Guido Fawkes

Is there any way I can get a RSS feed to his site, but with all the shit about the death penalty filtered out? While we're at it, can we get rid of the red sentences at the end of each paragraph (as if the posts aren't pithy enough, we need that for our tiny attention spans), the Saturday Seven Ups, and the tiresome constant talk about visitor numbers and past successes?

I don't even know where to start about his call for the death penalty for kid and cop killers. Some thoughts:

• The state shouldn't have the power of life and death over people. We don't want politicians posturing over this, and we don't want stays of execution to be political or matters of public opinion, which was a reason why it was abolished in the 1960s.
  
• Judges and juries are fallible, and statistics are very good at misleading people. It's foolish to pretend innocent people will never get executed.
  
• The death penalty is final and irreversible.
• Revenge isn't the same thing as justice.
• It probably doesn't act as a deterrent. Look at murder rates for US states that have it and those that don't. Pierrepoint observed that if it was a deterrent, he wouldn't have hanged a friend he saw at the pub every week who knew what his job was.
  
• It's moral vanity for some just like buying Fairtrade is for others.
• Murder is murder. It's stupid to pretend murder of a non-cop or non-child is less serious. Particularly with the police, it gets further and further from the idea of police being ordinary members of the public doing professionally what ordinary citizens should do anyway.
• Just because the public support something doesn't mean politicians should go ahead with something. It's also up to politicians and opinion-formers to take a lead on things and educate people about issues. Maybe if a majority of people support the death penalty, it's only an indication that it's been off the political agenda for a very long time with only the tabloids and people like Guido banging on about it. Opinion formers who have the status quo on their side don't go around arguing in favour of the status quo. Polls show people think it's worse for guilty people to be found innocent than for innocent people to be found guilty. This shows people need education on matters of justice.
  
• Without the death penalty, we are more able to pile weight on countries with the death penalty for minor things like smuggling drugs. If we have the death penalty, we are only able to criticise their choice of offences they execute for.
  

One thing this does is demonstrate that if Guido is a libertarian, he's a libertarian like the Tea Party are libertarians. They want a small state in financial terms, but it should still promote the moral code that suits them.

Campaign For HSR

I noticed on the BBC a news item about the IEA's new report on HS2. Naturally to balance the article, they include some opposing views:

The Campaign for High-Speed Rail said it was "hugely disappointed" and "shocked" by the views expressed in the report.

Professor David Begg, director of the campaign group, said the think tank had "completely failed to grasp the wider benefits of the high-speed rail project, which will create jobs, boost investment and spread the economic wealth of this country".

Now it's unfair to criticise people for totally failing to engage with a debate on the basis of how they've been quoted by the BBC, as the BBC like to keep their articles short and pithy. So I went straight to the horse's mouth.

On their website, the Campaign for HSR have a background briefing on the IEA's report. This is surely where you can find a rigourous fisking of the IEA's report? They're a respected thinktank, and the Campaign for HSR being a respectable group, would surely want to engage in the debate in a grown up manner? What? No?

This morning the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) released their assessment of the proposed high-speed rail project, co-authored by Dr Richard Wellings and Kyn Aizlewood.

The IEA’s report reflects an old-fashioned, free-market-obsessed ideology that wants to spend Britain’s transport infrastructure investment predominantly on roads in the South East.

These sorts of ideologues have no appreciation of the important external benefits that a modern high-speed national rail network would bring for jobs and regeneration.

It is not surprising that the IEA has come out against HS2, when you read about some of the authors’ other thoughts and background.

1. From their past work, the authors are clearly obsessed by roads – particularly in the South East – and would happily privatise the railways on which Britain’s families and local business people depend. See below.

2. The co-author, Kyn Aizlewood, does not disclose that his views are clearly effected by the close proximity of his house to the proposed rail route and that he is a member of an anti-HS2 action group. See below.

...

The IEA have completely failed to grasp the wider benefits of the high-speed rail project, which will create jobs, boost investment and spread the economic wealth of this country to places outside of the TPA heartlands of London and the South East.

I would expect better from an otherwise reputable think-tank than to parrot misinformation and repackage the discredited views of opponents to the project who are clearly motivated by a mixture of small-state ideology and ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ attitudes.

They should be ashamed of themselves for abusing their research credentials to produce such a thinly veiled propaganda piece.

(Emphasis mine). That's a straw man about the local nimby interest, and directing investment to road building (the IEA might support this, but only because it could be funded privately, whereas HS2 will not happen without a large dose of public money), then they try to play to people's fears, that they'd privatise railways despite families and business depending on them. Then there is the unpleasant whiff of the writer claiming the moral apolitical high ground, portraying opponents as politically driven, when actually one group of people overriding another group of people's wishes to build something paid for by everyone without option, is an inherently political thing to do.

The director of the Campaign for HSR, who sits on the board of FirstGroup, is no stranger to throwing mud at opposing views. A link from the BBC article has him calling critics of HSR 'well-off nimbys', that people living on the route were 'economically privileged' while poorer people further afield would benefit from the scheme. Well, no shit, any large infrastructure project is bound to have some rich losers and some poor winners. Now this line of argument is a clear, conscious committed strategy for this group, as evidenced by a recent advertising campaign in Manchester:


So who are the Campaign for HSR? Their about us page tells us that they are independent from HS2 Ltd and the government, but doesn't provide any details of their funding arrangements. Who has paid the invoices from Westbourne Communications, their professional opinion changers? Who paid to develop their swish web site? It doesn't say. They list their 'national council', whatever that is, and it raises eyebrows:

Mr Dennis Curran, Chairman, Barhale Construction plc
Mr Jerry Blackett, Chief Executive, Birmingham Chamber of Commerce
Mr Gareth Morgan, Deputy Chair, Birmingham Future
Mr Jonathan Enever, Director, Gleeds Cost Management Limited
Mr Alistair Dormer, Managing Director, Hitachi Europe Ltd
Mr Paul Chapman, Managing Director, HS1 Ltd
Mr Tim Garratt, Director, Innes England
Prof Peter Moizer, Dean, Leeds University Business School
Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, Chairman, Nomura
Professor David Begg, Chief Executive, Transport Times Ltd.
Mr Andrew Eyre, Executive Chairman, TSL Turton Ltd
Mr Philip Green, Chief Executive Officer, United Utilities
Mr Dalton Philips, Chief Executive, Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc
Mr Chris Fletcher, Deputy Chief Executive & Director of Policy, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
Ms Miranda Barker, Managing Director, Allan-Environmental Solutions
Mr Azmat Mohammed, CEO, ID Interactive

I think, given that list, they need to detail their funding. They may be independent of the government and HS2 limited, but who are they not independent from? I'm still not convinced that HS2 isn't about ambitious people building fiefdoms, companies profiting from money forcibly taken off people by the government, and politicians looking for vanity projects.

These people who have a vested interest in HS2 being built should not be given the time of day when they engage in ad hominem attacks on people who offer legitimate criticisms, even if their interest in HS2 has been fanned by it being on their doorstep, that in itself doesn't make their criticisms incorrect.