The War On Drugs is, in my opinion, one of the greatest policy failures in modern times. The fear and rhetoric thrown about in public by politicians and the media is preventing a sensible assessment on the subject and is costing lives.
In Mexico, a front line in the War On Drugs, 28,000 have been killed since 2006 in the fighting between Mexican Government security forces and the drug cartels. In this interview, President Calderon of Mexico lays the blame squarely with the Americans for the troubles in his country and has called for a debate on drug legalisation.
If your interested in the numbers of deaths caused by 'drugs' in the US relative to the murders in Mexico I have found some statistics of note.
In the USA 435,000 die from smoking related causes each year.
Alcohol kills about 85,000 in the USA each year.
Illegal drugs kill about 17,000 in the USA each year.
Prescription drugs kill about 32,000 each year in the USA each year.
The first thing to say, and possibly the most important, is that every single person who dies from 'drugs' has elected to do so. This cannot be said of the 28,000 dead in Mexico. It also says something that prescription drugs kill twice as many people in the USA each year than illegal drugs, and yet the prescription drugs don't cause a real war to be fought in a neighbouring country or the outrage in the US.
There are of course many elements to the debate on drugs, and more information and research would be hugely beneficial to the debate. But you've got to wonder, if these simple statistics don't provide enough evidence to for an open and fair debate on the subject, how bad has it got to get before they do?
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
OECD On Housing
Readers may have noticed that another regular topic of mine is the growing housing problem in the UK. I am not going to go into another 'rant' on this now, but simply wanted to convey my thanks to Stephanie Flanders of the BBC, a very insightful reporter, for her comments on this subject, and her blog today which highlighted the following comments from the OECD on the issue.
But the report reserves its sharpest language for the state of the UK housing market - and the planning regime. Here the OECD is preaching to the converted, at least at the Treasury. The rest of the government might have more doubts. Here's the summary:
Please refer to my previous posts on Nimby's and their harm for my thoughts on this subject.
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
But the report reserves its sharpest language for the state of the UK housing market - and the planning regime. Here the OECD is preaching to the converted, at least at the Treasury. The rest of the government might have more doubts. Here's the summary:
Current land use planning policy is excessively restrictive, making supply unresponsive to demand and contributing to creating housing shortages and reducing affordability.... A reform to replace top-down building targets with incentives for local communities to allow development is underway, but the outcomes are somewhat uncertain. Housing taxation is regressive and encourages excessive demand for housing. More effective taxation could help contain demand and stabilise the housing market.I hope to discuss in a later blog how the government might seek to match the simple economic need for more houses and a freer panning regime with the very difficult local politics. As I suggested in my bulletin piece last night , business groups are excited by the prospect of root and branch reform in this area, but can't help being alarmed by the uncertainty that comes with it. They also want reassurance that the "localism" agenda isn't about to make the planning system even worse than it is now. That is one of many questions that Mr Osborne will need to answer next week.
Please refer to my previous posts on Nimby's and their harm for my thoughts on this subject.
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
The Slippery Slope
I have been considering for the last two weeks my blog response to the Yes vote at the recent Welsh referendum. As you may know, and despite my general criticism of devolution the 'process', my primary concern in the run up to the vote was the one sidedness of the debate. That no political party or media organisation was against the proposition, seriously undermined the nature of the debate and thus the outcome of the vote itself.
Nonetheless since the result was announced, (Overall, 63.49% voted 'yes', and 36.51% voted 'no'. The overall turnout was 35.2%) it has been interesting to watch the political response. Particularly when keeping in mind the 'debate' held before the vote. As it happens Diane Banner, Secretary of the True Wales No Campaign, has written a letter in today's Western Mail which sums it up rather succinctly.
"Sir, I write on behalf of the True Wales Steering Committee to express a warm thank you to the almost 300,000 people who voted No in the referendum and to all those who campaigned to help us fight for the best in Wales.
In the space of just one week following the poll, the UK Government has announced a commission to consider income tax and borrowing powers for the Assembly, a Liberal peer has called for another 20 AMs, and Presiding Officer Dafydd Elis Thomas has argued for the abolition of the Wales Office and of our position at the UK Cabinet table. A Commons Committee has called for a review as to the merging of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland Offices.
Despite Yes camp claims that the vote was merely a 'tidying up exercise' on law-making power, most politicians now herald it as a fundamental constitutional change. The momentum is now for a step-by-step process over time to the separation from the UK.
Nevertheless, we are determined to fight on to ensure that Wales maintains its position within the UK and to hold the Assembly politicians, with their significant new power, to their pledge to make 'no more excuses' for failure"
Certainly none of these developments were discussed before the vote, and the Yes camp, including politicians and the media, have now claimed a huge mandate on the back of a referendum vote where only one in five of the electorate supported their motion.
Wake up Wales, the later a proper debate is had, the further the 'process' of devolution will have progressed without your consent.
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
Nonetheless since the result was announced, (Overall, 63.49% voted 'yes', and 36.51% voted 'no'. The overall turnout was 35.2%) it has been interesting to watch the political response. Particularly when keeping in mind the 'debate' held before the vote. As it happens Diane Banner, Secretary of the True Wales No Campaign, has written a letter in today's Western Mail which sums it up rather succinctly.
"Sir, I write on behalf of the True Wales Steering Committee to express a warm thank you to the almost 300,000 people who voted No in the referendum and to all those who campaigned to help us fight for the best in Wales.
In the space of just one week following the poll, the UK Government has announced a commission to consider income tax and borrowing powers for the Assembly, a Liberal peer has called for another 20 AMs, and Presiding Officer Dafydd Elis Thomas has argued for the abolition of the Wales Office and of our position at the UK Cabinet table. A Commons Committee has called for a review as to the merging of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland Offices.
Despite Yes camp claims that the vote was merely a 'tidying up exercise' on law-making power, most politicians now herald it as a fundamental constitutional change. The momentum is now for a step-by-step process over time to the separation from the UK.
Nevertheless, we are determined to fight on to ensure that Wales maintains its position within the UK and to hold the Assembly politicians, with their significant new power, to their pledge to make 'no more excuses' for failure"
Certainly none of these developments were discussed before the vote, and the Yes camp, including politicians and the media, have now claimed a huge mandate on the back of a referendum vote where only one in five of the electorate supported their motion.
Wake up Wales, the later a proper debate is had, the further the 'process' of devolution will have progressed without your consent.
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Lost Generation
Stephanie Flanders, in a very interesting post, provides some more evidence of problems facing the young today. Most alarmingly, when considering who has benefited from an increase in employment in the UK of 218,000 over the course of 2010, she notes that "employment among the over-65s rose by 104,000. Put it another way, 3% of the workforce has hoovered up 48% of the new jobs".
Is that those Baby Boomers again?
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
Is that those Baby Boomers again?
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
Nimby News
As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, I am very concerned about the power of Nimby's to restrict the growth of urban development and all the problems it can cause.
In regard to my local area, I received a copy of the 17th February 'Echo Xtra' (ok, I am getting behind on some of my ranting!), which ran with the headline "Ruining our lives", a serious headline I think you'll agree. The article reports concern from residents in North Cardiff that the plans to include local sites in the Council's Local Development Plan risk their 'way of life'. The sites mentioned include the 'land north of the M4', which is basically a collection of low yielding fields alongside the motorway.
The plan proposes up to 1,200 residential units, a new primary school, local shopping, a park-and-ride facility, a 10-hectare business park and a country park. Which if you ask me sounds marvelous. New homes which will help struggling first time buyers, new public facilities, new employment opportunities, and of course all of the jobs which go with building it all in the first place.
However the article reports comments from a local resident including "new suburb" would "sandwich Rhiwbina within Cardiff", "This huge development wipes out green space" and "This is radically going to change the face of where we all live and doesn't serve anyone except the developers proposing it". Now I know that a newspaper can print pretty much any views (so long as they are not those of the editor), but this is a front page headline article and these views are just plain wrong! What's more, and getting to the point, there are no other views reported to balance this opinion.
Nimby's manage to make their voices heard in this way, and motivate political action as a result, that those who would benefit from the plans cannot. Every house proposed will be someones home, every person served by any of the new facilities, including a country park, will benefit from them, and anyone employed in building and servicing this new suburb will earn a living. Yet these people are as yet anonymous and thus cannot be asked to comment. Thankfully money talks as they say, and whilst the beneficiaries are not able to voice their concern, their demand, as represented by 'the developers', speaks for itself.
Nonetheless, the public complains to politicians on one hand about the lack of jobs, facilities or affordable housing, and on the other hand they complain if anything is proposed near them. Whats more, often the complaints regarding a lack of such goods is made on a national level to MP's, whilst the opposition is made to local representatives and councillors. As a result politicians from different authorities are pitted against each other to hammer out a solution or not. Is this really the best way to organise ourselves?
As a final example of what I mean, the article does quote comments from the local councillor, Jayne Cowen, including "I haven't had one person support the scheme", "at the end of the day, I feel strongly we need to support the residents". Of course she means the existing residents in her area, but no one is representing the residents of the proposed new development. That a shabby publication such as the 'Xtra' furthers this vocal imbalance by running the story without any thought for the beneficiaries only exacerbates the problem.
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
In regard to my local area, I received a copy of the 17th February 'Echo Xtra' (ok, I am getting behind on some of my ranting!), which ran with the headline "Ruining our lives", a serious headline I think you'll agree. The article reports concern from residents in North Cardiff that the plans to include local sites in the Council's Local Development Plan risk their 'way of life'. The sites mentioned include the 'land north of the M4', which is basically a collection of low yielding fields alongside the motorway.
The plan proposes up to 1,200 residential units, a new primary school, local shopping, a park-and-ride facility, a 10-hectare business park and a country park. Which if you ask me sounds marvelous. New homes which will help struggling first time buyers, new public facilities, new employment opportunities, and of course all of the jobs which go with building it all in the first place.
However the article reports comments from a local resident including "new suburb" would "sandwich Rhiwbina within Cardiff", "This huge development wipes out green space" and "This is radically going to change the face of where we all live and doesn't serve anyone except the developers proposing it". Now I know that a newspaper can print pretty much any views (so long as they are not those of the editor), but this is a front page headline article and these views are just plain wrong! What's more, and getting to the point, there are no other views reported to balance this opinion.
Nimby's manage to make their voices heard in this way, and motivate political action as a result, that those who would benefit from the plans cannot. Every house proposed will be someones home, every person served by any of the new facilities, including a country park, will benefit from them, and anyone employed in building and servicing this new suburb will earn a living. Yet these people are as yet anonymous and thus cannot be asked to comment. Thankfully money talks as they say, and whilst the beneficiaries are not able to voice their concern, their demand, as represented by 'the developers', speaks for itself.
Nonetheless, the public complains to politicians on one hand about the lack of jobs, facilities or affordable housing, and on the other hand they complain if anything is proposed near them. Whats more, often the complaints regarding a lack of such goods is made on a national level to MP's, whilst the opposition is made to local representatives and councillors. As a result politicians from different authorities are pitted against each other to hammer out a solution or not. Is this really the best way to organise ourselves?
As a final example of what I mean, the article does quote comments from the local councillor, Jayne Cowen, including "I haven't had one person support the scheme", "at the end of the day, I feel strongly we need to support the residents". Of course she means the existing residents in her area, but no one is representing the residents of the proposed new development. That a shabby publication such as the 'Xtra' furthers this vocal imbalance by running the story without any thought for the beneficiaries only exacerbates the problem.
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)