manshimajin

One thing that concerned me at the time was the case of an officer of a bank on the Island who was caught on video advising a Northern Irish couple that they were wise to hide their income from the UK tax authorities. The couple both got substantial jail terms. I wrote to the then Minister of Finance to ask what actions had been taken in relation to the bank official. The reply was that he had not been prosecuted but that 'he had left the Island'. It seemed a very weak way of demonstrating financial probity.

"The Ghost" which I found to my surprise to be quite good - except for the ending which IMO seemed very contrived.

Lu Chuan's "City of Life & Death". Story of the Japanese "rape of Nanking". Amazing direction. Harrowing in the extreme. A of one of the less harrowing scenes.

But of course...do the blindingly obvious...but where they want others to go, lead by personal example...

Well Dr Dave - a curate's egg if ever there was one - right in parts. Always good to raise government conspiracy theories. A lot ('every' may be an exaggeration) do appear to see global warming as an excuse to raise a new 'moral' form of tax (particularly now when they are so indebted) rather than to go hell for leather to cut consumption and thus reduce tax and reinforce the 3% global reduction in CO2 achieved in the last 12 months due to the recession (oops economic downturn). However IMO this is not because of any conspiracy but because of their hypocrisy and stupidity. IF they ploughed all of the money back into climate and energy research and development plus issues such as public transport their credibility would be much greater. I suspect for example revenue raising may be one of the reasons the Green Party in Ireland voted this year to INCREASE speed limits for vehicles on dual carriageways by 20% - so they use more petrol, create more CO2 and so they pay more carbon tax. Is this part of a 'global conspiracy' or just plain ridiculous insincerity from some sanctimonious didacts? At the same time if politicians were truly sincere about man-made global warming they would legislate for themselves and all public servants to reduce air travel, sell or scrap the state jets, travel in Economy because it creates less CO2 than Business or First Classes, travel second class in trains and not (as in the UK) have second houses in London - but stay in energy efficient hostels. In Europe the EU would close the Strasbourg Parliament building (or use it for something else) to avoid the very high CO2 impact of the Parliment going to and from Brussels with all the MEPs, their staff and all the files for one week every month accompanied by the European media etc etc... Sorry to say, however, that the stupidity and hypocrisy of politicians does not prove that global warming is not happening and that man-made pollutants are contributing to it. It just proves that we are often governed by self-interested charlatans.

Apparently Al Gore will only fly economy now on domestic and international flights, catches the bus or train from the airport to town, stays in a little hotel without 'luxury' (ie power hungry) facilities such as pools and gyms, carries his own bag and refuses to have any bodyguards travel with him. If only all politicians and ex politicians would do the same to set a leadership example. If only they'd stop preaching energy efficiency in the EU whilst moving the EU Parliament every month from Brussels to Strasbourg and back. (BTW - can anyone explain to me how the 'carbon offset' system works - as I understand it you pollute the atmosphere with carbon today and justify you actions and salve your conscience by saying you have arranged for a tree to be planted that will soak up an equivalent amount of carbon in about 25 years time when it has grown to a decent size - that is of course if all the carbon you have pumped out today hasn't destroyed the world in 25 years time). I understood that the whole idea was to stop pumping too much CO2 out over the next 10 years - not to offset it sometime in the mid term future.)

Heard an interesting and somewhat concerning interview on RTE this morning about carbon taxes. The Minister for Finance in Ireland is facing some very difficult choices on how to manage the balance between cutting costs and raising revenue. Fundamentally he does not want to raise the top rate of tax for the wealthiest people in Ireland. Instead he is seeing a carbon tax as a good alternative for raising revenue. Now I am not against CTs per se but it is rather clear that some (maybe most?) politicians do not see them as a way of reducing emissions but as a way of increasing government income through manipulating the excise duty stream. There will be those who argue that it is a good thing to bring in these taxes whatever the motivation of the politicians. IMO this really misses the point of carbon taxes. If they simply go into the general revenue stream (like road taxes eventually did), as an easier alternative to increasing higher rates of income tax when the financial going is tough, what are the chances that politicians will deliver on much better public transport, alternative energy, nuclear power, re-aforestation etc etc...Will the money from CT just go 'down the drain' in terms of improving the environment? I don't think that this is just an Irish problem either. IMO introducing carbon taxes should be seen as part of a long term environmental programme - not simply another easy option for getting more money from taxpayers.

So what do you want to happen? As Dave said, this has been widely reported but good news doesn't make headlines, so you don't see so much of it. Bother - wrote a reply but failed to post it....grrrr In the first place I do not believe one reference to coverage exactly adds up to 'widely reported'. As you say Slim 'good news does not make headlines'. Does this actually mean that negative news makes the headlines so that on this issue the general public are only being fed the bad news? I personally believe that the general public must be involved much more and on an adult/adult basis not a parent/child basis which seems to be happening too much. What do I want to happen. Firstly, I would like to see the general public made much more aware of the reduction in CO2 emissions that have happened and the reasons why. I do not believe that the general public are at all well informed on this matter at present. Given that the link between consumption and CO2 emissions is central to the current issues IMO it is important to bring people into the picture sooner rather than later. Secondly I would like politicians and environmentalists to be asked more questions by the media that would push them into commenting on how they plan to capitalise on the advances already made rather than losing them - "Mr Brown, now that UK CO2 emissions have fallen by 9% what is your policy to sustain this achievement?", "Mr Brown, how do you plan to reconcile your policies on stimulation with the dramatic fall in UK CO2 emissions that have happened due to the reduction in GDP?" Thirdly, related to this, given the facts of CO2 reduction being achieved at present, I would like to see politicians being required to enter into much more mature and informative public discussion about the economic and social future they are planning. Fourthly, it would make much more sense in the debate on carbon taxes if there was some linkage between the beneficial effects of reduced consumption as demonstrated by the current achievements and the consumption reduction aims of carbon taxes. Fifthly a mature debate on the implications in developed countries of reducing consumption - we have dropped into this situation, albeit with very significant beneficial results for the environment, but if we are going to sustain a lower consumption model we need to be discussing not only shrinking ice caps but also the way work will be structured, wages policy, affordable social welfare, import/export policies, industrial investment strategies, wider EU industrial policies etc etc... This will be a difficult issue to deal with given peoples' past expectations of continuous wealth increase and continuous growth in personal consumption. All the more reason for making the public aware of how much progress has been made in reducing CO2 emissions due to the economic ituation. Hopefully I'll hit the right button this time - BTW if the Dubai crisis expands into a second wave economic crisis we may be reducing CO2 emissions even further by default!

So we don't draw people's attention to it because it does not fit in with the environmentlists views of what should happen. Come on now. We should be drawing peoples' attention to progress and how it is being achieved even if it does not fit in with the longer term changes that have to occur. It is all part of the education and action process and the need for the general public* to undestand the real issue that the environment can't take ever increasing consumption with an ever increasing population. I know it is a much harder issue than wind farms and tidal energy but dealing with it is the factor that makes dramatic rather than marginal changes to emissions (as has already been demonstrated with the 9% drop in CO2 emissions in the UK). Unless this matter is focused on and the positive benefits publicised your last sentence will continue to be the case as politicians will continue to dodge this fundamental point. *PS: if you happen to believe that the general public already understand this issue I have serious doubts that they do. Slightly tangential but this week an opinion survey came out in the UK that shows that the general public there don't understand that revenue cuts and tax increases will be needed to pay for the UK government massive borrowings - if they don't understand something as obvoius as that then what chance they understand the connection between their personal consumption demands and environmental damage? Not a Sun reader topic.

The ISSUE is not that reduction in economic activity reduces CO2 emissions per se but that thanks to the current situation we have the chance according to the IEA to: Surely this is one of the most important and vital messages that has emerged about managing our environmental emission problems in the last 12 years however 'basic' it may be. If a potential 5% cut in CO2 emissions relative to 2020 targets is "no surprise" and a "pretty basic principle" why is not top of the action list for environmentalists and politicians? Why is it not a topic that keeps coming up on radio and TV programmes. Why is it not a topic of conversation in pubs? So much about CO2 reduction is down to very "basic principles" that people are trying to ram home such as food miles, transport and shipping emissions, meat production, overseas holidays, fossil fuel power generation etc etc Despite the fact that this is the one that seems to be delivering actual progress it also seems to be slipping through to the keeper without the serious debate which is needed. And despite being an unsurprising basic principle to you its implications for society are huge. Perhaps the reality is that people are scared stiff of this issue for all sorts of vested reasons, and along with population it is another 'elephant in the room'.

I agree with you, and the drop justifies all sorts of policies I support, higher fuel taxes, more prohibitive VED, legislation on packaging, reduction in food miles, etc. I don't understand what you're complaining about though, the drops are part of the kyoto commitment, and they'll be taken into consideration, but they're still not, in the main, on target. A target that's not low enough. Slim, just in case you don't get the point let me quote from the International Energy Agency in October 2009: The IEA for your information is very strongly supportive of climate control action and will not have chosen these words lightly. Now I realise that the environmental evangelists don't really like positive news but an opportunity like this should be publicised widely and politicians be required to take advantage of it. Is it high on the agenda in Copenhagen? If not, why not? We have environmentalists and politicians doomsaying every day but the latter at least wanting to push industrial emissions right back up to where they were. And you query why I am concerned that the biggest cut in emissions for 40 years and a 5% fall in 2020 emissions (and the reasons for it) is not getting much publicity. The implications need be debated openly in public and the consequences on employment, consumption and lifestyle properly considered. With due respect Slim it is not good enough to say you support higher fuel taxes, more prohibitive VED, legislation on packaging, reduction in food miles, etc. For people to support your ideas (or mine for that matter) the public need to know that economic sacrifices are ALREADY bringing enormous benefits - to motivate them to go further. I would find it peculiar if you did not think that emissions being 5% lower in 2020 than previously forecast is worth mentioning loudly or that you were not in favour of public debate about how to maintain this progress. Or are you a person who believes that if people are told good news they and their politicians will squander the opportunities prsented by it? FMP I am a positive person who believes that opportunities must be seized not quietly ignored.

I don't buy that, take Kyoto as an example. France is compliant, and has done so without carbon taxing, but by shutting down it's fossil fuel power stations and going fully nuclear. Norway is achieving compliance through refostestion, not carbon taxing. This stuff isn't desirable for governments, they're trying their hardest to dodge their responsibilities. It's a hard sell, like any long term strategy. Who's hidden agenda? How on earth is it possible to hide an agenda of this scale? Emissions are down, I don't think anyones arguing that point, but so's growth. When growth returns, so will the emissions, so this blip has really got nothing to do with the long term policy. Firstly Slim France was pushing ahead with nuclear energy long before the climate issues came to the forefront - in part for their own use and prestige and in part as a major export industry - so there is a huge amount of serendipity in the way they have realigned their power generation. Pleased to hear about Norway - comes back to what I said earlier about the denuding of European forests over the last 500 years being on a much bigger scale than the destruction of the Brazilian rainforests. But the UK government is promoting nuclear modernisation because there is ultimately no alternative if they want to keep lights burning not because of 'greening'. And I hear nothing about reaforestation on a major scale in the UK. Secondly you miss the point on the massive reduction in emissions in the UK. Of course this is due to the decline in consumption and economic activity. But a 9% drop is huge. How much publicity has this had???? Square root of b...all as far as I can see. Why is such a big achievement (for whatever reason) not being shouted from the rooftops? IMO because it suits neither the governmet's agenda (need to stimulate the high consumption economy to pay for the high cost state) nor the 'green' agenda (it takes attention away from their own ideas and hobby-horses). Surely this achievement should be one of the key 'planks' of discussion in Copenhagen - will it be???? My argument is that if there has been a global 3% reduction and a local 9% reduction we should be discussing this alongside all the other factors and options. It clearly points out that the most effective way to achieve dramatic declines in emission is through reducing the levels of consumerism/consumption. How lifestyles and work practices should be adjusted to allow this to happen seems to me to be an important part of the debate alongside wind turbines and wave power.

That's totally backwards. This is a hard sell to governments, they're signing up very relucantly and there's been lots of empty promises and not much action. The cash generated from emission reductions is nothing compared to that generated by unchecked industrial growth. Yes governments are signing up reluctantly to ACTION. However they are very forthcoming with WORDS and PLATITUDES. It still makes me wonder if the agenda of many governments (as opposed to scientists and environmenalists) is to pave the way for carbon taxes because they desperately need new sources of revenue due to economic stagnation and can cloak this money raising under the banner of 'environmental action'. If this is their hidden agenda then, for example, they don't want to let it be known that UK CO2 emissions are down 9% in the last 12 months according to IEA (due almost entirely to the consequences of reduced consumer/industrial activity). IMO motivating the masses by focusing on the negatives is treating people like children. We need not only to say what the challenges are but to recognise and build on success stories as well where these are happening.

In terms of 'censoring' news I really did find it fascinating that the biggest fall in CO2 emissions in 40 years (as announced by the IEA recently) got nearly zero coverage even though in the UK it apparently amounted to a 9% p.a. cut in CO2 emissions (3% globally)! Of course those in government may not want to let people know that their very effective economic policy of creating a recession has very positive environmental effects. Far better to try and re-stimulate the economy, increase CO2 emissions and then introduce a 'carbon tax' in order to say we are controlling pollution by tax!!!! The unpalatable reality is that if 'man made' industrial growth has caused the environmental problems industrial retraction is needed to help their recovery. ...and then we have the Irish Greens voting for increasing speed limits in Ireland on a swag of roads - to increase fuel consumption, raise more tax and excise, increase pollution and give a justification for a carbon tax at a time when CO2 emissions in Ireland will have dropped by even more than the UK (based on the way the Irish economy has fallen off a cliff). Could it just be that at a time of economic collapse staying in government is more important to them than dealing with the environmental problems ? Anyway two random thoughts: Why do environmentalists carry on so much about cutting down of the 'rain forests'? I have not heard one of them point out that the biggest destruction of forests has been in Europe over the past 500 years. Maybe we should be re-establishing the European forests in our own backyard rather than telling the Brazilians what to do? On the BBC the other day there was a 'good news' item about the shrinking Arctic ice. Apparently this has encouraged a massive increase in algae which firstly absorbs large amounts of CO2 and secondly is stimulating a growth in fish stocks in the region at a rate that hasn't been observed before.

Don't panic Captain Mainwaring - Macquarie shares were only temporarily suspended ahead of their annual profit announcement. They made less than previous years - just under A$1 billion profit. Thank goodness RBS doesn't own the IOMSPC...

..and with the pension income tax free ...mind you if you have a decent private pension then there is none of this UK style 'I'll have a state pension too' business.

????

The opening credits from one of the best, and most irreverential WW II movies ever - great theme song too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS0eeaOI01E...feature=related and that bit of driving through the puddle - surely Eastwood learned his rainy day driving skills on the Island! After all he's Kelly!

I think it was 'High Noon' on BBC Television Christmas 1958. Those were the days - Xmas after Xmas Gary Cooper strutted his stuff down the Main Street as it was the only film the BBC owned...

Yes, if only we were as sophisticated as those across the water in the North-west of England. Towns like Heysham, Blackburn and Blackpool are truly admired throughout the World. To add to your list, Salford also has the reputation of being a sophisticated mix of Rome, Paris and Vienna. I would favour a tunnel as we would not get blown off it in the Winter.

Thanks for that. Clearly avoiding the key question: 8) Do you think 4 million pounds of public money is justified on this single junction? Well in fairness 5,6 and 7 all look ready for a big juicy 'No' if people wanted to...

What happened to them? They got elected... The only sanction that the hoi poloi have is NOT to elect them next time round. Of course most will get re-elected anyway so they get the message 'you can promise whatever you like and then do whatever you want and nothing bad ever happens to you'. It is what is called democracy.... It's only if you do something really stupid such as the UK Labour Party abolition of the 10% tax rate that MPs (MHKs) panic. I wonder if we will still have the same political system in 50 years time given the rapid changes in communication technologies and the much greater awareness the unwashed masses are getting about how the system works? Maybe politicians will have to ban fora... Back to the roundabout....

Is that why the DoT have paid so much attention to assisting safe pedestrian movement in their QB design? (this is meant as irony....). as far as I can see their crayon drawing does not show anything to help little old ladies, children and everyone else to get across the road. Assume they are worried that if they put in crossings or lights it would slow the traffic. The Dot are a solution in search of a problem.

Of course, as you realised, I made a deliberate mistake! The cost of the 4 prangs are not picked up by the Government (meaning the population in general) but by motor insurers. Goodness knows what that does to the payback period. Also the DoTty Roundabout will reduce air pollution at the QB and relocate it into more populated areas in Douglas. I attach what could possibly be a photographic likeness of the the Dot Director of Highways, Mr B W Hannay If only Mr Hannay understood the theory of relativity - the relative merits of spending an unbelievable £4 million on an unnecessary roundabout versus doing something really useful for the citizens of the IOM with our money.

Gladys, what common sense - DOT read the comments here! But how do we get them to do this - and more importantly how to get the debate into the public forum where the DoT have to respond....? The UK Department of Transport did some work in 1999 on the cost of accidents. http://www.hse.gov.uk/ria/road/riaroad.pdf Now if you use their figures one comes to the following conclusion - the average cost of a 'damage only' (ie slight) accident was £1,309. Assuming 5% p.a. inflation the cost by 2010 would be a bit under £1,400 per accident. So IF the magic roundabout saved 4 slight accidents a year it would save £5600 p.a. The economic payback period would therefore be (assuming no future accidents) 715 years. To be fair to the DoT I have not built in inflation into that calculation!!!! so it may be as little as 500 years. As far as I can tell from comments on the thread the £4 million investment would not atually have a major beneficial impact on commuting times into Douglas as it would shift most of the traffic jam from QB to somewhere else. I think the DoT have a very strong economic case!!!! (irony for those who are too literal). Could the DoT PLEASE produce their economic argument in favour of this use of our Taxpayer funds and could MHKs PLEASE indicate whether they believe the economic case holds water and is a good use of the money entrusted to them by us to allocate wisely...