Eggs Reduxed and Friends In High Places

A further thing regarding the ‘eggs by the kilo’ story occurred to me last night as I was selecting some supermarket steaks. Steaks are sold by weight, and although the packs are all the same size the price (and weight) of the meat within can vary quite considerably- so much so that my preferred method of steak selection starts with looking for the highest prices, before other factors like marbling etc.
I don’t think anybody has been seriously expecting that the EU’s latest daft-sounding regulation will affect the number of eggs in your box, it will still contain six, ten or twelve eggs but (like steaks or pork chops) each box will have to be individually priced. It’s not a Big Thing in itself, supermarkets already have the infrastructure in place to sell products in this way, corner shops will probably have the work done supplier-side and the net result will probably be to make accounting slightly more complicated (and therefore slightly more expensive). The biggest losers will be farm shops and they can easily cope by adding another setting to the electric scales they undoubtably already own for selling fruit and veg. Of itself, this seemingly bizzare regulation is unlikely to cause too much disruption to either shoppers or retailers.
However, taken as part of the wider trend it suddenly looks a lot worse, as part of the death by a thousand cuts to small businesses, regulations like this and WEEE and tobacco display bans and minimum alcohol prices and a multitude of others each apply small reductions in the profitability of Big Retail’s smaller, more agile competitors while the likes of Tesco either have the weight infrastructure already in place or enough redundancy in their system to take up the extra workload.

Companies like Tesco aren’t the problem however. Whether they lobby for regulation (as they did with the minimum pricing story), have a quiet word with the powers that be behind the scenes or simply sit back and take advantage of the situation Big Retail acts in Big Retail’s best interests which is exactly how it should be. Tesco has a responsibility to Tesco’s shareholders to maximise profits. Suggesting that they act otherwise would be akin to suggesting a tiger refuse to take advantage of its prey having a gammy leg because it’s ‘not sporting’ and sounds a little bit commie to me. The problem really lies with the States both National and Supernational that create the prevailing conditions, and with the pooulations that allow this to happen. Boycotts are useless. Take the alcohol pricing issue: even if there were enough outraged bloggers to seriously reduce Tesco to its knees over the issue then Sainsbury or Morrisons would simply take up their place, if indeed they are not already making quiet noises in the ears of those who need little persuasion anyway.

Robbing Hood

The BBC are pushing the idea of a ‘Robin Hood Tax‘ this morning, in order to “fight poverty, protect public services and tackle climate change (perhaps to pay someone to put the wheels back on!).”
Curiously enough, there doesn’t seem to be much mention of it on the BBC’s website although they had gone to the trouble of making a nice-looking arrow-styled graphic which lead to my original belief that this will be something they will re-visit in order to build consent for such a thing.

Regardless of what the tax will be used for (although there is plenty just in those three aims to disagree with), who is “calling for” it (Charities! Unions! Aid Agencies!), and from whom it will be raised (evil bankers!) the thing that really piqued my interest was what they didn’t say.

“To work,” they said, “this tax will need to be levied in ALL tax jurisdictions.” A global tax then? “If we did it alone it would just make the UK less competitive.”

“Of course, the main problem then would be that there is no international body to administer and collect such a tax.”

They didn’t tell us that what we really, really need to fight poverty, protect public services and tackle climate change is a global government. They want you to think it -like Windows 7- is YOUR idea.

Nice.

Barry’s Prize

Anybody else think that the storyline involving Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize was cooked up long ago, when it was still assumed that his gimmick would have gotten over with the fans?

Fakes Can Kill You

Forget cigarettes and whiskey, those are long gone. Forget even ham sandwiches. This morning the BBC are reporting that counterfeit goods can kill you.

This comes at the end the segment this morning regarding the French and Italian governments’ descisions to prosecute tourists returning from abroad clutching fake Prada bags and the like. Although our freedom-loving government has decided against this course of action, in the face of this new and severe threat to our economy they have decided to wage an “information campaign” against us, part of which I can only assume this segment was.

After a fairly unconvincing attempt to paint the people buying fake designer goods abroad as stealing job away from the British manufacturing industry (seriously!! Most people who buy a fake Armani handbag are never going to buy a real one, are they? Or did they mean stealing jobs from British counterfeiters?) they guy from the Trading Standards institute wheeled out the now-standard ‘summody-pleeez-thinka-the-cheeeldren argument. Apparantly some uninformed parents bought a fake gameboy charger abroad which malfunctioned and electrocuted their son. Very tragic I’m sure, but seriously, If you’re buying fake electrical goods or medicines then you are taking your life in your hands. Fake designer gear isn’t exactly in the same league is it?

Fake designer gear has been around for years. Apart from the obvous cases (in which caveat emptor applies) no real harm is done to anybody and criminalising tourists for buying something a bit dodgy in a market (and can you see it applying to tourists travelling through France and Italy? I can) is a bit too much for me.

Results!

Well, the results are in, and everyone is shocked. No, I’m not talking about The Apprentice, although from watching BBC breakfast this morning you could be forgiven for thinking I was.
They did, to be fair, cover the Euro election results from 7, although I wasn’t quite awake yet. Late shift today, you see.

In my antediluvian morning condition, I was sure Harman was saying it’s all our (the voters) fault. I couldn’t be right, surely.

I’d had a coffee by the time William Hague came on, he seemed quite pleased that his lot had got the most votes, although he couldn’t wait to explain that UKIP and the BNP had only won some seats because it was a PR ballot, and “people tend to indulge in fringe and extreme parties in PR ballots,” and “that’s why I don’t want a PR ballot for Westminster.”
Hmmm… Makes sense, you wouldn’t want parties with policies that people actually want sitting alongside you, would you? Just wouldn’t be cricket. You might have to listen to them. Can’t have that, might put the project in jeopardy.

That Griffin fellow was on as well, and surprisingly they gave him quite a long interview. Hoping he’d say something terribly national socialist and racially-motivated I expect. He’s much too clever for that though. He made a few points (although I can’t remember any of them now! -he’s one of those), and despite Turnbull trying to lead him to say something about “as long as they’re white” he didn’t bite. Even when he slipped it in at the end. Stilll, he’s packed off to Brussels now where he can’t actually do anything for a while, so no harm done. Interestingly, the BBC is still promoting them as a far-right party, which makes sense. Nobody would vote for a far-left party after Zanu would they?

The Cybersecurity Czar and You

It’s happening in a foreign land, and it hasn’t really made the news over here, but Obama’s creation of the post of Cybersecurity Czar affects internet users the world over. As we can see from this diagram, a majority of the world’s internet traffic travels through the United States, as that is where it was first built and expanded from. Many of the things we use every day like Hotmail, Google, lots of blogging sites are all based in the USA so the reality is most of what we do outside the US has already been subject to FISA and will no less be subject to the Cybersecurity Czar and the Cybersecurity Bill, should it pass. For a UK Libertarian blogger, that may not seem so scary, until you remember firstly the US Government‘s view of bloggers and libertarians, and secondly that UK subjects can be extradited to the US on presentation of no evidence whatsoever. Considering the lastest moves in the USA against free speech, does that not make you a little worried?

Apart from the report from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation that the Act’s new requirements will actually make life easier for anyone wanting to commit a cyber-attack on the USA (and therefore, by extension anyone else) perhaps the scariest provision is giving the White House the power to shut down the internet completely, or at least the US portion of it. Since such a large proportion of internet traffic travels through the US, this would effectively cripple what has become the backbone of the world’s financial and business systems. Many companies use the internet not only to generate custom, but also to organise their inventories, place orders, control their logistics and communicate with their customers and suppliers. The company I work for, small fish globally compared to the likes of Wal-Mart and Tesco but nevertheless a huge business sustaining millions of jobs worldwide would be crippled in the event of an internet shutdown. Pretty much all the big players worldwide would be in just such a jam, Y2K eat your heart out, and all of it in the hands of one man. Still, he’s the mesiah, right? The White House’s cure in this instance could definitely be worse than the disease, in fact provoking just this sort of response from a panicked Washington may well be the goal of “Cyber-Terrorists” were they, in fact, to exist. The Endarkenment in an afternoon!

One last thought: Perhaps these proposals will lend weight to the EU’s demands that the US let go the reigns of the internet and hand control to a new, globally-appointed and unaccountable body?

Harrow

I’m not sure what to make of the latest developments in North Korea. I’d like to think that they are merely hoping that once they’ve got the bomb and the missiles to use them that everyone will leave them alone. After all, Saddam merely pretended he’d got the bomb, and look what happened to him! I’m not sure it works like that though. They are already being left alone, so much so that their population are starving, and yet they still feel the need to have a huge army. Public opinion seems to be that, like Iran, the country is being run by lunatic madmen who, foaming at the mouth, wouldn’t think twice about launching thermonuclear war for the sake of an ideology. (Considering where the bulk of public opinion comes from) I disagree, instead forming the opinion that these regimes merely pretend to be loonies, in the hope of a little international cachet and putting a little uncertainty into their enemies, al-la Mel Gibson in the Lethal Weapon series. They may even be hoping for some more nuclear blackmail cash. I hope I’m right because if I’m not we could all be regretting it soon…

Update: The Russians are worried

The Socialist Labour Party, The BNP and the EU

I had the (mis)fortune the other day to see a party political broadcast from the Socialist Labour Party, the splinter group from the New Labour Party headed by Arthur Scargill. After I had stopped shouting at the television, I noticed that while most of what they are saying is wrongheaded (they are in favour in re-nationalising everything, even things that have nver been state-owned) the bulk of their ire is pointed -quite correctly- at the EU.

The Socialist Labour Party is totally committed to complete withdrawal from the European Union, or Common Market as it was originally called. That is the only way Britain can begin to regain control of its economy, sovereignty and its political powers.

While their problems with the EU are coming from a completely different direction from those I would consider sane and workable, it led me to wonder about other minority parties positions on the EU.

The British National Party’s position on Europe is pretty clear. They are for withdrawal from the EU although they are not against free trade with it, and they are for rebuilding our ties with the rest of the Anglosphere. On the face of it, not a bad policy. Their other policies? Well, those have been well discussed elsewhere. The UK Independence Party’s policy on Europe is self evident. (There are many smaller parties still, with varying probabilities of political success and varying policies on the EU, such as the National Liberal Party who only advocate complete withdrawal in “extreme circumstances,” and the English Democratic Party who want not only to withdraw from the EU and join the EFTA instead, but also want to leave the UK.) It seems that all of the largest minority parties are in favour of leaving the EU while the Labour/Con/Lib Westminster Consensus parties are all in favour of remaining in. The Conservatives make noises about the Euro (we’d be lucky to get in now!) and they pledge to amend to 1973 European Communities Act and hold a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty (if Labour don’t force it on us before an election) but the word ‘withdraw’ does not feature anywhere. The other two’s policies don’t even come as policies on Europe, they are so invested in the project that it seeps through every other policy.

So it seems our choice is clear, in the coming European Elections as a precursor, and the General Election. If we want freedom from foreign bureaucracy and true democracy at home, we can’t vote for any of the current incumbents. We knew that. But the question of who we could vote for is no clearer than ever, although a Parliament composed of many smaller parties with no overall majority (but with one common policy on the EU) could be a very healthy thing indeed.

This Could Be It

As we all know, the global economy has been creaking like the proverbial camel’s back for some time now. In a slowly-disintigrating equilibrium, under a lot of strain but not actually broken, despite the best efforts of the people claiming they are fixing it.
Hidden away in back of the news, Raw Story are reporting: “It would appear, quietly and with deference and politeness, that China has cancelled America’s credit card,” the quote coming from Congressman Mark Kirk.

To put it in a nutshell, the United States of America has, like us, divested itself of much of its manufacturing industry and now buys much of its goods cheaply from overseas (largely from China). The huge debt bubble that pays for these goods has been financed by the Chinese buying US debt, and if the Chinese no longer are prepared to buy the US debt, the US cannot afford to buy any Chinese goods. The situation has been unsustainable for some time as the economies of the US (based around the transport and retail of Chinese goods) and China (based around selling cheap slave-made goods to The West) are interlinked, with the Chinese bankrolling the lot. If the US goes, China will go, and if those two giants fail the outlook for the rest of the world is grim indeed.
This could be the straw.

joining the dots

Bloggers from my native uk are quite adept at noting each and every step in our inorexable slide towards totalitarianism, and I’m sure that bloggers from other countries are noting theirs. These are not isolated trends, however. The same laws, the same policies, the same general disregard for constitutions, freedoms and the rule of law are happening throughout the democracies of the planet.

In the UK, our “labour” government has a habit of passing of Acts of Parliament with “Enabling Act” clauses, most recently the Banking Act 2009 which allows the treasury to modify laws without parliamentary approval. We don’t really even take notice anymore. We just seem to shrug, and say to ourselves “Bloody labour party,” and carry on. And that’s the people that are aware of this sort of thing. But when you consider this in the context of the US bailout bill which, in its original form attempted to establish the Treasury as another branch of government, immune to oversight from the Congress and the Judiciary it suddenly seems a bit spooky, to say the least.

There has been some comment on our Civil Contingencies Act, which has with some justification been called the UK’s Enabling Act, rather than an act with an enabling clause in it. It gives the executive complete power in an emergency, that emergency to be defined by… The Executive. That’s two people. It essentially gives the Prime Minister the power to suspend freedom of movement, freedom of assembly (including the assembly of Parliament) and any other measure he deems to be in the interest of the state, in response to any emergency that happens anywhere in the world. This is also analogous to legislation passed abroad, most notably in America in the Patriot Act, and the less well known John Warner Defence Authorisation Act, which gave the President similar powers. Compare this to the Australia Anti Terrorism Act 2005, which provided for House Arrest without a trial (and any other restrictions the government might decide on a whim) and a “Shoot to Kill” clause. These are all free countries, passing legislation that hangs like the Sword of Damocles above the head of freedom, the scissors in the hands of a handful of people.

Attacks on free speech are also popping up all over the globe. Here in the UK we have had whole rafts of legislation, nominally under the Anti Terrorism banner, restricting what can and can’t be said or written, creating new criminal offences for simply holding and expressing opinions. In the USA there are intentions to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine,” essentially an attack on talk radio and bloggers insisting that any opinion given be qualified by opposing opinions.
The so-called “Great Firewall of China,” a technological feat aided and abetted by Google is a must for any authoritarian regime in today’s world, as free access to information and free capability to pass on information is severely damaging to a tyranny. Restricting access means restricting the ability of the people to organise, fundraise and communicate. No surprise in the PRC, but in Australia? The Australian Government, under the guise of Child Protection is attempting to legislate to force ISPs in Australia to block content deemed unsuitable for children (or adults) on a blacklist provided by the Australian Communications and Media Agency, a government agency. Pause a moment to consider the implications of that. Then consider that similar measures are being taken in Italy, Germany and Japan.

It is possible, of course, that various governments, all over the world, of every political hue would all come to the same conclusions at the same time independantly of each other. It’s possible that like kids in a playground, they are collecting ever-more repressive laws like pokemon stickers. But isn’t it also possible that they are acting in concert for a reason? And that while we are busy looking at the trees of our own governments we are, the once-free peoples of the earth, missing the wood?