Were the supply-siders right?

A short report by the Centre for Policy Studies, Keith Marsden’s “Big, not Better?”, published in April this year claims to provide evidence from 20 countries that slim governments work better. It’s a conclusion I like to hear. Unfortunately the evidence is less than solid.

The report compares 20 industrialised economies and classes their governments as big or slim depending on which side of a 40% of GDP threshold their government revenue and expenditure lie. Slimmer governments are shown to have lower top rates of tax, higher average growth figures and lower debt and deficit burdens on average.

Marsden then goes on to argue that

German Socialist Eurocrat warns of Eco-totalitarianism

“I am increasingly worried by all kinds of legislation regulating peoples’ private lives. We are approaching a situation which I would call lifestyle-regulation. I don’t want a society in which people are told how to live in the privacy of their own homes. We must not deprive our citizens of the right to make independent decisions.” (source)

These are the words of Günther Verheugen,

What is wrong with Fitna – the Movie?

Well, here is Fitna. If there is anything wrong in the way it portrays Islam, surely the proper reaction would be to point out calmly where the mistakes lie.

I have just watched it, and I can spontaneously think of the following flaws:

Some developments are presented as obviously undesirable (at least by implication) when it is not always clear why: Fitna bemoans the availability of Sharia compliant loans; why is this a problem rather than simply a new but voluntary contractual arrangement catering to a new customer group? Why is it a problem if an Islamic school sponsors a trip to Mecca?

Other points are more controversial, but there is still plenty of room for disagreement. The film points out, for example, that the Burka is not banned in the Netherlands. Why should it be? There may be a case in some scenarios (e.g. where hiding your face constitutes a security hazard) and in those cases no religious dress-code should give rise to a special exemption. Beyond this, I predict that opinions on the desirability of a ban will be strongly divided.

Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch claims the film is accurate. I haven’t read the Quran and couldn’t read it in Arabic at any rate; like many, I have no way to check whether the translations in the subtitles are accurate.

I expect that a lot of Muslims and multiculturalists will now be offended –I don’t think that greatly matters. What interests me is whether there are any factual errors, misleading interpretations etc. So if anyone reading this knows of any, feel free to use the comment function to point them out.

Update: Germany’s Der Spiegel points out that the film –which is supposed to illustrate quranic verses put into practice– wrongly attributes female genital mutilation to the Quran. (This crime is regularly committed in some Muslim societies but apparently has no foundation in the Quran itself.)

Muhammad the Bear: the Market Response

With just about everyone outside Sudan agreeing that the whole Muhammad-the-Teddy-Bear affair is crazy there is surely no need to repeat this. The market, meanwhile, responds in a predictable way: for an increasing choice of cuddly Muhammads see e.g. here.

Does the UK need a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities?

Jack Straw argued during a lecture in Cambridge, that the UK should draft its own Bill of Rights and responsibilities. In doing so it should go beyond the Human Rights Act, which co-opted the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British law.

In the first two thirds of this lecture, Straw comments on similarities between the ECHR and the German Constitution’s Basic Rights, he also elaborates on the need to respect human rights while fighting terrorism. On the whole, this part of the lecture does not seem unreasonable. The last third of the lecture then demands a UK Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. This part of the lecture is much less specific, but for a number of reasons

Wise words on a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

A quote of the year? This comment was posted by some Ian B in the telegraph online comments section and deserves more attention than one of many comments usually gets:

“

“The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights,“

Dear God Jack, you don’t understand what a Right is, do you? Go and read the American Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The rights they enshrine are *protection FROM government* not *responsibilities TO government*. Can you not see the difference?

Did Al Gore Deserve the Prize?

From Melanie Phillips to the audience of BBC online, people seem to feel strongly that Al Gore did not deserve his award since he did fairly little for peace. If contributions to peace are the issue, then that is a fair point. As Damian Thompson put it in the telegraph: “Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to “peace” and international order.”

Gore’s defenders are likely to argue that there is an indirect connection: the consequences of global warming

Al Gore’s tenth mistake

A UK judge has pointed out nine mistakes in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I am pleased to contribute a tenth: In his film, Al Gore warms up the old tale about the frog which supposedly doesn’t notice a gradual increase in water temperature and therefore dies when the water eventually becomes too hot, although in Al Gore’s version of the tale the frog is rescued by a benevolent outside force.

I doubt that Al Gore has tested his frog hypothesis, but

Of Iain Dale, Boris and Gateway Drugs

During his recent one to one with Boris Johnson, Iain Dale stated that Marijuana was a gateway drug. According to Dale, this can be inferred from the fact that one would be unlikely to find a single Heroin addict who had not consumed Marihuana previously. Boris duly conceded that taking drugs was a stupid idea and expressed his scepticism over taking a more relaxed attitude to Marijuana.

So, is Boris loosing his libertarian instincts? Are potheads doomed? Let’s look at the gateway drug issue first.

The Liberal Democrats are having a daft idea

… well there is nothing new or original in that, but this one has to be one of the least thought through policy proposals in a while. The Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb argued:

“If you go out on a Friday or a Saturday night and get very drunk and you end up in accident and emergency, and you are foul and abusive to staff who are already overstretched, then is it right that you should get that care entirely for free, or are there consequences to your actions?

And I think there is a case for saying that someone in those circumstances should be asked to pay for their care.” (Source)

Let’s leave to one side the question of what kind of behaviour should be punished by the NHS. (Simply removing misfits from the premises clearly isn’t always feasible in healthcare.) Let’s just look at