open Democracy News Analysis - blog entry - Comments

Not logged in on "Met watchdog must hold police command to account for the G20"

Not logged in — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:04:59 +0000

'sub-standard velcro' - is that meant to be some kind of joke???

owly on "Cameron and the EU"

owly — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:26:11 +0000

It should still be a matter for national parliaments and for the will or otherwise of the people.

Zen9 on "Blair for EU? Nonsense from start to finish"

Zen9 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:30:25 +0000

Consider "They still think Britain matters. It doesn’t. " and what it says about the authors views on the UK, his patriotism, and yes even faith in the UK having a future, deserving a future. Having even a right to exist.

Consider also how shaped such views, are by history. For most are shaped by the history of the decline of the British Empire, its economy and power in the world.

Yet that was effectively arrested in the 1980s, and culminated in the liberating events of the ERM debacle in the early 1990s. When the UK finaly stood on its own feet, no longer needing its 100 year obsession of the crutch of a currency peg.

And the economy did not collapse, the country did not fall into third world poverty, the supposed necessity of hanging on others coat tails, begging their aid, proved unnecessary, even counter productive.

The circumstances when the UK counted for ever less, looked ever the poorer, ever the declining, reducing, dimishing power. A state where the very foundations of its existance, a faith in its own future, where falling apart. Was a product of the ideas of manged decline, and the inevitability of history.

Are over. In fact ended more than a decade ago. But its only those who've grown up under this periode, free of the shackles of that declining past who will see beyond such out of date obsessions as the EU. A narrow little regional block trying to shut the world out.

Thomas Ash on "Cameron and the EU"

Thomas Ash — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:01:56 +0000

I accept all that. I was responding to your statement that 'social and employment benefits should be a matter for domestic parliaments' - the point I was making is that there's an argument for their being handled at a more international level, even if that argument can be outweighed by a lack of democracy at that level. Regardless, the question is independent of what the right decision on these benefits is, which is what your comments about their costs speak to.

owly on "Blair for EU? Nonsense from start to finish"

owly — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:52:43 +0000

Part of the problem is that when the British people were asked in 1975 for their consent to membership of the EEC we were told one thing, and now we find we have ended up with the exact opposite just as the Eurosecptics at the time said.

The Lisbon Treaty is the old EU Constitution merely renamed. We all know this, but the political class across Europe have lied and lied and lied. When they have asked our views we have said NO, but in the fantasy that is the EU only the answer they want counts.

I have come to the conclusion that the UK would be much better off to leave the EU and merely negotiate a free trade agreement. Forcing integration will not lead to a peaceful and prosperous Europe, but to poverty and war.

Yiannis on "Blair for EU? Nonsense from start to finish"

Yiannis — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:11:21 +0000

I am not a UK citizen or resident . Just somebody from the continental side. However , the heavy 'push' towards Lisbon that has been maintained systematically without people's consent makes me a sympathiser to your cause.
Although on the Continent people are talking less about abandoning the EU-ship , they are all , nevertheless , sorry that what is built now has nothing in common with their dreams and hopes for unity and democracy.
Unless we start a serious re-thinking , while thinking itself has been denied from the EU people , this EU-ship will go down much faster than it took it to get started.
The real question is not 'to be in or out' but to be able to say WHAT this EU is all about. And people around know either too little to be able to understand or too much to stop having great fears for what the future could be

britologywatch on "Blair for EU? Nonsense from start to finish"

britologywatch — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:34:13 +0000

Blair 'centre-left'? That's a new one: pretty much centre-right or even just right-wing in my book! And Sarkozy did previously drop some favourable hints about supporting Blair. Blair as President (or Miliband as EU foreign secretary) + Mandelson as PM could, in fact, be the ideal ticket to secure Britain's entry into the Euro. Also a nice slap in the face for Cameron's repatriation plans.

Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. And would the EU really be that indifferent to the UK's departure? If so, why were they so happy to let Blair stitch up Britain's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty without offering us a referendum? It'll serve them right if five years of wrangling now ensue.

JFox on "David Nutt and the drugs debate"

JFox — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:23:15 +0000

Okay Muir1848. Let's have some fun.

The use of the word ecstasy in this context presumably means the practice of ecstasy consumption. The data obtained on its harmfulness are derived from the population of ecstasy consumers (NOT the proportion of the population that consumes the drug).

Similarly the data on harm caused by horse-riding are derived from the population of horse riders.

Statistical data are, of course, taken from population samples.

In order for a comparison to be valid, the two samples have to be derived from the same (or at least very similar) populations. A simple random sample of the UK population will not work because it could not be guaranteed that it would contain any ecstasy consumers or horse riders. So in order to conduct a comparative analysis of "harm", we need a sample of ecstasy consumers and a sample of horse riders.

The population of horse riders in the UK includes:

1. Adults who ride horses as part of their profession: jockeys,
police officers, cavalry etc.

2. Adults who ride purely for recreation.

3. Hunters (or cross-country animal chasers)

4. Sports men and women, some of whom participate in national and international competitions.

5. Children

6. Circus and other performers.

The population of ecstasy consumers is...well no doubt Professor Nutt can tell us who consumes ecstasy and under what circumstances.

It's a fair bet that Professor Nutt's ecstasy population sample is different from that of horse-riders (if he ever used one). Children are unlikely to be represented among the drug-takers. Nor sports riders for that matter. Nor professional consumers - i.e. people who get paid for taking ecstasy.

You may think that if you remove professional horse-riders and children from your "rider" population and, say, restrict it to adults who ride for recreation, you can select ecstasy consumers of the same age range and thereby get comparable samples. The problem here is that the two samples would be selected differently and not randomly, which would invalidate the comparison.

Now let us look at how you define each activity. By ecstasy consumers do we mean anyone who consumes the drug once, or regular consumers. If the latter, what constitutes a regular consumer? How many acts of consumption qualify an individual for inclusion in the data sample?

We ask the same kind of questions of horse-riding. How many person-hours of riding per unit of time (say per year) qualify someone as a rider?

And once we have defined our sample populations, we still have to work out how to make one activity equivalent to the other (how many person-units of ecstasy consumption equal a person-unit of horse-riding or vice versa). This is necessary in order to be sure of a roughly equal chance a priori (i.e. before conducting the analysis) of finding "harmful effect" in each sample.

We then have to identify degrees of harm and its victims (the self and other parties). Do we choose, say, admissions to hospital, as our benchmark? Should we also include benefits (i.e. negative harm) as well as positive harm to health, happiness and long-term success or failure? In the case of horse-riding we can probably limit the definition of harm to injury suffered by the rider and the horse (okay there will be some third party injuries too).
Harm from drug-taking, however, is much less straightforward since the relationship of cause and effect may be less easy to establish and might only reveal itself in the long term. Harm to others may be significant - although we would have to be sure that ecstasy was involved (say a drug-induced driving accident), and this, of course, may be a matter of opinion unless we restrict ourselves to the decisions of a court of law following a trial.

All statistics derived from population samples are based on assumptions, but the assumptions themselves have to be reasonable, credible, defensible. The point I am making is that you can't simply take national statistics on aggregate horse-riding injuries, put them against figures (derived from where?) of harm caused by ecstasy consumption and say that one is more or less harmful than the other. To give an extreme example, breathing oxygen - something we all do - is 100% fatal. But it would be meaningless to say that breathing is more dangerous than warfare.

The chances of Professor Nutt having conducted a valid comparative statistical analysis between ecstasy and horse riding are - in my view - vanishingly small; and by making such a comparison he was, therefore, grandstanding. In other words, given that he was a government adviser, he was not making a scientific point but a political one.

PS The above assumes a direct relationship between 'use' and 'harm' (i.e. the more you do the more you are likely to suffer or cause harm). For ecstasy, this is probably a safe assumption. In the case of horse-riding, however, the relationship could be inverse, i.e. harm may be more common among neophytes than experienced riders. If this is so, then Professor Nutt's comparison could be more accurately described as being between ecstasy and inexperience - which would render it even more nonsensical.

owly on "Blair for EU? Nonsense from start to finish"

owly — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:00:18 +0000

Lets hope we get a referendum on the EU in the next 5 years. With support of the EU at all time lows in this country there might be a majority to leave this wretched project. Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

owly on "Tabloid hypocrisy and the BNP"

owly — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:57:38 +0000

Sarah has it on the nail. The BNP got the thick end of a million votes at the EU elections. They are entitled to air their views, but the edition of Question Time was a disgrace. It looked like a lynching. By treating the BNP differently from any other legal political party you merely pander to their inflated egos. But you also reveal your own ingrained bigotry and you ought to make your case against the BNP with reasoned argument. For far too long the 'left' has attempted to close down any debate on asylum and immigration by dancing up and down screaming racist. I've seen it often enough even on these boards.

owly on "Cameron and the EU: a follow-up"

owly — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:49:19 +0000

You are misrepresenting Cameron, and frankly you ought to know better.

Cameron gave a pledge that he would hold a referendum on any treaty that emerged from the negotiations then being held. It was made when a general election seemed likely within a matter of weeks. The Lisbon Treaty has now been ratified by all member states and it is impossible to un-ratify it. I wish President Klaus had not signed it, but let it lie on his desk for 6 months. I also believe that the whole European project is being foisted upon the peoples of Europe by an arrogant and out of touch political class, and chattering class.

As to 'Why aren't Labour making a fuss' that is quite simple. I would remind you that Blair/Brown gave a manifesto undertaking to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. Even you must admit that the Lisbon Treaty is that constitution. Merely renaming it, taking out the odd clause doesn't alter the basis of the document. We can but assume that Gordon Brown is a liar. One assumes you were in favour of a referendum and listening to what the people think.

As to Cameron's position, he might have more cards than you realize. In 2013 there has to be a new budget for the EU. First thing I would do in his position would be to refuse to agree to any budget whatsoever. That would get some peoples attention. And after all why should the EU get a new budget when its accounts have never yet been signed off by its auditors.

owly on "Cameron and the EU"

owly — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:32:46 +0000

There is a case for democracy. That is the main point, which you fail to pick up.

'some countries could gain a significant competitive benefit'

You seem to be very insular. Every time you impose some new 'right' it creates a cost. Those costs have to be paid for by someone - there aint no such thing as a free lunch - and it is the consumer who pays. It is the unemployed who pay because all you good deeds price them out of a job.

Matt Loney on "Whose Side Are They On? How Big Brother Government is Ruining Britain"

Matt Loney — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:57:54 +0000

We have just completed the first phase of a project at LexisNexis to put legislation online for free. If you check the index page of statutory instruments (http://lexisweb.co.uk/GetDocument.aspx), you'll see a vast number have been published in recent years. These are not the offences that you appear to be talking about, but are the secondary legislation which is not debated in parliament, and which adds the detail to the Acts. In the past 800-odd years, there have been some 26,000 Statutory instruments published - about 20,000 of them since 1997. It's a staggering statistic, and a slightly different angle perhaps that illustrates just how much of our law is now made in Whitehall, not Westminster.

Sarah2 on "Tabloid hypocrisy and the BNP"

Sarah2 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:28:05 +0000

Take these two:
"They've stolen ALL our jobs" (Daily Star)
"Now Muslims demand: Give us full Sharia law" (The Express)
The first one is an obvious lie, and the second refers to "Muslims" as if they all have this same view on sharia law (as opposed to just a tiny minority).
Do you not see any problem there?

As opposed to the screaming racist to shut down those who oppose mass immigration. Something which vilifies the vast majority of the British population and ignores their views.
Or trying to force one of the founders of Migration Watch out of his job.
Or the state broadcaster, during the last world cup when people of all religions and colours were flying the cross of St George, trying to make out that the flag flying was somehow sinister.
As hypocritical as claiming that those on benefits couldn't be expected to do jobs, and that there aren't any, and that those there are are too low paid then saying we need immigrants to do jobs because the natives won't do them and ignoring any issues about immigration pushing down wages. Or warning us about global warming, and how we must reduce our carbon footprint then importing more and more people who'll need food, heating, transport and somewhere to live. Or Ken Livingstone being happy to campaign for everyones rights then hobnobing with and defending some Muslim loon who thinks gays should be thrown off buildings.

There are plenty of things I have a problem with and that are massively hypocritical. Nothing so special about newspaper headlines.

NYCartist on "Cameron and the EU"

NYCartist — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:42:50 +0000

Such a fascinating starting line, "You need to get out more." Indeed. I saw in the list of recent comments and had to see what it was referring to.

I "need to get out more" but haven't figured out a way to do it with CFS/ME - called ME/CFS in England.

What do you mean by "You need to get out more."?