In the words of the great philosopher Bugs Bunny it would seem that Richard Murphy is an utter maroon, for he has just tweeted:
“Where did this absurd myth that the gov’ts money is “ours” come from? Taxes belong to the gov’ts and no else. You pay it because you owe it”
I feel nothing more needs to be said. (hat tip: C J Snowdon )
This article was originally posted on Drinkuary.org
I do apologise for mixing my metaphors (or possibly even my metafives, amongst friends who’s counting) and I would observe that my beer as you can see is wearing it’s finest tin foil hat (There are bonus points if you can identify what I’m drinking behind the fantastic photo editing*). However I would like to suggest an idea which may well be deserving of a tin foil hat, though I suspect those that have looked at how tobacco control has gone won’t think so. Currently there is much rejoicing in the land as it would appear via the usual reliable sources leaking to the press that minimum pricing is dead, that it’s just a question as to how to back down without losing too much face. “Hoorah!” we all say let’s go down the pub have a drink and forget about it all and enjoy Christmas. Now I’m very much up for those last two ideas and intend to do both, but I’m not saying Hoorah. I’m not saying hoorah because I don’t trust the little bleeders, despite popular opinion Cameron isn’t an idiot, so why propose and fight for legislation that’s already under serious legal challenge and is going to be deeply unpopular? Because 956 people have signed a petiton? Nah they’ve ignored far bigger petitions than that. Because it’s unpopular? They knew it would be before hand. May I suggest instead that it’s being abandoned because it was never meant to go through, it was a huge headline grabbing feint. We’ve all go jolly excited about minimum pricing and lots of people have made lots of noise and look they’ve caved in, everyone relax and go about our business battles won? Not so fast says I look at the Alcohol Strategy that minimum pricing was part of, there were three other parts to that:
so no more two-for’s, what exactly would a “health impact assessment” for a pub consist of? Innovative sobriety schemes – at very least I’d bet on that being more of our money off to Alcohol concern and other like minded groups to spend on telling us what to do.
Beyond that, though annoyingly I can’t find it now, they did say that they had looked at increasing taxes and making it illegal to sell below that tax rate – but went for minimum pricing instead. Want to bet that they’ll now have to reconsider that decision?
So I may have my tin foil hat on too tight, and seeing the back of minimum pricing (if true) is a good thing – but the puritans aren’t in retreat yet, they’re not even considering moving onto their back foot Let’s not be distracted by what I can but consider to be an obvious feint as it’s the sort of tactic that has been used time and time again.
“We were going to cut both your legs off with a chain saw, but that was unpopular so we’re not going to now”
“Hoorah!”
“Nope we’re going to cut your foot off with a rusty hacksaw instead, still at least it’s not your legs hey!”
* Name fairly stolen from Legiron via the PubCurmugdeon.
A few things relating to climate change have wandered across my radar of late so thought about time I should pull some of them together. Starting with another still from the video linked to in my last post. This still shows what affected popular opinion and what affected the “science”:
The thing that leaps out at me from this is how little affects the science, well how could it the science is settled. Heavy snow falls despite the predicted death of snow, no impact on the science, the models are true so reality must be at fault for the science is settled. Scientific method thrown out the window, doesn’t matter the science is settled. Glaciers recovering nicely that’s ok the science is settled. I recently saw a video where an atheist said their mind was open to the existence of God, and they’d change their view given evidence which is why atheism wasn’t a religion. I think the above chart proves that climate change is a religion as it doesn’t change despite the evidence. The chart in fact seems to indicate (to my jaundiced eye) that us plebs and hoi polloi may have a better grasp of the scientific method and that the science is never settled than the climate scientists do, or at least most of them. For the good news is that a leading German climate scientist has started challenging the consensus.
On the settled science aspect the Chiefio is wondering if the statisical methods are at all valid, in fact the Chiefo has a lot of doubts about th emodels in general.
Meanwhile over in Doha our leaders are agreeing to give poor nations “compensation” for climate change which may or may not be happening.
Official UK Threat Level
"a youngster trying to defend from a moral standpoint themselves living an immoral existence." - Harbringer
