They're at it again. Does anyone in the Labour party imagine for a moment that a single person in Britain will think that it's all sorted because Peter Watt has resigned?
The bint, (didn't notice who, I hadn't had wake up juice by this point), they threw onto BBC breakfast obviously didn't care that everyone knew she was lying. There was the air of a tired old lag up in front of the beak for the 100th time, knowing how obvious the lies were but unable to stop themselves going through the motions yet again.
Following this post over at Mr E's, I hope this turns out to be an example of what I am tentatively terming Eugenides' Law of Political Idiocy:
"However bad the situation a cover up is more likely to kill your career but despite this politicians will almost always try it."
Claiming that Peter Watt was the only one to know about this is evidently untrue. You don't have big donors being schmoozed by just the one schmuck, you get in the big guns to keep them sweet. I hope that there is proof that several cabinet ministers knew about this, including the OEGK, but even if there were it is unlikely to be found, you can almost hear the shredders from here.
Monday, 26 November 2007
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
The joy of stats
I wrote in the post "The poor are stupid..." that I would come back to this when I got a reply. Well, to give them their due a lady at the RCP has replied to my question of where they got the data for the "alcohol related deaths double" statement and it's here.
Now there is of course more than one way of looking at statistics. On the basis of their figures it is legitimate to say that of the proportion of people dying, the number of men doing from alcohol related somethings has, (roughly), doubled.
Of course it is also fair to say that the percentage of men dying from alcohol related somethings has gone from 0.009% to 0.018% and that for women the change is from 0.005% to 0.008%.
I may be doing something wrong here but that doesn't seem like a significant change to me. This is however, not the only issue. There is a question mark over the reporting due to a change from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes in 1999, (it doesn't seem to have any immediate effect on the stats but I hope to find the raw data at some stage and I mention it for the sake of completeness at the moment).
There are, at least, two other possibilities for the increase. The first and most likely is reporting bias. As people, particularly the medical profession, have become more obsessed with the dangers of alcohol, they are more likely to report a death as alcohol related. What may once have been put down as a heart attack, may in a few instances become part of the alcohol rated statistics. This is not to say that it is not alcohol related but that it would not previously have been considered so. The second is related to immigration, if your genetic background does not include those who drank beer because the water was foul you will be badly affected by alcohol. We have had rather a lot of such people come into the UK and it would be surprising if some of them didn't have a few problems in this area. (No idea if stats are even collected on this but it is an example of how other possibilities can account for small changes in reported incidence).
Any ideas, further data or ability with statistics is welcome.
Now there is of course more than one way of looking at statistics. On the basis of their figures it is legitimate to say that of the proportion of people dying, the number of men doing from alcohol related somethings has, (roughly), doubled.
Of course it is also fair to say that the percentage of men dying from alcohol related somethings has gone from 0.009% to 0.018% and that for women the change is from 0.005% to 0.008%.
I may be doing something wrong here but that doesn't seem like a significant change to me. This is however, not the only issue. There is a question mark over the reporting due to a change from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes in 1999, (it doesn't seem to have any immediate effect on the stats but I hope to find the raw data at some stage and I mention it for the sake of completeness at the moment).
There are, at least, two other possibilities for the increase. The first and most likely is reporting bias. As people, particularly the medical profession, have become more obsessed with the dangers of alcohol, they are more likely to report a death as alcohol related. What may once have been put down as a heart attack, may in a few instances become part of the alcohol rated statistics. This is not to say that it is not alcohol related but that it would not previously have been considered so. The second is related to immigration, if your genetic background does not include those who drank beer because the water was foul you will be badly affected by alcohol. We have had rather a lot of such people come into the UK and it would be surprising if some of them didn't have a few problems in this area. (No idea if stats are even collected on this but it is an example of how other possibilities can account for small changes in reported incidence).
Any ideas, further data or ability with statistics is welcome.
False Dichotomy
This is a favourite tactic of many debaters but does seem more prevalent on the left. The basis is to give a two horned argument and in doing so make it so that refuting one horn gets you speared by the other. For example:
"If you care about people you must be a socialist"
This gives you two options, grasp one horn and declare that you care about people and are therefore a socialist or go for the other and state that you disagree with socialism and therefore do not care about people. It is of course bollocks because of the excluded middle, it is not only possible to care about people and not be a socialist, it is entirely possible not to be a socialist because you care about people.
However, this false dilemma, a Morton's Fork if ever there was one, has had a profound effect on our society. The reason that so many people are so hostile to the right is because we have failed to deal with this issue.
There is an instinctive feeling that the typical lefty solution, (hand over cash), is nicer than the right's way of doing things, (create conditions so that it is possible to earn cash). The thing is that only one way works, (no prizes for guessing the obvious). I recommend that you go and have a look at this Samizdata post for another example of the problem and also a solution:
Don't let them set artificial terms of debate.
"If you care about people you must be a socialist"
This gives you two options, grasp one horn and declare that you care about people and are therefore a socialist or go for the other and state that you disagree with socialism and therefore do not care about people. It is of course bollocks because of the excluded middle, it is not only possible to care about people and not be a socialist, it is entirely possible not to be a socialist because you care about people.
However, this false dilemma, a Morton's Fork if ever there was one, has had a profound effect on our society. The reason that so many people are so hostile to the right is because we have failed to deal with this issue.
There is an instinctive feeling that the typical lefty solution, (hand over cash), is nicer than the right's way of doing things, (create conditions so that it is possible to earn cash). The thing is that only one way works, (no prizes for guessing the obvious). I recommend that you go and have a look at this Samizdata post for another example of the problem and also a solution:
Don't let them set artificial terms of debate.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
The poor are stupid....
....according to the Alcohol Health Alliance, (AHA), anyway. I have a number of problems with this lot but lets just have a quick look at their solutions:
1). Dedicated funding for alcohol treatment and prevention strategies
2). Increased taxation on alcohol
3). A ban on alcohol advertising before 9.00 pm and in cinemas apart from 18 rated films
4). Promotional material to carry information on health related harm
5). The drink driving limit to be reduced to the EU standard of 0.5g/l and a near zero limit for new drivers
1). Is simply a plea for more money by the organisations involved in such work, (check the member list at the bottom of the link). Most of these are charities and it is entirely reasonable for them to get involved in fundraising, it does seem like a cheeky way of doing so though.
2). You can just see the meeting can't you;
"There's terrible problems with pissed people!"
"OMG what can we do?"
"Lets raise taxes, that'll stop the proles in their tracks!"
"But I thought middle class drinkers were the problem, a bit more tax won't stop them drinking!"
"Never mind that spurious bollocks, the proles are too thick to think for themselves. We must do so for them!"
3). Will make sod all difference to alcohol consumption. We already have very tightly controlled regulation of this. People do not drink because they have seen a sodding advert.
4). Bollocks. We know that alcohol can harm us, not only is all the information freely available but hangovers are rather indicative. We do not need "YOU ARE EVIL" shouted at us every time we have a beer.
5). It makes no sense to have two separate drink drive levels. There is a possible advantage in having a zero limit in that it would at least be easy to work out how much you can get away with drinking. However, any reduction would also require justifying, (some data showing that such a measure would reduce accidents). As our abilities to regulate anything are going to be taken away by the EU ratchet clause it seems a bit pointless to bother though, the EU never requires that an idea be sensible to think that it's a good.
The AHA have kicked all this off with a startling statistic:
"Alcoholic liver cirrhosis has increased by 95% since 2000, and by 36% over the last two years to 2006 and is still increasing"
Now this gives rise to a few questions of the lies, damn lies or statistics sort. I can find no link to anything other than the above statement about where the above numbers come from so no reliability, methodology etc assessment can be made, (I have e-mailed the Royal College of Physicians, (RCP), who seem to be coordinating the AHA for further info).
Well, I will let you know if and when I get a reply but I would like to leave you with a quote from this study, (pdf), by the RCP from 2001:
"By historical standards current levels of consumption are not remarkable....."
UPDATE: I do like the Daily Mash's take on this one.
1). Dedicated funding for alcohol treatment and prevention strategies
2). Increased taxation on alcohol
3). A ban on alcohol advertising before 9.00 pm and in cinemas apart from 18 rated films
4). Promotional material to carry information on health related harm
5). The drink driving limit to be reduced to the EU standard of 0.5g/l and a near zero limit for new drivers
1). Is simply a plea for more money by the organisations involved in such work, (check the member list at the bottom of the link). Most of these are charities and it is entirely reasonable for them to get involved in fundraising, it does seem like a cheeky way of doing so though.
2). You can just see the meeting can't you;
"There's terrible problems with pissed people!"
"OMG what can we do?"
"Lets raise taxes, that'll stop the proles in their tracks!"
"But I thought middle class drinkers were the problem, a bit more tax won't stop them drinking!"
"Never mind that spurious bollocks, the proles are too thick to think for themselves. We must do so for them!"
3). Will make sod all difference to alcohol consumption. We already have very tightly controlled regulation of this. People do not drink because they have seen a sodding advert.
4). Bollocks. We know that alcohol can harm us, not only is all the information freely available but hangovers are rather indicative. We do not need "YOU ARE EVIL" shouted at us every time we have a beer.
5). It makes no sense to have two separate drink drive levels. There is a possible advantage in having a zero limit in that it would at least be easy to work out how much you can get away with drinking. However, any reduction would also require justifying, (some data showing that such a measure would reduce accidents). As our abilities to regulate anything are going to be taken away by the EU ratchet clause it seems a bit pointless to bother though, the EU never requires that an idea be sensible to think that it's a good.
The AHA have kicked all this off with a startling statistic:
"Alcoholic liver cirrhosis has increased by 95% since 2000, and by 36% over the last two years to 2006 and is still increasing"
Now this gives rise to a few questions of the lies, damn lies or statistics sort. I can find no link to anything other than the above statement about where the above numbers come from so no reliability, methodology etc assessment can be made, (I have e-mailed the Royal College of Physicians, (RCP), who seem to be coordinating the AHA for further info).
Well, I will let you know if and when I get a reply but I would like to leave you with a quote from this study, (pdf), by the RCP from 2001:
"By historical standards current levels of consumption are not remarkable....."
UPDATE: I do like the Daily Mash's take on this one.
Friday, 9 November 2007
Driving can be fun...
...but not in the UK.
They seem determined to kill any joy that can be had from the evil motor car. They claim that "speed kills" and to some extent this is true. Get into an accident at vastly increased speed and you are far more likely to get someone hurt than if you were going slowly. This argument is missing several factors though:
Speeding, in and of itself does not cause accidents. People driving like total numpties is what causes accidents. One of the ways that they act in a numpty fashion is to drive faster than they and the car can cope with the circumstances but this is going to vary with the different combinations of circumstances, drivers and cars. It's not easy to police the actual problem so they just try to police something else and do so in such a way that it raises rather than costs money to enforce.
Does this deal with the problem of dangerous driving? Fuck no. It catches one or two dangerous numpties who could be caught in more sensible ways and penalises everyone who goes over the arbitrary, (most of the speed limits we have don't make a huge amount of sense due to bad planning, changing technology and idiots in charge syndrome), limits.
What's the alternative though? Well, go and have a drive in Italy. It is bonkers in many ways, speeding is ignored and people drive like maniacs but on the whole they are better drivers, (nothing like necessity to teach you lessons quickly), and, by ceiling cat, driving in Italy is so much fun.
I would never expect the new puritan socialist cunts to take any of the above into account though. Doing something is important to them regardless of whether its a sensible idea or not, add in ruining peoples fun and they positively cream themselves over it.
They seem determined to kill any joy that can be had from the evil motor car. They claim that "speed kills" and to some extent this is true. Get into an accident at vastly increased speed and you are far more likely to get someone hurt than if you were going slowly. This argument is missing several factors though:
Speeding, in and of itself does not cause accidents. People driving like total numpties is what causes accidents. One of the ways that they act in a numpty fashion is to drive faster than they and the car can cope with the circumstances but this is going to vary with the different combinations of circumstances, drivers and cars. It's not easy to police the actual problem so they just try to police something else and do so in such a way that it raises rather than costs money to enforce.
Does this deal with the problem of dangerous driving? Fuck no. It catches one or two dangerous numpties who could be caught in more sensible ways and penalises everyone who goes over the arbitrary, (most of the speed limits we have don't make a huge amount of sense due to bad planning, changing technology and idiots in charge syndrome), limits.
What's the alternative though? Well, go and have a drive in Italy. It is bonkers in many ways, speeding is ignored and people drive like maniacs but on the whole they are better drivers, (nothing like necessity to teach you lessons quickly), and, by ceiling cat, driving in Italy is so much fun.
I would never expect the new puritan socialist cunts to take any of the above into account though. Doing something is important to them regardless of whether its a sensible idea or not, add in ruining peoples fun and they positively cream themselves over it.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
BBC - please learn how to do news
I am pleased that the BBC covered the creation of the UK National Defence Association which is calling for increased spending, (so far the only area I've noticed where the government don't describe spending as investment), on the forces. There are several good reasons for bringing spending up but they boil down to being asked to do too much with too little and it's time to bring the forces back up to full capability.
What did piss me off no end though was BBC breakfast. I watched the program for about two news cycles from 7.15ish and after a brief introduction regarding the UKNDA they launched straight into the MOD response and spewed it out verbatim. No attempt at criticism was made, not even to mention that the "sustained investment" period has included two wars, (these tend to be a tad expensive). Nor was there any interpretation of the 7.7 Billion rise in expenditure by 2011. Now call me a cynical bastard but given Labours record on promising the earth and then quietly reducing what said they would provide a question there might be in order.
The other thing about the 7.7 is that at the current rate of inflation the government would have to increase spending by about 6 Billion pounds just to maintain the same level in real terms. This leaves you with a promised 1.7 Billion extra with a purchasing power of about 1.4 Billion in todays money.
It has not taken long to work this out, it's not that complicated. So why didn't they report what the figures meant and take the government to task over their lamentable treatment of the forces?
What did piss me off no end though was BBC breakfast. I watched the program for about two news cycles from 7.15ish and after a brief introduction regarding the UKNDA they launched straight into the MOD response and spewed it out verbatim. No attempt at criticism was made, not even to mention that the "sustained investment" period has included two wars, (these tend to be a tad expensive). Nor was there any interpretation of the 7.7 Billion rise in expenditure by 2011. Now call me a cynical bastard but given Labours record on promising the earth and then quietly reducing what said they would provide a question there might be in order.
The other thing about the 7.7 is that at the current rate of inflation the government would have to increase spending by about 6 Billion pounds just to maintain the same level in real terms. This leaves you with a promised 1.7 Billion extra with a purchasing power of about 1.4 Billion in todays money.
It has not taken long to work this out, it's not that complicated. So why didn't they report what the figures meant and take the government to task over their lamentable treatment of the forces?
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Party political braodcast by the conservatives
Well, according to the "Yes Minister Rules" The Conservatives are going to be doing some radical stuff. They're sitting in a dark wood panelled office with leather bound books behind them wearing dark suits.
Interesting times ahead then?
Update: My God they must be strapped for cash, sixth formers would do more a professional production. It looks like they filmed it with a mates camera.
Interesting times ahead then?
Update: My God they must be strapped for cash, sixth formers would do more a professional production. It looks like they filmed it with a mates camera.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
