaining the Chinese are making much better trains than we are! A few years ago they were on horse and cart and now they are travelling at 200mph in a train. We, mean while, are moaning because the new train track will have to be built within 500 miles of our house. Oh and in case you're wondering I live about 500m from a railway line and I have never once cared in my life, excluding the times I would specifically watch the trains go by when I was young.

Lots of light bulbs but not bright idea

NPower has just shipped out a ba-gillion energy efficient light bulbs, free of charge without request to its customers.

It has done this because a ban has just been implemented where unsolicited light bulbs are no longer allowed.
Why is it so desperate to give away light bulbs in the first place you ask?
Well there are regulations that the government has given out saying that the energy companies have to pay to make us all more carbon efficient and giving out bulbs like they are going out of fashion is a cheap way to do this.
The problem is that some peoples light aren't going to fit the bulbs and so they are just going to be wasted.
So to break it down to cut down waste they are producing more waste.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that it is a bad idea over all. Even if people don't need them immediately, only an idiot would throw them out. Therefore they will get used eventually, but this whole scheme shows just how unimaginative the companies and governments are being about all this.

They are pledging to cut carbon and they are are trying to do so by getting people to use less, less products, less food, less meat, less electricity, less petrol and so on. There are two problems with this:
1. This sort of change will only shave small amounts of carbon off our usage, if there were big savings to be made, chances are it would have been done already.
2. It goes against the whole character of the modern world.

Allow me to elaborate the second point.

The world is based on more, not less. Problems are solved by more and new, rarely are they solved with old and less.
There is good reason for this being the case. Lets take nuclear weapons as an example. There were lots of protests for nuclear disarmament in the last century. No one listened and a lot of people wasted their time. I'm sorry to say this but if you were in such a protest, you obviously didn't think that far ahead.

Once nuclear weapons were invented, they couldn't be 'uninvented'. If everyone instantly listened to the berks who were protesting it wouldn't have 'uninvented' the bomb. In fact it would probably have the reverse effect.

Once the US had the bomb Russia had to get it in order to be on a level playing field, but that was all. But essentially it was just a deterrent, no one would use it, because if they did they would have several coming their way too.

If the US burned all its papers and everyone gave up their bombs then that would give some real psychopath (read N Korea/Iran/Iraq/Libya) a real reason to make the bomb, because they would be the ONLY people to have it and therefore they would actually be in a position to use it.
Even if there was an international convention that everyone agreed to not to use nuclear weapons, the type of person who wants to blow millions of people into the next life, isn't the type of person who cares much for international conventions. As soon as the bomb was on the scene it was here to stay, the only thing which was more of a deterrent was more sophisticated bombs, or new anti missile technology. New, not old, more not less.

Now lets apply this to carbon. It is the same. If you shave off 5% of your carbon at a cost of £8Bn it means nothing because China is gong to increase their carbon by ten times as much and they are then going to make money from it. This means that those who care get weaker and those who don't get stronger.

The more restraints you put on your industries the more expensive they become and the better the prices of a Chinese factory look in comparison. Whatever you cut out, someone else will expand to fill the gap.

So essentially I'm saying sure having something that 5% more efficient is good, but it isn't going to save the world. And cutting things out altogether just make you poor as a country and as such you just lose influence... and with that goes your chance to change the rest of the world... which by the way, unless you're American or Chinese, is the bit that counts when it comes to carbon.

So then, how does my more and new policy work?

Simple instead of piddling into the wind by making energy companies buy you light bulbs (which by the way they are allowed to increase their charges for, so it is forcing you to buy them rather that getting anything for free in reality) they should be made to spent 10-25% of their profits on covering the sub Sahara in trees or solar panels. Either one, I don't care. Trees will taking carbon on a massive scale for the rest of time. Solar panels will give us free energy. We will have MORE energy and new technology can make it more and more efficient. I don't know how many panels £100m gets you but I bet it is a decent amount.

Instead of becoming weaker because some moron is complaining about air travel, you country because stronger because you can manufacture the panels in your own company giving you more new jobs.

Or you get more new jobs planting trees, heck you could even run a gap year program where unemployed 18-25 olds spend their time baking next to a pool and planting trees (while not getting paid obviously). Good for bored unemployed, good for the environment.

The idea of less, just cripples an economy, decreases employment and standard of life. More energy production from new methods increases jobs, provides free energy and thus makes countries more efficient and increases the standard of life. Hippies, I hope you're listening.