A national newspaper has just reported that the Christmas truce between the British and Germans in 1914 was far removed from what we have traditionally been led to believe. Other popular misconceptions about war concern the Dunkirk evacuation, the great escape, and the dam busters.
Something which is not shown in the 1963 film The Great Escape is that many British POWs refused to take part in the escape because they were happy to be no longer taking an active part in the war. Life in Stalag Luft III was far from luxurious, but those who escaped ran the very serious risk of being returned to active service, with a risk of death or injury.
Likewise the 1955 film The Dam Busters overstates the willingness of bomber crews to take part in dangerous missions, and does not mention that many civilians died or were made homeless as a result of the floods caused by the bombings.
I accept that films are primarily about entertainment rather than historical accuracy, but it is also fair to point out that some misconceptions are more harmful than others.
Sunday 21 December 2014
Tuesday 9 December 2014
The communist-loving "right wing" tabloids
I often read tabloid newspapers which have a reputation for being right wing, whatever that actually means in practice. I read these newspapers online, however, as I refuse to pay to read them.
The attitude of these papers and their comment writers can be fairly accurately summarised as follows.
First, immigration is harming Britain. This may seem an entirely reasonable point of view, except that the tendency is to lay the blame for our immigration-related horrors squarely at the door of previous Labour governments. It seems that Tory governments are never to blame.
Nevertheless it is still acceptable to vote Labour, and yet you should never vote for any political party which actually wants to reverse the trend in immigration.
Second, the BBC is unfairly biased. This too may seem like a reasonable point of view, but I wonder how many tabloid journalists have no television, thereby exempting them from having to pay to support the biased BBC.
Third, the government's austerity programme is entirely justified, and criticism of it - whether from Labour MPs or from church leaders or from foul-mouthed comedians - is misguided. To be fair, the tabloids do sometimes come close to the truth on this issue. They report, for example, that the welfare budget has not fallen, and they allow comments which mention the money we pay to the EU, or the pay rises that MPs vote themselves.
The fact is that the Conservative-led government squanders billions of pounds of our money on things like illegal wars and EU membership, which they would not do if they had any dedication to sound management of the nation's finances.
Meanwhile, many ordinary people continue to queue for the food banks.
The truth is that our political masters - whether Labour or Conservatives - are vicious communists (is that a tautology?), while the supposedly right wing tabloids are fellow travellers.
Related previous posts include:
Our fellow-travelling national press
The Daily Mail defames the EDL
The Daily Express must try harder
Starvation Britain
The attitude of these papers and their comment writers can be fairly accurately summarised as follows.
First, immigration is harming Britain. This may seem an entirely reasonable point of view, except that the tendency is to lay the blame for our immigration-related horrors squarely at the door of previous Labour governments. It seems that Tory governments are never to blame.
Nevertheless it is still acceptable to vote Labour, and yet you should never vote for any political party which actually wants to reverse the trend in immigration.
Second, the BBC is unfairly biased. This too may seem like a reasonable point of view, but I wonder how many tabloid journalists have no television, thereby exempting them from having to pay to support the biased BBC.
Third, the government's austerity programme is entirely justified, and criticism of it - whether from Labour MPs or from church leaders or from foul-mouthed comedians - is misguided. To be fair, the tabloids do sometimes come close to the truth on this issue. They report, for example, that the welfare budget has not fallen, and they allow comments which mention the money we pay to the EU, or the pay rises that MPs vote themselves.
The fact is that the Conservative-led government squanders billions of pounds of our money on things like illegal wars and EU membership, which they would not do if they had any dedication to sound management of the nation's finances.
Meanwhile, many ordinary people continue to queue for the food banks.
The truth is that our political masters - whether Labour or Conservatives - are vicious communists (is that a tautology?), while the supposedly right wing tabloids are fellow travellers.
Related previous posts include:
Our fellow-travelling national press
The Daily Mail defames the EDL
The Daily Express must try harder
Starvation Britain
Friday 5 December 2014
Stamp duty reform is nothing to celebrate
The news at the moment is dominated by the government's reform of stamp duty on house purchases. At least one national newspaper is reporting this as a good thing for people who want to buy a house, which just shows how idiotic its editorial staff are.
Quite simply, the reform does not make life better for people looking to buy a house, although it probably makes life better for people looking to sell a house.
Economics is the study of supply and demand, and we live in a country where the demand for housing greatly outstrips supply. One consequence of this is that there are thousands of people living rough on the streets, with maybe as many as a million people living in garden sheds and outhouses. Another consequence is that many people who want to buy a house struggle to find enough money for the asking price.
Broadly speaking, there are only two ways in which to address this housing crisis. Either we reduce demand or increase supply. Reducing demand could for example take the form of removing foreign nationals from the country, but this is unlikely to happen until the British people stop voting for Labour and Conservative politicians and start voting instead for political parties which support large scale repatriation - in other words, never.
Another method for reducing demand would be to discourage people from owning (or renting) more than one home, but we need to be realistic. How many members of parliament are content with just one home? Our political masters cannot be trusted to encourage restraint if they themselves cannot first bring themselves to practise it.
Our zero option for resolving the housing crisis is therefore to increase supply, and yet even that is something of a forlorn hope. Quite simply we cannot build new houses in this country fast enough to keep pace with demand, and that is why many people struggle to find the money to buy their first home.
And so to stamp duty. Suppose you buy a house costing £200,000, and you pay stamp duty of £4000. The bill for the £200,000 property is therefore £204,000 - and that is before we add in the cost of legal fees.
Suppose the government abolishes stamp duty altogether, which has not actually happened. You are now able to spend £204,000 instead of just £200,000 on buying a property. You might think that this gives you more spending power, but in reality it gives everyone in the housing market more spending power.
Reducing stamp duty provides you with an advantage in the housing market only if you alone have your stamp duty reduced. When everyone else in the housing market enjoys the same reduction, then it merely allows everyone to spend more money on the same property. People who sell houses are the winners; buyers are not.
Stamp duty is a very efficient form of taxation. Non-collection is pretty well non-existent. Therefore it should perhaps be the last form of taxation that any sensible government looks to reduce.
Quite simply, the reform does not make life better for people looking to buy a house, although it probably makes life better for people looking to sell a house.
Economics is the study of supply and demand, and we live in a country where the demand for housing greatly outstrips supply. One consequence of this is that there are thousands of people living rough on the streets, with maybe as many as a million people living in garden sheds and outhouses. Another consequence is that many people who want to buy a house struggle to find enough money for the asking price.
Broadly speaking, there are only two ways in which to address this housing crisis. Either we reduce demand or increase supply. Reducing demand could for example take the form of removing foreign nationals from the country, but this is unlikely to happen until the British people stop voting for Labour and Conservative politicians and start voting instead for political parties which support large scale repatriation - in other words, never.
Another method for reducing demand would be to discourage people from owning (or renting) more than one home, but we need to be realistic. How many members of parliament are content with just one home? Our political masters cannot be trusted to encourage restraint if they themselves cannot first bring themselves to practise it.
Our zero option for resolving the housing crisis is therefore to increase supply, and yet even that is something of a forlorn hope. Quite simply we cannot build new houses in this country fast enough to keep pace with demand, and that is why many people struggle to find the money to buy their first home.
And so to stamp duty. Suppose you buy a house costing £200,000, and you pay stamp duty of £4000. The bill for the £200,000 property is therefore £204,000 - and that is before we add in the cost of legal fees.
Suppose the government abolishes stamp duty altogether, which has not actually happened. You are now able to spend £204,000 instead of just £200,000 on buying a property. You might think that this gives you more spending power, but in reality it gives everyone in the housing market more spending power.
Reducing stamp duty provides you with an advantage in the housing market only if you alone have your stamp duty reduced. When everyone else in the housing market enjoys the same reduction, then it merely allows everyone to spend more money on the same property. People who sell houses are the winners; buyers are not.
Stamp duty is a very efficient form of taxation. Non-collection is pretty well non-existent. Therefore it should perhaps be the last form of taxation that any sensible government looks to reduce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)