For once the 9% Growth party are going to agree with the Greens. They don't want this either.
The Scottish government have decided to build a new Forth Bridge.
"A new bridge is to be built across the Firth of Forth, just west of the existing suspension road crossing.
The cable stayed-style bridge is due to open in about 2016 and will cost between £3.2bn and 4.2bn.
Finance Secretary John Swinney told Parliament that concerns over the future viability of the existing bridge meant the government had to act now.
Ruling out a tunnel, he said the chosen option would deliver the crossing in the quickest possible timescale.....
He went on: "It will be an iconic structure. It will maintain a fundamental link across the River Forth. It will create a new and better connection to our transport infrastructure in west and east central Scotland.
"And it will be delivered through effective and comprehensive care for our natural environment"....
The five-and-a-half year construction project is expected to get under way in 2011, with a competition to find a constructor due to be launched the year before."
Back when the cost was a mere £2.5 billion (June this year) I asked why it was so high. The previous road bridge cost £19.5 million which converts today to £314 million. I have asked why exactly real costs have gone up 8 times (now 10 to 13 times) & received no answer except for an implication it is "environmental" & other paperwork costs. The £314 seems in line with overseas experience such as the 2.1 km Sydney cross city tunnel at £300 million.
The official cost of a tunnel is even higher & very much looks like it has been set high so that it will make the bridge look good. We know the Norwegian government have been building tunnels at between £3.5 & £11 million per km which should produce a Forth tunnel at about 1% of the quoted price. The laws of physics are the same on both sides of the North Sea.
I don't believe the rush to build this based on the original claim that the current bridge was about to fall down because the cables were going. This story seems now to be winding down & I very strongly suspect it will be found possible to re-rope this bridge for about £10 million - just after contracts are signed on a new bridge. If so then there is no urgency & we need not be bounced into this.
We are entitled to know exactly why the Scots government cannot build things at less than 10 to 100 times what it costs in the rest of the world. If it is regulatory we should remove such regulations. If it is corruption we should prosecute.
The point about buying a pig in a poke is that it is unwise to buy without seeing what it is. This applies equally when discussing a £4.2 billion pig.
Any new crossing should be openly arrived at, knowing whether it is actually needed & with an open bidding process including foreign bidders. Bidders should be invited to quote for any form of crossing - so long as it does the job. We are also entitled to full explanation of why building costs so much higher in Scotland. Only when all facts are on the table should a decision be made.
I note that, unlike the last bridge this is going to be toll free. Perhaps this is due to the generosity of taxpayers towards motorists or perhaps it is because with probable interest payments on this running at at least £300 million a year there is no possible way that tolls could pay for it, as they did for the previous bridge & not charging anything handily conceals that this project makes no economic sense.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
HOW BRITAIN SHOULD DEVELOP SPACE
Currently the British government spends about £450 million on space - this being our contribution to the European Space Agency. A recent report from a committee of MPs strongly recommended that we increase our space budget. I doubt if anybody in the space advocacy movement would disagree but the real problem is not the amount of money being put into space development but how well, or rather badly, it is spent.
There has been legitimate criticism that NASA, which gets $16 billion (£8 billion) annually, has not been very effective at actually getting into space. By comparison the Russians spend about £800 million annually & are the only nation which currently has a capacity to continuously man the space station. NASA is regularly described as a jobs creation programme for bureaucrats & the southern states masquerading as a space programme. However compared to ESA they are a model of efficiency & success. ESA, combined with the nominally separate German & French space agencies, has a budget of £4.5 billion, half of NASA's & yet is still in the Sputnik era, not having yet managed, or even come close to, launching a single human into space. It is almost openly admitted that the only reason we contribute to the ESA gravy train is to ensure a significant share of the lucrative contracts it hands out - like most European projects it is more important that each nation get a share of the goodies than that it actually achieve anything.
If there is the constituency for more space spending, & the MP's support proves that there is, then the role of space advocates must be to ensure that it is actually spent on space & not co-opted to the EU gravy train. To allow such co-option would discredit any future spending on space in the public eye as it would be seen to achieve little or nothing.
Fortunately there is an alternative - the X-Prize.An X-Prize is a prize awarded for a specific technological achievement, with no strings attached but with no payment made until the goal is achieved. It is thus left up to private individuals & companies to to decide how & whether to compete, without government committees having to say whether sufficient investigation had been made to prove one project sufficiently superior to the previous government project to actually try it, This has been spectacularly successful in the case of Burt Rutan & Spaceship One, where a $10 million prize enabled the first private sub orbital launch, which in turn is being parlayed into Richard Branston's Virgin Galactic space tourism business. $10 million being 0.0006th of NASA's annual budget. Historically similar prizes funded Lindberg's first crossing of the Atlantic & John Harrison's development of a way of measuring longitude. Such prizes have a record of achieving spectacular results at orders of magnitude less cost than conventional projects organised by government bureaucracy - which may explain why government bureaucracies tend not to be keen on them. Another advantage such prizes have is that if they don't succeed they don't cost a single penny - unlike most government projects where failure means increased budgets.
Dr Jerry Pournelle, who has the experience to know, has gone on record to say that he could solve the space access problem with the following government X-Prizes:
"Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:
The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:
1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.
2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.
3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.
4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megawatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.
5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.
That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.
My suggestion is that Britain should set up an independent X-Prize Trust with a small board consisting of suitably qualified engineers, scientists & business people respected within their professions for ability & innovation (definitely not the retired civil servants, politicians & compliant judges, lacking a scientific qualification between them, who normally receive such appointments). This Trust should be funded with the £210 million presently given to ESA & matched by 3 times as much of new money, totalling £840 million - not a serious drain on a government budget of £552 billion but enough to exceed Russia. To ensure stability the government should also guarantee to increase the annual funding in line with GNP, including inflation with, for the first 3 years, 5% above that. Thereafter the rate of increase should be 2% above the increase in corporation tax paid by companies registering an interest in the prize, which I am confident not be less. This would mean a 10% annual rise in the funds given to the trust enabling it to rely on being able to disburse £13 billion within 10 years. This is almost exactly what Dr Pournelle has said would be enough to ensure cheap orbital flight for anybody, a permanent Moonbase & the start of a solar power satellite programme. NASA & certainly not ESA, are not going to provide such a future & though the Russians, Chinese & Japanese are spending their money more effectively they are still running monolithic government programmes. Britain certainly could achieve this - the time is long overdue - 50 years after the Wright Brothers first flew we had transatlantic jet travel & we could have made similar progress 50 years after Sputnik. all That is needed is for the space advocacy movement here to push hard enough for it.
There has been legitimate criticism that NASA, which gets $16 billion (£8 billion) annually, has not been very effective at actually getting into space. By comparison the Russians spend about £800 million annually & are the only nation which currently has a capacity to continuously man the space station. NASA is regularly described as a jobs creation programme for bureaucrats & the southern states masquerading as a space programme. However compared to ESA they are a model of efficiency & success. ESA, combined with the nominally separate German & French space agencies, has a budget of £4.5 billion, half of NASA's & yet is still in the Sputnik era, not having yet managed, or even come close to, launching a single human into space. It is almost openly admitted that the only reason we contribute to the ESA gravy train is to ensure a significant share of the lucrative contracts it hands out - like most European projects it is more important that each nation get a share of the goodies than that it actually achieve anything.
If there is the constituency for more space spending, & the MP's support proves that there is, then the role of space advocates must be to ensure that it is actually spent on space & not co-opted to the EU gravy train. To allow such co-option would discredit any future spending on space in the public eye as it would be seen to achieve little or nothing.
Fortunately there is an alternative - the X-Prize.An X-Prize is a prize awarded for a specific technological achievement, with no strings attached but with no payment made until the goal is achieved. It is thus left up to private individuals & companies to to decide how & whether to compete, without government committees having to say whether sufficient investigation had been made to prove one project sufficiently superior to the previous government project to actually try it, This has been spectacularly successful in the case of Burt Rutan & Spaceship One, where a $10 million prize enabled the first private sub orbital launch, which in turn is being parlayed into Richard Branston's Virgin Galactic space tourism business. $10 million being 0.0006th of NASA's annual budget. Historically similar prizes funded Lindberg's first crossing of the Atlantic & John Harrison's development of a way of measuring longitude. Such prizes have a record of achieving spectacular results at orders of magnitude less cost than conventional projects organised by government bureaucracy - which may explain why government bureaucracies tend not to be keen on them. Another advantage such prizes have is that if they don't succeed they don't cost a single penny - unlike most government projects where failure means increased budgets.
Dr Jerry Pournelle, who has the experience to know, has gone on record to say that he could solve the space access problem with the following government X-Prizes:
"Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:
The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:
1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.
2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.
3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.
4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megawatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.
5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.
That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.
My suggestion is that Britain should set up an independent X-Prize Trust with a small board consisting of suitably qualified engineers, scientists & business people respected within their professions for ability & innovation (definitely not the retired civil servants, politicians & compliant judges, lacking a scientific qualification between them, who normally receive such appointments). This Trust should be funded with the £210 million presently given to ESA & matched by 3 times as much of new money, totalling £840 million - not a serious drain on a government budget of £552 billion but enough to exceed Russia. To ensure stability the government should also guarantee to increase the annual funding in line with GNP, including inflation with, for the first 3 years, 5% above that. Thereafter the rate of increase should be 2% above the increase in corporation tax paid by companies registering an interest in the prize, which I am confident not be less. This would mean a 10% annual rise in the funds given to the trust enabling it to rely on being able to disburse £13 billion within 10 years. This is almost exactly what Dr Pournelle has said would be enough to ensure cheap orbital flight for anybody, a permanent Moonbase & the start of a solar power satellite programme. NASA & certainly not ESA, are not going to provide such a future & though the Russians, Chinese & Japanese are spending their money more effectively they are still running monolithic government programmes. Britain certainly could achieve this - the time is long overdue - 50 years after the Wright Brothers first flew we had transatlantic jet travel & we could have made similar progress 50 years after Sputnik. all That is needed is for the space advocacy movement here to push hard enough for it.
Monday, October 08, 2007
50 YEARS OF SPACE TRAVEL
Letter published in the Metro & the Guardian:
Today (4th Oct) is the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, the first time human beings put anything into space orbit. 12 years later men walked on the Moon.
A comparison with aircraft, where 50 years after the first flight we had achieved twice the speed of sound & passenger jet airlines were in service, is instructive. Today NASA promises to be able to return to the Moon in 13 years, & has been promising this or more for 30 years. The problem is not so much a shortage of money but of how it is used. NASA with a budget of £8 billion has been described as a jobs creation programme for bureaucrats & the southern states which occasionally does some stuff in space. By comparison with Europe, whose combined budget is £5 billiion & has not yet allowed them to launch a human they look positively animated. Russia, on the other hand, with a budget of £650 million actually has a greater launch capacity than even the US. Britain's budget of £210 million, largely given to ESA, is aimed fairly openly not at going anywhere but at ensuring a share of ESA contracts.
The good news is that a $10 million "X-Prize" awarded for the first independent launch has virtually created Virgin Galactic & the space tourism industry - that is what NASA spends every 5 1/2 hours or Europe in 10. Experts have said that an X-Prize of only £1 billion would produce a shuttle capable of at least weekly launches. This is what Britain already spends on space every 5 years. By comparison with what we spend on wars or windmills this is chickenfed (& as for what we spend on farm subsidies)!. With even a little vision humanity could get back on that 50 year track that aircraft builders pioneered.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig
References
Various space budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency#Overall_budget
UK budget of £210 million http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sitesia.aspx/page/1191/l/en
What could be achieved by X-Prizes http://www.jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.html
Today (4th Oct) is the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, the first time human beings put anything into space orbit. 12 years later men walked on the Moon.
A comparison with aircraft, where 50 years after the first flight we had achieved twice the speed of sound & passenger jet airlines were in service, is instructive. Today NASA promises to be able to return to the Moon in 13 years, & has been promising this or more for 30 years. The problem is not so much a shortage of money but of how it is used. NASA with a budget of £8 billion has been described as a jobs creation programme for bureaucrats & the southern states which occasionally does some stuff in space. By comparison with Europe, whose combined budget is £5 billiion & has not yet allowed them to launch a human they look positively animated. Russia, on the other hand, with a budget of £650 million actually has a greater launch capacity than even the US. Britain's budget of £210 million, largely given to ESA, is aimed fairly openly not at going anywhere but at ensuring a share of ESA contracts.
The good news is that a $10 million "X-Prize" awarded for the first independent launch has virtually created Virgin Galactic & the space tourism industry - that is what NASA spends every 5 1/2 hours or Europe in 10. Experts have said that an X-Prize of only £1 billion would produce a shuttle capable of at least weekly launches. This is what Britain already spends on space every 5 years. By comparison with what we spend on wars or windmills this is chickenfed (& as for what we spend on farm subsidies)!. With even a little vision humanity could get back on that 50 year track that aircraft builders pioneered.
Yours Faithfully
Neil Craig
References
Various space budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency#Overall_budget
UK budget of £210 million http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sitesia.aspx/page/1191/l/en
What could be achieved by X-Prizes http://www.jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.html
Friday, June 29, 2007
COST OF SCOTS BUILDING PROJECTS
Running a single tram line across Edinburgh will cost £600 million & the Labour, LibDem & Tory parties have outvoted the SNP administration to keep this boondoggle going.
EARL the proposed train link to Edinburgh Airport, officially costed at £610 million, but for which virtually no work has been done may be successfully canceled.
The previous Executive decided to spend £200 million on a rail link, agreed to be uneconomic between Glasgow airport & the city centre when they had an offer for a monorail link via Paisley station for £20 million.
A new Forth Bridge is being costed at £2.5 billion, far above previous estimates of about £1 billion.
By comparison the original road bridge - "Mott, Hay and Anderson and Freeman Fox & Partners designed and constructed the bridge at a cost to £11.5 million, while the total cost of the project including road connections and realignments was £19.5 million." Further comparison according to this site the modern price of something costing £19.50 should be £314.96 so the new proposal is 8 times more than the the present day cost of the original bridge.
The proposal for a tunnel comes in at a figure I cannot believe is meant seriously but only to discourage interest in anything but a bridge - £4.7 billion.
This was discussed online in the Herald where I said:
"Previous estimates of a tunnel have been between £250 & $500 million & even this is very high compared to the cost of Norwegian tunnels http://www.vti.se/Nordic/1-03mapp/tunnel.htm at £3.5 ot £11 million per kilometre (11 kroner to the £ on the link). To claim that it will cost £4.7 billion &%£"(*&
We should ask international companies to publicly tender for a crossing & see what Bechtel & the like offer
Give the job of building a new forth road bridge to the French, The Millau viaduct is a beautiful example of French engineering and cost only £320,million!
What set me off to put this here was an announcement today that by comparison with the expense of such projects here Germany & Denmark have just agreed to build a bridge costing £3.7 billion pounds.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKBAT00181320070629
It is a 20 kilometre bridge.
We are talking about public projects in Britain costing 10s, possibly several 10s of times what they cost abroad. I can see no technological reason for this & if anybody can think of a reason, other than a cosy relationship between favoured suppliers & the civil service involving massive fraud I would be interested to hear it.
For once I am with the EU - all such projects should be put out to tender & not with the self serving conditions used to fake a tendering process for MacBraynes (eg requiring ferries which, coincidentally, happened to be MacBraynes ferries) but instead with the broadest possible requirements viz "any form of crossing as long as it can carry the traffic".
Reminds me of a scene in I Claudius where Claudius, having been told Rome needs a new harbour & given estimates looks up the records for a similar scene in Octavian's time & finds that his civil servants have given him a vastly inflated figure.
EARL the proposed train link to Edinburgh Airport, officially costed at £610 million, but for which virtually no work has been done may be successfully canceled.
The previous Executive decided to spend £200 million on a rail link, agreed to be uneconomic between Glasgow airport & the city centre when they had an offer for a monorail link via Paisley station for £20 million.
A new Forth Bridge is being costed at £2.5 billion, far above previous estimates of about £1 billion.
By comparison the original road bridge - "Mott, Hay and Anderson and Freeman Fox & Partners designed and constructed the bridge at a cost to £11.5 million, while the total cost of the project including road connections and realignments was £19.5 million." Further comparison according to this site the modern price of something costing £19.50 should be £314.96 so the new proposal is 8 times more than the the present day cost of the original bridge.
The proposal for a tunnel comes in at a figure I cannot believe is meant seriously but only to discourage interest in anything but a bridge - £4.7 billion.
This was discussed online in the Herald where I said:
"Previous estimates of a tunnel have been between £250 & $500 million & even this is very high compared to the cost of Norwegian tunnels http://www.vti.se/Nordic/1-03mapp/tunnel.htm at £3.5 ot £11 million per kilometre (11 kroner to the £ on the link). To claim that it will cost £4.7 billion &%£"(*&
We should ask international companies to publicly tender for a crossing & see what Bechtel & the like offer
Give the job of building a new forth road bridge to the French, The Millau viaduct is a beautiful example of French engineering and cost only £320,million!
What set me off to put this here was an announcement today that by comparison with the expense of such projects here Germany & Denmark have just agreed to build a bridge costing £3.7 billion pounds.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKBAT00181320070629
It is a 20 kilometre bridge.
We are talking about public projects in Britain costing 10s, possibly several 10s of times what they cost abroad. I can see no technological reason for this & if anybody can think of a reason, other than a cosy relationship between favoured suppliers & the civil service involving massive fraud I would be interested to hear it.
For once I am with the EU - all such projects should be put out to tender & not with the self serving conditions used to fake a tendering process for MacBraynes (eg requiring ferries which, coincidentally, happened to be MacBraynes ferries) but instead with the broadest possible requirements viz "any form of crossing as long as it can carry the traffic".
Reminds me of a scene in I Claudius where Claudius, having been told Rome needs a new harbour & given estimates looks up the records for a similar scene in Octavian's time & finds that his civil servants have given him a vastly inflated figure.
Monday, May 07, 2007
ALMOST THE ENTIRITY OF OUR MEDIA COVERAGE
This is virtually the totality of media coverage I got in the election
let us now consider the9% Growth Party.From Tom Shields in the Herald. Had an 8 year old child with a pocket calculator been available Mr Shields could have confirmed that 9% growth over 8 years does indeed double income for everybody but clearly he does not move in such intellectual company. Beyond that he actually seems to know what I was standing for & is apparently a train enthusiast. The Herald & Sunday Herald declined to publish my response.
I met the 9% Growth Party - Mr Neil Craig as he is also known- when went to The Doublet bar in Glasgow to have a pint and avoid elections for a wee while. Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets.
"No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred.
But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour.The"vindictive bans"isa reference to the Scottish Executive's unilateral prohibition on smoking, to which he is opposed.
The leaflet also promised "Double your income in eight years", which sounds a decent enough electoral bribe. In Craig's brave new world, all business taxes and fiscal controls will disappear. And with 9% compound growth, income apparently doubles in eight years.(Well,it does if you are an entrepreneur. If you're on a pension, it might be a little more difficult.) I suggested to Craig that he might have given his movement the snappier title of the Double Your Money Party, but he thought people might get confused with Hughie Green.
Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler. (Check it yourself: Google "9% growth party + Hitler".) Mr 9% does have some sensible policies, too. He wants to automate the Glasgow subway with driverless trains running 24/7 and do the same with the Glasgow-Edinburgh rail link. Less convincing is his proposal to build a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory.
It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the LibDems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement.
I thank Tom Shields for his approval of the 9% Growth Party's proposal for fully automating the Glasgow underground & Glasgow-Edinburgh lines.
He is quite correct that I support putting new nuclear in to replace the 50% of our electricty production which is reaching retirement. This is a matter on which the larger parties have specificly refused to debate. I'm afraid if we lose half our power massive blackouts are obviously inevitable. Burying our heads in the sand, as the big parties do, is grossly irresponsible & will not make reality go away.
The tunnels proposal is based on the Norwegian's achievement of building 740km of tunnels over the last 20 years. A series of tunnels at Gourock/Dunoon & crossing to Kintyre, Bute Arran & as he says, Mull making it a simple drive from there to Glasgow would greatly improve the prospects of all.
Tom expresses some doubt about the effect of 9% Growth. Doubling income in 8 years at 9% growth is how compound growth works. Try getting a pocket calculator & multiplying 1.09 by totaling 8 times & you will see it. Mathematically it is known as the Rule of 72 since doubling, except in very short time periods, requires 72 points of growth. Thus at Scotland's current growth rate of 1.5% doubling takes 48 years while at 10% growth the income of the Chinese will have doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & doubled & close to doubled again.
This is part of why getting the economy growing would be so very valuable for all of us, rich & poor, as I hope, thinking it over, readers will appreciate.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
OUR ELECTION ADDRESS - STILL THE BEST & MOST INNOVATIVE OF ANY PARTY
9% Growth Party – Neil Craig
Election Communication
1st (Regional) Vote
BLACKOUTS ARE COMING
In 2011 Hunterston nuclear power station is due to close & Scotland will lose 1/6th of our electric power.>
In 2015 new EU emission controls will come into effect forcing the closure of our high emission power stations. We will then be down to 2/3rds of current electricity generating capacity.
In 2023 the Torness nuclear station will close & 1/2 of our power will be gone. If we do not replace this, indeed if we do not increase current capacity in line with our hopefully, growing economy we are going to have massive & continual blackouts. In Britain we already have 24,000 deaths per year, mainly pensioners, because of fuel poverty but a further unnecessary massive increase in deaths will be inevitable. The 9% Growth Party calls for immediate approval in Scotland of proven designs & proven sites & to allow the building of enough reactors to satisfy demand. Whether this is done by government investment or private enterprise is unimportant - why is important is that it is done before the lights go out.
If we do this the fact that France is currently producing 80% of the electricity it uses from nuclear at 1.3p a unit. This is half what conventional power costs, 1/4 what onshore windmills cost & 1/6th of offshore wind. To do so would virtually end fuel poverty in Scotland & massively improve our economy. Only we are facing this problem.
PROSPERITY IF WE CHOOSE
In 1989 Ireland, which was then in an economic depression, cut corporation taxes & some regulations - immediately their economy boomed. Since then they have achieved an average of 7% growth per year with a peak of 11%. That is why Ireland has gone from 2/3rd our standard of living to 4/3rds & is now, per capita, as rich as the USA.
Our leaders should have noticed this years ago but it is not to late. If we cut our corporation tax, possibly in several steps, to Ireland' 12.5%, do the same with business rates & look at our regulatory regime, particularly the regulations which prevent housebuilding. If we do this we can reasonably expect to do better than Ireland since we have a stronger tradition of scientific & enterprise.
If we also allow the building of the sort of modern nuclear plants which are producing power in France a 9% growth rate is fully achievable.
9% Growth Party – A Philosophy
A century ago 80% of the metal hulled ships in the world were Clydebuilt. This is not a plea for going back to shipbuilding it is a plea for Scotland to regain the spirit of science, technology & entrepreneurship which allowed us to build the Clyde as the leader in what were then the world's greatest high technology industries.
Scotland has fallen to a political elite whose reaction to any form of new technology or new ideas are to regulate them out of existence. This drives the fruits of our science abroad, which is why so many of those who developed Dolly the sheep are now working in Singapore.
We wish to see our government support progress not decline further into the Ludditism of windmillery & dependency. We support human progress & absolutely reject the doomsayers who tell us the we have no future. In many was, in both engineering & philosophical terms Scots invented the modern world. The engineering of James Watt & the economic philosophy of Adam Smith should make us proud of our heritage, but also eager to live up to it.
The classic liberalism of Smith is sweeping the world producing growth from Ireland to China. We can & should learn from the nations we have taught.
Scotland's greatest days can be ahead of us IF we choose.
26 Things We Support
1) Stop blackouts. Act before we lose 50% of our electricity.
2) 9% growth using the methods that gave Ireland 7% on average & 10.5% in a good year.
3) Reform planning regulations. In 1907 a house & car cost the same - the difference is that planning regulators restrict housebuilding.
4) Stop subsidising windmills. Save £1 billion.
5) The smoking ban is an illiberal restriction on individual freedom. End it.
6) End fuel poverty. France produces 80% nuclear at 1.3p a unit. We can do the same.
7) A needs based transport policy. The previous Executive were committed to spending 70% of their transport budget on public transport (code for railways) though it makes up only 3% of traffic.
8) Tunnels project. Norway built 740km of tunnels at £7 million per km. We should do the same making it a short drive from Glasgow to Dunoon, Rothesay, Kintyre, Jura, Islay & Mull etc. Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
9) Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
10) Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train with the same effect.
11) Ultimate aim of a fully automated Scots rail transport system.
12) 2% cut in civil servants annually.
13) 2% government efficiency savings. Almost any private business trys to incresae efficiency at least that much & their is more scope in Holyrood.
14) Don't spend £610 million digging a tunnel under Edinburgh Airport. Make sure other government projects at least come close to making economic sense.
15) 3p cut in Scots income tax after funding of business tax cuts to provide growth.
16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.
17) A Holyrood committee to find & abolish counterproductive laws & regulations.
18) A schools vouchers system.
19) Allow schools to impose discipline.
20) Make a DVD of Scotland's history & post it to Scots, or those with Scots names, over the world. Include links encouraging Scottish tourism.
21) Establish a £20 million X-Prize to encourage space satelite industry to locate in scotland.
22) Establish an X-Prize foundation funded from the Scots contribution to the lottery to encourage high technology in Scotland.
23) Widen & improve the M8.
24) If Gore's silly film must be shown to Scots schoolchildren let them see the alternate view, AS THE LAW SPECIFICLY REQUIRES.
25) 54% of all money spent in Scotland is government money. Cut this.
26) Instead of knocking down Glasgow's high rise flats they should be given, free of charge, to those occupants who don't prefer to be rehoused.
Election Communication
1st (Regional) Vote
BLACKOUTS ARE COMING
In 2011 Hunterston nuclear power station is due to close & Scotland will lose 1/6th of our electric power.>
In 2015 new EU emission controls will come into effect forcing the closure of our high emission power stations. We will then be down to 2/3rds of current electricity generating capacity.
In 2023 the Torness nuclear station will close & 1/2 of our power will be gone. If we do not replace this, indeed if we do not increase current capacity in line with our hopefully, growing economy we are going to have massive & continual blackouts. In Britain we already have 24,000 deaths per year, mainly pensioners, because of fuel poverty but a further unnecessary massive increase in deaths will be inevitable. The 9% Growth Party calls for immediate approval in Scotland of proven designs & proven sites & to allow the building of enough reactors to satisfy demand. Whether this is done by government investment or private enterprise is unimportant - why is important is that it is done before the lights go out.
If we do this the fact that France is currently producing 80% of the electricity it uses from nuclear at 1.3p a unit. This is half what conventional power costs, 1/4 what onshore windmills cost & 1/6th of offshore wind. To do so would virtually end fuel poverty in Scotland & massively improve our economy. Only we are facing this problem.
PROSPERITY IF WE CHOOSE
In 1989 Ireland, which was then in an economic depression, cut corporation taxes & some regulations - immediately their economy boomed. Since then they have achieved an average of 7% growth per year with a peak of 11%. That is why Ireland has gone from 2/3rd our standard of living to 4/3rds & is now, per capita, as rich as the USA.
Our leaders should have noticed this years ago but it is not to late. If we cut our corporation tax, possibly in several steps, to Ireland' 12.5%, do the same with business rates & look at our regulatory regime, particularly the regulations which prevent housebuilding. If we do this we can reasonably expect to do better than Ireland since we have a stronger tradition of scientific & enterprise.
If we also allow the building of the sort of modern nuclear plants which are producing power in France a 9% growth rate is fully achievable.
9% Growth Party – A Philosophy
A century ago 80% of the metal hulled ships in the world were Clydebuilt. This is not a plea for going back to shipbuilding it is a plea for Scotland to regain the spirit of science, technology & entrepreneurship which allowed us to build the Clyde as the leader in what were then the world's greatest high technology industries.
Scotland has fallen to a political elite whose reaction to any form of new technology or new ideas are to regulate them out of existence. This drives the fruits of our science abroad, which is why so many of those who developed Dolly the sheep are now working in Singapore.
We wish to see our government support progress not decline further into the Ludditism of windmillery & dependency. We support human progress & absolutely reject the doomsayers who tell us the we have no future. In many was, in both engineering & philosophical terms Scots invented the modern world. The engineering of James Watt & the economic philosophy of Adam Smith should make us proud of our heritage, but also eager to live up to it.
The classic liberalism of Smith is sweeping the world producing growth from Ireland to China. We can & should learn from the nations we have taught.
Scotland's greatest days can be ahead of us IF we choose.
26 Things We Support
1) Stop blackouts. Act before we lose 50% of our electricity.
2) 9% growth using the methods that gave Ireland 7% on average & 10.5% in a good year.
3) Reform planning regulations. In 1907 a house & car cost the same - the difference is that planning regulators restrict housebuilding.
4) Stop subsidising windmills. Save £1 billion.
5) The smoking ban is an illiberal restriction on individual freedom. End it.
6) End fuel poverty. France produces 80% nuclear at 1.3p a unit. We can do the same.
7) A needs based transport policy. The previous Executive were committed to spending 70% of their transport budget on public transport (code for railways) though it makes up only 3% of traffic.
8) Tunnels project. Norway built 740km of tunnels at £7 million per km. We should do the same making it a short drive from Glasgow to Dunoon, Rothesay, Kintyre, Jura, Islay & Mull etc. Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
9) Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
10) Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train with the same effect.
11) Ultimate aim of a fully automated Scots rail transport system.
12) 2% cut in civil servants annually.
13) 2% government efficiency savings. Almost any private business trys to incresae efficiency at least that much & their is more scope in Holyrood.
14) Don't spend £610 million digging a tunnel under Edinburgh Airport. Make sure other government projects at least come close to making economic sense.
15) 3p cut in Scots income tax after funding of business tax cuts to provide growth.
16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.
17) A Holyrood committee to find & abolish counterproductive laws & regulations.
18) A schools vouchers system.
19) Allow schools to impose discipline.
20) Make a DVD of Scotland's history & post it to Scots, or those with Scots names, over the world. Include links encouraging Scottish tourism.
21) Establish a £20 million X-Prize to encourage space satelite industry to locate in scotland.
22) Establish an X-Prize foundation funded from the Scots contribution to the lottery to encourage high technology in Scotland.
23) Widen & improve the M8.
24) If Gore's silly film must be shown to Scots schoolchildren let them see the alternate view, AS THE LAW SPECIFICLY REQUIRES.
25) 54% of all money spent in Scotland is government money. Cut this.
26) Instead of knocking down Glasgow's high rise flats they should be given, free of charge, to those occupants who don't prefer to be rehoused.
Friday, May 04, 2007
I DIDN'T WIN - & THEN SOME
OK no way round it. I came last on the Glasgow poll. I got 80 votes.
Thats democracy. I think I was right & everybody else wrong but so be it.
Thats democracy. I think I was right & everybody else wrong but so be it.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
RED ROAD FLATS ARE BEAUTIFUL
The Red Road flats are a group of 8 blocks which, when put up in the early 1970s were the highest & arguably the grandest blocks of flats in Europe. Shortly after that high flats, which politically had been "the answer" to housing became unfashionable & the Council, in the tradition of self fulfilling prophecies, let them slip. Recently the Glasgow Housing Association decided that they should be knocked down & everybody rehoused.
Of the policies in my election address #26 was that rather than knocking down such blocks it would be better to give them to those occupants who don't want rehoused. I decided to do a special leaflet pointing this out & distribute it there & I spent yesterday evening doing so. Partly I was inspired by Matt Quinn's letter reproduced on 27th April here. "The place is in the state it's in because of WILFUL neglect on the part of the City Fathers; no other reason. They let the buildings rot, effectively condoned the violence and drugs and deliberately used the place as a dumping ground"
Having been there I believe there is nothing wrong with the place that could not be fairly easily fixed. I have delivered leaflets in North Kelvinside & I can say that there are closes there, where most of the flats cost 200 K, which are in a worse state of repair. I do not believe there is anything structurally wrong. It is a sin to knock it down.
Give the properties free to those who want to stay (& whom the rest don't have a serious problem with - such is the nature of dumping grounds). Put in place a good commercial factor (Glasgow has lots) with a strong factoring agreement. Get a proper community council going working with the new factors & police.… Give Mr Mo the franchise for a couple of 24 hour shops at the base of the bigger blocks (there are a couple of shops surviving but if actually linked to the blocks themselves people could buy things without having to go outdoors which would make them community centres. Encourage the building of a McDonalds (or Pizza house if we are going to be politically correct) & a pub (with good soundproofing cause sound travels upwards easily). Do a bit of repainting & replastering - not that much. There is a really horrible stagnant pool just behind the nursery school, which I suspect has been there since the earth was piled up during the building - clear it & put up a cheap prefabricated community hall. Also there are places where ownerscould buy 2 flats 7 knock them into one. Not within current rules but perfectly feasible.
All this would create a real community & I guarantee that in 6 months lawyers who work in both Glasgow & Edinburgh (it is near both the Edinburgh & Stirling motorways) would discover it. In 5 years it would be gentrified, an entrepreneur would be building a 3 level car park in the present parking space, Tommy Sheriden would be denouncing the fact that "ordinary working people" could no longer afford to buy (but were selling) penthouse flats & Scottish national heritage, God help us, would be wanting to list the buildings.
Opinions of those I spoke to were mixed. Some thought they were to far gone & should be knocked down, but even they thought they had once been fine. One told me it was a done deal & that the people were powerless because GHA had "already sold the land". And some saw the potential.
As I left it, last night I looked back at the flats. They are always impressive but, against a velvet night sky they stood out as pillars of light & they really are beautiful.
Of the policies in my election address #26 was that rather than knocking down such blocks it would be better to give them to those occupants who don't want rehoused. I decided to do a special leaflet pointing this out & distribute it there & I spent yesterday evening doing so. Partly I was inspired by Matt Quinn's letter reproduced on 27th April here. "The place is in the state it's in because of WILFUL neglect on the part of the City Fathers; no other reason. They let the buildings rot, effectively condoned the violence and drugs and deliberately used the place as a dumping ground"
Having been there I believe there is nothing wrong with the place that could not be fairly easily fixed. I have delivered leaflets in North Kelvinside & I can say that there are closes there, where most of the flats cost 200 K, which are in a worse state of repair. I do not believe there is anything structurally wrong. It is a sin to knock it down.
Give the properties free to those who want to stay (& whom the rest don't have a serious problem with - such is the nature of dumping grounds). Put in place a good commercial factor (Glasgow has lots) with a strong factoring agreement. Get a proper community council going working with the new factors & police.… Give Mr Mo the franchise for a couple of 24 hour shops at the base of the bigger blocks (there are a couple of shops surviving but if actually linked to the blocks themselves people could buy things without having to go outdoors which would make them community centres. Encourage the building of a McDonalds (or Pizza house if we are going to be politically correct) & a pub (with good soundproofing cause sound travels upwards easily). Do a bit of repainting & replastering - not that much. There is a really horrible stagnant pool just behind the nursery school, which I suspect has been there since the earth was piled up during the building - clear it & put up a cheap prefabricated community hall. Also there are places where ownerscould buy 2 flats 7 knock them into one. Not within current rules but perfectly feasible.
All this would create a real community & I guarantee that in 6 months lawyers who work in both Glasgow & Edinburgh (it is near both the Edinburgh & Stirling motorways) would discover it. In 5 years it would be gentrified, an entrepreneur would be building a 3 level car park in the present parking space, Tommy Sheriden would be denouncing the fact that "ordinary working people" could no longer afford to buy (but were selling) penthouse flats & Scottish national heritage, God help us, would be wanting to list the buildings.
Opinions of those I spoke to were mixed. Some thought they were to far gone & should be knocked down, but even they thought they had once been fine. One told me it was a done deal & that the people were powerless because GHA had "already sold the land". And some saw the potential.
As I left it, last night I looked back at the flats. They are always impressive but, against a velvet night sky they stood out as pillars of light & they really are beautiful.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
RECENT PRESS RELEASES
30/4/7
The 9% Growth Party is pleased to see that the President of the World Federation of Scientists Antonio Zichichi, discoverer of nuclear anti-matter has stated that he is not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of "greenhouse gases" produced through human activity.
Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on the fluctuation of cosmic rays.
For such an eminent man in such a position to say this proves that the whole idea that there exists a "scientific consensus", rather than a political one, on catastrophic global warming is untrue.
All 7 Luddite parties in Scotland are insisting on spending £1 billiion a year subsidising windmills to "fight" this non-existent threat rather than £870 million on the 3p income tax cut the 9% Growth party favours.
This drives a coach & horses through their claims.
------------------------------------
28/4/7
A research paper published by the Adam Smith Institute, said that Scotland could emulate Ireland's recent economic success:
Instead of current growth rates that trail the rest of the country, Scotland ten years into independence could out-perform the UK, the report claimed.
If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.
The paper, Independent Scotland: The Road to Riches by international economist Gabriel Stein of Lombard Street Research, found that from 1992 to 2004, Scotland's gross value added growth was only 87 per cent of that of the UK.If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.
This is almost exactly what the 9% Growth party have been saying (though we say that building enough inexpensive new nuclear can push it up to 9%) & indeed what I was expelled from the LibDems for saying. However if we get the setting of corporation tax rates devloved to us & I see no reason why we can't, then we can do all this with or without separation.Equally we might get separation & a government supported by the Greens & S&SSP - a scenario for which the word "desperate" would be inadequate.
If the 9% Growth Party do not do well in Glasgow it is that much more likely that the SNP activists will be able to pull them in a leftward direction.
Their link http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/xopinion-formers/a/adam-smith-institute-scots-thousands-pounds-better-off-after-independence-$472260.htm
-----------------------------------
21/4/7
The SNP leader has given a speech about the growth his party would aim for. Instead of the previous concentration on a 4% growth rate we are now told that we should expect a growth rate equal to or better than the UK average (2.5%), up 1% from the abysmal performance of the previous Executive (1.5%). This is an extremely modest promise. The promise of 4% growth, said to be an average of Ireland's 7% & other small countries is now relegated to the date when independence under his party has been achieved or Hell freezes over, whichever comes first.
They intend to achieve this by cutting corporation tax to 20%.
By comparison the 9% Growth Party are committed to:
1) Cutting corporation tax to 12.5% (the Irish rate)
2) Cutting business rates very substantially.
3) Setting up a Holyrood committee to identify & repeal economically damaging laws & regulations (again following the Irish example).
4) Cutting building regulations & encouraging mass off site manufacturing in the housebuilding industry to achieve a minimum of 30,000 new homes a year.
5) Producing nuclear electricity at 1.3p a unit as France does.
6) Cutting income tax by the full allowed 3p.
While it is true that the SNP are doing only 1/2 of 1 of our proposals we believe their extremely modest proposal to increase growth by 1% is realistic. We trust they will also do us the courtesy of confirming that our, up to 12 times more robust, programme to increase growth 7.5% to 9% is, if anything, more realistic
--------------------------
17/4/7
We note that Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, Tories & Greens have all refused an invitation to discuss the forthcoming loss of 50% of Scotland's electricity, when Hunterson, high emission coal generators & Torness close.
This is grossly irresponsible of them since the electorate have a right to know what plans, if any, they have to replace this power.
The 9% Growth Party is pleased to see that the President of the World Federation of Scientists Antonio Zichichi, discoverer of nuclear anti-matter has stated that he is not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of "greenhouse gases" produced through human activity.
Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on the fluctuation of cosmic rays.
For such an eminent man in such a position to say this proves that the whole idea that there exists a "scientific consensus", rather than a political one, on catastrophic global warming is untrue.
All 7 Luddite parties in Scotland are insisting on spending £1 billiion a year subsidising windmills to "fight" this non-existent threat rather than £870 million on the 3p income tax cut the 9% Growth party favours.
This drives a coach & horses through their claims.
------------------------------------
28/4/7
A research paper published by the Adam Smith Institute, said that Scotland could emulate Ireland's recent economic success:
Instead of current growth rates that trail the rest of the country, Scotland ten years into independence could out-perform the UK, the report claimed.
If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.
The paper, Independent Scotland: The Road to Riches by international economist Gabriel Stein of Lombard Street Research, found that from 1992 to 2004, Scotland's gross value added growth was only 87 per cent of that of the UK.If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.
This is almost exactly what the 9% Growth party have been saying (though we say that building enough inexpensive new nuclear can push it up to 9%) & indeed what I was expelled from the LibDems for saying. However if we get the setting of corporation tax rates devloved to us & I see no reason why we can't, then we can do all this with or without separation.Equally we might get separation & a government supported by the Greens & S&SSP - a scenario for which the word "desperate" would be inadequate.
If the 9% Growth Party do not do well in Glasgow it is that much more likely that the SNP activists will be able to pull them in a leftward direction.
Their link http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/xopinion-formers/a/adam-smith-institute-scots-thousands-pounds-better-off-after-independence-$472260.htm
-----------------------------------
21/4/7
The SNP leader has given a speech about the growth his party would aim for. Instead of the previous concentration on a 4% growth rate we are now told that we should expect a growth rate equal to or better than the UK average (2.5%), up 1% from the abysmal performance of the previous Executive (1.5%). This is an extremely modest promise. The promise of 4% growth, said to be an average of Ireland's 7% & other small countries is now relegated to the date when independence under his party has been achieved or Hell freezes over, whichever comes first.
They intend to achieve this by cutting corporation tax to 20%.
By comparison the 9% Growth Party are committed to:
1) Cutting corporation tax to 12.5% (the Irish rate)
2) Cutting business rates very substantially.
3) Setting up a Holyrood committee to identify & repeal economically damaging laws & regulations (again following the Irish example).
4) Cutting building regulations & encouraging mass off site manufacturing in the housebuilding industry to achieve a minimum of 30,000 new homes a year.
5) Producing nuclear electricity at 1.3p a unit as France does.
6) Cutting income tax by the full allowed 3p.
While it is true that the SNP are doing only 1/2 of 1 of our proposals we believe their extremely modest proposal to increase growth by 1% is realistic. We trust they will also do us the courtesy of confirming that our, up to 12 times more robust, programme to increase growth 7.5% to 9% is, if anything, more realistic
--------------------------
17/4/7
We note that Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, Tories & Greens have all refused an invitation to discuss the forthcoming loss of 50% of Scotland's electricity, when Hunterson, high emission coal generators & Torness close.
This is grossly irresponsible of them since the electorate have a right to know what plans, if any, they have to replace this power.
Monday, April 30, 2007
WHAT "CONSENSUS" ON WARMING
The media have been pushing the claim that there is a "consensus" among scientists, not merely among politicians & journalists on the warming swindle. What sort of consensus excludes the President of their organisation?
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 27, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Scientists might not have human behavior to blame for global warming, according to the president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Antonio Zichichi, who is also a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna, made this assertion today in an address delivered to an international congress sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment.
He also cited that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view. The U.N. commission was founded in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.
Zichichi, who is also member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, showed that the mathematical models used by the IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.
He said that the IPCC used "the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations."
The physicist affirmed that on the basis of actual scientific fact "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes," and that it is plausible that "man is not to blame."
He also reminded those present that 500,000 years ago the Earth lost the North and South Poles four times. The poles disappeared and reformed four times, he said.
Zichichi said that in the end he is not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of "greenhouse gases" produced through human activity.
Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on the fluctuation of cosmic rays.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
A member of the Anti-smoking Publican Party posted in the Scotsman on Sunday:
"The current smoking ban was initiated by pressure groups such as ASH Scotland who incidentally received £1.7 of taxpayers money from the Scottish Executive between 1999 and 2005.
I have met many non-smokers who have said they support our view as they see the ban as a freedom of choice issue."
I replied
"Thanks Eddie I hadn't realised they had been given £1.7 (million) of our money to browbeat us.
Rather like Scottish Renewables boss getting money to lobby (& write letters to the Scotsman) for more money for windmills.
I am also a non-smoker who shares the view that the smoking ban is an "illiberal attack on individual freedom".
Our political class is a very incestuous bunch who seem to be cross subsidising each other at every opportunity.
If this money had gone to a political party (either yours or ours) to lobby against spending more taxpayer money there would, correctly, be an outcry."
"The current smoking ban was initiated by pressure groups such as ASH Scotland who incidentally received £1.7 of taxpayers money from the Scottish Executive between 1999 and 2005.
I have met many non-smokers who have said they support our view as they see the ban as a freedom of choice issue."
I replied
"Thanks Eddie I hadn't realised they had been given £1.7 (million) of our money to browbeat us.
Rather like Scottish Renewables boss getting money to lobby (& write letters to the Scotsman) for more money for windmills.
I am also a non-smoker who shares the view that the smoking ban is an "illiberal attack on individual freedom".
Our political class is a very incestuous bunch who seem to be cross subsidising each other at every opportunity.
If this money had gone to a political party (either yours or ours) to lobby against spending more taxpayer money there would, correctly, be an outcry."
WHY ARE OUR POLITICIANS SO BAD?
Tom Brown in the Scotland on Sunday:
I put my job on the line twice with editors who were uncertain about backing the Scottish Parliament. Now, I look at the mediocrities on all sides of the chamber - a motley collection who, from the very first session, were described as "duds", "sweetie-wives", "skivers" and, of course, "numpties" - and I ask: "My God! Did I do it for this?"
...We envisaged teachers and educationalists bringing their classroom experience to schools policy-making, doctors and health professionals fixing the NHS, lawyers immersed in the rights and wrongs of the law-and-order system, instead of a social worker who is out of her depth and a laughing stock as Justice Minister.
Scotland is a first-rate country capable of producing first-rate politicians at UK and international level. So why have we settled for second and third-raters in our Parliament?
From the start, it was deliberate policy by the party hierarchies to choose candidates who would toe the leadership line. Rather than the brightest and best, they opted for the dullest and safest.....
I commented:
Only thing I disagree with is his list of professions which should be represented in parliament. To my mind we have more than enough lawyers & teachers & a grave shortage of engineers, accountants & scientists.
I put my job on the line twice with editors who were uncertain about backing the Scottish Parliament. Now, I look at the mediocrities on all sides of the chamber - a motley collection who, from the very first session, were described as "duds", "sweetie-wives", "skivers" and, of course, "numpties" - and I ask: "My God! Did I do it for this?"
...We envisaged teachers and educationalists bringing their classroom experience to schools policy-making, doctors and health professionals fixing the NHS, lawyers immersed in the rights and wrongs of the law-and-order system, instead of a social worker who is out of her depth and a laughing stock as Justice Minister.
Scotland is a first-rate country capable of producing first-rate politicians at UK and international level. So why have we settled for second and third-raters in our Parliament?
From the start, it was deliberate policy by the party hierarchies to choose candidates who would toe the leadership line. Rather than the brightest and best, they opted for the dullest and safest.....
I commented:
Only thing I disagree with is his list of professions which should be represented in parliament. To my mind we have more than enough lawyers & teachers & a grave shortage of engineers, accountants & scientists.
SoS has an article on business reaction to an SNP win. I commented :
The SNP have promised to improve growth to beyond the UK average, IE above 2.5% & to 4% on independence. If they get the power to change corporation tax that is fiscally at least as good as independence.
A 4% growth rate is easily achievable if the will is there & in my opinion this pledge is more important to the average person than independence.
This promise must not be ignored & it is up to the media & business leaders (& the 9% Growth party if elected in Glasgow) to keep reminding them.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Discussing a stripogram ban.
The same vindictive politically correct puritanism which brought in the smoking ban. Doubtless we will be told that passive enjoyment at looking at sexy women can harm you.It should be remembered that the smoking ban was supported by all parties - Scotland's political class, not merely one party, is the problem. Among the 26 things we support & the other parties almost unanimously oppose was not merely ending the smoking ban but: 16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.I must admit I had thought they would get the election over before announcing more such things
Stephen Hawking in weightless training.
"I want to encourage public interest in space flight and I hope many people will follow in my path.
"Life on Earth is at ever- increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically-engineered virus or other dangers. "
"I think the human race has no future unless it goes into space."
This is, of course completly incompatible with the Greens who say that humanity's future is retreating back into our past. Another point is that the disabled might find space a particularly congenial place to live. Even the Moon, at 1/6th our gravity, could mean many years of extended life to those with heart problems.
It is shameful that having got there in 1969 we gave up. We could have had 10s of thousands of people living there now.
A debate on policy
The same vindictive politically correct puritanism which brought in the smoking ban. Doubtless we will be told that passive enjoyment at looking at sexy women can harm you.It should be remembered that the smoking ban was supported by all parties - Scotland's political class, not merely one party, is the problem. Among the 26 things we support & the other parties almost unanimously oppose was not merely ending the smoking ban but: 16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.I must admit I had thought they would get the election over before announcing more such things
Stephen Hawking in weightless training.
"I want to encourage public interest in space flight and I hope many people will follow in my path.
"Life on Earth is at ever- increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically-engineered virus or other dangers. "
"I think the human race has no future unless it goes into space."
This is, of course completly incompatible with the Greens who say that humanity's future is retreating back into our past. Another point is that the disabled might find space a particularly congenial place to live. Even the Moon, at 1/6th our gravity, could mean many years of extended life to those with heart problems.
It is shameful that having got there in 1969 we gave up. We could have had 10s of thousands of people living there now.
A debate on policy
ADAM SMITH INSTITUE
Instead of current growth rates that trail the rest of the country, Scotland ten years into independence could out-perform the UK, the report claimed.If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.
The paper, Independent Scotland: The Road to Riches by international economist Gabriel Stein of Lombard Street Research, found that from 1992 to 2004, Scotland's gross value added growth was only 87 per cent of that of the UK.
If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.----------------------------------------
This is almost exactly what the 9% Growth party have been saying (though we say that building enough inexpensive new nuclear can push it up to 9%) & indeed what I was expelled from the LibDems for saying. However if we get the setting of corporation tax rates devloved to us & I see no reason why we can't, then we can do all this with or without separation.
Equally we might get separation & a government supported by the Greens & S&SSP - a scenario for which the word "desperate" would be inadequate.
If the 9% Growth Party do not do well in Glasgow it is that much more likely that the SNP activists will be able to pull them in a leftward direction.
Friday, April 27, 2007
GLASGOW HUSTINGS
I went to the Stop the War Coalition Hustings last week. Though I hadn't been invited I was, after a bit of a push, given a place because the Tories & Labour had both decided not to come.
They didn't really know what to make of me since on the one hand I spoke strongly against both the Iraq & Yugoslav wars & got a rousing cheer for saying that, under the precedent of Nuremberg, Blair was guilty of war crimes & it was in the interests not merely of justice but international legality, that he be brought to trial.
On the other hand, being basically a coalition of socialists my freemarketsim didn't go down well & saying that we are going to have massive blackouts if we don't build new nuclear went unanswered. Finally my answer to question on whether the BNP should be allowed to stand my liberal commitment to free speech, even for people we disagree with went down like a lead balloon. Nonetheless I believe it.
At the end a nice young lady took my photo & said that while she was a left wing socialist her husband was a classic liberal & would almost certainly vote for me. I assume in that house they throw copies of Marx & Adam Smith rather than crockery.
---------------------------------------------
Unfortunately I have not been invited to any other hustings, mostly organised by the churches. I assume, apart from being more convenient, this is a handy way of de facto banning the BNP without discriminating against them. If so it is an example of how censorship, once started, tends to spread.
It is said that the public meeting is dead & I am certain I reach for more people on the net here & on newspaper online sections than I could at meetings. Nonetheless it is a bad thing for democracy that the choice of what people willing to make the effort of coming to hustings are allowed to hear is being censored. I am also convinced that I could speak as effectively on my policies as any of the others with the possible exception of Tommy, who does have an extremely effective form of bluster.
They didn't really know what to make of me since on the one hand I spoke strongly against both the Iraq & Yugoslav wars & got a rousing cheer for saying that, under the precedent of Nuremberg, Blair was guilty of war crimes & it was in the interests not merely of justice but international legality, that he be brought to trial.
On the other hand, being basically a coalition of socialists my freemarketsim didn't go down well & saying that we are going to have massive blackouts if we don't build new nuclear went unanswered. Finally my answer to question on whether the BNP should be allowed to stand my liberal commitment to free speech, even for people we disagree with went down like a lead balloon. Nonetheless I believe it.
At the end a nice young lady took my photo & said that while she was a left wing socialist her husband was a classic liberal & would almost certainly vote for me. I assume in that house they throw copies of Marx & Adam Smith rather than crockery.
---------------------------------------------
Unfortunately I have not been invited to any other hustings, mostly organised by the churches. I assume, apart from being more convenient, this is a handy way of de facto banning the BNP without discriminating against them. If so it is an example of how censorship, once started, tends to spread.
It is said that the public meeting is dead & I am certain I reach for more people on the net here & on newspaper online sections than I could at meetings. Nonetheless it is a bad thing for democracy that the choice of what people willing to make the effort of coming to hustings are allowed to hear is being censored. I am also convinced that I could speak as effectively on my policies as any of the others with the possible exception of Tommy, who does have an extremely effective form of bluster.
NUCLEAR COSTS
Another assertion of nuclear being more expensive on the Daily Record blog http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/messageboards/page.cfm?objectid=15649356&method=m2_msg_full&siteid=66633 which I corrected & brought no further dispute.
Duncan McFarlane from CARLUKE said...
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe nor CO2 free. .In order: British nuclear, currently owned by the government has provided the Treasury with £2.5 billion profit in recent years. This is not a government subsidy. France is 80% nuclear is producing it at .1.3p (2.6cents) a unit selling it to all its neighbours including the south of England - http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htmTotal deaths in nuclear since Chernobyl are 2 worldwide, in Japan. By comparison coal kills 150,000 annually worldwide 20 people in Britain have died on windmills.Nuclear produces no CO2 by burning. It is a nuclear not chemical reaction. The CO2 opponents talk about come from employees breathing, concrete setting industrial processes. Since each windmill requires a base of up to 1000 tons of poured concrete windmills, by that definition, produce vastly more CO2 than nuclear. Sincere opponents must also oppose windmills.
Duncan McFarlane from CARLUKE said...
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe nor CO2 free. .In order: British nuclear, currently owned by the government has provided the Treasury with £2.5 billion profit in recent years. This is not a government subsidy. France is 80% nuclear is producing it at .1.3p (2.6cents) a unit selling it to all its neighbours including the south of England - http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htmTotal deaths in nuclear since Chernobyl are 2 worldwide, in Japan. By comparison coal kills 150,000 annually worldwide 20 people in Britain have died on windmills.Nuclear produces no CO2 by burning. It is a nuclear not chemical reaction. The CO2 opponents talk about come from employees breathing, concrete setting industrial processes. Since each windmill requires a base of up to 1000 tons of poured concrete windmills, by that definition, produce vastly more CO2 than nuclear. Sincere opponents must also oppose windmills.
BBC INTERVIEW
Here is an interview I did for the BBC but purely to be delivered online.
It is the sole mention they have made of 9% Growth.
Considering that the BBC can be relied on to produce at least 2 items a day talking to the Green Party/Greenpeace/FoI spokespeople I think it is another example, like their continual news items about global warming being "worse than previously thought", where their political allegence lies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6567017.stm
Still I think it is an OK interview.
It is the sole mention they have made of 9% Growth.
Considering that the BBC can be relied on to produce at least 2 items a day talking to the Green Party/Greenpeace/FoI spokespeople I think it is another example, like their continual news items about global warming being "worse than previously thought", where their political allegence lies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6567017.stm
Still I think it is an OK interview.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE ON THEPC VIEW - WHEN THEY HAVE NO ARGUMENTS
I have been outed on the Herald forum [ http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1347061.0.0.php } so guess you had better know
Posted by: John McIntosh, Barrhead on 2:08pm Mon 23 Apr 07
================================================= 9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred. But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour. Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler. He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory. It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement. =============================================== All aboard the loony train.....
=================================================9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred.But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour.Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler.He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory.It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement.===============================================All aboard the loony train.....
I replied
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth party, Glasgow on 2:45pm Mon 23 Apr 07
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off. And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts. And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness . And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie. And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels. And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth. So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested. http://9percentgrowth.blogspot.com/
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off.And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts.And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness .And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie.And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels.And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth.So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested.
He didn't.
Posted by: John McIntosh, Barrhead on 2:08pm Mon 23 Apr 07
================================================= 9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred. But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour. Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler. He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory. It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement. =============================================== All aboard the loony train.....
=================================================9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred.But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour.Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler.He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory.It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement.===============================================All aboard the loony train.....
I replied
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth party, Glasgow on 2:45pm Mon 23 Apr 07
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off. And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts. And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness . And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie. And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels. And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth. So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested. http://9percentgrowth.blogspot.com/
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off.And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts.And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness .And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie.And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels.And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth.So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested.
He didn't.
EATING UP THE GREENS
I have had several discussions with a group of Green party activists on the Herald comments section, one at least of whom is either employed as a Grenn organisation advertising flack or has a boss who has no objection to him spending his woking hours being one.
You can read our discussion on carbon footprints http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1342474.0.0.php
After a considerable amount of rudeness on their part & more measured rudenss on mine I said
Yet again - I repeat "And you still haven't come up with a single eco-scare story which, over time, turned out to be truthful." Come on - 1 single catastrophe scare story out of hundreds which turned out to be fully & entirely truthful isn't a lot to ask.
It isn't but they couldn't
But the next day on a different thread [ http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1347061.0.0.php ] about nuclear power we got on of the same Green Party trio saying
Are you sitting comfortably as this might come as something as a shock to you:No one is interested in anything you have to say! There, I think that needed to be said. Every day you come on here and get shot down in flames. Even when people answer your questions you either choose to ignore them or deflect the question on to some other topic.I look forward to May 4th so we don't have to put up with any more of your annoying drivel and your demented belief that the answer to all of the worlds ills in economic growth.
I do not get bullied by the likes of that & replied
Again Susan i would say that getting richer is an answer to quite a few ills. As a Green with whom I have clashed before perhaps you would care to dispute your point with fellow Green Michael Stewart who attacked me for saying that you Greens were, at least in practice & often in theory as well, anti-growth.Or perhaps, having been shot down in flames you will decline to answer - again.
The Green Party activists on these threads have claimed not to be anti-growth, to be anti-growth & to believe that windmills are cheap & nuclear power is expensive. I have repeatedly challengedc them on the latter asking them to explain how France couls possible be solvent not only running 80% on nuclear power but selling it at competitive rates to all their neighbours. Not Once have any of them tried to answer yet time after time they come back on subsequent threads with the same statement which they clearly know to be lies. Clearly many, possibly not all, Green activists have absolutely no compuntion about telling any entirely blatant lie if it helps their cause.
You can read our discussion on carbon footprints http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1342474.0.0.php
After a considerable amount of rudeness on their part & more measured rudenss on mine I said
Yet again - I repeat "And you still haven't come up with a single eco-scare story which, over time, turned out to be truthful." Come on - 1 single catastrophe scare story out of hundreds which turned out to be fully & entirely truthful isn't a lot to ask.
It isn't but they couldn't
But the next day on a different thread [ http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1347061.0.0.php ] about nuclear power we got on of the same Green Party trio saying
Are you sitting comfortably as this might come as something as a shock to you:No one is interested in anything you have to say! There, I think that needed to be said. Every day you come on here and get shot down in flames. Even when people answer your questions you either choose to ignore them or deflect the question on to some other topic.I look forward to May 4th so we don't have to put up with any more of your annoying drivel and your demented belief that the answer to all of the worlds ills in economic growth.
I do not get bullied by the likes of that & replied
Again Susan i would say that getting richer is an answer to quite a few ills. As a Green with whom I have clashed before perhaps you would care to dispute your point with fellow Green Michael Stewart who attacked me for saying that you Greens were, at least in practice & often in theory as well, anti-growth.Or perhaps, having been shot down in flames you will decline to answer - again.
The Green Party activists on these threads have claimed not to be anti-growth, to be anti-growth & to believe that windmills are cheap & nuclear power is expensive. I have repeatedly challengedc them on the latter asking them to explain how France couls possible be solvent not only running 80% on nuclear power but selling it at competitive rates to all their neighbours. Not Once have any of them tried to answer yet time after time they come back on subsequent threads with the same statement which they clearly know to be lies. Clearly many, possibly not all, Green activists have absolutely no compuntion about telling any entirely blatant lie if it helps their cause.
PROPOSAL FOR A MAG-LEV TRAIN TO EDINBURGH
Our former Executive have been floating the idea of a bullet train or more fun yet a magnetis levitation (Mag-Lev) train between Glasgow & Edinburgh. Interest in this stirred when Nicol Stephen visited China & saw their train set & wanted to play too. Now normally I am entirely in favour of high technology projects but was put off by the price. I have commented on this previously [ http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/07/bullet-train-from-glasgow-to-edinburgh.html }.
The idea was floated in the Herald { http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1345823.0.0.php ] & shot out of the water by all & sundry including myself.
Particularly interesting was this from an accountant Robert Fotheringay
The overall structured costs of this project are indeed in the region of £7.5 billion,startup costs to and including completion are estimated at between £1.7 billion and£4.8 billion depending on what figures and criteria you believe,what is not in dispute is that the overall all in total will be around £7.5 billion.As an accountant with knowledge of this proposal all I can say is that it is totally not feasable,the figures outlays and returns,are wishful thinking.
UK Ultraspeed posted a long justification which you can see on the link, if you have nothing better to do. It shows how much palpably untrue things a flack can believe. My reply 7 another commet are here
To reach £150 million from tickets at £8.95 single would (assuming there are no return tickets) require 16,759,776 travellers - about 10 times the current rate. Taking about half the traffic as going on weekday rushours (104 hours a year) we get about 80,000 an hour. Assuming a train each way every quarter hour each train would have to carry about 10,000 passengers. If this number was achieved it still wouldn't cover the subsidy to run the thing, let alone start to pay the cost of building it.These people expect the electorate to swallow this nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 1:29am Sun 22 Apr 07
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further: With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue @ £8.95 Per Ticket = 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a. With 500.00 Passengers/train = 33,519.55 Trains/annum There are 365.00 Days Which = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way) Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each direction The big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey. With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further:With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue@ £8.95 Per Ticket= 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a.With 500.00 Passengers/train= 33,519.55 Trains/annumThere are 365.00 DaysWhich = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way)Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each directionThe big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey.With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
On my previous discussion of this I thought this far more expensive than our automated rail proposal - I did not imagine that anybody would have the arrogance & idiocy to try to land us with this at a cost of £7.5 billion. I clearly overestimated our leaders.
The idea was floated in the Herald { http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1345823.0.0.php ] & shot out of the water by all & sundry including myself.
Particularly interesting was this from an accountant Robert Fotheringay
The overall structured costs of this project are indeed in the region of £7.5 billion,startup costs to and including completion are estimated at between £1.7 billion and£4.8 billion depending on what figures and criteria you believe,what is not in dispute is that the overall all in total will be around £7.5 billion.As an accountant with knowledge of this proposal all I can say is that it is totally not feasable,the figures outlays and returns,are wishful thinking.
UK Ultraspeed posted a long justification which you can see on the link, if you have nothing better to do. It shows how much palpably untrue things a flack can believe. My reply 7 another commet are here
To reach £150 million from tickets at £8.95 single would (assuming there are no return tickets) require 16,759,776 travellers - about 10 times the current rate. Taking about half the traffic as going on weekday rushours (104 hours a year) we get about 80,000 an hour. Assuming a train each way every quarter hour each train would have to carry about 10,000 passengers. If this number was achieved it still wouldn't cover the subsidy to run the thing, let alone start to pay the cost of building it.These people expect the electorate to swallow this nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 1:29am Sun 22 Apr 07
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further: With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue @ £8.95 Per Ticket = 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a. With 500.00 Passengers/train = 33,519.55 Trains/annum There are 365.00 Days Which = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way) Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each direction The big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey. With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further:With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue@ £8.95 Per Ticket= 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a.With 500.00 Passengers/train= 33,519.55 Trains/annumThere are 365.00 DaysWhich = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way)Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each directionThe big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey.With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
On my previous discussion of this I thought this far more expensive than our automated rail proposal - I did not imagine that anybody would have the arrogance & idiocy to try to land us with this at a cost of £7.5 billion. I clearly overestimated our leaders.
RED ROAD FLATS
One of the 9% Growth parties policies is not to knock down once politically correct but now incorrect blocks of flats & that if that is the only option the GHA have then it would be better to give them away to their occupants. I discussed this elsewhere & have received an email in support of my position
The idea of knocking down what should be decent homes just because high rise living, except for the rich when they are called luxury apartments, is now unfashionable is offensive.
"I was brought up in the Red Road. I started my first Company (Clydeside Television Productions) from my flat in Red Road court. I had a warm, secure, well appointed home. I loved the place, but was forced to move in 1990 because the council were letting it slide just too far.The place is in the state it's in because of WILFUL neglect on the part of the City Fathers; no other reason. They let the buildings rot, effectively condoned the violence and drugs and deliberately used the place as a dumping ground. The original posters proposals won't see the light of day for one reason and one reason only; Those holding the controls want their skin; their wedge off the top. Nose-in-the trough time for the City's fatcats and to hell with the ordinary weegie!
# posted by Matt Quinn : April 25"
The idea of knocking down what should be decent homes just because high rise living, except for the rich when they are called luxury apartments, is now unfashionable is offensive.
ALL JOCK TAMSON'S BAIRNS
Last night we were out putting up posters in central Glasgow. I was up a lamppost (near the Maltman in Union St) & there was a beggar on the pavement asking for money whom we were studiously ignoring.
When our eyes met he said "Its OK mate, I don't mean you. You're working same as me"
When our eyes met he said "Its OK mate, I don't mean you. You're working same as me"
Saturday, April 14, 2007
TRIDENT
Trident, fortunately for us, isn't a Scottish parliament issue. SNP claims that they could introduce a special punitive tax on nuclear weapons & thus get rid of our bases is without either legal or practical merit.
The unfortunate thing about the "debate on replacing Trident" is that there hasn't been one. The government keep insisting we must have the most expensive weapon possible against an unknown enemy who might appear some time in the next 20 years. CND keep insisting that immediately getting rid of all our Bombs is the only option.
The technical answer is that the Bomb cannot be uninvented, that the time to decide on a new weapon system is when we know what capabilities this enemy will have, which rather requires us to know who they are. There is also the certainty that Trident depends on US spare parts & may very well have a backdoor in its computer programming which the US could, if they wished, use to switch it off - Our "independent deterrent" makes us dependent not independent. Finally I would support a no first use policy which in turn means no use against a non-nuclear power, & enshrine this is UK law. If we cannot uninvent the Bomb we can, hopefully, at least step back a pace or 2 from the brink.
The unfortunate thing about the "debate on replacing Trident" is that there hasn't been one. The government keep insisting we must have the most expensive weapon possible against an unknown enemy who might appear some time in the next 20 years. CND keep insisting that immediately getting rid of all our Bombs is the only option.
The technical answer is that the Bomb cannot be uninvented, that the time to decide on a new weapon system is when we know what capabilities this enemy will have, which rather requires us to know who they are. There is also the certainty that Trident depends on US spare parts & may very well have a backdoor in its computer programming which the US could, if they wished, use to switch it off - Our "independent deterrent" makes us dependent not independent. Finally I would support a no first use policy which in turn means no use against a non-nuclear power, & enshrine this is UK law. If we cannot uninvent the Bomb we can, hopefully, at least step back a pace or 2 from the brink.
SAT 14th
The Scotsman has asked for questions for Jack McConnell & Alex Salmond. Here are mine:
To Jack McConnell
Bearing in mind that we still have have a poorly growing economy, indeed with 2 quarters of recession under your rule & that you said just before the last election & again on 30th March, that growing the economy was your "number one priority" why does your manifesto concentrate on spending more on education? Why do you not think that putting the same money into cutting business taxes would not encourage business?
http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=496622007 for his "number one priority remark
To Alex Salmond
In your recent conference speech you appeared to say you intended to pick a fight with Westminster over gun control laws. If you wish to pick a fight why did you not choose to make it over negotiating a cut in Scottish corporation tax, which would have a massive effect on the standard of living of us all?
To both
In 2011 Hunterson is to close & we will lose 1/6th of our power, in 2015 new EU regulations will close much coal fired power & we will be down to 2/3rds & by 2023 Torness will close & we will have lost half Scotland's electricity. If you achieve any economic growth demand will, of course, increase. Wind, currently 3%, is intermitten & thus even its supporters say it cannot provide baseload. Where will we get the missing power, in such a short timeframe, if we are to avoid massive midwinter blackouts & deaths?
To Jack McConnell
Bearing in mind that we still have have a poorly growing economy, indeed with 2 quarters of recession under your rule & that you said just before the last election & again on 30th March, that growing the economy was your "number one priority" why does your manifesto concentrate on spending more on education? Why do you not think that putting the same money into cutting business taxes would not encourage business?
http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=496622007 for his "number one priority remark
To Alex Salmond
In your recent conference speech you appeared to say you intended to pick a fight with Westminster over gun control laws. If you wish to pick a fight why did you not choose to make it over negotiating a cut in Scottish corporation tax, which would have a massive effect on the standard of living of us all?
To both
In 2011 Hunterson is to close & we will lose 1/6th of our power, in 2015 new EU regulations will close much coal fired power & we will be down to 2/3rds & by 2023 Torness will close & we will have lost half Scotland's electricity. If you achieve any economic growth demand will, of course, increase. Wind, currently 3%, is intermitten & thus even its supporters say it cannot provide baseload. Where will we get the missing power, in such a short timeframe, if we are to avoid massive midwinter blackouts & deaths?
Friday, April 13, 2007
TODAY'S NEWS
News item about a company which is planning to fly passengers to the USA for £6 plus £124 airport taxes. My comment
&
The reason Ryanair don't do the Highlands & Islands airports is because of relatively high landing charges. We subsidise these airports by 2/3rds of their cost but, having the same security rules as Heathrow, but far fewer passengers makes up about 1/3rd of running costs. Some years ago I spoke in support of a motion at the SLD conference calling for either an increase in the subsidy (cost about £8 million) or reduction in security rules to make landing charges zero which would have had an enormously beneficial effect on the local economy.
Despite the motion passing Transport Minister Nicol Stephen chose to introduce a far more expensive & bureaucratic system of limited ticket subsidies for locals.
Quite a high tax ratio if the product costs £6 & the tax £124. Still it provides more money for train subsidies.
&
China's economy is growing at 10%, Scotland's at 1.5%. If we don't do something in a generation we will be, per capita, poorer than China. Nobody seriously disputes that we can do 9% if we try it is merely that our politicians are more interested in windmillery & invading places than allowing us to become wealthy.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
ONLINE COMMENTS TODAY
Automated cars & trains http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=559992007
The number of decisions in running a train is vasdtly simpler since the tracks already choose the direction. If driverless cars are on the horizon then driverless trains have been possible for years. Driverless trains would allow single carriage units thereby providing far more flexility, allowing departures every few minutes, 24/7 working, lower running costs & increased capacity. This could make trains truly competitive but has been held back because government control does not inspire innovation.
Housing http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559892007
having accepted that the things the LD's call free aren't free you are now advising all unwilling taxpayers to vote elsewhere (as you point out the Tories don't intend to cut taxes though 9% Growth have promised to take the money you waste on windmills & fund a 3p tax cut - which actually wouldn't cost the unfortunate anything unless Mr al Fayed counts).
Lib Dems to spend another £1 billion http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559582007
The cause of house prices is not a mixture of over deman & under supply but -
Under supply purely. What you call over demand is people speculating that house prices are going to go up continuously. If we allowed builders to build houses the supply would increase & speculation would be pointless. There is no technical reason why houses toady should cost more multiples of peoples incomes than in Queen Victoria's time - it is entirely government regulation
The number of decisions in running a train is vasdtly simpler since the tracks already choose the direction. If driverless cars are on the horizon then driverless trains have been possible for years. Driverless trains would allow single carriage units thereby providing far more flexility, allowing departures every few minutes, 24/7 working, lower running costs & increased capacity. This could make trains truly competitive but has been held back because government control does not inspire innovation.
Housing http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559892007
having accepted that the things the LD's call free aren't free you are now advising all unwilling taxpayers to vote elsewhere (as you point out the Tories don't intend to cut taxes though 9% Growth have promised to take the money you waste on windmills & fund a 3p tax cut - which actually wouldn't cost the unfortunate anything unless Mr al Fayed counts).
Lib Dems to spend another £1 billion http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559582007
The cause of house prices is not a mixture of over deman & under supply but -
Under supply purely. What you call over demand is people speculating that house prices are going to go up continuously. If we allowed builders to build houses the supply would increase & speculation would be pointless. There is no technical reason why houses toady should cost more multiples of peoples incomes than in Queen Victoria's time - it is entirely government regulation
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
26 THINGS WE SUPPORT & WHICH OUR OPPONENTS ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSE
1) Stop blackouts. Act before we lose 50% of our electricity.
2) 9% growth using the methods that gave Ireland 7% on average & 10.5% in a good year.
3) Reform planning regulations. In 1907 a house & car cost the same - the difference is that planning regulators restrict housebuilding.
4) Stop subsidising windmills. Save £1 billion.
5) The smoking ban is an illiberal restriction on individual freedom. End it.
6) End fuel poverty. France produces 80% nuclear at 1.3p a unit. We can do the same.
7) A needs based transport policy. The previous Executive were committed to spending 70% of their transport budget on public transport (code for railways) though it makes up only 3% of traffic.
8) Tunnels project. Norway built 740km of tunnels at £7 million per km. We should do the same making it a short drive from Glasgow to Dunoon, Rothesay, Kintyre, Jura, Islay & Mull etc.
9) Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
10) Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train with the same effect.
11) Ultimate aim of a fully automated Scots rail transport system.
12) 2% cut in civil servants annually.
13) 2% government efficiency savings. Almost any private business trys to increase efficiency at least that much & there is more scope in Holyrood.
14) Don't spend £610 million digging a tunnel under Edinburgh Airport. Make sure other government projects at least come close to making economic sense.
15) 3p cut in Scots income tax after funding of business tax cuts to provide growth.
16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.
17) A Holyrood committee to find & abolish counterproductive laws & regulations.
18) A schools vouchers system.
19) Allow schools to impose discipline.
20) Make a DVD of Scotland's history & post it to Scots, or those with Scots names, over the world. Include links encouraging Scottish tourism.
21) Establish a £20 million X-Prize to encourage space satelite industry to locate in scotland.
22) Establish an X-Prize foundation funded from the Scots contribution to the lottery to encourage high technology in Scotland.
23) Widen & improve the M8.
24) If Gore's silly film must be shown to Scots schoolchildren let them see the alternate view, AS THE LAW SPECIFICLY REQUIRES.
25) 54% of all money spent in Scotland is government money. Cut this.
26) Instead of knocking down Glasgow's high rise flats they should be given, free of charge, to those occupants who don't prefer to be rehoused.
2) 9% growth using the methods that gave Ireland 7% on average & 10.5% in a good year.
3) Reform planning regulations. In 1907 a house & car cost the same - the difference is that planning regulators restrict housebuilding.
4) Stop subsidising windmills. Save £1 billion.
5) The smoking ban is an illiberal restriction on individual freedom. End it.
6) End fuel poverty. France produces 80% nuclear at 1.3p a unit. We can do the same.
7) A needs based transport policy. The previous Executive were committed to spending 70% of their transport budget on public transport (code for railways) though it makes up only 3% of traffic.
8) Tunnels project. Norway built 740km of tunnels at £7 million per km. We should do the same making it a short drive from Glasgow to Dunoon, Rothesay, Kintyre, Jura, Islay & Mull etc.
9) Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
10) Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train with the same effect.
11) Ultimate aim of a fully automated Scots rail transport system.
12) 2% cut in civil servants annually.
13) 2% government efficiency savings. Almost any private business trys to increase efficiency at least that much & there is more scope in Holyrood.
14) Don't spend £610 million digging a tunnel under Edinburgh Airport. Make sure other government projects at least come close to making economic sense.
15) 3p cut in Scots income tax after funding of business tax cuts to provide growth.
16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.
17) A Holyrood committee to find & abolish counterproductive laws & regulations.
18) A schools vouchers system.
19) Allow schools to impose discipline.
20) Make a DVD of Scotland's history & post it to Scots, or those with Scots names, over the world. Include links encouraging Scottish tourism.
21) Establish a £20 million X-Prize to encourage space satelite industry to locate in scotland.
22) Establish an X-Prize foundation funded from the Scots contribution to the lottery to encourage high technology in Scotland.
23) Widen & improve the M8.
24) If Gore's silly film must be shown to Scots schoolchildren let them see the alternate view, AS THE LAW SPECIFICLY REQUIRES.
25) 54% of all money spent in Scotland is government money. Cut this.
26) Instead of knocking down Glasgow's high rise flats they should be given, free of charge, to those occupants who don't prefer to be rehoused.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
CANDIDATES PERSONAL STATEMENT - NEIL CRAIG
I am 54, divorced & own Glasgow's West End Science Fiction, Graphic Novel & Comic shop Futureshock & live nearby. I am also the publisher of the iconoclastic political blog A Place to Stand
I was a Liberal & Liberal Democrat since helping my father WGA Craig as a candidate in 1970. From him I learned that individuals are more creative than states, armies or classes & that it is better to stand for what you believe in than to win for what you don't. I also learned the importance of clear & logical thought rather than sloganising - he was as argumentative as I am & was alleged to be able not only to talk the hind legs off a donkey but also to be able to persuade it to walk.
I also grew to love not merely science fiction & the future it promised but also the scientific method as the best, perhaps only, tool to understand the world. Unlike the "Green" movement which says we should try to get through our lives without changing anything I believe that if the universe has a purpose it is that humans learn to understand & control it.
In 2001 as a Lib Dem I pushed through a motion, unanimously adopted, calling not only for Yugoslav war crimes trials to be prosecuted on a non-racial basis but for "leaders of the countries which, in clear violation of international law, supplied the KLA with vast quantities of weapons whilst they were an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation" which certainly included Helmut Kohl & Bill Clinton. Though this remains officially the Scottish party position it has never, for some reasin, been mentioned but I am proud of it because I was opposed to illegal wars when many of those now loudest in opposition were enthusiastic supporters.
Later in 2001 I spoke at conference against the leadership's motion to absolutely reject nuclear power. At that time Mr Blair was also opposed to nuclear electricity but has since followed my lead. In 2003 I first tried to get conference to discuss trying to achieve Ireland's growth rate by cutting corporation tax & regulations. Despite years of resubmitting the motion it was never debated though the SNP have subsequently adopted a similar policy.
In 2004 I was the only person at conference to speak directly against bringing in the smoking ban on the grounds that the alleged medical evidence that it was a serious health hazard was not scientifically supportable. That in such circumstances a ban was merely nanny statism & not in the tradition of liberalism.
In December 2005 I received a letter from the party executive, chaired at the time by Robert Brown MSP, saying that they had unanimously voted that I be expelled because letters I had had published in Scottish newspapers, supporting economic growth, lower housebuilding costs & the need for nuclear power were "too right wing to be discussed","illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership". Despite (or to be fair possibly partly because of) my robust defence in which I proved that everything I had said was indeed Liberal as understood by the founders of Liberalism, who had followed Adam Smith among others & been opposed to overbearing government & Ludditism, my expulsion was confirmed.
I was dissatisfied with all parties. All of them are ignoring the very real threat that if we do not replace the 50% of Scotland's electricity due to close we will face a catastrophe. This will not go away if they ignore it & it is grossly irresponsible of them to do so. Ireland makes it quite clear that we can achieve economic success & though the SNP have made limited moves in this direction their primary interest in "independence in Europe" which I believe provides no answers.
I thought it sufficiently important for democracy that you have the choice of voting for somebody who does not stand for the Holyrood consensus that I decided to form the 9% Growth Party. We can achieve everything I am promising but only if you are willing to support it. I believe this country can achieve our potential but the choice is now yours not mine.
I was a Liberal & Liberal Democrat since helping my father WGA Craig as a candidate in 1970. From him I learned that individuals are more creative than states, armies or classes & that it is better to stand for what you believe in than to win for what you don't. I also learned the importance of clear & logical thought rather than sloganising - he was as argumentative as I am & was alleged to be able not only to talk the hind legs off a donkey but also to be able to persuade it to walk.
I also grew to love not merely science fiction & the future it promised but also the scientific method as the best, perhaps only, tool to understand the world. Unlike the "Green" movement which says we should try to get through our lives without changing anything I believe that if the universe has a purpose it is that humans learn to understand & control it.
In 2001 as a Lib Dem I pushed through a motion, unanimously adopted, calling not only for Yugoslav war crimes trials to be prosecuted on a non-racial basis but for "leaders of the countries which, in clear violation of international law, supplied the KLA with vast quantities of weapons whilst they were an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation" which certainly included Helmut Kohl & Bill Clinton. Though this remains officially the Scottish party position it has never, for some reasin, been mentioned but I am proud of it because I was opposed to illegal wars when many of those now loudest in opposition were enthusiastic supporters.
Later in 2001 I spoke at conference against the leadership's motion to absolutely reject nuclear power. At that time Mr Blair was also opposed to nuclear electricity but has since followed my lead. In 2003 I first tried to get conference to discuss trying to achieve Ireland's growth rate by cutting corporation tax & regulations. Despite years of resubmitting the motion it was never debated though the SNP have subsequently adopted a similar policy.
In 2004 I was the only person at conference to speak directly against bringing in the smoking ban on the grounds that the alleged medical evidence that it was a serious health hazard was not scientifically supportable. That in such circumstances a ban was merely nanny statism & not in the tradition of liberalism.
In December 2005 I received a letter from the party executive, chaired at the time by Robert Brown MSP, saying that they had unanimously voted that I be expelled because letters I had had published in Scottish newspapers, supporting economic growth, lower housebuilding costs & the need for nuclear power were "too right wing to be discussed","illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership". Despite (or to be fair possibly partly because of) my robust defence in which I proved that everything I had said was indeed Liberal as understood by the founders of Liberalism, who had followed Adam Smith among others & been opposed to overbearing government & Ludditism, my expulsion was confirmed.
I was dissatisfied with all parties. All of them are ignoring the very real threat that if we do not replace the 50% of Scotland's electricity due to close we will face a catastrophe. This will not go away if they ignore it & it is grossly irresponsible of them to do so. Ireland makes it quite clear that we can achieve economic success & though the SNP have made limited moves in this direction their primary interest in "independence in Europe" which I believe provides no answers.
I thought it sufficiently important for democracy that you have the choice of voting for somebody who does not stand for the Holyrood consensus that I decided to form the 9% Growth Party. We can achieve everything I am promising but only if you are willing to support it. I believe this country can achieve our potential but the choice is now yours not mine.
A CALL TO DEBATE THE NUCLEAR ISSUE
A local Glasgow candidate (Katy Gordon for the LibDems) has distributed a leaflet giving her & her party's priorities. They call for a more complicated & more expensive (but some may suspect not more speedy & thorough) refuse collection system, more subsidies for windmills & stopping shops using as much packaging. These The sole other thing mentioned is to say that Labour supports nuclear power & that it cannot "provide all the answers"
As a LibDem until I was expelled from the party for supporting nuclear power & Irish style business tax cuts for growth on the grounds that they were "illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership of the party" I, as leader of the 9% Growth Party, wish to challenge Ms Gordon & any other LibDem candidate, or indeed any candidate from any party opposed to nuclear power, to debate the issue.
I would be happy to debate either in the media (newspaper, radio, TV) or in a public meeting. I would point that her reason for dismissal of nuclear is completely different from that of her leader who said that "nuclear is the easy answer" & must thus be opposed resolutely because if it was seen to work the electorate would never accept paying massive subsidies for windmills & other politically correct methods of engineering. She is also, unfortunately, wrong in accusing Labour of supporting nuclear. While the rank & file did vote heavily for it at Conference leaders such as Jack McConnell & Wendy Alexander are opposed, in an indecisive way.
I believe that in an election the candidates have a duty to discuss the issues & I would at least be relieved to see if they have any idea how the 1/6th of our power due to close in 2011, 1/3rd by 2015 & 50% by 2023 are to be replaced without blackouts.
I hope Glasgow's newspapers will wish to support such a debate.
Neil Craig
As a LibDem until I was expelled from the party for supporting nuclear power & Irish style business tax cuts for growth on the grounds that they were "illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership of the party" I, as leader of the 9% Growth Party, wish to challenge Ms Gordon & any other LibDem candidate, or indeed any candidate from any party opposed to nuclear power, to debate the issue.
I would be happy to debate either in the media (newspaper, radio, TV) or in a public meeting. I would point that her reason for dismissal of nuclear is completely different from that of her leader who said that "nuclear is the easy answer" & must thus be opposed resolutely because if it was seen to work the electorate would never accept paying massive subsidies for windmills & other politically correct methods of engineering. She is also, unfortunately, wrong in accusing Labour of supporting nuclear. While the rank & file did vote heavily for it at Conference leaders such as Jack McConnell & Wendy Alexander are opposed, in an indecisive way.
I believe that in an election the candidates have a duty to discuss the issues & I would at least be relieved to see if they have any idea how the 1/6th of our power due to close in 2011, 1/3rd by 2015 & 50% by 2023 are to be replaced without blackouts.
I hope Glasgow's newspapers will wish to support such a debate.
Neil Craig
PROMISES & COSTS
This is probably the only party you are going to see telling you where they are going to cut public spending but we are committed to treating the public like adults & you all know that spending promises cannot be made without getting the money from somewhere.
Freezing each ministry's budget, allowing natural wastage to cut staff by 2% annually & making wage rises fully funded by efficiency savings (does anybody doubt there great inefficiency in government:
£1.5 billion annually (5% ot Hoyrood's budget)
Stopping the £1 billion annual subsidy promised to windmills
£1 billion
Cut Scottish Enterprise's budget from £500 million to not more than £100 million
£400 million
Using Scotland's underspend
£600 million
Selling off Scottish Water saves £260 million running costs & could bring in £2 billion.
General cutting ofoutrageousutrageaous examples of waste (SNH spending over £1000 a head to get rid of hedgehogs, civil servants spending £12 million to give advice on not getting into debt, where the client's debt totalled £3 million)
£500 million (low estimate)
Total saving £3760 million in the first year & another £1,500 billion next year.
One off savings:
Forth tunnel rather than bridge - £500 million
Not putting tunnel under the Edinburgh airport runway - £610 million (& rising)
Scrap borders railway - £200 million (?)
Selling Scottish water £2 billion
Total £3310 million
Possible spending
Cut corporatin tax to 12.5% - £2.14 billion
Abolish business rates - £1.7 billion
Cut Income Tax by 3p - £870 million (figure previously agreed with Treasury)
Scottiah Tunnels Project (over 10 years) - £100 million
Nuclear Power (only if we decide it is to good an investment to put in the private sector) - £100 million
Housing - providing bridging loans to stimulate mass production - 0 to £36 million.
Scottish Technology Projects (per year) - £200 million
Scottish X-Prizes - £20 million
Total £5,166 million
Clearly with the one off saving this programme would, on paper, be fully affordable immediately since it would take just over 2 years for the savings to match the new projects & the one off savings would not be depleted by then. It might be prudent to
take a little longer & some of the spending will require agreement with Westminster. Since this is all fully funded it would not prevent carrying out any other party's promises as well - as long as they have already identified where thefunding should come from.
If the science of economics or the experience of Ireland means anything then the only way putting over £5 billion into directly encouraging growth would not allow Scotland to hit a 9% growth rate was if we went over.
Freezing each ministry's budget, allowing natural wastage to cut staff by 2% annually & making wage rises fully funded by efficiency savings (does anybody doubt there great inefficiency in government:
£1.5 billion annually (5% ot Hoyrood's budget)
Stopping the £1 billion annual subsidy promised to windmills
£1 billion
Cut Scottish Enterprise's budget from £500 million to not more than £100 million
£400 million
Using Scotland's underspend
£600 million
Selling off Scottish Water saves £260 million running costs & could bring in £2 billion.
General cutting ofoutrageousutrageaous examples of waste (SNH spending over £1000 a head to get rid of hedgehogs, civil servants spending £12 million to give advice on not getting into debt, where the client's debt totalled £3 million)
£500 million (low estimate)
Total saving £3760 million in the first year & another £1,500 billion next year.
One off savings:
Forth tunnel rather than bridge - £500 million
Not putting tunnel under the Edinburgh airport runway - £610 million (& rising)
Scrap borders railway - £200 million (?)
Selling Scottish water £2 billion
Total £3310 million
Possible spending
Cut corporatin tax to 12.5% - £2.14 billion
Abolish business rates - £1.7 billion
Cut Income Tax by 3p - £870 million (figure previously agreed with Treasury)
Scottiah Tunnels Project (over 10 years) - £100 million
Nuclear Power (only if we decide it is to good an investment to put in the private sector) - £100 million
Housing - providing bridging loans to stimulate mass production - 0 to £36 million.
Scottish Technology Projects (per year) - £200 million
Scottish X-Prizes - £20 million
Total £5,166 million
Clearly with the one off saving this programme would, on paper, be fully affordable immediately since it would take just over 2 years for the savings to match the new projects & the one off savings would not be depleted by then. It might be prudent to
take a little longer & some of the spending will require agreement with Westminster. Since this is all fully funded it would not prevent carrying out any other party's promises as well - as long as they have already identified where thefunding should come from.
If the science of economics or the experience of Ireland means anything then the only way putting over £5 billion into directly encouraging growth would not allow Scotland to hit a 9% growth rate was if we went over.
A NEAT WAY TO GO NUCLEAR
Politically there is virtually zero chance that this would be accepted but in financial & engineering terms this is how Scotland should replace the 50% of our electricity we are shortly going to lose.
1) Get our nuclear stations, possibly excluding Dounraey which is basically an experimental facility, formed as a separate company. This is similar to the way that Scotland's Railtrack, which was also renationalised in same dubious way, was separately put under our authority.
2) Get Westminster to allow immediate type approval of French, US & Canadian reactor designs. While Westminster Labour are committed to more nuclear they are also currently supporting the Atomic Energy Authority's desire to spend 5 years deciding the foreign reactors work (they obviously do & have for years) & that Hunterston & Torness are suitable places to put reactors (they obviously are & have done for years). Hunterston is going to close in 4 years & it takes 4 years to actually build a reactor so if we don't want blackouts we can't afford spending an extra 5 years moving paper around. Since Labour are desperate that the lights not go out I think they would go for this.
3) There are many billions in a fund already put aside for decommissioning reactors. The inexpensive way to decommission is to lock up the reactor for 50 years until the radioactivity is down to safe levels (all the stuff bout reactor waste being dangerous for millions of years is propaganda - highly radioactive waste is highly radioactive purely because it has a short half life). We undertake to move back the boundary fences at Hunterston & Torness & decommission the current reactors by locking them up, not letting in the public, & leaving them till they are safe - for this we get paid at least several hundred million £s.
4) We set Scottish Nuclear up as a public company which builds as many new reactors as there is demand for at Hunterston & Torness. Since 1MW reactors have been bought off the shelf for $1 billion ((£550 million) this company could afford to do so with the fund money & only a little extra by borrowing & selling 10% of the shares publicly, though it might be better actually invest a tokeamountnt ourselves..
5) Government leaves the company management to the 10% shareholders, who understand such things & merely accepts the profits.
Scotland would thereby get as much electricity as we can use, at a substantially lowered price & would have a national, dividend paying, asset worth many many billions of £s for virtually nothing.
Also this is virtually CO2 free so that, if the Greens etc genuinely believe we face catastrophic global warming (I personally think they know they are making it up) they would be enthusiastic about the only practical method of making large amounts of electricity without CO2. To be fair a few environmentalists such as Professor james Lovelock & Bishop Hugh Montefiore have gone on record to support more nuclear for this reaspn.
1) Get our nuclear stations, possibly excluding Dounraey which is basically an experimental facility, formed as a separate company. This is similar to the way that Scotland's Railtrack, which was also renationalised in same dubious way, was separately put under our authority.
2) Get Westminster to allow immediate type approval of French, US & Canadian reactor designs. While Westminster Labour are committed to more nuclear they are also currently supporting the Atomic Energy Authority's desire to spend 5 years deciding the foreign reactors work (they obviously do & have for years) & that Hunterston & Torness are suitable places to put reactors (they obviously are & have done for years). Hunterston is going to close in 4 years & it takes 4 years to actually build a reactor so if we don't want blackouts we can't afford spending an extra 5 years moving paper around. Since Labour are desperate that the lights not go out I think they would go for this.
3) There are many billions in a fund already put aside for decommissioning reactors. The inexpensive way to decommission is to lock up the reactor for 50 years until the radioactivity is down to safe levels (all the stuff bout reactor waste being dangerous for millions of years is propaganda - highly radioactive waste is highly radioactive purely because it has a short half life). We undertake to move back the boundary fences at Hunterston & Torness & decommission the current reactors by locking them up, not letting in the public, & leaving them till they are safe - for this we get paid at least several hundred million £s.
4) We set Scottish Nuclear up as a public company which builds as many new reactors as there is demand for at Hunterston & Torness. Since 1MW reactors have been bought off the shelf for $1 billion ((£550 million) this company could afford to do so with the fund money & only a little extra by borrowing & selling 10% of the shares publicly, though it might be better actually invest a tokeamountnt ourselves..
5) Government leaves the company management to the 10% shareholders, who understand such things & merely accepts the profits.
Scotland would thereby get as much electricity as we can use, at a substantially lowered price & would have a national, dividend paying, asset worth many many billions of £s for virtually nothing.
Also this is virtually CO2 free so that, if the Greens etc genuinely believe we face catastrophic global warming (I personally think they know they are making it up) they would be enthusiastic about the only practical method of making large amounts of electricity without CO2. To be fair a few environmentalists such as Professor james Lovelock & Bishop Hugh Montefiore have gone on record to support more nuclear for this reaspn.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
DAVID STEEL CALLS FOR CORPORATION TAX CUTS
This morning Andrew Marr interviewed Malcolm Rifkind & David Steel. Rifkind criticised the idea of us going for Fiscal Autonomy on the grounds that full fiscal autonomy would mean us giving up several billion £s more than we currently raise.
David Steel, former Lib Dem leader replied with the inanity that we could just lower corporation tax!
OK so this doesn't exactly address Rifkind's point of where the money comes from but on a purely personal basis it hit home. My expulsion from the LibDems was for supporting nuclear power & CALLING FOR US TO ACHIEVE IRISH STYLE GROWTH BY CUTTING CORPORATION TAX. This crime was unanimously judged by the Scottish Party executive to be "illiberal & irreconcilablee with membership of the party" & "too right wing" to even be discussed.
It seems like barely a year since then - in fact it is. Clearly if that was the case then Mr Steel, by going on TV to say this, rather than blogging or putting a letter in the papers, has transgressed to a far greater extent. The position of Robert Brown MSP & other members of the executive would not seem to be morally tenable if they do not choose to immediately write to Mr Steel to advise him of his proposed expulsion.
Perhaps they may wish to apolgise & admit my prior use of this idea in the party. Had they, rather than the SNP been willing to adopt it who knows how they would now stand in the polls?
David Steel, former Lib Dem leader replied with the inanity that we could just lower corporation tax!
OK so this doesn't exactly address Rifkind's point of where the money comes from but on a purely personal basis it hit home. My expulsion from the LibDems was for supporting nuclear power & CALLING FOR US TO ACHIEVE IRISH STYLE GROWTH BY CUTTING CORPORATION TAX. This crime was unanimously judged by the Scottish Party executive to be "illiberal & irreconcilablee with membership of the party" & "too right wing" to even be discussed.
It seems like barely a year since then - in fact it is. Clearly if that was the case then Mr Steel, by going on TV to say this, rather than blogging or putting a letter in the papers, has transgressed to a far greater extent. The position of Robert Brown MSP & other members of the executive would not seem to be morally tenable if they do not choose to immediately write to Mr Steel to advise him of his proposed expulsion.
Perhaps they may wish to apolgise & admit my prior use of this idea in the party. Had they, rather than the SNP been willing to adopt it who knows how they would now stand in the polls?
Friday, March 30, 2007
WHAT WE COULD DO IF WE STOPPED SUBSIDISING WINDMILLS
Windmills are an expensive way of providing intermittent & largely useless electricity. We should, instead be allowing the building of new nuclear power stations which provide electricity in France at half the price of conventional power.
Apart from halving everybody's electricity prices what else could we do?
"THE GOVERNMENT’S GREENenergy initiatives, the Renewables Obligation and the Renewables Obligation,Scotland (RO/ROS), promise to raise £1 billion a year for electricity suppliers by 2010 through levies oncustomers. OFGEM estimated the cost to consumers in 2003-2004 at £416 million."
Bearing in mind that 3p off our income tax has been calculated by Westminster as costing £870 million which is considerably less than £1 billion it seems we could very easily afford it if we stopped this nonsense.
This would not interfere with any of the other things the 9% Growth Party is pledged to do. Scotland has no problems that could not be solved by having a competent government.
Apart from halving everybody's electricity prices what else could we do?
"THE GOVERNMENT’S GREENenergy initiatives, the Renewables Obligation and the Renewables Obligation,Scotland (RO/ROS), promise to raise £1 billion a year for electricity suppliers by 2010 through levies oncustomers. OFGEM estimated the cost to consumers in 2003-2004 at £416 million."
Bearing in mind that 3p off our income tax has been calculated by Westminster as costing £870 million which is considerably less than £1 billion it seems we could very easily afford it if we stopped this nonsense.
This would not interfere with any of the other things the 9% Growth Party is pledged to do. Scotland has no problems that could not be solved by having a competent government.
WHERE YOUR MONEY GOES
This contains pie charts of where the government raises our taxes & where it goes all measured in billions of £s. Scotland's population is 8.6% of Britain's & our per capita GDP is about 10% lower so I have also included this (7.74% figure (7.74%). I wouldn't stand by this but it is probably a good ballpark figure, except, of course, for oil.
Where Taxpayers Money Comes From
Income tax £157 (£12.15)
National Insurance £ 95 (£7.35)
Excise £ 41 (£3.17)
Corporation Tax £ 50 (£3.87)
VAT £ 80 (£6.19)
Business Rates £ 22 (£1.7)
Council Tax £ 23 (£1.78)
Other (capital gains, stamp duty,
vehicle excise
£ 84 (£6.5)
TOTAL £553 (£42.8)
Total expenditure for Scotland for 2004-5 was £47.7 billion (£25.8 billion by Holyrood) c/o Brian Monteith's new book Paying the Piper so adding 10% for 2007 I assume £52.47 billion. The UK figure is £587 billion which puts our spending at 8.9% (somewhat hogher but as I said i am taking no account of oil & certainly a far smaller deficit than the £50 billion the RU costs us).
Where Taxpayer's Money is Spent
Health £104 (£9.26)
Transport £ 20 (£1.78)
Education £ 77 (£6.85)
Defence £ 32 (£2.8)
Nat Debt Interest £ 30 (£2.67)
Industry, Agriculture, Employment & training
£ 21 (£1.87)
Public Order £ 33 (£2.94)
Housing £ 22 (£1.96)
Social Protection £161( (£14.3)
Other - public services, culture,
sport international development, civil servant
pensions etc £ 59 (£5.25)
Total £587 (£52.47)
Where Taxpayers Money Comes From
Income tax £157 (£12.15)
National Insurance £ 95 (£7.35)
Excise £ 41 (£3.17)
Corporation Tax £ 50 (£3.87)
VAT £ 80 (£6.19)
Business Rates £ 22 (£1.7)
Council Tax £ 23 (£1.78)
Other (capital gains, stamp duty,
vehicle excise
£ 84 (£6.5)
TOTAL £553 (£42.8)
Total expenditure for Scotland for 2004-5 was £47.7 billion (£25.8 billion by Holyrood) c/o Brian Monteith's new book Paying the Piper so adding 10% for 2007 I assume £52.47 billion. The UK figure is £587 billion which puts our spending at 8.9% (somewhat hogher but as I said i am taking no account of oil & certainly a far smaller deficit than the £50 billion the RU costs us).
Where Taxpayer's Money is Spent
Health £104 (£9.26)
Transport £ 20 (£1.78)
Education £ 77 (£6.85)
Defence £ 32 (£2.8)
Nat Debt Interest £ 30 (£2.67)
Industry, Agriculture, Employment & training
£ 21 (£1.87)
Public Order £ 33 (£2.94)
Housing £ 22 (£1.96)
Social Protection £161( (£14.3)
Other - public services, culture,
sport international development, civil servant
pensions etc £ 59 (£5.25)
Total £587 (£52.47)
Monday, March 26, 2007
COMPARING SCOTLAND'S GROWTH - SCOTSMAN LETTER
Scotsman letter today.
Peter Ellis's letter (23 March) comparing Scotland's growth to Albania's is wrong to say that theirs, at 6 per cent is the best in Europe. Ukraine (9.4 per cent), Lithuania (9 per cent), Latvia (7.4 per cent), Russia 7.3 (per cent), Belarus (6.8 per cent), Moldova (6.3 per cent). Estonia and Ireland have also had very impressive long-term growth.This is Mr Ellis' original letter on which I have commented. The growth figures are from Geography IQ Others will differ slightly depending on the year under question & counting methods - but not by much.
Of course, many countries are doing as well or better: China's 9.1 per cent growth means GNP doubles every eight years.
However, the basic point is true. Scotland (long term rate 1.5 per cent), and indeed the United Kingdom (2.5 per cent) could, and should, do far better if we only attempted to make growth the priority these nations do.
All power to the Albanians where it is deserved, but I do not think we are unable to match or exceed them.
NEIL CRAIG
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Analysis of SNP's economic policy ignores the potential for growth
This is an OPINION peace I had in the Scotsman in April 2005. It is still correct.
------------------------
Professor Arthur Midwinter is misinformed in his comments on the SNP’s policy of cutting corporation tax to kick-start economic growth (your report, 29 March). The case that all the SNP’s policies, specifically independence and the use of oil revenues, could cost £10 billion is arguable either way; but it is unreasonable to use this figure in an argument about cutting corporation tax.
As he states later, since our total corporation tax receipts are £2.1 billion, a cut of one-third would be £700 million. Scottish Enterprise already costs us £500 million, for less obvious effect, and Holyrood has regularly had an underspend of £500 million. This is, therefore, clearly affordable.
The argument about independence is a different issue. It is quite possible the SNP could become the leading party without persuading the electorate to secede.
He is also in error in saying Ireland’s growth preceded the tax cut. Ireland decided on reform in 1989, including cutting business taxes, and instituted it within a year. They immediately came out of stagflation.
It is true that in face of this success they repeatedly cut corporation tax to its present level of 12.5 per cent (and that the rate of growth further increased), which is what he is referring to in saying that some tax cuts came after success. But the initial cut came first - the relationship between reform and success is so close that it is not reasonable to deny that the one led to the other.
Independence and European Union membership, sometimes credited with responsibility for Ireland’s achievement, came decades earlier, and immigration (actually the return of generations of emigrants), not surprisingly, followed growth.
A point he misses is that the lesson the SNP has learned from Ireland is twofold. Not just cutting business taxes, but also cutting regulation.
Turning round our economy cannot be done purely by writing a cheque, but it can be done by a government willing to make the effort, which includes writing that cheque and backing it. Since each 1 per cent increase in growth means an extra £1 billion of national wealth each and every year, the gains to be made exceed the cost many times over.
I do not believe Scottish voters are too stupid or too shortsighted to understand this.
NEIL CRAIG
------------------------
Professor Arthur Midwinter is misinformed in his comments on the SNP’s policy of cutting corporation tax to kick-start economic growth (your report, 29 March). The case that all the SNP’s policies, specifically independence and the use of oil revenues, could cost £10 billion is arguable either way; but it is unreasonable to use this figure in an argument about cutting corporation tax.
As he states later, since our total corporation tax receipts are £2.1 billion, a cut of one-third would be £700 million. Scottish Enterprise already costs us £500 million, for less obvious effect, and Holyrood has regularly had an underspend of £500 million. This is, therefore, clearly affordable.
The argument about independence is a different issue. It is quite possible the SNP could become the leading party without persuading the electorate to secede.
He is also in error in saying Ireland’s growth preceded the tax cut. Ireland decided on reform in 1989, including cutting business taxes, and instituted it within a year. They immediately came out of stagflation.
It is true that in face of this success they repeatedly cut corporation tax to its present level of 12.5 per cent (and that the rate of growth further increased), which is what he is referring to in saying that some tax cuts came after success. But the initial cut came first - the relationship between reform and success is so close that it is not reasonable to deny that the one led to the other.
Independence and European Union membership, sometimes credited with responsibility for Ireland’s achievement, came decades earlier, and immigration (actually the return of generations of emigrants), not surprisingly, followed growth.
A point he misses is that the lesson the SNP has learned from Ireland is twofold. Not just cutting business taxes, but also cutting regulation.
Turning round our economy cannot be done purely by writing a cheque, but it can be done by a government willing to make the effort, which includes writing that cheque and backing it. Since each 1 per cent increase in growth means an extra £1 billion of national wealth each and every year, the gains to be made exceed the cost many times over.
I do not believe Scottish voters are too stupid or too shortsighted to understand this.
NEIL CRAIG
Thursday, March 22, 2007
THE BUDGET
Corporation tax will be lowered from 30p to 28p next April - the first time the business levy has been reduced since 1999.
Corporation tax rates for small firms will rise to 22 pence, higher than the basic rate of income tax
The income tax cut is smoke & mirrors because the increase in getting rid of the 10p low rate exactly matches what we save with 2p off.
I have been calling for cutting corporation tax cuts to Irish levels of 12.5% for Scotland & also for the UK. Cutting 2p to 28% is a very small step but it is at least in the right direction even though there is at least half a step back in raising it for small business.
All in all no significant change.
Brown should have cut corporation tax by 3p, not increased the small business rate & made a specific promise that any increase in the amount raised by CT would be returned in further reductions. That would have cost very little more & had a significant role in improving growth as it would have established a virtuous circle of declining business costs. This would be in line with the Laffer curve predictions by economist Arthur Laffer.
Corporation tax rates for small firms will rise to 22 pence, higher than the basic rate of income tax
The income tax cut is smoke & mirrors because the increase in getting rid of the 10p low rate exactly matches what we save with 2p off.
I have been calling for cutting corporation tax cuts to Irish levels of 12.5% for Scotland & also for the UK. Cutting 2p to 28% is a very small step but it is at least in the right direction even though there is at least half a step back in raising it for small business.
All in all no significant change.
Brown should have cut corporation tax by 3p, not increased the small business rate & made a specific promise that any increase in the amount raised by CT would be returned in further reductions. That would have cost very little more & had a significant role in improving growth as it would have established a virtuous circle of declining business costs. This would be in line with the Laffer curve predictions by economist Arthur Laffer.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
WHY, BEYOND MONEY- THE 9% GROWTH PARTY STANDS FOR SOMETHING BETTER THAN THE GREENS
We are here to make the next generation of the human race more knowledgeable about how the universe is put together, more in control of it & generally able to achieve more than the previous ones. That is not achieved by hiding in a hole & wishing we didn't exist.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
NO CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
Catastrophic warming is a lie.
The Climate Bill calls for a 60% cut in carbon emissions in Britain.
This 60% cut either means complete dependence on nuclear for our electricity & probably to manufacture petrol or a massive reduction in living standards. Obviously I favor the former. FoE's "it will not impinge too heavily. For instance, it could mean changing the fuel we put in our cars, or the way energy is produced at source, or more recycling." is completely dishonest, particularly for an organisation which expels people who suggest we need nuclear.
The big parties are trying to push this through because it gives them more power over our lives & they care not a jot about reducing poverty.
The Scots Parliament should have absolutely nothing to do with it.
The 9% Growth party will oppose any economically damaging climate bill. If passed we will campaign for its repeal. There is no justification whatsover for politicians using their power to lower living standards.
The Climate Bill calls for a 60% cut in carbon emissions in Britain.
This 60% cut either means complete dependence on nuclear for our electricity & probably to manufacture petrol or a massive reduction in living standards. Obviously I favor the former. FoE's "it will not impinge too heavily. For instance, it could mean changing the fuel we put in our cars, or the way energy is produced at source, or more recycling." is completely dishonest, particularly for an organisation which expels people who suggest we need nuclear.
The big parties are trying to push this through because it gives them more power over our lives & they care not a jot about reducing poverty.
The Scots Parliament should have absolutely nothing to do with it.
The 9% Growth party will oppose any economically damaging climate bill. If passed we will campaign for its repeal. There is no justification whatsover for politicians using their power to lower living standards.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
WHY DO CORPORATION'S PREFABRICATED HOMES COST SO MUCH?
Having pushed for the encouragement of prefabicated mass produced housing I was very pleased to hear:
According to Boklok's site "BoKlok is aiming to sell homes in the range from a one-bedroom flat for under £100,000 to a three-bedroom house for under £150,000" - this is fully installed because "Will BoKlok homes be available to buy as flat packs from IKEA stores? ---
No. You will not be able to buy a flat pack house from IKEA". A not unreasonable position when there are so many rules in this country & councils knock down houses which, while well constructed, haven't done their paperwork acceptably.
Without such rules it would be perfectly possible to put one of these up for £40,000 for the unit & £20,000 installation.
Ikea flatpack home deal is signedOn the other hand, since similar Norwegian houses sell at approx £40,000 (excluding installation) I was a little surprised at how much that is costing the corporation. £200 million for 1,200 homes comes to £166,000 each.
A £200Million housing project using Ikea flatpack homes is to be launched in Glasgow today.
The scheme will see 1200 family houses built over the next five years in Drumchapel.
As exclusively revealed by the Evening Times last year, around 40 of the properties will be Ikea flatpacks, the first time the Swedish company's prefabricated homes will have been used in Scotland.
advertisementSmart-living "Boklok" homes are a big hit in Scandinavia with their open-plan designs, high ceilings and large windows.
Today all the partners involved in the project were signing off the contracts in a ceremony at Glasgow City Chambers.
Summerhill councillor Paul Carey said: "Today we are giving the green light to the largest single regeneration scheme in Scotland."
According to Boklok's site "BoKlok is aiming to sell homes in the range from a one-bedroom flat for under £100,000 to a three-bedroom house for under £150,000" - this is fully installed because "Will BoKlok homes be available to buy as flat packs from IKEA stores? ---
No. You will not be able to buy a flat pack house from IKEA". A not unreasonable position when there are so many rules in this country & councils knock down houses which, while well constructed, haven't done their paperwork acceptably.
Without such rules it would be perfectly possible to put one of these up for £40,000 for the unit & £20,000 installation.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
GLOBAL WARMING IS A "SHORT-TERM CRAZE"
The smartest money in global warming stocks may be scurrying to the exit just when the enthusiasm for alternative-energy companies is at an all-time high....
``As an investment play,'' global warming is ``a bubble'' and ``social short-term craze,'' said Ken Fisher, who oversees $35 billion as chairman of Fisher Investments Inc. in Woodside, California.
Anyone looking for corroboration of that assessment may find it in the so-called short selling of U.S. alternative-energy stocks last month, which climbed 45 times faster than the average for Standard & Poor's 500 Index members.
SunPower, the biggest U.S. producer of solar energy, had the largest jump in short sales relative to shares outstanding in the Nasdaq Stock Market. Short sellers sell borrowed stock on the bet price declines will let them to buy back the shares at a lower price and profit from the difference.
------------------------
Note that this isn't even these managers betting their & their clients money that catastrophic warming isn't happening, take that as a given & anyway these guys aren't interested in investments of 100 years. What they are saying is that the global hype about warming is visibly about to burst. Next year all the politicians & BBC who are now riding the warming bandwaggon, saying sceptics are "from Mars" & that Holland & Norfolk are about to go underwater will all be hurrying away & looking for a new scare story to leech off of.
Course what do they know. If they're so smart howcum they aren't rich?
``As an investment play,'' global warming is ``a bubble'' and ``social short-term craze,'' said Ken Fisher, who oversees $35 billion as chairman of Fisher Investments Inc. in Woodside, California.
Anyone looking for corroboration of that assessment may find it in the so-called short selling of U.S. alternative-energy stocks last month, which climbed 45 times faster than the average for Standard & Poor's 500 Index members.
SunPower, the biggest U.S. producer of solar energy, had the largest jump in short sales relative to shares outstanding in the Nasdaq Stock Market. Short sellers sell borrowed stock on the bet price declines will let them to buy back the shares at a lower price and profit from the difference.
------------------------
Note that this isn't even these managers betting their & their clients money that catastrophic warming isn't happening, take that as a given & anyway these guys aren't interested in investments of 100 years. What they are saying is that the global hype about warming is visibly about to burst. Next year all the politicians & BBC who are now riding the warming bandwaggon, saying sceptics are "from Mars" & that Holland & Norfolk are about to go underwater will all be hurrying away & looking for a new scare story to leech off of.
Course what do they know. If they're so smart howcum they aren't rich?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
