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'.