In for a penny, in for a pound

It seems that the British pound was originally based on a pound weight of silver, equivalent to 240 silver pennies (or "sterlings"). I remember the old pre-decimal penny (which was 12 to the shilling, and 20 shillings made a pound) - though it had long since ceased to be made of silver.

Currently, 99.9% pure silver is being bought at £0.53 per gram. A pound weight of silver (454 grams) would therefore fetch £240.62.

So an old silver penny is worth a new British pound.

An 11th century (Edward the Confessor) penny

But the increased efficiency of modern production and distribution has made things cheaper today:

- Petrol (currently c. £1.40 per litre) would, in silver terms, cost 6d/gallon - a third cheaper than in 1896! And that's despite the fact that, these days, 60% of the pump price of petrol is taxes.

- Artisan bread from Asda (currently 78p for 400g), equates to £1.13 for a full pound weight (454g) - a little over one silver penny. Whereas in the year 1758, the old best quality (white) "penny loaf" got you only 6 ounces 2 drams weight, or 174 grams; so a pound weight of the same would now cost 2.6 silver pennies - more than twice as much pro rata as that Asda loaf.

So we've had inflation, but also a drop in prices.

Those gold-plated public sector pensions that are ruining us

The Office of National Statistics (htp: The Spectator's "Barometer" column) has calculated that pension obligations in the UK amount to £7.1 trillion, or nearly 5 times GDP.

Unfunded public sector pensions - the so-called "gold-plated" ones - account for a mere 11.90% of the total.

Simon Heffer has gone mad

From today's Daily Mail:

"Most people are quite content with things the way they are."
"I am delighted Tony Blair is re-engaging with British politics."

I rest my case. Careful with those straps, gentlemen; easy does it; now the syringe.

Why I voted UKIP

In our ward, it didn't make any difference, this time round, although the UKIP candidate did beat the Conservative into xth place.

But I take a wider view.

Withdrawing from the EU is essential: it's quite clear that the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Yet even now the EU continues in that path.

Let's take one example: Mervyn King told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on 27 March:

"The current proposals that were put forward by the European Commission would have made it impossible for any regulator, say in Sweden or in the United Kingdom, to impose higher capital requirements on its own banks in order to protect domestic taxpayers. If you have a large banking sector and the consequences of its failure would be much more damaging to domestic taxpayers because they would feel compelled to bail the banks out, in that situation—as Switzerland has done, and indeed so far as Sweden has also done, and as Vickers recommends for banks behind the ring-fence—to have a higher level of capital than previously would simply make sure that you had a safer banking system, which would help to protect domestic taxpayers. Since there is no suggestion that European taxpayers are going to pick up the bill for a national banking system if it gets into trouble, it seems reasonable to allow national regulators to protect national taxpayers but the European Commission does not want to allow that."



If we keep voting for any of the three largest parties we'll never get past the first step.

But it's not enough. All that would do is to expose what rotters we have in Parliament. Peter Hitchens is good at noting how many of our laws arise from EU directives, yet the MPs pretend it's their decision. And at other times, they tell us that the EU insists on things where actually we have discretion. So a restoration of national sovereignty would mean no-one else for them to blame.

Then there's the voting system, so flawed that there's lots of people making very good money advising political parties how to exploit it. Funny how they all got together to keep out the Alternative Vote. Better Buggins' turn than all be thrown out in favour of some new political force; though as the origin of that phrase indicates (see link), the current corrupt system could be the reason for the catastrophic collapse.

And the weird boundary system, too. Until the boundary in my constituency was changed, you could vote for anything you liked but you'd get Labour. You'll still never get Conservative here.

Which brings me to the electorate. Thomas Jefferson advocated any political system that fully reflected the will of the people, even if that meant revising the Constitution from time to time. But the franchise in his day was nothing so widely extended as today. Democratic government throws itself on the mercy of the people, and that places a reliance on the people's intelligence, their level of education and access to information, and willingness to debate reasonably and abide by collective decisions.

Well, maybe we're sunk, then.

But it is better to be defeated in an honourable cause, than prosper in corruption.

And besides, if the people have more say, more often, in matters that affect them, this will educate them.

So, UKIP - and the feelings and as yet not fully defined principles behind it - is a start.

Foreign cinema news

Despite the success of "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen", which has also boosted tourist interest in that area, the Egyptian Film Board is reportedly "disappointed" at the reception of its own recent release, "Catching Crabs in Alexandria".

Suspicion of the day

Those who publicly demand freedom are secretly seeking power over others.

Gun murders revisited

Yesterday, I grabbed some Wiki data to look at whether a higher rate of gun ownership means a lower chance of being killed with a gun. I divided one by the other and it didn't look like the argument stood up.

Today I'll do it a different way: I'll MULTIPLY one by the other, on the assumption that if the theory is correct, one figure gets lower and the other gets higher, so the line should be reasonably even, even if it might be angled (I'm sure a statistician can put me right, but at least I'm trying). Here's the data:

... and here's the graph (in block form):

The last 5 on the right leap out of the trend. My explanation is that higher rates of gun murders are more a function of lack of social cohesion and weak official control. What's yours?

Osborne: Bankers face payment by results

A startling recent report from the Daily Telegraph outlines a radical shakeup of the banking system by the Chancellor, George Osborne. I reproduce the text below (N.B. our spellchecker has identified and corrected a number of errors in the course of transcription).

__________________________________________________________

Poor bankers could be paid less than competent colleagues under government plans to improve standards of commercial banking.

Ministers want to link pay to performance in the boardroom as part of a new drive to improve results and attract the best graduates into the profession.

A cross-party group of MPs today says that a new payment by results system is needed to stop the worst bankers hiding behind a “rigid and unfair” national remuneration structure.

“Results” would include not just profits but measures such as how much progress client businesses make, corporate governance and credit ratings.

Last night, George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, disclosed that Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, had already asked the FSA, which analyses national remuneration packages, to set up a new Walker-style review and “make recommendations on introducing greater freedoms and flexibilities in bankers’ pay, including how to link it better to performance”.

Mr Osborne said the Government welcomed the MPs’ report “into this important area”. The review body is expected to deliver its recommendations by September.

In the report published today, the Treasury select committee says bankers should be rewarded for “adding the greatest value” to customers’ businesses and be given paid sabbaticals to further their skills.

MPs claim the reforms would address fears that poor bankers are having a “very significant” impact on businesses’ long-term prospects. The report quotes international research which shows that the worst bankers could cost business people and millions of employees their livelihoods and life savings.

Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford University in America, has shown that an excellent banker can help local enterprises thrive and create employment, whereas a poor one will drive his customers into receivership.

The British Bankers’ Association is strongly opposed to any attempt to alter pay and conditions. However, the committee’s report says: “No longer should the weakest bankers be able to hide behind a rigid and unfair pay structure.

“We believe that performance management systems should support and reward the strongest bankers, as well as make no excuses — or, worse, incentives to remain — for the weaker. Given the profound positive and negative impacts which bankers have on national economic performance, we are concerned that the pay system continues to reward low performers at the same levels as their more successful peers.”

They want the Government to draw up proposals for a pay system that rewards those adding the greatest “value to the performance of enterprises”.

Marcus Agius, the chairman of the British Bankers’ Association, said: “Payment by results is total nonsense. Our customers are not tins of beans and banks are not factory production lines.

“Successful banks rely on a collegiate approach and team working. Performance-related pay is not only inappropriate but also divisive.

“Business people differ and startups differ from year to year, making it impossible to measure progress in simplistic terms.”

There are currently 5 major banking groups in the UK, and about 20 others. Although an element of performance-related pay already exists, ministers are now looking at enhancing rewards for the best.

Currently, bankers in London can earn up to £1.25 million. but see their pay rise to £8 million with other perks and bonuses. Earlier this year, Natalie Ceeney CBE, the chief executive of the Financial Ombudsman Service, said too many bankers – more than 90 per cent – were allowed to pass the test. “The thing that irritates good bankers, people who work hard and go the extra mile, is seeing the people that don’t do that being rewarded,” she said.

In December, it was reported that just no bankers judged to be incompetent over an 18-month period had been sacked.

In further recommendations, the report says a “sabbatical scholarship” programme should allow outstanding bankers to take time out to work in a different bank, undertake research or refresh their subject knowledge. It is also suggested fund managers and quantitative analysts be allowed to lead training sessions for university students as part of a system of “banking taster classes” to show them the benefit of a career in the profession.

Gun ownership and murder

It's often argued by the gun lobby that we'd be safer if we all had guns - "just let them try and get me NOW!"

Actually, it seems that the rate of homicide by firearm is only very loosely related to the level of gun ownership. Below is a table I've put together using Wiki data from here and here:

My druggy wugs, my freedom-weedom - REVISED

Time for me to eat a little humble pie. I wrote the following before reading the transcript of evidence taken by the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee on 24 April - click here for link.

So my account of Brand's views and comments is inaccurate. We bloggers like to call mainstream journalists to account when they are sloppy, so we should be prepared for the lash ourselves when (as in this case) we cop an attitude before getting all the facts.

To set the record straight, he is now off all legal and illegal drugs and advocates an abstinence-based approach, as least for people with addictive personalities like himself. He is against methadone because it is a lazy (and sometimes lethal, ultimately) way to treat addicts. But he does think more of the money spent on arrests for possession could be more productively used in helping drug-takers off their addiction;  and when (gently) pressed, indicates that he favours decriminalisation - see his answer to Questions 259/260.

But do read the second part of the session also, in which, yes, Peter Hitchens (loathed by so many, especially the right-on) gives his well-known views - but so does Mary Brett, who has a background in education and also favours giving clearer, firmer guidance to youngsters on legality. It is not only Hitchens who sees prohibition as a valuable form of protection.

It is also interesting to see witnesses challenge the perception that drug-taking is so widespread that we may as well give up the fight - see Question 276, part of the answer to which reads:

Kathy Gyngell: ...At the moment, 2% of people sniff coke here. People, like Russell Brand, would like us to believe that this is common. It is still not common. It is common in certain circles.

Unfortunately, those circles include the broadcasting, journalism and entertainment industries, with their power to influence, persuade and mislead.

And, usefully, the Committee is challenged on whether it has a pro-drug use agenda (Question 281):

Lorraine Fullbrook: ...Are you making the assumption that the Committee are in favour of decriminalisation or legalisation?

Kathy Gyngell: I was worried that you took your terms of reference, or apparently appeared to—and I indeed wrote to Mr Vaz about it—from the Global Commission on Drugs policy, which is basically a highly financed legalising lobby. That did disturb me because, equally, they had given out—and they were widely disseminated in the press—incorrect figures about drug use spiralling out of control globally when, indeed, the UNODC shows quite clearly that it has been stable. So, that did concern me that your direction of travel may have been influenced by lobbies who are very much in favour of decriminalisation, and if that is not the case I am very happy to hear it.

I've now started in on Mary Brett's drug report (2006, updated 2012) and already I'm getting some startling information, e.g. how very much stronger skunk is than herbal cannabis of the 60s and early 70s. Having lost a friend to skunk-related depression and suicide, I'm not in favour of making the stuff easier to get hold of. Her report is here.

Finally, my apologies to Elby and others for losing their comments in deleting, revising and re-posting this piece. I'm very grateful for their time in reading and responding and I promise to try harder on the technical side next time.

So, warts and all, here is what I said originally, this morning (and over at Orphans of Liberty also):
_______________________________________________________________

I find it's easier to read than hear an argument, so I've transcribed as best I can what Russell Brand said in response to Peter Hitchens' accusation that drug-takers are spoiled rich Western kids who falsely claim that they are not responsible for their actions:

It’s nice to receive your bigotry from another medium other than the hate rag, The Mail on Sunday, from which you normally peddle hatred, insular thought, lack of love between human beings. What I’m saying, whether or not I’m selfish or wearing a hat is redundant and irrelevant. These are the kind of personal attacks, the aggressive styles that you continually adopt to vilify people needlessly. Hey what’s next, criminalise being a bit brown, is that your next policy from the Mail on Sunday? We can’t listen to people like you any more, it’s unevolved as a species.

There is such a thing as society, Peter. In spite of what Margaret Thatcher said there is such a thing as society, we are responsible for one another. If we treat people compassionately and with love, then people will benefit. People of course are responsible for their actions, you’re responsible for writing for a bigoted newspaper [applause].

It would have been better if Hitchens hadn’t prefaced his question with an insult (“the alleged comedian in the hat”) as he then has to be held partly responsible for the damagingly ranting nature of the reply.But what’s clear is that Brand is confused on the issue – at one point we’re not responsible for ourselves, later we are and then we should be responsible for others as well. The Guardian’s report of his evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee is similarly equivocal and self-contradictory.

As to the so-called war on drugs, the Guardian's piece says:

He said he didn't think that drug addicts cared about the legal status of the drugs they were taking, or where they came from or the consequences for those involved in their production.

Not surprising, since there are usually no adverse legal consequences, in this country.
But if any full-on libertarians are reading this, maybe it's time they faced up to the fact that (as Sartre said) we ARE free, inescapably. Libertines and rake-hells just do it, they don't ask Authority to approve.

What semi-detached libertarians want is permission - but to ask that is to give power to another. The radical lover of freedom does what he wills and accepts the consequences - and doesn't whine for some social support safety net.

At 36, Brand is getting a little old for the role of bawling, illogical teenager, demanding autonomy and protection in the same breath. The infantile term "booky-wook" is the tell to his condition, isn't it?