Harman pays above minimum wage

An interesting news item today concerns the Labour MP Harriet Harman.  Apparently she has advertised for a trainee caseworker in her south London office on a salary of £17,000, which is a breach of parliamentary rules.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has fairly clear guidelines about how much MPs should pay their staff, and while these rules are open to revision, they do not currently permit lower payments to trainee staff.

However the purpose of this post is not to wag my finger at one particular MP.  Instead I want to consider the regulations themselves.

The minimum salary any MP may pay to any employee is currently £15,000, and that is outside Greater London.  The lowest permissible salary within Greater London is £17,000.  These figures are of course annual salaries, and not hourly rates, but I will assume that the rules envisage a thirty-seven hour working week.

The recommended hourly rates are therefore in the region of £8.84 within Greater London and £7.80 outside Greater London.  At the time of writing, the national minimum wage is £6.31 for someone aged 21 or older, whereas the IPSA guidelines make no mention of age.

Therefore the IPSA guidelines appear to envisage a minimum salary of 140 percent of the minimum wage within Greater London or 124 percent of the minimum wage elsewhere in the country - and that for someone in the 21 or over age bracket.  The percentages nearly double in respect of employees aged 16 or 17.

I have previously argued that employers should be banned from paying large salaries to senior staff unless not one of their employees earn less than ... 140 percent of the minimum wage.  (This would currently equate to £8.83 per hour – roughly £13,800 per annum for someone working thirty hours each week.)

I am pleased that MPs, who currently earn a minimum of £66,396, are expected to pay their employees more than the minimum wage.  However I would appreciate it also if the government would require other employers to be as considerate.

Related previous posts include:
Should we increase the minimum wage?
The minimum wage and prices

The science of salt consumption

It is reported that not enough restaurants and fast food outlets are doing enough to reduce the amount of salt in their food.

I remember many years ago seeing a poster in a hospital about good eating habits.  It recommended eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables every day, and it dawned on me that I often went for whole days at a time without eating any fruit or vegetables.  I have heard this dietary advice repeated many times, and eventually I became fastidious about my fruit consumption, and am still fairly fastidious to this day.

At some point - I cannot remember when - I became aware of advice about salt consumption. The advice is that men should consume no more than 6 grams of salt each day (or 7 grams, depending on who you believe); that women should consume no more than 5 grams of salt, and that children should consume no more than 3 grams.  What I do recall is that I did not give the matter any thought until one day I watched a television programme which stated that there is a gram of salt in a bowl of a popular brand of breakfast cereal.  I investigated, and was alarmed to find that I had probably been consuming far more than 6 grams of salt each day for as long as I could remember.

Another piece of advice we often hear is about alcohol consumption.  We are often told that men should drink no more than fourteen alcoholic drinks each week, with a lower limit for women.  I find these limits confusing, because it is based on an assumption of a standard alcoholic drink, but how many alcoholic drinks really are standard?  For example, beer is commonly served either by the pint or by the bottle.  Surely a pint of beer contains more alcohol than a bottle.

So far as I am aware, not one of these three recommendations is based on any actual science, in which case we are entitled to ask why they are often publicised as if they are.  We could argue that the recommendations make sense even if they are not strictly true.  We could argue that it makes sense to eat at least some fruit and vegetables every day, and that it makes sense not to drink too much alcohol.

Then again, most of us probably know at least one person who either is or used to be a heavy drinker, but who enjoys good health.  Likewise, most of us probably know at least one person who often goes for whole days at a time without eating any fruit or vegetables, but who enjoys good health.  In fact I used to be such a person.

The recommendation I find most bizarre is the one about salt consumption.  Do you know how much salt you consume each day?  The loaf of bread in my kitchen right now contains just 0.3 grams per slice, but I have known bread to contain as much as 0.7 grams of salt per slice.  That means that a child who eats just five slices of bread in a day might be exceeding the 3 grams limit.

Suppose a young boy eats a bowl of Frosties for breakfast along with two slices of buttered toast.  That alone probably equals at least 0.9g of salt, even if the butter is unsalted.  Add in the biscuits and crisps he will probably eat for a mid-morning snack, and any processed food such as pizzas that he will eat later in the day, and it is not too hard to imagine that there may not be one child in the whole country who consumes no more than 3 grams of salt in a typical day.  In fact many children in developed countries probably consume far more than 3 grams of salt pretty well every day.

It also appears likely that a lot of adults routinely exceed their supposed limits on salt consumption on a typical day, and yet we remain a fairly healthy country.  Some readers may be thinking that by eating too much salt we are not exposing ourselves to short term medical risks, but that we are nevertheless contributing to long term health problems, and it is absolutely true that we will all die one day.  As a nation we tend to live for many decades, and our hospital wards tend to be occupied mainly by people who are elderly.

In short, the recommendations on salt consumption are quite obviously a load of cobblers.

Where do these inaccurate recommendations come from?  I read once - I can’t remember where – that the recommendation that we should eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables every day was originally a marketing gimmick by the fruit and vegetable industry.  I have no idea where the other two recommendations come from.

If you eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables each day, then companies like Del Monte and Dole which sell fruit can hope to benefit as a result.  By contrast, if you consume less fruit and vegetables, then you will presumably eat more of other foods to compensate, but more of what exactly?  Biscuits?  Pasta?  Tinned pilchards?  It appears that no one in the food industry has any obvious incentive to persuade you not to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables each day.

There is therefore a simple logic to the fruit and vegetable recommendation.  Some people benefit from you believing it, but no one obviously stands to gain from you not believing it.  It is a very different story with the other two recommendations.

I am not sure that anyone obviously stands to gain from me being careful about my consumption of either salt or alcohol.  Can anyone put me right here?  Nevertheless there are a lot of companies which potentially gain from me not caring about how much salt or alcohol I consume, and many of those companies are not short of money.  Major brewing companies like Diageo (which makes Guinness) and Heineken would presumably have no trouble in employing scientists to argue that it is in fact safe to drink sixteen or even eighteen standard alcoholic drinks in a week.  Likewise, processed food companies like McVitie’s and Kellogg’s would presumably have no trouble in employing scientists to argue that it is in fact safe for a child to consume 4 grams of salt each day.

As with my previous essay on science, comments are invited.  If I’ve got anything wrong, then please let me know.

Update: since writing this, I have become aware of a major study into diet which suggests that eating up to five portions of fruit and vegetables in a day boosts longevity.  Nevertheless this is a recent study, whereas the advice itself has been widely publicised for many years now.  I may therefore be correct in assuming that the recommendation to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables each day was not founded on any science when it was first promulgated as truth. 

Another update: it is now reported that the average adult in the UK does not eat five portions a day.

Housing crisis: why houses alone are not the answer

You might expect the same old story, but this time there is a twist in the plot.  A big company is seeking to build a new housing estate on the edge of an English village, and are opposed by many local people.  So far so normal.  What is remarkable is that on this occasion the objections being raised do actually go beyond the usual parrot cries of the NIMBY brigade.

The unexpected objection is that the village already has empty houses which are on the market but which are not selling.  Surely that makes it game, set, and match to the objectors.

On the one hand, it is curious that the big company expects to build houses and presumably make a return on its invesment in a village where houses are not selling.  On the other hand the fact remains that Britain needs houses.

There are huge numbers of people in this country who are either living rough, living in garden sheds, or living in overcrowded accommodation.  The solution is to build more houses, and not just a few more.  We need a lot more.

Actually there are other solutions, but only in theory.  We could make the best use of our existing housing stock by banning people from owning more than one house, and by putting an immediate and permanent stop to immigration - but these things will not happen, because the British people will not vote for them.

And so we are left with the zero option of building more houses, and we must also accept that green belt land is not exempt from the bulldozer - but this alone would not solve the problem.

Consider a young person - I will call him Sam.  Sam is nineteen years old, and lives with his parents and four younger siblings in a three-bedroom house.  It would be helpful to him and his family if he could find a place of his own, but Sam works thirty hours each week for ten pence more than the minimum wage.  We cannot expect him to be able to take out a mortgage and buy a place of his own.

Some readers might be thinking that simple economic reasoning comes into play here.  If a house is unsold, then the vendor will at some point lower the price - but how low would the price have to go to interest Sam in seeking a mortgage?

Let us be fantastical and assume that the new houses on the edge of the village will be put on the market for just one pound each.  Sam can afford to pay a pound, but on top of that he will have his conveyancing fees.  Once he is in the property he will need carpets, curtains, curtain rails, furniture, and white goods.  He may need to call out a plumber or other tradesman from time to time.  Does he really want to burden himself with all of that expenditure?

Let us instead assume that some of the new houses on the edge of the village will be put on the private rental market.  Sam might be tempted to move into such a house.  On the one hand he would not need to worry about conveyancing fees or the cost of maintaining the property, but on the other hand he would still need to buy furniture and white goods - unless the property is let as furnished of course - and he might also have to buy carpets and curtains and curtain rails.  Add to this the fact that he almost certainly has little or no security of tenure, and he might well choose to remain living in his overcrowded parental home.

By contrast, let us assume that some of the new houses on the edge of the village will be made available in the social housing sector.  Sam might be more likely to move into one of the houses if he is offered a secure tenancy, but how many of these tenancies would realistically be on offer?

In short, more housing is not on its own the solution to the housing crisis.  It helps if at least some of that new housing is made available in the social housing sector, and it helps also if as many people as possible are in work and have a disposable income.

Related previous posts include:
Nasty NIMBYs
What exactly is affordable housing?
A large family versus private landlords
Stop being nasty to those less fortunate

The death of Peaches Geldof: another liberal triumph

It is reported in the press today that Peaches Geldof was a heroin addict, which comes as no surprise.

I have in front of me Issue 80 of the newspaper positiveNews.  On page 17 is an essay by Matt Mellen which argues for a more compassionate legal system, by which he appears to want drugs like heroin to be legalised.

Mellen adopts the familiar strategy of cleverly mixing fact with fiction, and does so early on when he says that drug addicts are punished, not treated.

Consider this quote from Wikipedia about a billionaire drug user: Hans Kristian Rausing ... was sentenced on 1 August [2012] to ten months' imprisonment, suspended for two years; the Judge required him to attend a two-year rehabilitation programme.  In other words, Rausing’s punishment was in fact treatment.

Mellen then mentions the move towards legalisation of certain drugs in the USA, but omits to mention some of the problems this has caused, such as children eating sweets laced with marijuana.  Note that these children do not eat the sweets because they want to experiment with marijuana.  They eat the sweets because they like sweets, and do not know that the sweets contain marijuana.

I do not know whether or not it is true that almost 2000 young people die in the UK each year from taking illegal drugs of unknown potency, but equally I am not convinced that legalisation would do anything to change that.  A recent conversation with a teenager suggests to me that many young people do not really care about the potency of the drugs they use.

Mellen quotes Russell Brand as saying that many people use drugs to anaesthetise the pain of living, but I wonder to what extent this is true.  Did Hans Kristian Rausing and his wife take drugs to anaesthetise the pain of being among the richest of the rich?  Did Peaches Geldof take heroin to anaesthetise the pain of being a wealthy socialite with a loving family?  Did Sarah-Jane Honeywell snort cocaine to anaesthetise the pain of singing happy songs on children’s television?

Furthermore, if I accept that some drug users really are motivated by a desire to anaesthetise the pain of living, then surely it would be wrong to treat such people, which is what Mellen appears to want.  Surely it would be proper to let such people carry on taking drugs – or would it?  Maybe Mr Mellen could explain himself here.

But it seems that Mr Mellen is not really that bothered about explaining, but rather about brainwashing.  He harps on about compassion, as if this appeal to compassion somehow proves that he is right.  He also harps on about the environment, and seems to want us to believe that punishing a drug user is somehow equivalent to harming the environment.

I am not sure that there is such a thing as addiction.   I accept that certain substances, such as heroin, may contain chemicals which affect the human body in a certain way.  The problem arises however that as soon as the existence or possible existence of addiction is allowed, then the word becomes open to abuse.  Anyone can claim to be an addict, but how many of them can demonstrate an addiction?

I am compassionate.  I believe that convicted drug dealers should all be sentenced to death, and that all or nearly all of them should be hanged.  I believe that such a policy would make it less likely that people would have access to drugs, and that there would therefore be far fewer people out there in need of treatment, compassion, and so on. There would probably also be far less crime.

Related previous posts include:

Sarah-Jane and the war on drugs

Ann Maguire: savage liberals kill again

Fundamental issues in science

What follows is an introduction to the discussion of science, and I hope to clear up some misconceptions.  If anyone objects to anything I have to say, then please leave a comment.

First, it is debateable whether or not there is such a thing as proof in science.  We might say for example that John Snow proved that cholera is contracted by drinking contaminated water, or that Sir Ronald Ross proved that malaria is spread by mosquito bites.  However more cautious people might counter that they did not actually prove anything.  John Snow produced substantial evidence to support his belief that cholera is contracted by drinking contaminated water, and Sir Ronald Ross produced substantial evidence to support his belief that malaria is spread by mosquito bites.

It might therefore be more sensible to say that John Snow established that cholera is contracted by drinking contaminated water, or that Sir Ronald Ross established that malaria is spread by mosquito bites.  By established, I mean that they provided the evidence that led to their respective beliefs being widely or perhaps even universally accepted as true in the wider scientific community.

Second, it is important to consider the word theory.  It is sometimes said that scientists do not use the word theory in the same way as ordinary people do, but this is simply not true.  In fact there is a strong likelihood that anyone who says this to you is hoping to deceive you.

Look in any good dictionary, and you will probably find at least half a dozen different definitions of the word theory.   These definitions may or may not include one that is specifically related to science.  However there is no law requiring scientists to adhere to just one of the available definitions.   Any scientist is free to use the word theory in whatever context he considers it appropriate to do so, and he is certainly not restricted to just one possible interpretation.

The word theory is often used in everyday speech to refer to an idea which has yet to be established as either factual or non-factual.  Scientists commonly refer to such an idea as a hypothesis, but the only advantage that hypothesis has over theory is that the latter word is ambiguous.

It is true that scientists often use the word theory to mean an idea that has been subjected to analysis and found to be robust.  An example of a theory by this definition might be gravitational time dilation.  It was the brainchild of Albert Einstein, and was substantiated by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Nevertheless the title of the BBC television programme Bang Goes The Theory would not make much sense using this definition.  (Purists might argue that the programme ought to be renamed Bang Goes The Hypothesis.)

Consider probability theory.  It is an idea, and therefore a theory.  It has not however been subjected to rigorous analysis, and I’m not sure it could be.   If I consider the likelihood of drawing a particular card from a deck of cards, then probability theory assumes an equal likelihood of each and every possible outcome, but is this assumption reasonable?  Can anyone think of a way to establish that the likelihood of drawing the ace of spades at random from a pack of cards is neither greater nor smaller than the likelihood of drawing the seven of diamonds?  I can’t.

Probability theory has its uses, but it is nonetheless an example of a theory which cannot be substantiated.

It is possible that some readers may find this to be among my least interesting blog posts, but I feel that it would be unwise of me to write about scientific issues in future posts unless I have first addressed certain basic issues.

MH17 and Gaza: more lives lost to western imperialism

As I write, it is still not clear who fired the missile which downed Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.  Our national press is showing a strong tendency to blame Russia, whereas it appears that the Russian media have been placing the blame squarely on Ukraine.

I will not pass judgement on the Russian media, as I do not know exactly what they are reporting, but I feel compelled to comment on a lot of the reports and comments I am reading in the British press.

First, there is an unwillingness to admit that Viktor Yanukovych was illegally removed from office.  I can also find no mention of the part which western powers played in his removal.

Second, I am not happy about claims that Russia annexed Crimea, when it appears that the majority of people in Crimea see themselves as Russian rather than Ukrainian.  Surely it is for the Crimean people  to decide where their loyalties lie.

Third, I wonder how many of the British comment writers currently hurling abuse at Vladimir Putin believe that William C Rogers III should be hanged for the murder of 290 civilians on 3 July 1988.

Even if Russian military hardware took down Flight MH17, then it remains the fact that the hostilities in that part of the world began only after the illegal removal of President Yanukovych.

So far as I am aware, the number of people who died aboard MH17 was roughly the same as the number of people who have died in the past week or two as a result of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

I do not seek a war against Israel, but I find it curious nevertheless that people in the United Kingdom and the USA who argue for wars and regime change never seem to want to change the regime in the terror state.

The British armed forces served in the Second World War so that (among other injustices) a group of terrorists could have an operational base in the Levant.  Then again, Hitler was also part of the problem, as he encouraged German Jews to settle in Palestine during the 1930s.

Quite simply, Israel should never have been allowed to come into existence as a nation.  Anyone who disagrees with me presumably has no respect for the lives of Palestinians in the Levant.

Update: the press are complaining that the Russians have taken crucial evidence from the scene of the crash, but why shouldn't they?  Whoever has the crucial evidence can use it to bolster their version of events, regardless of whether or not that version is true.  A Russian lie is no more of a lie than a western lie. 

Another update: I am pleased that at least one newspaper has published a comment which is actually worth reading.


Related previous posts include:
MH17: who is to blame?
Cameron visits Israel
Jew couldn't make it up