That nice man, Ian Duncan-Smith, has announced government plans to withhold working tax credits from low-paid workers who go on strike. He says: "It is totally wrong that the current benefit system compensates workers and tops up their income when they go on strike. This is unfair to taxpayers and creates perverse incentives."
The implication is that the low-paid are encouraged to withdraw their labour because there is no financial downside. "Striking is a choice, and in future benefit claimants will have to pay the price for that choice, as under universal credit, we no longer will." There is, of course, absolutely no evidence that the low-paid are strike-happy. The loss of earnings while on strike will be greater than the top-ups in almost all cases, so the claim that there is an incentive is specious. Industrial action has always been more prevalent among better-paid, skilled workers who tend to be more unionised and less easily replaceable. The low-paid are often the most reluctant to strike as they have little leverage and no financial resilience.
The ideological bent of this announcement is indicated by the use of the terms "incentive" and "choice". IDS's contention that strikers will have to "pay the price for that choice" paints them as rational actors, weighing up the marginal utility of strike action in much the same way that they would weigh up the purchase of a new pair of shoes. This ignores the reality that most strike action is defensive and reactive in nature, prompted by employer initiatives such as cuts in real wages and lay-offs. Workers don't go on strike because they're bored.
Working tax credits exist to top up the wages of the low-paid who would otherwise be in working poverty. They have the effect of being a "perverse incentive" for employers to pay close to the minimum wage for low-skill jobs, as they know the state will make up the difference between that and a living wage. The state is thereby "topping up" the income of the employer every working day. They also perversely insulate employers from the effects of low productivity, which means they effectively undermine capital investment. Falling productivity is offset by falling real wages, which are in turn subsidised by tax credits.
The Tory proposal is not going to lead to mass starvation. The tax credit top-ups are small beer in relative terms and the number of low-paid workers that will be affected (and can afford to strike) is tiny. The significance is the ideological message that underpins this "mean-spirited" gesture. This is part of the wider programme to shift welfare from universal entitlement (a right) to personal eligibility (a reciprocal obligation).
As we saw with the threat of benefit withdrawal for the unemployed who refused unpaid work experience, the approach is inevitably prescriptive: thou shalt and thou shalt not. Your behaviour is the issue, not the lack of jobs or the prevalence of low pay. We already know the Mandatory Work Activity programme doesn't actually work, in terms of getting people into jobs, but this isn't going to cause a rethink. This latest initiative doesn't even bother to claim a desirable outcome for the affected. The ostensible goal is to protect the interests of taxpayers, a body that IDS seems to assume does not include workers on low pay.
The irony is that a party that has traditionally privileged the private over the public has found itself advocating increasing scrutiny of, and interference in, the private lives of the people. Your demand on the public purse will be judged as being worthy or unworthy based on your private behaviour, not on your social circumstances. Withdrawing your labour, which is a private contractual dispute with your employer, will result in a public penalty.
There is an argument to be made that the state should never subsidise employment, that it should always allow the labour market to achieve equilibrium, but this means it shouldn't pay working tax credits or similar subsidies under any circumstances, nor should it countenance a minimum wage. The Tories are not proposing this yet, but that leaves them arguing a case that is hypocritical. Employers who pay crap wages will continue to be subsidised, and now their employees are further discouraged from striking over pay. Meanwhile the private behaviour of the unemployed and low-paid will be subject to ever more humiliating inspection.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Saturday, 16 June 2012
Unleash the O'Walcott
And so New Ireland continue to prosper, besting the mighty, bearded Swedes (well, Olof Mellberg) with three fine goals from Andy Carroll, The O'Walcott and Danny "boy" Wellbeck. It's like Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf all over again. That Zlatan Ibrahimovic would look just dandy in a wolf-trimmed cloak with a raven on his shoulder, sneering as a scampering Seb Larsson offered up the mead horn.
Given the number of current and former EPL players on the pitch, not to mention the dodgy level of technique of what are two ordinary sides even by their own standards, the game was unsurprisingly one long string of errors: misplaced passes, blind-alley runs, falling over when tackled. But we shouldn't just focus on Ashley Young and James Milner. The defending by both teams was relegation quality.
With the final round of group games starting today, now is a good time to review progress in Rob Baillie's fine online prediction game. Yesterday was particularly good to me as I'd predicted 0-2 for Ukraine-France and 1-3 for Sweden-England, thus netting 16 out of a possible 20 points. I'm currently in 2nd place out of a field of 74, which means this is probably as high as I'll get and the only way now is down. Had it not been for Mellberg's second goal I might have gone top. Naturally I blame John Terry, who looks increasingly poor (seeing the languid Ibrahimovic skin him was hilarious).
My "system" to date is based on three simple principles (in addition to a lot of luck):
Footballistically speaking, Spain, Germany and Russia all look good bets for the last four, but the final shuffling of the pack this coming week could throw up some tricky quarter-finals. Holland still have an outside chance, and France look like they can improve. Assuming they don't self-destruct against Ukraine, England will probably lose to Spain in the first knockout match. Their best hope is for France to drop points against Sweden and for Italy to fail to beat Ireland, which could set up a tie with a beatable Croatia. Bilic & co would certainly be wary of Theo.
Given the number of current and former EPL players on the pitch, not to mention the dodgy level of technique of what are two ordinary sides even by their own standards, the game was unsurprisingly one long string of errors: misplaced passes, blind-alley runs, falling over when tackled. But we shouldn't just focus on Ashley Young and James Milner. The defending by both teams was relegation quality.
With the final round of group games starting today, now is a good time to review progress in Rob Baillie's fine online prediction game. Yesterday was particularly good to me as I'd predicted 0-2 for Ukraine-France and 1-3 for Sweden-England, thus netting 16 out of a possible 20 points. I'm currently in 2nd place out of a field of 74, which means this is probably as high as I'll get and the only way now is down. Had it not been for Mellberg's second goal I might have gone top. Naturally I blame John Terry, who looks increasingly poor (seeing the languid Ibrahimovic skin him was hilarious).
My "system" to date is based on three simple principles (in addition to a lot of luck):
- I made all my predictions for the group stage games in one go, ahead of the tournament. I suspect some people changed theirs after the first round of games. The old pub-quiz maxim applies here: "go with your first answer".
- I (largely) ignored recent form and went with the historical record between the teams. This psychological precedent tends to come to the fore in tournaments. For example, Germany-Holland games are usually decided by a single goal.
- I assumed the tired old cliches would hold good, thus the opening game would be a low-scoring draw, England would do enough to make the third game matter (they can still blow it), Italy would dice with death, and Germany would get better by the game.
Footballistically speaking, Spain, Germany and Russia all look good bets for the last four, but the final shuffling of the pack this coming week could throw up some tricky quarter-finals. Holland still have an outside chance, and France look like they can improve. Assuming they don't self-destruct against Ukraine, England will probably lose to Spain in the first knockout match. Their best hope is for France to drop points against Sweden and for Italy to fail to beat Ireland, which could set up a tie with a beatable Croatia. Bilic & co would certainly be wary of Theo.
Friday, 15 June 2012
Euro crisis deepens
Ireland are now out of the European Championships. Defeat against Spain was always likely, but the margin of 4 goals has surprised some, despite the boys in green shipping 3 against Croatia. In truth, Ireland were always likely to be found out come the tournament. Most of their players are second division in terms of quality, and the better ones are past their best. Richard Dunne against Iniesta is always going to look like an encounter between a bull and a matador, and we know how that usually turns out.
Ireland's record in qualifying is a little misleading. The heroic goalless draw in Moscow is cited as the key game, but in fact it was close victories over Armenia (1-0 and 2-1) that secured the qualifying spot. Not only were the matches generally tight (they only managed an aggregate 5-1 over two games against Andorra), but you need to factor in the state of the pitch, which has often been Ireland's 12th man. The Spanish complained about the Gdansk pitch after their draw with Italy, and while I don't know if any action was taken, the surface looked a lot slicker last night, hence the repeated slips by Irish players. The pitch in Poznan against Croatia also looked decent.
Ireland did well to qualify. The fans knew that and enjoyed the craic while it lasted. Next time they really ought to invest in a sack of moles and smuggle them in under their leprechaun hats. The 2014 World Cup qualifying group looks a shoe-in for Germany, leaving Ireland to struggle with Sweden and Austria for a play-off place. Should they squeak through, they'll be forced to play on a close-mown pitch under the Brazilian sun. About as far from a wet cow field as you can get.
Thoughts now turn to the new Ireland, i.e. England. The word-up is that Andy Carroll is going to lead the attack, though the rumour that he'll be dressed as a crusader carrying a battering ram is probably wide of the mark. Given how poor the Swedish defence looked against the famously slow Shevchencko, I have a feeling that Roy's back-to-basics plan may actually work. The key will be the quality of the crosses. Who knows, Stewart Downing may get his first assist of the season.
On the Arsenal front, it occurred to me watching Germany the other night that Podolski may have been signed as the new Ljungberg. Though he's been quiet so far, he covers a lot of ground and looks to make the diagonal runs into the box that were the trademark of the occasionally red-haired Swede. RvP's ability to pick out a pass in the area is well known, so the German may be earmarked for a wide berth on the left. Now we just need a new Ray Parlour.
Ireland's record in qualifying is a little misleading. The heroic goalless draw in Moscow is cited as the key game, but in fact it was close victories over Armenia (1-0 and 2-1) that secured the qualifying spot. Not only were the matches generally tight (they only managed an aggregate 5-1 over two games against Andorra), but you need to factor in the state of the pitch, which has often been Ireland's 12th man. The Spanish complained about the Gdansk pitch after their draw with Italy, and while I don't know if any action was taken, the surface looked a lot slicker last night, hence the repeated slips by Irish players. The pitch in Poznan against Croatia also looked decent.
Ireland did well to qualify. The fans knew that and enjoyed the craic while it lasted. Next time they really ought to invest in a sack of moles and smuggle them in under their leprechaun hats. The 2014 World Cup qualifying group looks a shoe-in for Germany, leaving Ireland to struggle with Sweden and Austria for a play-off place. Should they squeak through, they'll be forced to play on a close-mown pitch under the Brazilian sun. About as far from a wet cow field as you can get.
Thoughts now turn to the new Ireland, i.e. England. The word-up is that Andy Carroll is going to lead the attack, though the rumour that he'll be dressed as a crusader carrying a battering ram is probably wide of the mark. Given how poor the Swedish defence looked against the famously slow Shevchencko, I have a feeling that Roy's back-to-basics plan may actually work. The key will be the quality of the crosses. Who knows, Stewart Downing may get his first assist of the season.
On the Arsenal front, it occurred to me watching Germany the other night that Podolski may have been signed as the new Ljungberg. Though he's been quiet so far, he covers a lot of ground and looks to make the diagonal runs into the box that were the trademark of the occasionally red-haired Swede. RvP's ability to pick out a pass in the area is well known, so the German may be earmarked for a wide berth on the left. Now we just need a new Ray Parlour.
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Big data means big money
The Draft Communications Data Bill has been greeted as a charter for "online snooping" by its critics, who have in their turn been accused by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, of being "conspiracy theorists", though she didn't specify which theory she had in mind. Perhaps a cross between The Matrix and the Illuminati.
The Web is now 20 years old (measured from Mosaic, the first GUI browser) but lawyers are still trying to get their heads around it. The draft bill is an open admission that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) of 2000, which also caused a "snooping" furore, was inadequate. The preamble to the new bill states:
Communications technologies and services are changing fast with more communications taking place on the internet using a wider range of services, including voice over internet, online gaming and instant messaging. Communications data from these technologies is not as accessible as data from older communications systems like ‘fixed line’ telephones. Although some internet data is already stored by communication service providers, other data is neither generated nor obtained because providers have no business need for it.
The bill centres on communications data, which is more properly defined as meta-data. In other words, who called whom when, rather than the content of the conversation. Back in the day, this meant data on calls made between phone numbers. In the case of the Internet, this means IP addresses, URLs, message headers etc. The purpose is to establish relationships - who is consorting with whom. This can provide sufficient justification for a more intrusive investigation, such as a wire-tap or the handing-over of emails, to be sanctioned by a warrant.
A real concern should be whether the pattern of relationships displayed by Internet data means the same as it would in the case of telephone data. In other words, are we simply taking an existing paradigm forward unthinkingly? Phone calls generally do reveal "known associates", but it's less obvious that tweets or blog comments do the same.
A lot of random stuff happens online, largely because you are following a chain of hyperlinks rather than making a single point-to-point connection. Apparently deliberate activity is effectively directed by the content rather than by you, and that's without considering automated pop-ups. This means a huge volume of insignificant noise. While a lot of this can be filtered out, there are likely to be many more false positives compared to telephone data where wrong numbers are the only real issue.
The other side of this is shown by the Google Street View brouhaha, where the commercial desire to record wi-fi hotspots resulted in scanning unencrypted transient data. This is held up by some as evidence that Google may really be evil at heart, or is even used as a roundabout defence of press phone-hacking. The correct reading is that the world is awash in data and most people are unaware that what they think is private is actually public. Boundary issues like this, where companies or governments blunder over the line, will become more common. As ever, cock-up is more prevalent than conspiracy.
The last sentence in the above preamble is interesting. Communication service providers (e.g. ISPs) may have "no business need" for data on who consorts with whom but application service providers (e.g. Facebook) certainly do. This however falls into the realm of content as the relationships have been defined by the user rather than being an inference from communication. The draft bill is assuming that technology will allow the meta-data and content to be separated, though the distinction is increasingly blurred. Is a "like" content or communications data?
The planned data harvesting and analysis infrastructure is expected to cost £1.8bn over 10 years. The obvious concern is the cost, which will undoubtedly prove an underestimate - it's a government IT project, after all. A greater concern should be the assumption that a system can built now in confident anticipation of the service landscape in 2023. The risk is that the cost balloons while the solution fails to keep pace with evolving technology. We end up with an expensive white elephant.
In practice the world of digital communications is too extensive and volatile for any massive surveillance infrastructure to be very effective, despite the claims being made now for "big data". The cheap availability of communication tools and media is so central to the modern economy that this is unlikely to change, and that in turn means there will always be easy ways to circumvent surveillance. In this respect both Theresa May and many of her critics are victims of the same anachronistic delusion, applying the "Orwellian" paradigm to a post-Orwellian world.
Perhaps this is deliberate. Perhaps the real purpose of all this talk of the competing needs of counter-terrorism and privacy is to distract from a project that will transfer billions of pounds of public money to consultancies, systems providers and network operators, at a time when we're meant to be cutting our cloth. Now that's a credible conspiracy theory.
The Web is now 20 years old (measured from Mosaic, the first GUI browser) but lawyers are still trying to get their heads around it. The draft bill is an open admission that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) of 2000, which also caused a "snooping" furore, was inadequate. The preamble to the new bill states:
Communications technologies and services are changing fast with more communications taking place on the internet using a wider range of services, including voice over internet, online gaming and instant messaging. Communications data from these technologies is not as accessible as data from older communications systems like ‘fixed line’ telephones. Although some internet data is already stored by communication service providers, other data is neither generated nor obtained because providers have no business need for it.
The bill centres on communications data, which is more properly defined as meta-data. In other words, who called whom when, rather than the content of the conversation. Back in the day, this meant data on calls made between phone numbers. In the case of the Internet, this means IP addresses, URLs, message headers etc. The purpose is to establish relationships - who is consorting with whom. This can provide sufficient justification for a more intrusive investigation, such as a wire-tap or the handing-over of emails, to be sanctioned by a warrant.
A real concern should be whether the pattern of relationships displayed by Internet data means the same as it would in the case of telephone data. In other words, are we simply taking an existing paradigm forward unthinkingly? Phone calls generally do reveal "known associates", but it's less obvious that tweets or blog comments do the same.
A lot of random stuff happens online, largely because you are following a chain of hyperlinks rather than making a single point-to-point connection. Apparently deliberate activity is effectively directed by the content rather than by you, and that's without considering automated pop-ups. This means a huge volume of insignificant noise. While a lot of this can be filtered out, there are likely to be many more false positives compared to telephone data where wrong numbers are the only real issue.
The other side of this is shown by the Google Street View brouhaha, where the commercial desire to record wi-fi hotspots resulted in scanning unencrypted transient data. This is held up by some as evidence that Google may really be evil at heart, or is even used as a roundabout defence of press phone-hacking. The correct reading is that the world is awash in data and most people are unaware that what they think is private is actually public. Boundary issues like this, where companies or governments blunder over the line, will become more common. As ever, cock-up is more prevalent than conspiracy.
The last sentence in the above preamble is interesting. Communication service providers (e.g. ISPs) may have "no business need" for data on who consorts with whom but application service providers (e.g. Facebook) certainly do. This however falls into the realm of content as the relationships have been defined by the user rather than being an inference from communication. The draft bill is assuming that technology will allow the meta-data and content to be separated, though the distinction is increasingly blurred. Is a "like" content or communications data?
The planned data harvesting and analysis infrastructure is expected to cost £1.8bn over 10 years. The obvious concern is the cost, which will undoubtedly prove an underestimate - it's a government IT project, after all. A greater concern should be the assumption that a system can built now in confident anticipation of the service landscape in 2023. The risk is that the cost balloons while the solution fails to keep pace with evolving technology. We end up with an expensive white elephant.
In practice the world of digital communications is too extensive and volatile for any massive surveillance infrastructure to be very effective, despite the claims being made now for "big data". The cheap availability of communication tools and media is so central to the modern economy that this is unlikely to change, and that in turn means there will always be easy ways to circumvent surveillance. In this respect both Theresa May and many of her critics are victims of the same anachronistic delusion, applying the "Orwellian" paradigm to a post-Orwellian world.
Perhaps this is deliberate. Perhaps the real purpose of all this talk of the competing needs of counter-terrorism and privacy is to distract from a project that will transfer billions of pounds of public money to consultancies, systems providers and network operators, at a time when we're meant to be cutting our cloth. Now that's a credible conspiracy theory.
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Arshavin: like a new signing
Patrice Evra reckons England have morphed into Chelsea. This is profoundly wrong. England are the new Ireland: disciplined, hard to beat, lacking flair. Meanwhile Ireland appear to have turned into Celtic, struggling in the Europa League on a Thursday night.
Now that the first round of games has finished, the smart money is moving towards Russia. Apart from being a good team, they have the advantage of being in an otherwise weak group. Assuming they go through as winners of Group A, they'll probably face either Holland or Portugal as the runners-up to Germany in Group B. Victory would set them up for a likely semi-final against Spain in Donetsk, which is practically home territory for the Russians.
Italy look good enough to join Spain in escaping Group C, so long as they don't lose to Croatia on Thursday. Group D looks the most unpredictable. A win for any team on Friday is likely to be crucial. In other words, if one of England or France fail to win, then they may well be facing an early return home.
For an Arsenal fan, the performances have been mixed. Szczesny and RvP won't he happy so far, and the young Pole may worry he'll not get another chance this tournament. Arshavin has predictably found his mojo once more while Rosicky has looked dangerous in flashes. The Ox has looked capable of making a difference, while still being callow and positionally suspect at times. Bendtner looks like a Sunderland player.
The predicted racism has been muted so far. Tournament crowds tend to be better-behaved than hardcore fans (i.e. more middle class), so extrapolating from ultras at a league match was always questionable. It should also be borne in mind that the tournament serves up plenty of nation-defining rivalries (I'm watching Poland vs Russia as I write this), so chucking bananas is likely to be seen as a bit infra dig. Let's hope it stays that way. The acid test will come if a black English player scores the goal that puts Ukraine out.
Tomorrow's Holland-Germany game looks like it could be a cracker.
Now that the first round of games has finished, the smart money is moving towards Russia. Apart from being a good team, they have the advantage of being in an otherwise weak group. Assuming they go through as winners of Group A, they'll probably face either Holland or Portugal as the runners-up to Germany in Group B. Victory would set them up for a likely semi-final against Spain in Donetsk, which is practically home territory for the Russians.
Italy look good enough to join Spain in escaping Group C, so long as they don't lose to Croatia on Thursday. Group D looks the most unpredictable. A win for any team on Friday is likely to be crucial. In other words, if one of England or France fail to win, then they may well be facing an early return home.
For an Arsenal fan, the performances have been mixed. Szczesny and RvP won't he happy so far, and the young Pole may worry he'll not get another chance this tournament. Arshavin has predictably found his mojo once more while Rosicky has looked dangerous in flashes. The Ox has looked capable of making a difference, while still being callow and positionally suspect at times. Bendtner looks like a Sunderland player.
The predicted racism has been muted so far. Tournament crowds tend to be better-behaved than hardcore fans (i.e. more middle class), so extrapolating from ultras at a league match was always questionable. It should also be borne in mind that the tournament serves up plenty of nation-defining rivalries (I'm watching Poland vs Russia as I write this), so chucking bananas is likely to be seen as a bit infra dig. Let's hope it stays that way. The acid test will come if a black English player scores the goal that puts Ukraine out.
Tomorrow's Holland-Germany game looks like it could be a cracker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)