Said Gordon Brewer on BBC's Newsnight Scotland
Which demonstrates that the allegedly impartial non-party BBC is quite open about its commitment to eco-fascism.
Another reporter then stated "climate change is happening, that is beyond doubt". The 9% Growth Party challenges the BBC to explain why, with temperatures having dropped since 1998 & currently falling faster it, is impossible to doubt they are currently rising at a catastrophic rate. We undertake to publish a BBC reply if they feel it possible to defend this total & totally party political, lie.
With current falling temperatures & the fact that there has never been any actual evidence for catastrophic warming the 9% Growth Party say that it is now impossible for any honest politician or journalist to maintain the case proven for warming. Any attempt to obtain money by making this claim is clearly fraudulent.
That being the case, in response to the recent decision by the Scottish Parliament to cut our CO2 by 42% by 2020, Neil Craig sent this letter to most Scottish newspapers - the highlighted portion being published by the Scotsman:
"In 1856 a young African woman Nongqawuse said that the ancestors had ordered that all cattle be killed, that all stored grain should be destroyed, that no grain should be planted and that everyone should purge themselves of all charms and witchcraft. If this were done then the world would be saved, the Xhosa people fed & all would be well.
Not all believed, not even all their leaders & indeed threats & violence were used against sceptics & deniers. The mob hysteria was unabated even when the first predicted dates for this transformation failed to happen. Finally it was predicted that the Sun would rise coloured red on 16th Feb 1857 & unlimited cattle be provided by the ancestors.
Obviously the Sun rose the normal colour, the Xhosa were not fed & 10s of thousands of them starved to death.
Compare & contrast this with the Scottish Parliament which has unanimously, unlike the Xhosa leaders, adopted a law that we should destroy most of our economy. The correlation between energy consumption & wealth is one of the clearest in all economics. As part of what has correctly been called "The War Against Fire" they wish us to destroy 42% of Scotland's fire producing facilities over the next 11 years & 80% by 2050. In a display of added insanity they want to close down the only substantial other source of power - our nuclear generators. This will ultimately reduce us to a level of energy usage & therefore standard of living unknown since Victorian times. We will sink into a 3rd world society as the BRICK (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Korea) become the dominant 21stC economies.
Nor do the Holyrood MSP's have the excuse of ignorance the Xhosa tribal leaders had. They lived in a world where people genuinely believed in the magic powers of the ancestors whereas we know that the scientific method works & that a science is only as good as the experimental predictions it makes. While Nongqawuse's predictions had less than a year to fail "catastrophic global warming" has had 30 years now & we know global temperature is not now demonstrably higher than 1979. Like all other massive catastrophe predictions made by our self appointed "environmentalist" shamans (global ice age, acid rain, pollution caused cancers bringing life expectancy down to 42 by 20 years ago, peak oil by 1993, increasing millions of deaths by starvation annually starting 30 years ago, radiation deaths etc. etc.) global warming, even when rebranded as "climate change" is not only a "theory" but one disproven by massive evidence.
Every single MSP knows this. Every single journalist pushing this hysteria has seen the facts. They are doing this merely because it increases their power & sells newspapers. Not a single one of what is now de facto a single party in Holyrood can ever again claim to be in any slightest way motivated by a duty to help constituents. Not a single one of these parasites can claim to be honest.
Since nearly 3,000 Scots already unnecessarily die, annually, from fuel poverty we may expect the ultimate death toll in Scotland from the War Against Fire to greatly exceed the 1856 hysteria."
--------------------------
Using figures issued by the BMA that each reduction by 1% of GNP causes 21 deaths per 100,000 (ie 1050 across Scotland) we have been able to calculate that the Climate Change Bill will provably cause the deliberate & unnecessary deaths of 6,346,050 Scots over the next 91 years though this excludes lives which would be saved or extended if there would otherwise have been any economic growth in those 91 years . he calculations are clear, verifiable, simple & involve no hidden algorithms & are therefore much more valid than any estimates produced by the IPCC, let alone Al Gore.
Calculations are accessible here & have not been disputed as to fact.
That being the case the unanimous decision of the Scottish Parliament to order these deaths proves either, in the generous option, that every single MSP is clinically insane. The less generous estimate being that, for the sake of power, money & the chance to impose ever more control over the people of Scotland & to produce fear they have deliberately engaged in mass murder, treason & an attempt to destroy civilisation. If so they could only be barbarians who do not understand civilisation & wouldn't like it if they did.
The 9% Growth Party calls on Her Majesty to dissolve the body & bring its murdering treasonous fascist members to trial, if judged sane.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, May 09, 2009
UKIP FOR THE EU ELECTION
I am not standing for this election. Having to decide who to support I have had a look at UKIP's policies page. Here are MY COMMENTS
-UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again. YES ON ALL POINTS
-We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis. YES
-We will have a grammar school in every town. We will restore standards of education and improve skills training. Student grants will replace student loans. YES
-We will radically reform the working of the NHS with an Insurance Fund, whilst upholding the ‘free at the point of care’ principles. We will bring back matrons and have locally run, clean hospitals. YES
-We will give people the vote on policing priorities, go back to proper beat policing and scrap the Human Rights Act. We will have sentences that mean what they say. YES
-We will take 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax (with National Insurance) starting at £10,000. We will scrap Inheritance Tax, not just reform it and cut corporation taxes. YES, CUTTING CT WAS A PRIMARY 9% GROWTH PARTY POLICY, INDEED IT WAS OFFICIALLY THE REASON I WAS EXPELLED FROM THE LIBDEMS
-We will say No to green taxes and wind farms. To avert a major energy crisis, we will go for new nuclear power plants on the same existing site facilities and for clean coal. We will reduce pollution and encourage recycling. YES - PRIME 9% GROWTH PARTY POLICY AT THE SCOTTISH ELECTION TO WHICH ALL THE MAIN PARTIES WERE OPPOSED AND THE SNP AND LIBDEMS STILL ARE - WITHOUT THIS THE LIGHTS GO OUT
-We will make welfare simpler and fairer, introduce ‘workfare’ to get people back to work, and a new citizens pension and private pensions scheme insurance. NOT SURE IF A NEW PENSION SCHEME IS AFFORDABLE IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC MESS BUT OTHERWISE YES
-We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops. NO, WE CAN'T AFFORD MORE SPENDING ON ANYTHING JUST NOW & WHEN WE CAN WE SHOULD GO FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY RATHER THAN NUMBERS
-We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels. NO RETAIN MSPs AND HOLYROOD BUT IF MPs WERE VOTED IN ON A DEMOCRATICALLY PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM THEY WOULD BE INTERCHANGEABLE. ENGLAND SHOULD HAVE A PARLIAMENT IF THEY WANT ONE
-We will make customer satisfaction number one for rail firms – not cost cutting and will look seriously at reopening some rail lines that Beeching closed. We will make foreign lorries pay for British roads with a 'Britdisc’ – and we will stop persecuting motorists. BEST WAY OF SUPPORTING RAILWAYS WOULD BE OUR POLICY OF FULLY AUTOMATING THEM. THE POLITICALLY CORRECT HATRED OF MOTORISTS IS SERIOUSLY DAMAGING OUR ECONOMY
-Last, but never least, we will bring in fair prices and fair competition for our suffering farmers, and restore traditional British fishing and territorial waters. FREE TRADE WITHOUT EU RESTRICTIONS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE FOOD PRICES TO THE CONSUMER & FREE FARMERS FROM THE GOVERNMENT FARMING REGULATORS (A CLASS WHICH CONTAINS MORE PEOPLE THAN THERE ARE FARMERS.
ALL IN ALL A SENSIBLE PROGRAMME WHICH WOULD KEEP THE LIGHTS ON AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE ECONOMIC GROWTH. WOULD BE NICE IF THEY HAD A MENTION OF X-PRIZES BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING. THIS IS CLEARLY A CREDIBLE AND SENSIBLE PROGRAMME WHICH IS HEAD AND SHOULDERS BETTER THAN THE OTHER PARTIES.
The EU’s Enterprise Commissioner Gunther Verheugen said in an interview with the FT this week (OCT 2006) that EU legislation now costs European business €600 (£405 billion) a year, on the basis of a new evaluation of the administrative costs of red tape.
That is equivalent to £70 billion in Britain alone now or £2,500 from every wage packet in the country. The official figures of actual cash handed over are on top of that. Expect this fact to remain unmentioned by the BBC and most parties, particularly LABOUR and LIBDEMS who made a Manifesto Promise that we would get a vote on the constitutional treaty and as soon as the election was over cynically broke it
It is impossible for anyone with the slightest self respect to vote for people we know to be corrupt lying war criminals who clearly have no respect for those who voted for them.
And UKIP don't lie about the Catastrophic Global Warming we are all allegedly suffering from like the rest of the tax increasing leeches.
UPDATE The blogger Mark Wadsworth has told me that he was involved in drafting their policy on eorkfare & pensions & that, though much to complicated to explain in a 1 line sentence it is practical. Having read his blog I accept thaty.
-UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again. YES ON ALL POINTS
-We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis. YES
-We will have a grammar school in every town. We will restore standards of education and improve skills training. Student grants will replace student loans. YES
-We will radically reform the working of the NHS with an Insurance Fund, whilst upholding the ‘free at the point of care’ principles. We will bring back matrons and have locally run, clean hospitals. YES
-We will give people the vote on policing priorities, go back to proper beat policing and scrap the Human Rights Act. We will have sentences that mean what they say. YES
-We will take 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax (with National Insurance) starting at £10,000. We will scrap Inheritance Tax, not just reform it and cut corporation taxes. YES, CUTTING CT WAS A PRIMARY 9% GROWTH PARTY POLICY, INDEED IT WAS OFFICIALLY THE REASON I WAS EXPELLED FROM THE LIBDEMS
-We will say No to green taxes and wind farms. To avert a major energy crisis, we will go for new nuclear power plants on the same existing site facilities and for clean coal. We will reduce pollution and encourage recycling. YES - PRIME 9% GROWTH PARTY POLICY AT THE SCOTTISH ELECTION TO WHICH ALL THE MAIN PARTIES WERE OPPOSED AND THE SNP AND LIBDEMS STILL ARE - WITHOUT THIS THE LIGHTS GO OUT
-We will make welfare simpler and fairer, introduce ‘workfare’ to get people back to work, and a new citizens pension and private pensions scheme insurance. NOT SURE IF A NEW PENSION SCHEME IS AFFORDABLE IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC MESS BUT OTHERWISE YES
-We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops. NO, WE CAN'T AFFORD MORE SPENDING ON ANYTHING JUST NOW & WHEN WE CAN WE SHOULD GO FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY RATHER THAN NUMBERS
-We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels. NO RETAIN MSPs AND HOLYROOD BUT IF MPs WERE VOTED IN ON A DEMOCRATICALLY PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM THEY WOULD BE INTERCHANGEABLE. ENGLAND SHOULD HAVE A PARLIAMENT IF THEY WANT ONE
-We will make customer satisfaction number one for rail firms – not cost cutting and will look seriously at reopening some rail lines that Beeching closed. We will make foreign lorries pay for British roads with a 'Britdisc’ – and we will stop persecuting motorists. BEST WAY OF SUPPORTING RAILWAYS WOULD BE OUR POLICY OF FULLY AUTOMATING THEM. THE POLITICALLY CORRECT HATRED OF MOTORISTS IS SERIOUSLY DAMAGING OUR ECONOMY
-Last, but never least, we will bring in fair prices and fair competition for our suffering farmers, and restore traditional British fishing and territorial waters. FREE TRADE WITHOUT EU RESTRICTIONS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE FOOD PRICES TO THE CONSUMER & FREE FARMERS FROM THE GOVERNMENT FARMING REGULATORS (A CLASS WHICH CONTAINS MORE PEOPLE THAN THERE ARE FARMERS.
ALL IN ALL A SENSIBLE PROGRAMME WHICH WOULD KEEP THE LIGHTS ON AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE ECONOMIC GROWTH. WOULD BE NICE IF THEY HAD A MENTION OF X-PRIZES BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING. THIS IS CLEARLY A CREDIBLE AND SENSIBLE PROGRAMME WHICH IS HEAD AND SHOULDERS BETTER THAN THE OTHER PARTIES.
The EU’s Enterprise Commissioner Gunther Verheugen said in an interview with the FT this week (OCT 2006) that EU legislation now costs European business €600 (£405 billion) a year, on the basis of a new evaluation of the administrative costs of red tape.
That is equivalent to £70 billion in Britain alone now or £2,500 from every wage packet in the country. The official figures of actual cash handed over are on top of that. Expect this fact to remain unmentioned by the BBC and most parties, particularly LABOUR and LIBDEMS who made a Manifesto Promise that we would get a vote on the constitutional treaty and as soon as the election was over cynically broke it
It is impossible for anyone with the slightest self respect to vote for people we know to be corrupt lying war criminals who clearly have no respect for those who voted for them.
And UKIP don't lie about the Catastrophic Global Warming we are all allegedly suffering from like the rest of the tax increasing leeches.
9% growth party says
vote ukip
on 4th June
don't let them grind you down
UPDATE The blogger Mark Wadsworth has told me that he was involved in drafting their policy on eorkfare & pensions & that, though much to complicated to explain in a 1 line sentence it is practical. Having read his blog I accept thaty.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
HOW WE CAN GET OUT OF RECESSION - What politicians who say they will "do whatever it takes" would do if they meant it
FOR SCOTLAND while remaining part of the UK:
1: Cut government spending by £3 billion (10%). Since we spend about 20% more than the UK average per head this is clearly practical.
2: Endorse nuclear electricity. We could still persuade the French to invest heavily here if we were sufficiently enthusiastic about letting them build.
3: End business rates. This is a pretty extreme step, in principle business should pay something, but we are in a drastic situation. This is a fairly close analogy to cutting corporation tax to 12.5%, like Ireland's for which we need Westminster support & though the SNP are committed to doing so they don't seem to have been putting on enough pressure. In theory cutting CT is marginally more effective because it rewards the most profitable best whereas rates rewards the most property intensive but it is a relatively marginal difference. This would cost about £2 billion.
4: Cut the laws on Health & safety & other regulations & the enormous bureaucracies that enforce them which do so much to push up the cost of projects here.
5: Tell Donald Trump he can start investing his £1 billion tomorrow morning. Apart from his own investment how many billions have we lost by convincing other potential investors they would not be welcome?
6: Cut the regulations that prevent people building houses.
7: Provide an interest free bridging loan of 20,000 pounds to any off site manufactured home for the period from completion of manufacture until installation & a grant of 5,000 pounds to direct purchasers of such homes, so long as they are for their personal use as first homes. This system to last only until we are building 30,000 a year. This would encourage the establishment here of a modular housing industry which, in due course, the English would be clamoring to buy.
8: Scottish Tunnel project - start cutting tunnels to the Cowal peninsula & the Scottish islands. Cost £7 m per km
9: Forth Tunnel instead of bridge & start digging tomorrow. Since the official cost of the bridge has been reduced to two & a half billion massive savings could be made this way & it would be ready far earlier.
10: Privatise Scottish Water thus saving the over £200 m it gets annually.
11: Schools vouchers. It should be a matter of shame & is instead a matter of complete disinterest in our media that our schools, for the first time ever, are underperforming southern ones. The long term future of the nation depends heavily on education.
12: Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train system.
13: Stop subsidising bloody windmills. Apart from the total waste of money we have as beautiful a countryside as anywhere in the world & should stop desecrating it. This would save between £500 m & £1 billion depending on whether we are allowed to end the subsidy to the production of electricity as well as to building the windmills.
14: Scottish X-Prize Foundation. £50 million a year would give us an even chance of gaving a Scottish built orbital plane in 5 years & would certainly attract a significant part of the world's satellite industry (£1 billion a year & growing)
15: Spend the extra money we have saved on improving roads with the exception of
16: £1 billion to cut Scottish income tax by 3p, the full amount allowed. If that doesn't get people wanting to move here nothing will.
--------------------
FOR THE UK:
1 - Cut the size of government spending - I would go for a no new hires rule & price freeze in the government, probably excluding new doctors & a few other proven front line requirements - this should be about a 5% real reduction year on year. Also completely prune particular departments described later. 5% of the budget is £30 billion so including both actions over a couple of years that is probably about £100 billion. Mark Wadsworth comes up with a similar figure from different directions. This doesn't itself increase the economy, indeed cutting the non-productive £100 billion would cut the economy by £100 billion (ie 7%) but gives us money which can be used with a real multiplier effect & long term growth benefits.
2 - Cut corporation tax to Irish levels - cost about £30 billion & this is the main bit of what got Ireland's growth up from 2% to 7%.
3 - Lets go overboard & cut business rates too - about £20 billion at half the effect.
4 - Gut the Health & Safety Exec - if it saves the work of 4 million workers that is 14% of the economy.
5 - Allow the free market to build as many nuclear plants as the market needs, starting tomorrow. There are arguments for & against the government paying for & owning it but lets keep it simple & at zero cost.
6 - Improve transport - better roads, particularly motorway junctions, allowing airports to expand & the road tunnels project. Cost a few billion. Improving transport infrastructure is one of the things where government expenditure actually works.
7 - Adult job training. Hire retiring plumbers, electricians etc etc to do evening classes in some of the schools empty in the evenings. Adult, particularly male, technical education is the part of education which shows real worthwhile payoff in productivity.
8 - Automate the rail system & introduce lightweight vehicles based on road vehicle technology. My guess is this would be about £10 billion annually but once it is done rail costs go way down & capacity way up.
9 - Quit the EU. The Bruges Group have said the EU costs us £55 billion in direct costs. The EU's Enterprise Commissioner says the regulations alone cost £405 billion - ie £67 billion to us.
10 - Allow almost unrestricted housebuilding & encourage modular methods. This should let them cost about 1/4 the present price. Housebuilding is pretty much the biggest industry in any country & that would give us an enormous boost.
11 - End most of the sort of "environmental" regulations which have stopped Trump investing his £1 billion here for 3 years. This alone has cost the Exchequer £360 billion (£12% a year).
12 - This has already been done, albeit accidentally & need not be extended - Letting the £ drop is a major stimulus to the productive sector though exports. It worked in Major's time too - also accidentally.
13 - An X-Prize foundation & a free market regime on Ascension Island as a British Space base. So long as the Foundation is guaranteed an increasing amount of money at approx 5% above the rate of growth & able to offer prizes based on what the fund will be in future it can offer multiples of the current cost & in turn the gain to the economy will be multiples of that figure. Of course if nobody wins such prizes it has zero cost - that being the worst case scenario. I would suggest £1 billion a year as starting payment which would certainly put us at the top of the space & high technology trees attracting many times that level of investment & even more importantly, many of the world's best brains.
14 - I see that though we have saved £155 billion plus we have only spent about £70 billion. Put the rest into cutting taxes (28p off income tax or equivalent!). I would also support raising alcohol taxes since it discourages something socially damaging whereas most tax discourages productive stuff. It wouldn't take many years of excise duty rising faster than a Chinese style growth rate to pay for all the size of government here.
- These are a bit of a flyer not to be done till we know the economy is recovering:
15 - Build some floating islands, probably around Ascension island, probably about £1 billion each.
16 - Make a purchase guarantee for a factory to mass produce turnkey operation nuclear reactors in Britain, for use here & around the world. If it can be done with a new design & much smaller & hence less economic reactors it can be done for normal 1 gw ones. Invite the best designer, probably Ariva or Westinghouse (which used to be British owned but the government forced British nuclear to sell it off). We guarantee that if they can make a production line turning out one, turnkey operation reactor, a day we will purchase the first 2 years supply at cost if they can't sell them abroad. Assuming £350 million (70% of the current minimum price) a shot that puts us on line for a £255 billion liability & I am working on the assumption that, since there is currently a backlog they would actually sell. That is a bet but a reasonable one & if it works we would lead ourselves & the rest of the world to unequalled prosperity & end up with the sort of role in building the world's electrical power that the US has exercised for decades in world aircraft production.
- I think it would be conservative to say that most of the above individually, excluding #1 in each set, would increase growth by more than 2%. It would be optimistic to assume they would all work cumulatively but but even so that would be pretty good.
Alternately doing only a small amount of this would still have us matching the most successful economies in the world.
1: Cut government spending by £3 billion (10%). Since we spend about 20% more than the UK average per head this is clearly practical.
2: Endorse nuclear electricity. We could still persuade the French to invest heavily here if we were sufficiently enthusiastic about letting them build.
3: End business rates. This is a pretty extreme step, in principle business should pay something, but we are in a drastic situation. This is a fairly close analogy to cutting corporation tax to 12.5%, like Ireland's for which we need Westminster support & though the SNP are committed to doing so they don't seem to have been putting on enough pressure. In theory cutting CT is marginally more effective because it rewards the most profitable best whereas rates rewards the most property intensive but it is a relatively marginal difference. This would cost about £2 billion.
4: Cut the laws on Health & safety & other regulations & the enormous bureaucracies that enforce them which do so much to push up the cost of projects here.
5: Tell Donald Trump he can start investing his £1 billion tomorrow morning. Apart from his own investment how many billions have we lost by convincing other potential investors they would not be welcome?
6: Cut the regulations that prevent people building houses.
7: Provide an interest free bridging loan of 20,000 pounds to any off site manufactured home for the period from completion of manufacture until installation & a grant of 5,000 pounds to direct purchasers of such homes, so long as they are for their personal use as first homes. This system to last only until we are building 30,000 a year. This would encourage the establishment here of a modular housing industry which, in due course, the English would be clamoring to buy.
8: Scottish Tunnel project - start cutting tunnels to the Cowal peninsula & the Scottish islands. Cost £7 m per km
9: Forth Tunnel instead of bridge & start digging tomorrow. Since the official cost of the bridge has been reduced to two & a half billion massive savings could be made this way & it would be ready far earlier.
10: Privatise Scottish Water thus saving the over £200 m it gets annually.
11: Schools vouchers. It should be a matter of shame & is instead a matter of complete disinterest in our media that our schools, for the first time ever, are underperforming southern ones. The long term future of the nation depends heavily on education.
12: Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train system.
13: Stop subsidising bloody windmills. Apart from the total waste of money we have as beautiful a countryside as anywhere in the world & should stop desecrating it. This would save between £500 m & £1 billion depending on whether we are allowed to end the subsidy to the production of electricity as well as to building the windmills.
14: Scottish X-Prize Foundation. £50 million a year would give us an even chance of gaving a Scottish built orbital plane in 5 years & would certainly attract a significant part of the world's satellite industry (£1 billion a year & growing)
15: Spend the extra money we have saved on improving roads with the exception of
16: £1 billion to cut Scottish income tax by 3p, the full amount allowed. If that doesn't get people wanting to move here nothing will.
--------------------
FOR THE UK:
1 - Cut the size of government spending - I would go for a no new hires rule & price freeze in the government, probably excluding new doctors & a few other proven front line requirements - this should be about a 5% real reduction year on year. Also completely prune particular departments described later. 5% of the budget is £30 billion so including both actions over a couple of years that is probably about £100 billion. Mark Wadsworth comes up with a similar figure from different directions. This doesn't itself increase the economy, indeed cutting the non-productive £100 billion would cut the economy by £100 billion (ie 7%) but gives us money which can be used with a real multiplier effect & long term growth benefits.
2 - Cut corporation tax to Irish levels - cost about £30 billion & this is the main bit of what got Ireland's growth up from 2% to 7%.
3 - Lets go overboard & cut business rates too - about £20 billion at half the effect.
4 - Gut the Health & Safety Exec - if it saves the work of 4 million workers that is 14% of the economy.
5 - Allow the free market to build as many nuclear plants as the market needs, starting tomorrow. There are arguments for & against the government paying for & owning it but lets keep it simple & at zero cost.
6 - Improve transport - better roads, particularly motorway junctions, allowing airports to expand & the road tunnels project. Cost a few billion. Improving transport infrastructure is one of the things where government expenditure actually works.
7 - Adult job training. Hire retiring plumbers, electricians etc etc to do evening classes in some of the schools empty in the evenings. Adult, particularly male, technical education is the part of education which shows real worthwhile payoff in productivity.
8 - Automate the rail system & introduce lightweight vehicles based on road vehicle technology. My guess is this would be about £10 billion annually but once it is done rail costs go way down & capacity way up.
9 - Quit the EU. The Bruges Group have said the EU costs us £55 billion in direct costs. The EU's Enterprise Commissioner says the regulations alone cost £405 billion - ie £67 billion to us.
10 - Allow almost unrestricted housebuilding & encourage modular methods. This should let them cost about 1/4 the present price. Housebuilding is pretty much the biggest industry in any country & that would give us an enormous boost.
11 - End most of the sort of "environmental" regulations which have stopped Trump investing his £1 billion here for 3 years. This alone has cost the Exchequer £360 billion (£12% a year).
12 - This has already been done, albeit accidentally & need not be extended - Letting the £ drop is a major stimulus to the productive sector though exports. It worked in Major's time too - also accidentally.
13 - An X-Prize foundation & a free market regime on Ascension Island as a British Space base. So long as the Foundation is guaranteed an increasing amount of money at approx 5% above the rate of growth & able to offer prizes based on what the fund will be in future it can offer multiples of the current cost & in turn the gain to the economy will be multiples of that figure. Of course if nobody wins such prizes it has zero cost - that being the worst case scenario. I would suggest £1 billion a year as starting payment which would certainly put us at the top of the space & high technology trees attracting many times that level of investment & even more importantly, many of the world's best brains.
14 - I see that though we have saved £155 billion plus we have only spent about £70 billion. Put the rest into cutting taxes (28p off income tax or equivalent!). I would also support raising alcohol taxes since it discourages something socially damaging whereas most tax discourages productive stuff. It wouldn't take many years of excise duty rising faster than a Chinese style growth rate to pay for all the size of government here.
- These are a bit of a flyer not to be done till we know the economy is recovering:
15 - Build some floating islands, probably around Ascension island, probably about £1 billion each.
16 - Make a purchase guarantee for a factory to mass produce turnkey operation nuclear reactors in Britain, for use here & around the world. If it can be done with a new design & much smaller & hence less economic reactors it can be done for normal 1 gw ones. Invite the best designer, probably Ariva or Westinghouse (which used to be British owned but the government forced British nuclear to sell it off). We guarantee that if they can make a production line turning out one, turnkey operation reactor, a day we will purchase the first 2 years supply at cost if they can't sell them abroad. Assuming £350 million (70% of the current minimum price) a shot that puts us on line for a £255 billion liability & I am working on the assumption that, since there is currently a backlog they would actually sell. That is a bet but a reasonable one & if it works we would lead ourselves & the rest of the world to unequalled prosperity & end up with the sort of role in building the world's electrical power that the US has exercised for decades in world aircraft production.
- I think it would be conservative to say that most of the above individually, excluding #1 in each set, would increase growth by more than 2%. It would be optimistic to assume they would all work cumulatively but but even so that would be pretty good.
Alternately doing only a small amount of this would still have us matching the most successful economies in the world.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A POLL ON WHAT HOUSE YOU WANT
(penthouse, 10,000 sq ft, 6,000 ft, 3,000ft, 1,500 ft homes)
Suppose you woke up tomorrow in an alternate reality where housing was built according to free market priniciples & had been for a long enough for prices & supply to stabilise. We will assume in some inexplicable way that this did not feed through to the general growth rate so we don't all get to be much wealthier in other ways. However, since long term housing costs are 4 times what they could be you get to choose 4 times more housing. Housing would be mainly modular, unloaded off the back of a few lorries over a day or 2. Like mass production car manufacture, which it would probably resemble there would also by all sorts of hi-tech optional extras of the sort currently available in Bill Gates mansion. For Gates these are expensive because it is a one off deal. If a computer run house with its own plug in lighting, heating, cooking, security, ordering from ASDA, & if desired rubbing your back & wiping your bum (separate attachments) systems were being manufactured in the hundreds of thousands they would be affordable in the hundreds of thousands.
As pointed out yesterday 34% of average disposable, after tax, income goes on housing. So if your present approx 1500 sq ft home was only going to cost you 8.5% what would you do?
Obviously nobody is likely to take exactly any of these options but choose the closest.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
POLL - HOW MUCH SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT SPEND?
Here is my poll question:
How much of the national economy should, in an ideal society, be spent by the state?
This means all the money spent by the state - defence, administration, quangos, police etc but also social security, NHS, education, rail & windmill subsidies, X-Prizes etc.
I would be really interested in knowing what people would like the answer to this to be so please take a few seconds to answer it. Call it research.
How much of the national economy should, in an ideal society, be spent by the state?
This means all the money spent by the state - defence, administration, quangos, police etc but also social security, NHS, education, rail & windmill subsidies, X-Prizes etc.
I would be really interested in knowing what people would like the answer to this to be so please take a few seconds to answer it. Call it research.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
SLOW, HALF HEARTED, CYNICAL & WITH THE WRONG PRIORITY BUT THE LIB DEMS NOW FOLLOW THE 9% GROWTH PARTY'S LEAD
Tavish Scott the new Scottish LibDem leader has broken one of the taboos in Scottish politics. He has said that it is desirable to use our right under the Scotland Act to cut income tax.
"We should use the Scottish Parliament's power to cut income tax by two pence in the pound."
He should be commended for this complete reversal of party policy. The Conservatives must, quite deservedly, be feeling sick as a flock of parrots for not saying this first. We can be certain that he has not done this without checking with some focus groups that the public want it.
As somebody expelled from the Lib Dems for supporting lower taxes on the grounds that this was "illiberal" & "too right wing" to even be discussed I am pleased to see that eternal liberal principles have changed in the intervening 2 years.
As leader of the 9% Growth Party, the only party to have campaigned in last year's election for cutting Scottish income tax I am pleased to see that Mr Scott is now a follower of ours. In the same way while we were the only party to campaign for new nuclear power, the Labour & Conservative parties have now followed us on that. To round it off, since we supported X-Prizes for space development, the SNP have offered one for a sea turbine & subsequently,& quite possibly consequently, John McCain offered one for an improved battery.
Nonetheless I cannot fully endorse Mr Scott's about face for 3 reasons.
1) He has made no specific proposal as to how it should be paid for. We said that a 3p cut should be paid for out of the £1 billion a year of pointless windmill subsidies.
2) 2p is a very silly figure to choose. There is a fixed cost in changing the rate which is about equivalent to 1p income tax. Therefore it makes financial sense to go for a 3p cut or nothing. 2p is falling between 2 stools.
3) We have been quite clear that the first priority is encouraging growth & that the way to do that is, as the Irish did, by cuts in corporation tax & rates which should be the priority. Desirable though income tax cuts are it is obvious that a one time only 2p in the £1 cut will provide only a fraction as much to ordinary people as Ireland's 7% growth (let alone the 9% we are committed to), year on year.
Mr Scott is to be commended for making a single belated, half hearted, cynical about turn somewhat in the direction of economic sanity. Let us hope that, though he has been the first to break ranks on this issue, He will not be the last..
"I am favour of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible." to quote Milton Friedman. It may be the wrong tax to cut & by a silly amount but it is to be welcomed.
Our party may be small in votes & members but almost everybody in Scottish politics is now among our followers, which is a good start.
"We should use the Scottish Parliament's power to cut income tax by two pence in the pound."
He should be commended for this complete reversal of party policy. The Conservatives must, quite deservedly, be feeling sick as a flock of parrots for not saying this first. We can be certain that he has not done this without checking with some focus groups that the public want it.
As somebody expelled from the Lib Dems for supporting lower taxes on the grounds that this was "illiberal" & "too right wing" to even be discussed I am pleased to see that eternal liberal principles have changed in the intervening 2 years.
As leader of the 9% Growth Party, the only party to have campaigned in last year's election for cutting Scottish income tax I am pleased to see that Mr Scott is now a follower of ours. In the same way while we were the only party to campaign for new nuclear power, the Labour & Conservative parties have now followed us on that. To round it off, since we supported X-Prizes for space development, the SNP have offered one for a sea turbine & subsequently,& quite possibly consequently, John McCain offered one for an improved battery.
Nonetheless I cannot fully endorse Mr Scott's about face for 3 reasons.
1) He has made no specific proposal as to how it should be paid for. We said that a 3p cut should be paid for out of the £1 billion a year of pointless windmill subsidies.
2) 2p is a very silly figure to choose. There is a fixed cost in changing the rate which is about equivalent to 1p income tax. Therefore it makes financial sense to go for a 3p cut or nothing. 2p is falling between 2 stools.
3) We have been quite clear that the first priority is encouraging growth & that the way to do that is, as the Irish did, by cuts in corporation tax & rates which should be the priority. Desirable though income tax cuts are it is obvious that a one time only 2p in the £1 cut will provide only a fraction as much to ordinary people as Ireland's 7% growth (let alone the 9% we are committed to), year on year.
Mr Scott is to be commended for making a single belated, half hearted, cynical about turn somewhat in the direction of economic sanity. Let us hope that, though he has been the first to break ranks on this issue, He will not be the last..
"I am favour of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible." to quote Milton Friedman. It may be the wrong tax to cut & by a silly amount but it is to be welcomed.
Our party may be small in votes & members but almost everybody in Scottish politics is now among our followers, which is a good start.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
BRITISH SUB-ORBITAL SPACE-PLANE FOR £50 MILLION
Evidence given by Dr Patrick Collins, Director of Space Future to the Commons Science & Technology Committee 21st Feb 2007.
To give an example about how easy it can be to make getting into space cheaper, this is a picture of the SR53, a British supersonic rocket plane which flew in Britain 50 years ago this May. There is a British company, Bristol Spaceplanes, which has a design of a passenger space plane, drawing very much on that technology, which could make suborbital flights at a cost of £3,000 a head. There is simply no difficulty at all. The technology was already there 50 years ago, and materials and so on have advanced a great deal since then.The 9% Growth Party has repeatedly said that we should be funding a British X-Prize Foundation from the money we currently give to ESA. If this is too forward looking for British politicians we should right now put up the £50 million to allow these regular sub-orbital flights. While it could not itself achieve orbit the original did carry 2 rockets & a modern version would be much lighter because of modern materials. That means it is likely that it would be able to launch rockets able to carry small satellites. Beyond that it would certainly be able to carry experiments to test manufacturing in zero-G. The potential number of materials that can be mixed, produced as chemical compounds or manufactured in zero-G considerably exceed the total which can be done in a gravity field & some of them are bound to be valuable, for example crystals created without being distorted by gravity can be larger & stronger than any we can now produce. Having the ability to launch small satellites & carry out microgravity experiments would be worth many times the £50 million investment even if it wasn't worth doing simply for Britain to have something to be proud of.
Q506 Chairman: Do you have any evidence to support that claim? That is the most astounding claim you have just made, that you could do it for that sort of cost.
Dr Collins: This vehicle is in the RAF Museum and it flew on 15 May 1957 and flew supersonic in 1958. It was a military plane.....
This was intended as an interceptor for Russian planes. In fact missiles were much better so they did not develop a higher altitude version, but suborbital space flight is that straight forward so it could have been started as a passenger business in the 1960s. There is no doubt about that. Going from suborbital to orbital is a big step; it is from 3 or 4 March up to 26 Mach so it is a big step and requires a much bigger investment. Based on a successful business like this, it would be quite a logical and low risk investment. I am a great fan of Virgin, they are doing terrific work, but if no governments were to make any effort and it was just left to Virgin it is still going to take a long time to get to orbit, but for a tiny investment and a modern version of this for £50 million, a one-off investment, in three years you would have a prototype which would be flying, within five years it could be certified for carrying passengers, and within 10 years it would be down to £3,000 a head. Suborbital flight is a very straight forward low cost investment.
One of my frustrations, as someone who has been aware of this for a long time, is the absolute refusal of the BNSC [British National Space centre] to even comment on the subject....What it means is low cost space travel which is the secret to allowing everything to happen in space but the BNSC and the then Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, have simply refused to say anything in eight years.
The 9% Growth Party laments the lack of vision of our representatives who have done nothing since getting this evidence. It would cost them the equivalent of 3 1/2 windmills or 2 years subsidy of opera at Covent Garden so they cannot claim it is not affordable.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
THE FORTH BRIDGE SHOULD COST £314 MILLION NOT £4.2 BILLION - A TUNNEL WOULD BE CHEAPER YET - PRESS RELEASE
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
