nigebox

In the style of Jesse from the Fast Show, I’ve decided to do a weekly feature looking at not what I’ve eaten but what I’ve listened to. The full record of what I’ve listened to is, as always, available from last.fm. These posts will aim to add a bit of an explanation of that raw data.

Anyway, this week:

Bat for Lashes

Topping this week’s chart is Bat for Lashes, with 43 scrobbled plays at the time of writing. I originally saw the band alongside MGMT supporting Radiohead on their last UK tour. At the time they barely registered – I don’t think the venue particularly lent itself to getting into a band whose music is fairly dark and brooding rather than ‘in your face’. It was still light outside; an atmosphere that MGMT was able to punch through much better.

Since then I’ve not listened to them. This week however a friend passed me a link to this great radio set from KCRW. Watching Natasha Khan (the frontwoman) getting into the music. Thom Yorke said of their song Horse & I: ‘I love the harpsichord and the sexual ghost voices and bowed saws. This song seems to come from the world of Grimm’s fairytales.’ I’m going to agree with Thom – it sounds awesome.

Lily Allen

Very different from the above is Lily. Ah Lily. I think I love her. She got played 33 times this week. Her songs just make me grin, particularly Not Fair and Fuck You. It’s all fun and upbeat and there’s a lot more going on than I had originally credited her with. The lyrics are occasionally quite clever, the music catchy and I only regret my music snobbery in not checking her out sooner.

Having said that, listening to Lily has made Last.fm cough up some abysmal music with no spark or anything worth listening to. Just completely forgetable, mildly-irritating pop. I’ll not name names (unless Last.fm persists…) but if you see any of that in my charts please rest assured that I just didn’t get to the skip button fast enough.

The rest

Some other that I listened to a lot this week included Sparklehorse, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Hot Chip and Mr. Scruff.

It is delightful to know that Fred Phelps believes we have brought ‘great wrath upon [our] heads‘. It could be a rule of thumb that you must be doing something right if you’ve upset him. A success for the government then? Not quite.

Phelps was irked because like around three hundred others since July 2005 he has been prevented from entering the UK. The majority of these people hold detestable views which they are more than happy to air. They would probably be doing us all a favour if they chose to walk under a bus.

But that is a conclusion that we should each be able to reach individually. Thinking critically about the arguments that these people raise and breaking them down is something we should encourage. By attempting to shut out their voice we achieve at best a missed opportunity for people to engage in such critical assessment (leaving them out of practice) but more often provide added publicity for odious views.

Jacqui Smith has herself in a position of defending ‘our values‘ by keeping these people out of the country. I have a problem with this because I know that my value system does not neatly match with Ms Smith’s. She values the temporary feeling of security far higher than individual liberty, for example.

It is a positive move that a partial list of those excluded has been published but it is not good enough.  Jacqui’s excuse for not publishing everything seems tame – some names are not being published because it would reveal the information being held against them.  If the reasoning is good enough then why shouldn’t we hear it?

Moreover, the government should stop interfering altogether.  These idiotic people should be able to air their idiotic views so that they can be dismissed in the only effective way – the critical analysis of the public.

Happy New Year from France!

A slightly belated New Year post, but I’m now settling into my new job, working as a Resort Rep for the winter season. Apologies for the radio silence this last month – it’s been quite busy.

2008 was a pretty big year for me and I’m pleased with how everything went. Here’s to hoping 2009 is just as successful.

I’m enjoying my job and the skiing out here has been great. I’m based in Méribel, the ‘heart of the three valleys’ in France. One of the things that I’ve been happiest about out here is the progress that I’ve made in speaking French, going from a complete beginner to being able to get through quite complicated phone conversations without having to fall back on ‘parlez vous anglais?’.

I’ve also lost all the pizza weight I put on during exam revision for my finals.

I’ll be uploading some photos of the snow and mountains and such as soon as I get a camera lead out here. Until then, adieu!

PS: As an aside, the about page has been updated.

I was surprised when the Office of Fair Trading cleared the merger between Lloyds and HBOS, a move that will create a superbank controlling about 25% of British customers’ personal bank accounts and about 28% of the mortgage market (source: BBC). This would normally cause considerable competition concerns and I think a referral to the Competition Commission may have been appropriate. Paradoxically the banks’ largest competitors may not be worried by the move, as it takes the sector closer to being in a state of oligopoly. With fewer competitors to keep an eye on, the market may become stagnant, making things easier for those who are left and worse for consumers.

The greatest argument for the move was the instability in HBOS, but this is no longer the case and the bank bail-out which followed has stabilised others in the market without the need for mergers. I am unconvinced that the long-term consequences of this action for consumers have been properly weighed against the short-term stability. Tim Leunig of Liberal Democrat Voice argued the merger should not take place earlier this week, and now a legal challenge is to go before the Competition Appeals Tribunal. One to watch.

Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green has been arrested and released on bail in connection with a series of leaks from the Home Office – such leaks being so heinous as to include a list of potential Labour rebels in the 42-days vote and the news that over 5000 illegal immigrants had been cleared to work in the security industry. He was held for nine hours and it seems counter-terrorist police were involved.

None of the information that was leaked is critical to national security. None of it, really, should have been secret in the first place. A part-blinded electorate is not one able to make informed decisions about their governance. New Labour once extolled these virtues in such documents as their White Paper Your Right To Know, the full text of which, ironically, appears unavailable online. As has been seen since however, their commitment to them is questionable.

In response to the news a Downing Street spoken resorted simply to waving the white-flag of ignorance:
“This is a matter for the police. The prime minister had no prior knowledge of the arrest of Mr Green and was only informed after the event.”

In my view this lack of prior knowledge is irrelevant when it comes to blame. The atmosphere that has been created which allowed this to happen – the spread of the fear of terrorism, the broad legislation to counter it and the manner in which New Labour has retreated from a strong free information position – is something that the prime minister is very much aware of and has every responsibility for.

The facts of this story are still not entirely clear – if they are as they appear now, however, the police and the government have plenty of questions to answer.

Further reading

• Michael White has an alternative view on Labour’s responsibility – his comment concludes: “So why do I think the Met acted on its own say-so without prior consultation with Labour ministers? Because I don’t think ministers would be that stupid or short-sighted. They may be in opposition themselves again soon.”

The centrepiece of the Pre-Budget Report the other day was the temporary 2.5% cut in VAT. When it was announced the BBC interviewed someone on the street who, declaring themselves to work in a bank and therefore good with numbers, proceeded to incorrectly explain the cut in VAT. They said the 2.5% cut would mean a saving of £2.50 in £100. The reality is even less worth talking about. In order to save £2.50, you actually have to spend £115.00.

Alistair Darling has cut the rate in order to boost spending, but the amount of money that you and I will save is very small – to enjoy a saving of a fiver we have to spend £230. Don’t get me wrong – I am all for tax cuts, but I do not believe that the cut is significant enough to persuade people to go out spending. This also won’t help with buying Winter essentials including children’s clothing, public transport and food: such items are VAT reduced (5%) or VAT exempt.

The thinking seems to be a fairly offensive “the plebs are stupid enough not to do the maths here”. A poll on the Guardian website suggests otherwise.

To put it in context, retailers are already slashing their prices – faced with a temporary cut in VAT they now have to decide how to deal with it. Russell Lawson, of the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales, calls it more of an administrative burden. Do retailers just calculate the new price using the formula above? That will probably leave them with a messy number – should they cut the price further? I suspect that many will leave their prices as they are and enjoy a slightly wider margin. This remains little consolation if nobody’s buying anything anyway, and of course does nothing for consumers.

What will the cut cost us? Apparently the treasury will lose out on £12bn. The VAT cut is a distinctly expensive, thoroughly soggy, damp squib.

Further reading:

• Call this a cure?
• Key points – at a glance guide to Darling’s measures
• Leaders in ‘VAT bombshell’ clash
• Retailers wrestle with repricing amid doubts that VAT cut will work

The Independent reports that airline pilots may strike rather than be forced to accept a voluntary ID Card.

The article also highlights airline resistance to the scheme; the British Air Transport Association, which represents British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and others, summed up the scheme as a ‘dubious PR initiative by the Government and one that fails to offer any real benefits’.

The Identity and Passport Service were quick to provide this retort, lacking explanation and potentially contradictory:

Identity cards will directly benefit airside workers – not just by improving personnel security, but also by speeding up pre-employment checks and increasing the efficiency of pass-issuing arrangements.

So forcing the card on airside workers will apparently:

1. Improve Personnel Security – As I noted previously these guinea pigs already go through a more stringent security check before they are cleared for working airside. If you’ve got any sort of criminal record you’re a no-go as far as getting a pass is concerned. This does not apply of course if you are a foreign terrorist. You might think tightening that up would be more of a priority.
2. Speed up pre-employment checks – the only way I could see this speeding up pre-employment checks is if you ignore the time it takes to get an ID Card when applying to work airside. But these workers will have to go through the process in addition to current checks, making this a nonsense. The only way this statement can be true is if the ID Card replaces part of the current checks, which (given it requires a less stringent character assessment) would surely reduce security (see point 1)?
3. Make it easier to have a pass reissued – I thought we were improving security (point 1), not making it easier to get a pass airside?

At best, the quote is just nonsense, not argument.

This is becoming increasingly frustrating. Setting the arguments about personal liberty aside, money is being spent every day on putting this scheme in place. Given the likelihood of a Conservative victory at the next general election the scheme seems doomed. This begs the question: who would bid to work on a doomed scheme? I can’t help but worry that any company with any sense would want considerable security in their contract, burdening the country with some of the costs of the scheme even if the Tories bring it to an end. Labour need to drop it now, to do otherwise is the height of irresponsibility.

In related news, the Identity & Passport Service says there will be an additional cost of £29 to the individual on top of the £30 they’d already admitted to. Why has the price doubled? A shocking revelation: the cards will have biometric details on them. I thought that was the whole point, but it apparently hadn’t been costed. The Home Office are keen to stress the cost is an estimate – in such circumstances one suspects that means it’s a conservative one.

In an increasingly tight economic climate, why is Labour still pushing a fixed tax that will hit the poor hard for no real benefit? Is the Party really so far removed from the electorate and its founding principles? How has it got here?

Answers on a postcard (or in the comments box).

I recently managed to go to a fantastic exhibition at the Victoria & Albert Museum called Cold War Modern. I’m interested in both the Cold War and design so it was interesting to see how each affected the other. The competition between East and West drove a period of significant progress and promises of a utopian future, best encapsulated by the race into space. There was a Sputnik replica at the entrance to the exhibition (which I managed to miss and had to go back to see!) as well as lots of other interesting design icons.

It was interesting to see the way the climate had affected design and vice versa: how design had been used to push Western and Eastern ideals. My favourite example from the exhibition was the comparison of Stalinallee in Eastern Berlin with Interbau in the West.

Architecture in Stalinallee, now Karl-Marx-Allee. Photo by Mishkabear.

The architecture of Interbau is different, but with similar objectives. Photo by seier+seier+seier.

The V&A is a fantastic museum in itself and I only saw a small fraction of it whilst there. There’s no charge for admission to the museum, although you need to buy a ticket to get in to the exhibition. Cold War Modern is open until the 11th of January.

We’ve been provided with a new insight into the strange world that Jacqui Smith inhabits today.  The National ID Card Scheme will be available to most punters in 2012, but Smith says Joe the Plumber is even keener than that:

I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don’t want to wait that long.

What strange world does Jacqui inhabit where she meets anybody who wants to pay an extra flat-rate tax for the privilege of being deprived of their liberty? Certainly not one inhabited by airport staff, the poor lot who’ve been selected to volunteer as the scheme’s ‘guinea pigs’ – they found the idea insulting. The logic is a bit confusing: they’re already some of the most stringently vetted people in the country, why should they have to go through a lower-level security check and carry another form of identification?

In other related news, someone has nabbed Jacqui’s biometrics, without resorting to Jack Bauer tactics and taking her arm at the same time. Jacqui could take solace in the fact that her ID Card is ‘fakeproof’, making the biometric data useless. She’d be wrong of course, with the ID Card bearing a striking technological resemblance to the biometric passport, but that hasn’t stopped her yet.

I made an apple pie today with an Apple logo on top. I’m not a nerd, honest!