« The problem of workshyness | Main | Profits, norms and power »

July 16, 2013



I wish I could carp about something in this article, but I can't. Its faultless. I thought the best thing the Borders Agency did a couple of years ago was randomly let people through during busy times when they were short of staff. They got roasted for it.

Jim M.

There is one thing to carp about... namely, the complete lack of perviness and no trace whatsoever of depressing sexism.

I, for one, feel short-changed!


This is amusing or depressing.

What you are really saying is that policy is not rational. Rather than looking for policy that might increase human happiness the idea is to sell policy that fails but looks tough or hard. Pander to ignorance and arrogant imperialism and you will go far. Well at least allow you a few years in the Cabinet before you go to run international rescue.


Plainly inefficient, so cui bono? Perhaps the administrative class can see what happened lower down the pile and can feel the pressure of the Tarquins and Jemimas squeezing into a smaller and smaller cushy-job market. So, borrowing from the Old Spanish Practices manual - declare 'its always been done this way, mate'.

Westminster seems very similar to the court of Louis Quartorze but with a distinct squeeze being felt at the edges - trouble coming but too far off to worry about today. Then there is a symbiosis with the modern-day courtiers and mini-monarchs, they don't want the boat rocked either. There seems some pressure to reform the Civil Service and it probably needs it, but care is needed, a good Sir Humphrey is a useful counter to the politicos.

If reform is contemplated it is likely the uber-administrators - the consultants - will get called in, but they are a wily bunch and can see where the bread is buttered, their host must be kept alive and never learn to resist. Plus ca change.


I've never seen anyone argue immigration is bad for the economy.

I've seen people argue it is bad for wages for a certain sector (tradesmen, labour), and it's bad for social cohesion.

I've yet to see decent rebuttals to those points.


The war on drugs does make sense, if you start from the premise that the global mega-banks are far more powerful and greedy than any mere elected government. If you accept that premise, the war on drugs is a great idea all round for the mega-banks:
- restricting the supply of a product that is in very strog demand pushes up the price, resulting in very wealthy drug dealers
- governments cannot tax a product that is illegal, therefore the drug dealers can keep 100% of their profits
- drug dealers need to launder the majority of their profits through banks
- AML and Know Your Customer laws can be politely ignored by the banks (HSBC, anyone?), safe in the knowledge that no government would dare to jail an almighty banker. The very occasional fine of a billion dollars or so can be considered just a cost of doing business in one of the most profitable industries of all time.

gmail hack

great article i liked it..

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad