Caught briefly on the radio – the Government intends to use Emergency powers to bail out feckless, useless councils who’ve found themselves utterly unprepared for snow by raiding the grit and salt supplies of useful, competent well prepared councils who’ve still got supplies.
If this doesn’t entirely sum up the ‘you have something we want, so we’re going to take it’ approach to governing that we suffer, what does? Just be glad they’re not using Emergency Powers to confiscate grit from private companies.
Richard B said...
7 Jan 10 at 11:59 am
“Just be glad they’re not using Emergency Powers to confiscate grit from private companies.”
That will be the next step. My company is trying to buy grit on the open market, only to be told that all remaining stock has been ‘commandeered’ by the local authority. If they used it to grit the roads, I wouldn’t mind, but they seem to be smoking it, or something, as most roads are still untreated.
Bugger (the Panda) said...
7 Jan 10 at 12:17 pm
Or is it
Fro The Universality of Cheese Blog
http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2010/01/not-that-im-kind-of-chap-to-comment-on.html
Now Gordon the North Britisher wouldn’t do this, would he?
Not that I’m the kind of chap to comment on unsubstantiated rumours……….but word reaches me that a certain cooncil official, maybe in the South of Scotland, in a rare display of initiative and foresight, realising that said cooncil was rapidly running out of salt for for the roads, contacted the people in the Welsh salt mines and placed an order for a sizeable amount of the anti-slippy salt.
A local haulage company were allegedly asked to nip down to Wales and pick up a convoy of the salt to get us through the next part of what we like to refer to as Winter.
Upon arrival, much chagrin ensued as the tired truckers were told to Ecclefechen off, as the company had allegedly been told there was no salt for them, as HM Government in ThatLondon had ordered that all salt be retained for the exclusive use of the South East of England. Also the drivers supposedly were told that the company were under explicit instructions not to sell any road grit to local authorities or the Scottish Government.
Michty, I suggest a trip to local chippy and some bulk purchasing of brine if this story is at all true….
angela said...
7 Jan 10 at 12:25 pm
Isn’t that absolutely typical! Bailing out the dead weight, useless individuals at the cost of the responsible, well prepared, public spirited ones.
This will cheer you up and make you laugh! Read what Harriet Harman REALLY said when she endorsed Gordon.
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-natives-are-revolting/
JuliaM said...
7 Jan 10 at 3:24 pm
Wasn’t there a story a few days ago that some local councils had cleaned out B&Q and Homebase and other wholesalers of grit (at Market prices, naturally)?
Like Richard, I’d like to know where they put it, as the only gritting I’ve seen has been carried out by local shopkeepers and other business owners…
Dazmando said...
7 Jan 10 at 3:57 pm
Charlotte, you could help out by giving the council some of the evil cat litter you have
Mrs R said...
7 Jan 10 at 4:38 pm
(linked)
… and it looks as if they won’t even use snow ploughs to rescue an isolated Yorkshire village
http://mrsrigbysays.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-salt-and-no-snow-ploughs.html
Richard B said...
7 Jan 10 at 4:47 pm
According to the BBC: “Transport Minister Sadiq Khan said the government was working with councils, devolved administrations and the Highways Agency to help salt suppliers prioritise deliveries.”
Translation: The government is working with councils and the Highways Agency to ensure that council tax payers in well-run councils subsidise those in badly-run councils. It’s called democracy.
Psi said...
7 Jan 10 at 5:33 pm
It explains what Harriet Harman was talking about when she described Gordon as a man of “true grit and determination” rather than meaning he had any himself she meant that if anyone had any he would claim it for himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7497512.stm
Steve Tierney said...
7 Jan 10 at 6:18 pm
There’s never enough money for grit because its all been spent on nonsense “communications” projects.
http://www.stevetierney.org/blog/?p=950
NIch Starling - Norfolk Blogger said...
7 Jan 10 at 10:59 pm
So you would let people die on roads in one area whilst another area has enormous stockpiles of grit.
Just so we know.
Phil said...
8 Jan 10 at 3:17 am
In which spirit, Charlotte, I invite you to come and help me smuggle terrorists into the UK. We deserve it, after all, because of something utterly out of our hands that our leaders did.
I thought you were a libertarian?
JuliaM said...
8 Jan 10 at 5:47 am
“So you would let people die on roads in one area whilst another area has enormous stockpiles of grit.”
No, no. It’s not ‘people’. It’s ‘children’. The proper po-faced whine in this situation is to claim that the person raising the issue wasnts to let children die. As in ‘Won’t someone think of the chillldreeennn?!’
It’s amazing how some people are quite happy to elect a hapless, useless local council, secure in the knowledge that if it all goes tits up, someone else will step in to bail them out.
What do we call those people, I wonder?
JuliaM said...
8 Jan 10 at 5:49 am
“In which spirit, Charlotte, I invite you to come and help me smuggle terrorists into the UK. We deserve it, after all, because of something utterly out of our hands that our leaders did.”
I don’t suppose it would occur to you that you should maybe elect ‘leaders’ more like the ones that have prepared, and less like the ones that haven’t?
“I thought you were a libertarian?”
There’s something ‘libertarian’ about punishing those councils that forecast this and stocked up to bail out the feckless and those who support the government (usually one and the same)?
Letters From A Tory said...
8 Jan 10 at 9:47 am
I wonder if anyone has done any political analysis of which councils are being punished for planning ahead – any chance it might be Labour councils that need bailing out?
Richard B said...
8 Jan 10 at 10:59 am
My thoughts exactly.
angela said...
8 Jan 10 at 2:03 pm
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/boris-galvanises-west-hampstead/
Boris Johnson visited West Hampstead today and I am delighted to tell you, he has been personally hassling Lord Adonis about the lack of grit. Boris injected rich red blood into the anaemic body politic with a rousing, vigorous speech, details above.
roym said...
8 Jan 10 at 2:08 pm
Wandsworth, the flagship “well managed” council (Con) has nary a top quark of grit on the roads. Southwark, Merton, and lambeth immediately next door seem to have done better by their folk.
Mr Eugenides said...
8 Jan 10 at 6:06 pm
Events have rather moved on since you wrote this post, Charlotte – Gordon Brown has been on the radio to assure everyone that there’s plenty of salt to go round and that there’s no need to panic.
So everything is going to be OK! Bet you feel a bit stupid now…
Northampton Saint said...
8 Jan 10 at 6:34 pm
HOw very very , erm …Socialist.
Northats CC is one of those threatened with having their grit and salt re-distibuted. So my taxes are spent on roads outside my own county.
I know of one industiral supply company that has hidden it’s latest supply of grit out of site of any passing prying eyes
Edward said...
8 Jan 10 at 7:14 pm
Isn’t it anti-liberty, socialist and totalitarian for Government to grit the roads at all? Surely the State ought to let people run their own lives. Private individuals could easily contract for salt and collect it themselves for their own use. All that we would need is personal salt stockpiles and private light transport vehicles and the ability to foresee individual demand for salt.
wh00ps said...
8 Jan 10 at 10:50 pm
I know someone who works for one of the “wholesalers of grit” mentioned above, and it is indeed true, they cannot buy grit, nobody but the government can buy it. actually, companies like Hanson and Tarmac are wholesalers of grit but the song remains the same… I don’t think they have resorted to seizing grit already owned by said companies but i think it’s academic anyway, Most companies ran out weeks ago.
Phil said...
9 Jan 10 at 12:19 am
“I don’t suppose it would occur to you that you should maybe elect ‘leaders’ more like the ones that have prepared, and less like the ones that haven’t?”
Yes. Unfortunately, low turn-out, an electoral system skewered in favour of the domiant parties, and the fact that I’m not the only person responsible for electing the council did as well.
“There’s something ‘libertarian’ about punishing those councils that forecast this and stocked up to bail out the feckless and those who support the government (usually one and the same)?”
Is there anything Libertarian about punishing citizens because the council they’re forced to pay tax to is incompetent?
JuliaM said...
9 Jan 10 at 6:48 am
“Unfortunately, low turn-out, an electoral system skewered in favour of the domiant parties, and the fact that I’m not the only person responsible for electing the council did as well.”
Or the same old story in UK 2010: “I can’t do anything, so I won’t try, just sit back and cheer on the people who are punishing those who DO do something…”
“Is there anything Libertarian about punishing citizens because the council they’re forced to pay tax to is incompetent?”
You’ve probably never heard of the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, have you? Or, if you have, you cheer on the grasshopper…
JuliaM said...
9 Jan 10 at 6:52 am
“Surely the State ought to let people run their own lives.”
Most of the shops round my way have gritted outside. Why? Because they want shoppers to be able to get to them.
Now they face not being able to do that because the state is requisitioning the grit for…well, I think we can guess.
“…and the ability to foresee individual demand for salt.”
That’s not difficult. This was forecast for weeks.Of course, private citizens aren’t expected to pay lip service to concepts like ‘global warming’.
wh00ps said...
9 Jan 10 at 9:09 am
it’s all a bit short sighted really, if the government’s requisitioned all the salt to clear main roads, but private citizens and private businesses can’t get any for their drives, pathways and loading bays, who’s going to be using the roads?
Gregory Carlin said...
9 Jan 10 at 2:50 pm
I am not a grits expert – I’m a yankee.
My relatives in Philly, were told in 1940, that only by mailing their aluminium frying pan to Winston, could Britain be saved for democracy.
“To get the gasoline ration classification and ration stamps, you had to certify to a local board that you needed gas and owned no more than five tires.”
When Lufthansa was bombing you Englishers, my clan were fed-exing their frying pan to help take the strain.
Gregory
http://www.gasolinegasoline.com/gasoline_rationing_1942.html
Gasoline rationing followed the rationing of rubber products, such as tires, as the Japanese had cut off the supply route of the rubber from the East Indies, during World War II. Voluntary gas rationing had become a failure that was obvious by April 1942. The main idea of gasoline rationing, was to conserve rubber.
Jack Hughes said...
9 Jan 10 at 5:02 pm
Oh the Salinity !
Phil said...
10 Jan 10 at 1:34 am
“You’ve probably never heard of the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, have you? Or, if you have, you cheer on the grasshopper…”
Well, there you go.
I didn’t realise not having the foresight to realise which councillors were best able to cope with the issue of road-gritting in Winter (always a topic covered in-depth during the elections) was akin to singing all summer long.
Do those not old enough to vote and those who happened to vote for more adept councillors, only to not have their choice succeed, also qualify for this absurd interpretation of market discipline?
“Oh, well the council made the bed and forced you to lie in it, it’s your fault…”
JuliaM said...
10 Jan 10 at 8:09 am
“I didn’t realise not having the foresight to realise which councillors were best able to cope with the issue of road-gritting in Winter (always a topic covered in-depth during the elections) was akin to singing all summer long.”
It’s not that difficult, Phil.
You just look at all their other achievement, if they have any. If they are practical ones, vote for them. If they are airy-fairy nonsense about ‘community cohesion’ and ‘integration’ and seem mainly to be designed to swell the council manpower figures, then run a mile…
“Do those not old enough to vote and those who happened to vote for more adept councillors, only to not have their choice succeed…”
If you can’t change things there, move to where you can.
Or shut up.
Just don’t expect to invoke BigGov to bail you out by robbing everyone else. What are you, some sort of socialist or someth…
Ah.
Jack Hughes:“Oh the Salinity !”
Thread winna!
wh00ps said...
10 Jan 10 at 4:12 pm
one thing occurs to me, while the government is acting like it’s the closing chapters of Atlas Shrugged, is there actually a law against Mr. Salt Mie telling Gordon to sod off, as B&Q are prepared to offer him a better price?
Phil said...
10 Jan 10 at 7:35 pm
“If you can’t change things there, move to where you can.
“Or shut up.”
So for those who aren’t able to move, under the typical Libertarian edict that you can be priced out of freedom, that’d be “shut up.” As long as we know where we stand.
“Just don’t expect to invoke BigGov to bail you out by robbing everyone else.”
I’m still not sure how central government moving surplus resources from one local council to another equates to either big government bail outs or socialism. Not least since it’s no different from a branch of Comet overstocked with a certain laptop dispatching it for a customer at another branch which is sold out of the same product.
The overall ownership lies in the same place, so theft doesn’t even come into it.
“What are you, some sort of socialist or someth… Ah.”
Yes, I’m a socialist. However, given that you equate socialism to “big government,” I think engaging you on the issue would be like arguing with a Christian fundamentalists who insists that homosexuals eat their own faeces.
JuliaM said...
10 Jan 10 at 8:18 pm
I’d have thought it was obvious that without a BigGov weilding a large stick, you aren’t going to get socialism…
And no, this is nothing like Currys redistributing stock for their customers. I have a choice with Currys; don’t like the service, I’m free to go elsewhere. The council takes my money under threat of force and either pisses it up the wall on make-work projects designed to employ the friends and relatives of council chiefs, or doesn’t, but sees it taken out of their coffers to reward other councils who’ve planned badly.
Can’t say what Christian fundamentalists believe but if you fail to recognise the symptoms of blind faith and need for an all-powerful father figure to make everything right, might I suggest you look a little deeper into that mirror?
Henry North London said...
10 Jan 10 at 10:04 pm
Ah yes the paucity of salt
In Canada they use Sand because it gets to minus 40
Psi said...
11 Jan 10 at 12:13 am
Phil,
It is nothing like one branch of Currys sending stock to a different branch. If council A purchased sufficient grit and council B didn’t, each of these councils have their own governing bodies democratically elected spending the money that belongs to the council. If central government seizes what you have decided is “excess” it is stealing.
The better comparison would be my local independent corner shops. If we suppose my local one in South London doesn’t buy enough baked beans and there is a problem with supply of baked beans. A local corner shop in Norwich planed ahead and purchased plenty of baked beans and it’s able to sell to any one who wants them. The government goes to Norwich take all their Baked Beans moves them to a ware house in Croydon and hands them out to corner shops they feel like helping.
If you wonder why people assume that people view you as being in favour of “Big Government” I imagine it does help that you assume that things owned by a local community are the property of central government.
Henry,
The problem with sand is the effect it has on drains as it is very hard to clear from British drains so results in flodding.
Phil said...
12 Jan 10 at 12:03 am
And here is my point: “The council takes my money under threat of force.”
All government, central and local, does that. If you’re going to replace that with direct democracy and the reorganisation of local communities so that the people decide how resources are used rather than officials and bureaucrats, then fine. In fact, under such a system I very much doubt that we’d suffer this problem and voluntary trade would solve the issue of excess and deficits.
We don’t have that, though. Local councils are not “owned by a local community” any more than central government is owned by the nation – it acts in the interests of specific groups, only giving a shit about anybody else during election time.
As such, if such redistribution is the only way to mean that those forced to pay tax aren’t also forced to pay for the incompetence of those spending the tax money, then so be it.
Take issue with the present system itself, not with an act to briefly remedy one of its many inherent flaws.
Phil said...
12 Jan 10 at 12:04 am
“I’d have thought it was obvious that without a BigGov weilding a large stick, you aren’t going to get socialism…”
You’re confusing socialism with state capitalism.
Having the state as proprietor and landlord instead of a private capitalist is not the same as ownership of capital by labour and community self-management.
angela said...
12 Jan 10 at 3:55 pm
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/boris-levels-with-george/
Straight as a die, Boris Johnson levels with George.
Adrian Cruden said...
12 Jan 10 at 7:59 pm
Well, you are obviously against national government using locally held resources to solve nationwide problems. You might argue of course that local taxpayers have paid for their grit and should get to benefit from it, which is fine unless they then drive across their LA boundary to another area. Interstingly, quite a lot of people do this – drive in their cars to areas they don’t live in – so a national action plan would seem both sensible and quite fair: you put the salt where the problem is.
Of course, if you were a true libertarian, eschewing the nanny state both locally as well as nationally, either the gritting should be privatised and, i dont know, people could club together with their neighbours to get a man round with a back of salt to do their road, apart from the bits outside the households that wont pay up. Or, better still, isn’t it about time there was some individual responsibility – people should carry salt cellars with them and they could “Grind as You Go” and clear their own paths through the ice. After all, any other approach raises the possibility that someone who is, say, not going out that day, has to contribute to something they might not use, and we can’t we be having that now, can we. It would be Stalinism gone mad!
Alternatively, why don’t you just all acknowledge we have had the most severe winter in years, stop griping and do what I did and go by train which ran very nicely throughout. Oh, sorry, did I mention pulic transport?!! I’ll go and wash my mouth out.
My regards to Mr Zhirinovsky.
wh00ps said...
12 Jan 10 at 8:45 pm
Why not mention public transport? Nothing un-libertarian about proper, privately-run public transport.
And what about having privately owned toll roads with the road owner responsible for keeping his roads clear or facing giving refunds to his customers?
Psi said...
12 Jan 10 at 9:40 pm
Adrian Cruden – Or perhaps the councils who did not plan properly (particularly after last year) could make a financially worthwhile offer to the councils who did. Rather than the poorly planning councils free loading off the councils tax payers in the councils who did plan? And yes I think my council is one of the freeloaders so my services should have to be reduced due to people fact that I haven’t elected a sensible council.
And I’m surprised that your trains were running well as my ones were messed up as they have been every time there is bad weather.
JuliaM said...
13 Jan 10 at 4:14 pm
I’m always suspicious of people who whine that because someone else screwed up, they should be given a free pass, even if it means that a totally unconnected third party loses out.
It’s the sort of reasoning you expect from selfish, spoiled children, not adults.
Edward said...
13 Jan 10 at 5:35 pm
JuliaM, isn’t the point that when local government fails due to incompetence, and when local government is an institution created by and subject to central government, we should not punish people for the failings of their politicians?
Laurence said...
13 Jan 10 at 6:02 pm
Phil:”I’m still not sure how central government moving surplus resources..”
Surplus? You made that up.
“…from one local council to another equates to either big government bail outs or socialism.”
The stocks are being requisitioned. Not bid for, not negotiated for but taken. Emergency powers cannot be invoked other than by big government.
“Not least since it’s no different from a branch of Comet overstocked…”
No, durr, not overstocked: that’s your invention.
“…with a certain laptop dispatching it for a customer at another branch which is sold out of the same product.”
Big Government is looking to buy lots of laptops for the deserving poor under it’s new “No Representation Without Computation” policy
JuliaM said...
13 Jan 10 at 9:16 pm
“…we should not punish people for the failings of their politicians?”
But we are punishing people. We’re taking away the grit that their council planned for and bought, and giving it to the ones who elected a useless council.
If there are no consequences, there’ll be no change. Ever.
Tom J said...
14 Jan 10 at 12:24 am
Clearly I’m late to the party here, but inbetween poking around for any leftover booze and changing the music, I’d just like to throw out a big bravo to Charlotte, JuliaM, and the rest of ya’ll for making this the most hilarious thread I’ve read all year.
It is absurd to complain that central government redistributes excess stockpiles of grit to another branch of government.
If the decision had been taken not to do this on the grounds that it would “punish” some councils and “bail out” others then a few tens of people would have died.
I repeat: this was an emergency and people might have died due to accidents on icy roads. Therefore grit needed to be allocated to where it was needed most.
I would be shocked that anyone would put their personal political hobbies ahead of people’s lives, but as none of you ‘libertarians’ have a snowball’s chance in a saltpile of ever exercising any power, I merely find it hilarious.
Psi said...
14 Jan 10 at 10:47 am
Tom J – it has been said before but you could have simplified your comment in to simply “won’t someone think of the children”
In fact, you have convinced me. Thousand of people die on the roads every year when there isn’t snow, lets ban motor vehicles too. Oh yeh and what about people eating too much, getting fat and having heart attacks, hmm better ration food so people don’t over indulge…
Not the best peice, but the sentiment is there:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23793957-london-fought-off-the-cold-then-the-snow-czar-stepped-in.do
Tom J said...
14 Jan 10 at 12:56 pm
you could have simplified your comment in to simply “won’t someone think of the children”
The “won’t someone please think of the children” is fallacious because it begs the question: “will the children come to harm?” It does not apply in this case as I stated that there was a large and obvious harm in refusing grit transfer on ideological grounds, namely that many more people might have “died due to accidents on icy roads.”
The balance of harms in this case is clear: on the one hand the (incredibly minor) moral hazard of bailing out “feckless councils” against the (major) hazard of substantially more people dying.
I say the moral hazard is minor because:
1) We have no evidence that this was a flaw in council planning, it could simply be a reflection of the random distribution of the intensity of ice and snow.
2) It is a minor component of the overall service councils are expected to provide.
lets ban motor vehicles too
We have collectively decided that the balance of harms in this case is in favour of individual motor transport, with the downside of an annual death toll considered acceptable against the economic and other benefits of individual motor transport.
JuliaM said...
14 Jan 10 at 1:36 pm
People died even in areas where some gritting was carried out, Tom. Who would you like to blame for that?
Surely someone has to be to blame, right?
And we aen’t talking about a simple transfer across central government areas; these are (or are supposed to be) independent local councils. They have their own budgets, and their own responsibility to act for their residents. They are NOT there to act for the residents of councils in other parts of the country.
JuliaM said...
14 Jan 10 at 2:07 pm
Oh, and please, Tom J, do stop by again to tell us how it’s ‘us libertarians’ (Who? Me?) who are ‘putting their personal political hobbies ahead of people’s lives’.
Especially after what we’ve just found out…
Psi said...
14 Jan 10 at 3:16 pm
Tom J good to see you went to the Tony Blair school of straw man construction. Perhaps you could look beyond your proposed solution, the threat of force to be used to facilitate transfers, the rest of time we manage to survive with voluntary transactions.
I don’t think anyone is (seriously) suggesting that areas where they run out of grit should not be able to grit their roads, simply that they have to negotiate with other councils or suppliers to obtain it (at a market rate) by this means the roads will get gritted but the council will have to pay a higher price and will therefore can be judged by their constituents at the subsequent elections for their planning abilities.
So your statement is still fallacious because it begs the question “would fewer roads have been gritted?” and “ would more people actually have died?”
Also as you (and everyone else using the term on here) have refused to explain upon what basis have you decided that the councils that have grit have “excess” I imagine this will remain unanswered.
Also local government is much more accountable to me than national government, if my council is crap it is easier (and cheaper) for me to influence the much smaller constituency of my local councillors than it is for me to mount a challenge to my MP as I am not a Lord Ashcroft or a big trade union. So I do not consider national government in any way the same as local government.
If you believe that is so correct that national government take resources from well run councils to give them to poorly run councils. I take it you have been lobbying your MP to have Aberdeen council bailed out, via a seizure of assets from fiscally responsible councils?
What’s that? You haven’t? But what about all those elderly or disabled people who will suffer poorer care and those children who’s education will be affected by the larger class sizes…
Tom J said...
14 Jan 10 at 3:46 pm
@Psi:
Perhaps you could look beyond your proposed solution, the threat of force to be used to facilitate transfers, the rest of time we manage to survive with voluntary transactions.
It isn’t my proposed solution. It is the solution that was proposed and then subsequently implemented by those who actually are responsible for keeping the roads reasonably safe.
This is an incredibly important point; things are the way they are for a reason. We have hierarchies and nation states because they are often more efficient than market-based systems because they have lower transaction costs.
The problem is that there currently exists no inter-council salt’n'grit market, and it would take time to set one up, and this was an emergency. It was simply more efficient for the state to instruct another part of the state to give yet another part of a state the excess it had built up. The fact that your Libertarian Free Market Paradise (TM) does not exist is indicative of the fact that it does not work.
have refused to explain upon what basis have you decided that the councils that have grit have “excess”
I thought this was so obvious that it didn’t need explaining. If some councils have zero salt and others have >zero salt then AOTBE councils with zero salt can be said to have an “excess.”
Also local government is much more accountable to me than national government
Irrelevant to our discussion.
I do not consider national government in any way the same as local government.
But for the purposes of our discussion they are effectively the same. Most do not care who grits the roads, as long as the roads are gritted.
If you believe that is so correct that national government take resources from well run councils to give them to poorly run councils.
Again, this was an emergency. I don’t have any strong feelings on the redistribution of financial surpluses within the public sector. I do have strong feelings on avoidable deaths being avoided.
But what about all those elderly or disabled people who will suffer poorer care and those children who’s education will be affected by the larger class sizes
The provision of welfare to the unfortunate is also outside the scope of our argument.
JuliaM said...
14 Jan 10 at 4:01 pm
‘The provision of welfare to the unfortunate’ is the very crux of your discussion, where ‘unfortunate’ = councils who spent all their gritting money on ensuring they were ticking the right diversity and sustainability boxes for Big Daddy Whitehall…
JuliaM said...
14 Jan 10 at 4:06 pm
As for the ‘Libertarian Free Market Paradise’ not working, it seems you didn’t clink on my link, did you?
If you had, you’d have seen a sterling example of the free Market in action, but hampered by the tick-box mentality and slavish conformity to ‘guidelines’ of your typical local government operative…
Laurence said...
14 Jan 10 at 4:44 pm
Tom J: If some councils have zero salt and others have >zero salt then AOTBE councils with zero salt can be said to have an “excess.”
Then if you have enough food for today and tomorrow and I have no food left, the Government should reassign your “excess” ration so that I can eat today.
Tom J said...
14 Jan 10 at 6:01 pm
Incidentally, when I wrote:
“If some councils have zero salt and others have >zero salt then AOTBE councils with zero salt can be said to have an “excess”
It was an intentional mistake to test whether you are actually reading and engaging with what I was writing instead of sounding off on pre-recorded glibertarian talking points.
The fact that you responded with the following…
Then if you have enough food for today and tomorrow and I have no food left, the Government should reassign your “excess” ration so that I can eat today.
…suggests you are not in fact reading what I hadwritten.
In any case (assuming you have the good fortune to live in a Western liberal democracy) if you were to find yourself foodless then you can rely on your local welfare state to provide you with sufficient funds to feed yourself until you get back on your feet.
Laurence said...
14 Jan 10 at 6:16 pm
Tom J:
For goodness sake. So it’s not admissible to overlook an apparent typo and address the apparent thrust of your point? Fine. You win. Well done.
JuliaM said...
14 Jan 10 at 8:10 pm
I do rather like the way Tom J assumes the welfare state provides ‘until you get back on your feet’.
When in reality, many of those living on the welfare state can no longer SEE their feet as a result of the state’s largesse…
Laurence said...
14 Jan 10 at 9:00 pm
Ah yes, the Immobility Allowance – soon with a free laptop.
Edward said...
14 Jan 10 at 9:15 pm
JuliaM and Charlotte Gore are for a world where extra people die on the roads just to teach voters a lesson, and to pretend that local and central government are totally separate institutions with no common aims or duties.
JuliaM said...
15 Jan 10 at 8:34 am
“JuliaM and Charlotte Gore are for a world where…”
*There follows a completely false strawman that in no way sums up what either of us are actually saying, and completely ignores the main point, plus all subsequent points made in the comments*
Hello, Edward, welcome to the world of internet blogs. You’ll go far, I can tell…
angela said...
15 Jan 10 at 10:03 am
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/i%e2%80%99ll-fight-him-any-place-any-time/
So sorry to go off topic, but Labour are setting up a special unit called Operation Stop Boris and as their weapon to fight for them in the capital, they are using Ken Livingstone. Boris will fight Ken any place any time. Boris is Ken’s nemesis, Ken can’t win. After this encounter, there ain’t gonna be no rematch!
wh00ps said...
15 Jan 10 at 10:17 am
In any case, central government’s actions in this case will surely incline local councils to be even less willing to plan properly for next winter. If they do they’ll have their planning ruined by no 10 and if they don’t they’ll be rescued at everyone else’s expense anyway. Does anyone know whether any money changed hands for the re-distributed salt? Or who paid for the freshly-mined salt?
Edward said...
15 Jan 10 at 12:31 pm
I note that JuliaM doesn’t dispute that extra people should die to teach them a lesson about how great libertarianism is. I really don’t care about my own anonymous status, I just want to make it clear that this is a trade-off that they won’t deny they want to take up.
. said...
15 Jan 10 at 1:37 pm
Edward – I didn’t notice any one else mention your anonymous status? As no one attacked what appeared to by typos by Tom J. Perhaps you need to change your expectations people, on here people try to play the ball not the man.
wh00ps said...
15 Jan 10 at 2:44 pm
I’d dispute it Edward. For all we know “extra people” died in the areas that had their salt requisitioned, as their councils had to restrict their gritting operations. While we;re building straw men, I could suggest you would prefer people who chose wisely at the ballot box to die to save the feckless. I Wouldn.t though, as it’s poor form.
JuliaM said...
15 Jan 10 at 3:17 pm
“I note that JuliaM doesn’t dispute that extra people should die to teach them a lesson about how great libertarianism is.”
I’m not a libertarian, Edward (well, I don’t think so, and wouldn’t self describe as one, though I do like a lot of the basic concepts).
But I guess we could try putting straw down instead of grit. Since you seem to have an inexhustable supply of it, I think we should requisition it from you.
bella gerens said...
15 Jan 10 at 11:38 pm
wh00ps –
In any case, central government’s actions in this case will surely incline local councils to be even less willing to plan properly for next winter. If they do they’ll have their planning ruined by no 10 and if they don’t they’ll be rescued at everyone else’s expense anyway.
Excellent point, dude. People (and councils) respond to incentives.
Gregory Carlin said...
16 Jan 10 at 11:45 pm
“For all we know “extra people” died in the areas that had their salt requisitioned, as their councils had to restrict their gritting operations. While we;re building straw men, I could suggest you would prefer people who chose wisely at the ballot box to die to save the feckless. I Wouldn’t though, as it’s poor form.”
Like scamming the Nazis into shifting V2 delivery to South London? People get squished who might otherwise live, these are the tough questions.
Darn it – I say grit the roads of the most productive members of society, actually I don’t, because I live on a mountain, in a crime infested ghetto.
As, I was saying, I live on a freezing mountain, and so, who do the RAF borrow helicopters from? Is there a yank FOB around here they can scrounge @ ?
“I reserve the right to dump tedious BNP spammers and anyone giving out personal abuse in the spam bin. My blog, my rules.”
Not if there is a blog shortage, you could be requisitioned etc.
angela said...
22 Jan 10 at 6:41 pm
Charlotte will you forgive me if I go off topic to deliver a very important message.
Boris Johnson would like us to reduce our usage of the thin plastic bags as much as possible, to reduce landfill and greenhouse gases and to protect our precious wildlife.
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/boris-bans-plastic-bags/
He hopes to make London a thin plastic bag free zone by 2010. Thank you so much.