Adam Smith Institute

Yes, of course the news is dominated by BoJo today. Guido has a situation vacant ad, Wat hopes they are indeed listening, Fraser thinks BoJo simply sends a certain type mad, might the Archbishop of Montevideo be far behind and finally, simply gloating.

Google might solve energy problems: although it's worth noting that while every inventor of a great breakthrough was at first told he was mad, so have the mad been told so over the years.

Prices are solving at least part of the problem, as markets tend to do.

Environmentalism is of course causing part of the problem as well.

Cuba has lifted its ban on citizens buying certain products: anyone who then buys one faces a tax investigation.

Defending (in part at least) the FLDS and polygamy. A liberal society should indeed have room for such alternative (as long as voluntary) lifestyles.

And finally, no, absinthe does not make you spaced out because of the wormwood. It makes you pissed because of the 70% alcohol content.

Much of Ken Livingstone's historic electoral success has been his ability to put himself across as a man of the people, in touch with the concerns of everyday folk.

Why, then, did he put climate change at the centre of his campaign?

Only 21% of respondents to a March Yougov poll thought that climate change should be in the top three priorities of the Mayor. Respondents considered issues like crime, transport, housing and tax to be of far greater importance.

For most Londoners, it seems, the promises of a candidate with regards to climate change is of marginal importance compared to things that are affecting their lives here and now.

Quite right. After all, is it a sensible use of the Mayor's budget to spend millions of pounds addressing a threat that may or may not impact on the children of our great-grandchildren, when there are pressing concerns that need to be dealt with today?

The people of Peckham, for instance, need better policing far more than subsidised low energy lightbulbs.

Meanwhile, Ken's initiatives to tackle climate change – such as raising the congestion charge to £25 for 'gas guzzlers', and implementing the low emission zone – achieve little except making London even more expensive than it already is.

Moreover, if the economy continues to grow, it is highly likely that future Londoners will be sufficiently rich and technologically advanced to deal with whatever the climate throws at them – hot or cold.

Ken's decision to campaign hard on climate change was a strange lapse of political judgment. He may have won the dubious honour of being selected as the ‘greenest’ candidate by Friends of the Earth, but this has little resonance with the ordinary, cash-strapped Londoner.

Still, Ken will not let electoral defeat stop him from contributing to the climate change cause. His retirement will mean hot air emissions from City Hall will instantly plummet by around 95%.

I was on Radio Five yesterday morning, discussing whether we should all have to reveal how much we earn. A survey by Hudson, a recruitment consultancy, had found 60 percent of people would be happy to reveal what they got paid. The trades unions leapt on this, saying that all salaries should be disclosed in order to tackle pay discrimination in the workplace. I was on the other side of the debate.

My first argument was that this was a fundamental issue of privacy. How much someone gets paid should be between them and their employer. If people want to tell their co-workers their salary, fine. And if a company wants to adopt a fully transparent pay policy, then that's entirely up to them. But we ought to be vary wary of government legislation forcing their hand – frankly, it's none of the state's business.

My second point was pragmatic. In most businesses, the ability to negotiate pay and conditions privately with individual members of staff is vital. Imagine you are running a business, and you have a team of four or five people doing the same job. You know, however, that one of them is more valuable to you than the others and that he or she is likely to be poached by another firm. You will want to reward that person more, but without upsetting the others. That becomes much harder to do if pay deals have to be disclosed to the whole staff.

I didn't get the chance to make my third point, which was that 'pay discrimination' is itself a misunderstood concept. Men are paid an average 15-18 percent more than women doing the same job, but the evidence does not support the view that it's the result of discrimination. On the contrary, it seems to be the result of life choices that women freely and rationally make – i.e. to have children and take time off to look after them, to work part-time or flexible hours. Europe-wide research last year found that unmarried, childless women actually earn three percent more than the average man doing the same job.

Friend of the ASI Stuart Wheeler has passed the first hurdle in his noble endeavour to force the government to hold its promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. EU Constitution). On Friday, Mr Justice Owen ruled in favour of having the decision judicially reviewed in the High Court. The Lisbon Treaty, signed by 27 EU leaders in Lisbon in December, is intended to replace the European Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums in 2005.

With the increasing loss of sovereign democratic power to the unaccountable European supranational bureaucracy, Mr Wheeler is fighting on the side of all that value legitimate democracy. It is time that the relations in Europe were rooted in national democracy, with power resting in votes of the people in each country. There are strong reasons to be close to other countries of Europe, but relations should not be based upon centralising legal and political powers in Brussels, but upon respectful diplomatic relations and the concord of free trade.

There are two things you can do right now to show your disgust at the government’s duplicity. The first is to contribute to Mr Wheeler’s campaign; the second is to sign this petition to the government initiated by Nigel Farage MEP.
 

According to the Telegraph:

A French doctor is urging his countrymen to give free rein to flatulence, sweating and other bodily taboos to reduce the risk of cancer.

Frédéric Saldmann's book, Le Grand Ménage (Spring cleaning), claims that regular belching is the best way to avoid hiatal hernias and cancer of the oesophagus, and that male sweat "reduces stress in women" and is "potentially very attractive". Mmm....

Quite: what is it about the State that makes it OK for the power of it to be used to drive Madams to suicide? Aren't there better activities to try and regulate?

A neat little observation about how while things are currently not perfect, they are better.

Not everyone is impressed with Joe Stiglitz' ideas. Seriously, putting the UN in charge of the global financial system?

My, my, who would have thought it? The European Union using false health standards as a protectionist measure?

Exxon paid three times more in taxes than it made in profits. Also, what Big Oil really ought to say to politicians.

Another sighting of the Lesser Spotted Unintended Consequence.

And finally, the excellence of journalistic fact checking and a truly valuable travel resource.

Wednesday's Times carried the story that demand for places at independent schools is at its highest in five years, despite above inflation rises in fees and the worsening economic situation. Yesterday's Times reported that thousands of children are set to miss out on their first choice state primary school this year – in some places as many as a quarter of students are to be disappointed. These two pieces of news are not unrelated.

Parents care about where their child goes to school, and want the best for them. In increasing numbers, they are realizing that the state system cannot deliver this and are turning to the private sector instead. Of course, that's fine for families who can afford to pay an average £11,000 a year in fees, but it does leave the less advantaged in a bit of a pickle. They probably cant afford to move into the catchment area of a good state school or pay to go private. They will be stuck with the school they are allocated to by their local authority, regardless of how bad it is.

It doesn't have to be like this. First of all, there are things you can do to improve standards in existing schools. Give them the freedom from regulation and targets that they need to innovate and tailor teaching to the pupils in front of them. Put headteachers back in charge of discipline and expulsions and let them deal with staff pay, using incentives if they want to. Then make them accountable to parents, not bureaucrats.

And that means giving parents a real and effective choice over where to send their children. As in Sweden, the independent sector needs to be encouraged to open more schools, which would be eligible for state-funding on a per-capita basis. As in Denmark, groups of parents should be able to group together, demand their share of state funding, and set up their own schools. The real key here is to create many more good school places, so that the competitive pressures of parent choice can truly be effective. 
 

Peter Luff MP, head of the House of Commission Business and Enterprise Committee, was our guest at a Power Lunch in Westminster yesterday. Round the table we had a number of regulators, lobbyists and businesspeople, mainly from the telecoms, mail, and energy sectors, so it made for a wide-ranging discussion.

Luff's topic was how far we might streamline the workings of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Quite a bit, I would say. Rather a lot of its work involves simply replicating what private agencies do already. It seems to delight in devising all kinds of taxpayer-supported special schemes for this sector or that, this activity or that, as the political wind blows. It would be much better off standing out of the sun and letting businesses grow under the light of lower taxes and lighter regulation.

One topic that did come up at the discussion was the independent review of postal services that is currently underway. This could be quite radical in its findings. There is certainly a strong case for privatizing the Royal Mail, as we explained in our report Privatization - Reviving the Momentum. Indeed, with many other national mail carriers now in private hands, and with the growth of private carriers in the UK, the case is getting stronger. The political problem, of course, has always been what to do with rural post offices. Privatization brings transparency, and transparency is the enemy of the sort of cross-subsidies that keep rural post offices open today.

On the other hand, many of the rural post offices have gone already. More banking, benefits, licensing and other traditional post office functions are now done online. So maybe the problem is getting smaller. And maybe the question of whether some rural village really needs a post office or not should be up to the local authorities – not a decision made by some distant bureaucrat in London.
 

It's time to light up in the pub again...Yes, I realise that sounds absurd in the extreme, especially as you’ve not heard about the ban on cigarettes being lifted. But now technology has come to the rescue. A clever device has hit the market, which will enable you to get round the ban altogether.

Advertising for the Gamucci Micro Electronic Cigarette claims, "It looks like a cigarette, it tastes like a cigarette, it smokes like a cigarette, but it isn't a cigarette... [it] produces a real smoking experience without any of the deeply unpleasant side-effects of tobacco.”

The device uses state of the art vapourising liquid to produce smoke and it comes with cartridges that release vary strengths of nicotine if you just can’t give up the weed. So what are you waiting for, spark up... or at least plug it in, charge it up, and stand at the bar puffing away! Oh what fun, to watch the nannies' faces turn puce with rage as they realize they can’t do anything.
 

Yes, you should vote today. You can't run around complaining about them if you haven't at least tried to throw the ***tards out.

On which subject, yet another grossly illiberal measure being proposed. Further, as pornography and sexual violence seem to be substitutes rather than complements it is also entirely counter-productive, not that that's ever stopped politicians before.

The results of another grossly illiberal measure: also counter-productive. Quelle Surprise.

A bracing dose of economic sense in the medical field. If you can't get insurance to do it it's because it's too risky.

Two on science: evidence would be a nice thing to have in one newspaper article and losing the superscript is really rather important here.

Yes, there really is a skill called "management".

And finally, some of these journalist types really do enjoy their job.

Yesterday The Times led with the revelation that the government is introducing a secret tax that will add £200 to cost of many family cars:

Tens of thousands of families will have to pay up to £245 extra a year under new road tax rules after a covert government decision to include cars up to seven years old.

This move is entirely deceitful. If car buyers had known at the time of purchase that buying a car that emits over 225g of carbon dioxide per kilometre would mean such an added cost, they might have thought twice before acquiring it.

As Chancellor, Gordon Brown steered clear of such dishonesty. However, as Prime Minister he has allowed this retroactive policy to be initiated under his watch. Originally cars bought previous to March 23 2006 were exempt from the tax, but Alistair Darling in the last budget announced a new series of car tax bands that rescind the previous exemption, leaving the already over-taxed motorist with even less money in their pocket. The Automobile Association (AA) claims that this will push many people into negative equity because the value of these cars on the second-hand market will now be worth thousands of pounds less than the car owner’s outstanding loans.

Given the rising fuel, utilities and food costs such a stealth tax is plain wrong. The people it will hit are families; these are not super cars but family cars, chosen not for their power but their safety record. Take a look at the EURO NCAP safety standards for the Renault Espace, the Vauxhall Zafira and the Ford Galaxy; three cars that will now be heavily taxed.

What, you may ask is Alistair Darling’s response to hardworking families hit by another stealth tax? Upon being asked in a radio interview what those facing higher car taxes, his answer was that to suggest that they should by new cars. Maybe if you stop taxing us, Darling, we might be able to.

One of the worst aspects of the Clinton–Obama battle for the Democratic presidential nomination has been the increasingly protectionist rhetoric coming from the candidates. Each seems desperate to appear more isolationist on trade than the other. This is a shame, because as this excellent new trade briefing paper from the Cato Institute points out:

[F]ree trade is a vital component for maximising economic growth. America's ongoing commitment to expanding trade – a commitment shared by previous Republican and Democratic administrations – has resulted in lower prices and greater product variety for consumers, job growth for exporters, and higher levels of productivity and innovation that increase prosperity in America and abroad. Accounting for the phases of the business cycle, indicators of American worker and household well-being and prosperity continue to improve. The decades-long decline in manufacturing employment (although not matched by a decline in manufacturing output) has corresponded with an increase in service-sector jobs, with a net 26 million new jobs added since NAFTA took effect in 1994, and an increase in real compensation of nearly 23 percent.

What makes it worse is that I'm sure Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both know this. After all, Bill Clinton was an enthusiastic free-trader who passed the now much-maligned NAFTA (don't forget, Hillary was a 'key part' of that administration...), while Barack Obama's advisers told Canadian diplomats that his protectionism "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Perhaps whoever wins will swing back to the centre once the primaries are over, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Presumably with an eye to a swift recovery after a possible drubbing in today's local and mayoral elections, Labour is sensibly losing no time on the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. They have already taken the unusual decision to table the writ before the funeral of Gwyneth Dunwoody has taken place and it now looks as if they are lining up Gwyneth's politically active daughter – Tamsin Dunwoody – as their candidate.

The late Gwyneth Dunwoody had a 7,000 majority and the seat is only 165th on the Conservative list of target seats, requiring an 8.4 percent swing. This said, if the News of the World’s target seat data is to be believed then this could be a Conservative gain. Their ICM poll suggests that the Conservatives would make a net gain of 131 seats, resulting in a 64-seat majority – or, to put it another way, Tory donor Lord Ashcroft's field-ops team has done rather well.

Either way, we have an intriguing contest on our hands. If the Conservatives fail to make a significant inroad into the Labour majority Brown will use it to shore up his position, whilst if the Tory's cut the majority to anything below 3,000, Cameron will really be able to claim that his message is reverberating throughout the country.

The election is only three weeks away, on Thursday 22 May. It will be very interesting to see what happens.

I'm quite impressed by Right On, the Daily Telegraph's 15-minute weekly television show. It's all very professionally produced. It features a two-minute segment called Heffer Confronted in which the rotund and politically incorrect pundit is confronted by (the slightly less rotund and almost as equally politicially incorrect) Iain Dale. There's also a discussion with leading politicians on a current affairs issue (on this one it's Alan Duncan MP) and a short section of snippets from the Westminster gossip factory.

I think this will work and will grow. Iain Dale's 18 Doughty Street internet enterprise was a really good try at pioneering the unknown terrain of online television. But I guess that few people want to watch five hours of political stuff on their computer screen each night. And if you just dipped in, you never knew exactly what you'd get. I'm sure the way forward is something like the Telegraph have done - a few short snippets that you can select from, and play the bits that really interest you. I imagine the choice will expand as the Telegraph gets to grip with the format. Worth a look.