A slight degree of contempt

What did members of the political classes think of Makerfield voters when the June by-election result was announced? 

What do they still think of those Makerfield folk who offered their votes to a political stratagem whereby Andrew Burnham would become an MP before ousting Keir Starmer from No.10?

It seems reasonable to assume that there was a degree of contempt for voters among the political classes and their media chums, a degree of contempt which is not difficult to understand. In voting for Burnham, the voters of Makerfield complied with a party political tactic with no significant probability that it would benefit anyone but Burnham and his political cronies.


The other members of the committee, who were all rather elderly people, were a good deal impressed by Mary, and inclined to side with her and against each other, partly, perhaps, because of her youth. The feeling that she controlled them all filled Mary with a sense of power; and she felt that no work can equal in importance, or be so exciting as, the work of making other people do what you want them to do. Indeed, when she had won her point she felt a slight degree of contempt for the people who had yielded to her.

Virginia Woolf - Night and Day (1919)


Suppose we rephrase the above Woolf quote slightly, the change is not dramatic.

The feeling that he controlled them all filled Burnham with a sense of power; and he felt that no work can equal in importance, or be so exciting as, the work of making other people do what you want them to do. Indeed, when he had won his point he felt a slight degree of contempt for the people who had yielded to him.

Cooking With Numbers - Recipe £380

Shimeon Lee has a useful TPA piece on what is called "The Poverty Premium" by the charity Fair by Design and the University of Bristol. 

A closer look at “The Poverty Premium”

A curious piece appeared in the New Statesman last month, claiming that low income households pay hundreds of pounds more for the same essentials as everyone else. The article rests on a longstanding series called “The Poverty Premium” by charity Fair by Design and the University of Bristol, which aims to quantify additional costs faced by lower income households. Their latest estimate puts this figure at £380 a year. The author’s solution? More welfare spending and market interventions in the name of “economic fairness”.

But is any of this true? This edition of a closer look examines how that number has been constructed, finding that much of the premium is either not really an extra cost or has surprisingly little to do with poverty.

For anyone paying attention, the conclusion holds no surprises whatever, but the whole piece is well worth reading as it raises the familiar question of concocted numbers used to push a political agenda. 

It's almost fascinating to see numbers being herded like sheep towards the Fabian pen. Straightforward lying would be more honest.

Conclusion

Unsurprisingly, the report calls for more welfare and subsidies, alongside micromanaging supermarket prices and even expanding 20 mph zones. These poorly designed policies are bad enough, but what is worse is that they are based on evidence that not just fails to stand up to scrutiny but points in the complete opposite direction from reality.

Freedom and crime are linked as indivisibly as...

A further development to the recent bootlicker post is the curiously symbiotic relationship between governments and crime. 

For example, here are two quotes about the endemic nature of crime, one from nineteenth century philosopher Herbert Spencer, one from twentieth century Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin. 

Governments supposedly aim to protect us from crime, but they also invent reams of new crimes for reasons Spencer understood 175 years ago.

Let men learn that a legislature is not "our God upon earth," though, by the authority they ascribe to it and the things they expect from it, they would seem to think it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporary purpose, whose power, when not stolen, is, at the best, borrowed.

Nay, indeed, have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? Is it not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or, as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty—that is, less government—as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function?

Herbert Spencer - The Right To Ignore The State (1851)


Governments are not viscerally opposed to crime, they prefer moral boundaries to be blurred and as Spencer suggested, endemic crime gives them a permanent reason for being there.

Yevgeny Zamyatin took this further in his dystopian novel WE, where he links reduced crime to reduced freedom, offering any governing class the opportunity to invent crimes forever in pursuit of totalitarian rule. This is the Fabian approach of course, step by step with bootlickers supporting each step.


Freedom and crime are linked as indivisibly as... well, as the motion of the aero and its speed: when its speed equals zero, it does not move; when man's freedom equals zero, he commits no crimes. That is clear. The only means of ridding man of crime is ridding him of freedom.

Yevgeny Zamyatin - WE (1921)

Zack must have a solution for this

An interesting Blackout News report on a major unsolved problem for anyone inclined to pretend that old wind turbine blades can be recycled. They can't - that's the problem. 

As far as we can tell from their speeches and legislation, the keenest minds in European governments have been unaware of this intractable problem for a long time, unlike less enlightened folk who have known about it for years. This tells us something, but it's merely a repeat, something we already know.


Recycling of old rotor blades unsolved: Up to 75,000 tons of GRP waste per year

Berlin – In Germany, the disposal problem of old rotor blades is growing because more and more wind turbines from the expansion years after 2000 are reaching the end of their life. because large parts of the old stock were not designed for a high-quality material cycle. The German government expects 326,000 to 430,000 tonnes of waste from pure GRP sheets by 2040. In individual years, up to 75,000 tons of GRP waste can be generated. In addition, there are up to 212,000 tons of sheets with GRP and CFRP components. These older composite components in particular can only be recycled at great expense.


The whole piece is well worth reading, partly because it's interesting and partly because we may as well assume that yet another subsidy is probably looming over the sustainability horizon, a recycling subsidy. 

The subsidy suspicion arises quite naturally because there are possible ways to recycle, or at least dispose of blades currently reaching the end of their useful lives. Not that their lives have been useful in any meaningful sense beyond political virtue-signalling, but that's another issue.

Crushing and incineration are no substitute for a material cycle

Mechanical processes crush old leaves into flakes, granules or powder. However, the original fibres are not retained in a high-quality form. The cement industry can use crushed material as fuel and mineral substitute for raw materials. Although this reduces the amount to be disposed of, it does not produce new equivalent glass fibers. In Germany, simple landfilling is also largely ruled out, which is why efficient recycling routes are absolutely necessary.

A study by the University of Strathclyde examines a pilot plant with 1,000 kilograms of rotor blade material per day and 365,000 kilograms per year. This results in around 247,100 kilograms of recycled glass fibres per year. The gross costs on a pilot scale are around €5.30 per kilogram of recycled glass fibre. New glass fibers, on the other hand, are estimated by the study at the equivalent of around €1.98 per kilogram. This means that the recovered optical fiber costs more than two and a half times as much as new material in pilot operation. The CO₂ balance is also worse at first: Recycled glass fiber causes 2.24 kilograms of CO₂ per kilogram, while new glass fiber causes 1.90 kilograms of CO₂ per kilogram.

Those bootlicking apologists for trivial interventions

Towards the end of August, Christopher Snowdon wrote a most interesting Critic piece on the erosion of small freedoms and the corresponding accumulation of small annoyances. 

This is one of the problems of course, those small annoyances accumulate. Over time they become a drag on daily life until we adapt, while knowing we shouldn't have to adapt to preposterous official intrusions.   

In defence of small freedoms

Bootlicking apologists should stop defending government intervention on the grounds of its supposed triviality

As laws become more preposterous and governments intrude ever further into the private lives of individuals, you might expect the public to revolt. Instead, the growing state has given rise to a strange breed of bootlicking gimps who go out of their way to bat for the government.

The journalist Tom Harwood was in Washington D.C. this week and tweeted a video of himself unscrewing the cap from a bottle of Coke with the caption “Sweet land of liberty”. The point was that he was able to fully remove the plastic cap without violently twisting and tugging its tether — a freedom that has been denied to residents of the EU since 2024 thanks to Article 6 of the Single-Use Plastics Directive.

At this point, Snowdon brings in the bootlickers who defend each little pointless burden as if nothing much is being demanded of us. We should suck it up is their airy message, telling us we're making a fuss about nothing. 

The whole piece is well worth reading because as we know too well, another example could pop up tomorrow.

But minor inconveniences soon add up. I wrote last week about the government’s plan to put vape products behind shutters in shops. The Impact Assessment rather conservatively assumes that this will lead to transaction times taking two seconds longer. That doesn’t sound like much, but when you add it all up it amounts to a cost of £43 million on retailers. It has been estimated that Europeans waste a total of 575 million hours per year clicking on cookie consent buttons which, when monetised, amounts to €14.3 billion. Those who defend GDPR don’t seem to mind this, although they suddenly find that their time is incredibly precious when the non-EU queue is longer than the EU queue at passport control. It then becomes the turn of the eurosceptics to say “It’s only a queue, mate! What’s the big deal? You don’t mind queuing at the supermarket, do you?”

To put responsibility on the shoulders of a tamed man

John Caudwell: I backed Labour, but they haven’t kept their promises

We should be making it easier for entrepreneurs to invest, employ and expand. Instead Labour has given them more reasons to look elsewhere, writes John Caudwell...

Andy Burnham says he wants to be pro-business and I take him at his word. I want this government to succeed, and so do the founders who back this campaign, as for the benefit of the general population, we need to deliver growth.

The Budget on 28 October is the moment to show that. Get it right and the founders now weighing up their options will build their next companies here. Get it wrong and they will build them abroad, leaving Britain with fewer companies, weaker growth and fewer jobs in every part of the country.

 Andy Burnham says he wants to be pro-business and I take him at his word. A strange thing to say unless it is rhetorical and more challenge than expectation. At least as much hope as expectation perhaps. Yet it does suggest how far adrift we are economically. 

The political hunger for more taxation is out there in the open, along with ceaseless propaganda from the usual suspects. For Burnham to be pro-business, that tax hunger would have to remain unappeased which would be politically difficult. 

Even more difficult, would be the pro-business necessity to tackle what has become obvious tax plundering and cut it deeply enough to generate significant economic growth. 

Sounds unlikely. It would probably lead to a political storm before the growth, plus campaigns to undermine Burnham as Prime Minister. He knows all this of course, he comes across as a tamed politician, tamed by Labour and the tax and spend Establishment. Willingly tamed too, if his political history is any guide, which it almost certainly is. 

Many people expect more tax plundering on 28 October. As furtive as possible perhaps, but it's not an unreasonable expectation. Managing the machinery of government is difficult, so most professional politicians prefer to duck and dive. It's what they do best, the act they were tamed to perform.

You can do nothing if you are kept outside

An interesting conversation from the D.H. Lawrence novel, Lady Chatterley’s Lover. The conversation is between Michaelis, a very successful Irish playwright, Sir Clifford Chatterley and Lady Constance "Connie" Chatterley. 

"Money!" he said. "Money is a sort of instinct. It's a sort of property of nature in a man to make money. It's nothing you do. It's no trick you play. It's a sort of permanent accident of your own nature; once you start, you make money, and you go on; up to a point, I suppose."

"But you've got to begin," said Clifford.

"Oh quite! You've got to get in. You can do nothing if you are kept outside. You've got to beat your way in. Once you've done that, you can't help it."

"But could you have made money except by plays?" asked Clifford.

"Oh probably not! I may be a good writer or I may be a bad one, but a writer and a writer of plays is what I am, and I've got to be. There's no question of that."

"And you think it's a writer of popular plays that you've got to be?" asked Connie.

"There, exactly!" he said, turning to her in a sudden flash. "There's nothing in it! There's nothing in popularity. There's nothing in the public, if it comes to that. There's nothing really in my plays to make them popular. It's not that. They just are, like the weather ... the sort that will have to be ... for the time being."

D.H. Lawrence – Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928)

A point we could make today is that our digital world no longer has an "outside" which is as clearly defined as it was a century ago.