From Adam Smith onwards we have recognised the dangers of monopoly. They are a lack of competitive pressure which leads to tolerance of inefficient production and poor treatment of consumers who have nowhere else to go. (There are other problems, but these will do.)
Royal Mail is not the monopoly it was, since the regulator has nibbled away at its power in an effort to introduce competition and efficiency. It is still a n effective monopoly as far as private and domestic mail is concerned. The result is fewer and unpredictable collections of mail and unpredictable delivery, in our case varying between 8.30 and 14.30, and annually rising costs. In brief, the service has deteriorated.
This is why the government proposal to privatise part of Royal Mail must go ahead. The latter has been badly managed, fights against competition and for the maintenance of its monopoly. The shibboleth of "one price anywhere in the country", which means the massive cross subsidisation of some collections and deliveries by others, often from poorer to richer people, is invoked and intoned like some religious dogma.
If the one price for all in a monopoly ever made sense, it no longer does, because there are so many competing technologies now - texting, e-mails, telephones and mobiles, etc., and with the imminent demise of cheques there will be a further reason for not using the snail-post. Royal Mail intransigence is slowly defeating itself, and the time is coming when the few important packets such as legal documents will use courier service rather than the post, meaning that the service has died.
In the meantime there is another problem, which is the enormous hole in the Royal Mail pension fund, caused in part by the fact that successive governments permitted Royal Mail to avoid making contributions for many years. Now, to maintain the gold-plated final salary pensions a massive injection is required from taxpayers or customers. This is a politicial hot potato, the communication workers must not be allowed to fend off partial privatisation and simultaneously demand to be bailed out for pensions.
Nationally something like £650 billion of public sector pensions is unfunded. (Some experts put it as much as twice that figure.) Cameron has already indicated that the Tories will insist on equality of public and private sectors, by ending the gold plating in the former. Long gone are the days when wages in the public sector were lower than in the private sector, - they are now significantly higher. There is no justification for the claim by postal workers.
When Labour is in power, their 'natural' supporters and funders - the trade union leaders can extract concessions. So far Brown and company have held out, to their credit. They must not give in.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Thursday, 26 February 2009
We've been here before?
The Adam Smith Institute Blog, in a brief contribution today by "Wordsmith", gives a quotation, made many years ago in the light of experience of the 1930s, by Henry Morganthau, the Secretary of the Treasury under President Roosevelt.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong.....somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We never made good on our promises... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot."
The Democrat Party in the USA likes to think that Roosevelt solved the problem of unemployment. He didn't. As Morganthau admitted, unemployment remained stubbornly high until the depression was finally ended by the needs of the WW II.
We have been here before. Let us hope that we can find a solution without resorting to war. It begins to look as if Brown's nostrum will merely lead to ever more massive national debt.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong.....somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We never made good on our promises... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot."
The Democrat Party in the USA likes to think that Roosevelt solved the problem of unemployment. He didn't. As Morganthau admitted, unemployment remained stubbornly high until the depression was finally ended by the needs of the WW II.
We have been here before. Let us hope that we can find a solution without resorting to war. It begins to look as if Brown's nostrum will merely lead to ever more massive national debt.
If we didn't have the FSA, who would we have to blame?
Yesterday Lord Turner dared to criticise G. Brown. Turner was defending his SFA against the charge that they failed to keep a tight rein on banks. He asserted that Brown as chancellor had asked for a light regulation!
Now we know that the SFA, perhaps stung by criticism, is making its plans for the future. One aspect is the diminution of the role of the market in financial services, adopting a risk averse strategy by determining for the banks in advance which products and services they may offer, and they may go about their business. We shall know the details on March 18th, it seems.
It is broadly comparable to somebody telling the train operating companies the shape of scheduled services they must adopt - times, ticket prices, etc.
There will thus apparently be no scope for creative competition, except on price for the range of permitted products. This could be devastating for London, which has hitherto been adaptive, creative and world leading in its product changes. Indeed its preeminent position was due to its ability to create and innovate. This will come under question now.
This is yet another example of the new socialism, which seeks to control every aspect of capitalism, in the end, of course, so hamstringing it that it ceases to be effective. Never mind if we don't grow, so long as we are all equal.
It could well make the recovery from depression/recession more drawn out. If innovation is discouraged, then creativeness will go elsewhere, for us to follow later in their shadow.
Now we know that the SFA, perhaps stung by criticism, is making its plans for the future. One aspect is the diminution of the role of the market in financial services, adopting a risk averse strategy by determining for the banks in advance which products and services they may offer, and they may go about their business. We shall know the details on March 18th, it seems.
It is broadly comparable to somebody telling the train operating companies the shape of scheduled services they must adopt - times, ticket prices, etc.
There will thus apparently be no scope for creative competition, except on price for the range of permitted products. This could be devastating for London, which has hitherto been adaptive, creative and world leading in its product changes. Indeed its preeminent position was due to its ability to create and innovate. This will come under question now.
This is yet another example of the new socialism, which seeks to control every aspect of capitalism, in the end, of course, so hamstringing it that it ceases to be effective. Never mind if we don't grow, so long as we are all equal.
It could well make the recovery from depression/recession more drawn out. If innovation is discouraged, then creativeness will go elsewhere, for us to follow later in their shadow.
They couldn't organise a ...... in a brewery
Reform the independent, non-party think-tank, today published its new paper on police reform. "A New Force" makes many critical comments on the organisation and methods of policing.
Perhaps one may be mentioned here - the observation that we have the most expensive police service in the developed world per capita, costing 20% more as a proportion of GDP than the USA!
Yet we have street price of drugs falling, - cocaine costs half as much as it did a decade ago, people trafficking is rising and criminal gangs are importing ever larger quantities of fire arms, which are fuelling gun crime in our major cities.
Where have I heard something similar before?
Is it in the fact that we have European levels of health expenditure but are well down in any European league tables for outcomes?
Is it that we have European levels of education spending, but we are dropping like a a stone down the European league tables for educational achievement? (There may be a clue here. I blogged a few months ago that the costs of educating a child in the state sector are broadly the same as in the private sector, the difference in the state sector is that a much higher percentage goes on the centralised and bureaucratic administration.)
Perhaps one may be mentioned here - the observation that we have the most expensive police service in the developed world per capita, costing 20% more as a proportion of GDP than the USA!
Yet we have street price of drugs falling, - cocaine costs half as much as it did a decade ago, people trafficking is rising and criminal gangs are importing ever larger quantities of fire arms, which are fuelling gun crime in our major cities.
Where have I heard something similar before?
Is it in the fact that we have European levels of health expenditure but are well down in any European league tables for outcomes?
Is it that we have European levels of education spending, but we are dropping like a a stone down the European league tables for educational achievement? (There may be a clue here. I blogged a few months ago that the costs of educating a child in the state sector are broadly the same as in the private sector, the difference in the state sector is that a much higher percentage goes on the centralised and bureaucratic administration.)
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
With immaculate timing.....!
Observers have claimed to have detected the first signs of increased crime as the result of the recession. They may be right, but certainly most people expect the rate of theft of all types to rise as hundreds of thousands more workers lose their jobs and incomes. The temptation to help themselves to the wealth of others will surely be too strong.
How amazing then that we have heard yesterday and today the the police are likely to suffer redundancies in the near future. You couldn't invent it, could you? At this time of all times!
We shall still have the sturdy PCSOs, of course, in their parking warden uniforms and devoid of many powers. This will surely scare any would-be burglars!
Over the week-end the Sunday Telegraph published figures suggesting that police officers are even spending more of their time on paper-work and administration than they were previously. If only we could reverse this and get them to lay down their pens and pencils!
Come on Cameron, you've been talking about promoting real and tough policing. Can't you get the officers out on to the streets, and get them out in numbers!
How amazing then that we have heard yesterday and today the the police are likely to suffer redundancies in the near future. You couldn't invent it, could you? At this time of all times!
We shall still have the sturdy PCSOs, of course, in their parking warden uniforms and devoid of many powers. This will surely scare any would-be burglars!
Over the week-end the Sunday Telegraph published figures suggesting that police officers are even spending more of their time on paper-work and administration than they were previously. If only we could reverse this and get them to lay down their pens and pencils!
Come on Cameron, you've been talking about promoting real and tough policing. Can't you get the officers out on to the streets, and get them out in numbers!
Monday, 23 February 2009
Strange?
Last week the BNP won a seat in a local by-election in Swanley, Sevenoaks, in Kent. In other places they recorded massive gains in electoral support. The Swanley seat had been regarded as a 'safe' Labour seat. In the other by-election results last week the swing was mostly from Labour, although in one case at least it was from the LibDems.
So what is going on? Is it that Labour/LibDem voters stayed at home, and the BNP found support from among those who normally can't be bothered to vote?
The BNP are written off by the left as some fascist, ultra right group, about as far to the right as it is possible to go. On the principle that left is good and right is bad, people you deem unacceptable may safely be called right-wing. This is the usual BBC description.
A glance at the views the BNP seem to hold as a party would suggest that it has more in common with the left than the right, - it advocates nationalisation, higher taxes, and protectionism. Even if it waves a union jack, it is seemingly republican as well. It may be extreme, coarse and unpleasant, it may feast on anger and discontent among voters, but essentially it is not a right wing organisation.
The right wing of the Conservative Party, (verging on the extreme right?), is a very different kettle of fish - authoritarian, yes, concerned about law and order, yes, wishing to leave the EU, again yes, but it certainly is not pro-tax and nationalisation. If Tory dissidents on the right leave it is usually to the UKIP, not the BNP. Here we have a mass switch from Labour to BNP among voters.
It may be that the extremes of left and right have more in common than either would want to admit. In essence both are statist and quite prepared to reduce individual freedom.
We may have here the situation of "two likes repelling" as in magnetism. They have more in common than either would like to admit, and each sees a threat in the other.
On the other hand voting for the BNP at the moment may be merely a protest - against uncontrolled immigration which has mopped up jobs and housing, at Europeans taking British jobs and European Courts overruling our courts. As the Labour government has been part of the cause of the grievances, and the voters do not yet see enough in Tory policies to switch there, there is a logic in giving conventional politicians a "bloody nose".
So what is going on? Is it that Labour/LibDem voters stayed at home, and the BNP found support from among those who normally can't be bothered to vote?
The BNP are written off by the left as some fascist, ultra right group, about as far to the right as it is possible to go. On the principle that left is good and right is bad, people you deem unacceptable may safely be called right-wing. This is the usual BBC description.
A glance at the views the BNP seem to hold as a party would suggest that it has more in common with the left than the right, - it advocates nationalisation, higher taxes, and protectionism. Even if it waves a union jack, it is seemingly republican as well. It may be extreme, coarse and unpleasant, it may feast on anger and discontent among voters, but essentially it is not a right wing organisation.
The right wing of the Conservative Party, (verging on the extreme right?), is a very different kettle of fish - authoritarian, yes, concerned about law and order, yes, wishing to leave the EU, again yes, but it certainly is not pro-tax and nationalisation. If Tory dissidents on the right leave it is usually to the UKIP, not the BNP. Here we have a mass switch from Labour to BNP among voters.
It may be that the extremes of left and right have more in common than either would want to admit. In essence both are statist and quite prepared to reduce individual freedom.
We may have here the situation of "two likes repelling" as in magnetism. They have more in common than either would like to admit, and each sees a threat in the other.
On the other hand voting for the BNP at the moment may be merely a protest - against uncontrolled immigration which has mopped up jobs and housing, at Europeans taking British jobs and European Courts overruling our courts. As the Labour government has been part of the cause of the grievances, and the voters do not yet see enough in Tory policies to switch there, there is a logic in giving conventional politicians a "bloody nose".
Saturday, 21 February 2009
To boldly go....
Some economists are talking about us going into a period of negative inflation, - a situation where year on year prices fall. We came close to this in the early 1960s but we did not quite reach this situation, which is one we have never previously known.
Currently the RPI is close to zero, although the government's preferred measure, CPI is still well above. The former has fallen more because it includes housing costs such as mortgage rates.
Will negative equity happen for a period?
It could fail to do this if sterling depreciates against other currencies, and this could happen if, as a final throw of the interest rate weapon the Bank of England reduces its base rate to zero. It could also do this if the government's desperate last throw occurs, - quantitative easing or flooding the economy with money, is excessive. In fact some economists are concerned about the control of inflation in the near future with all the liquidity in the system and shortages and bottle necks may occur in any upward movement in the economy.
We could have both results - negative inflation followed by positive inflation again which will require interest rates to rise.
Does negative inflation matter?
Lenders may feel that they are losing with very low interest rates, but with falling prices "the pound in their pocket" will command more goods, the debt will be repaid in money which is worth more. The same would apply to savers and depositors.
Borrowers must repay loans in money which is worth more, so the burden of repayment will be greater.
Business could be attracted by lower interest rates and might be enticed into spending, but they too might realise that any debt repayment would be more of a burden.
There are three connected unknowns: (apart from the fact that prices do not all fall at the same rate.)
Firstly, would borrowers, savers and businesses be sufficiently aware of the change in the value of money, and how they are affected? They could be largely oblivious to what economists consider.
Secondly, how long would the period of negative inflation last? If it were brief in duration and its incidence slight then all the above would be perhaps academic.
Thirdly, what will be the expectations of decision makers? If prices fall will they wait further before making new investments in plant and machinery needed for the recovery. Consumers also might wait, and so delay the recovery.
Could savers judge that without good interest they would be better keeping the money in a biscuit tin somewhere?
Currently the RPI is close to zero, although the government's preferred measure, CPI is still well above. The former has fallen more because it includes housing costs such as mortgage rates.
Will negative equity happen for a period?
It could fail to do this if sterling depreciates against other currencies, and this could happen if, as a final throw of the interest rate weapon the Bank of England reduces its base rate to zero. It could also do this if the government's desperate last throw occurs, - quantitative easing or flooding the economy with money, is excessive. In fact some economists are concerned about the control of inflation in the near future with all the liquidity in the system and shortages and bottle necks may occur in any upward movement in the economy.
We could have both results - negative inflation followed by positive inflation again which will require interest rates to rise.
Does negative inflation matter?
Lenders may feel that they are losing with very low interest rates, but with falling prices "the pound in their pocket" will command more goods, the debt will be repaid in money which is worth more. The same would apply to savers and depositors.
Borrowers must repay loans in money which is worth more, so the burden of repayment will be greater.
Business could be attracted by lower interest rates and might be enticed into spending, but they too might realise that any debt repayment would be more of a burden.
There are three connected unknowns: (apart from the fact that prices do not all fall at the same rate.)
Firstly, would borrowers, savers and businesses be sufficiently aware of the change in the value of money, and how they are affected? They could be largely oblivious to what economists consider.
Secondly, how long would the period of negative inflation last? If it were brief in duration and its incidence slight then all the above would be perhaps academic.
Thirdly, what will be the expectations of decision makers? If prices fall will they wait further before making new investments in plant and machinery needed for the recovery. Consumers also might wait, and so delay the recovery.
Could savers judge that without good interest they would be better keeping the money in a biscuit tin somewhere?
Friday, 20 February 2009
One law for you, another for me
This morning on the Toady programme just after 7.30 there was a discussion on Islam and polygamy in this country.
It was a revelation.
I was unaware that Muslim marriages do not go through the same clerical and administrative registration with which other marriages must comply - no bans, no display in register office, to allow objection.
I was unaware that a significant number of Muslim men, and the number is not declining, each year commit polygamy. All that is necessary is the both/all wives and close relatives are content, and so long as all wives and children are treated equally.
I have no doubt that this is consistent with Muslim law, and was practiced in the countries from whence the immigrant families originally came.
But this is Britain, and here polygamy is illegal. This was conceded by Baroness Warsi, who was interviewed on the programme.
Why have there been no prosecutions? I think we know the answer - to prevent inter-community relations from souring. Is the notion of common law, a basic assumption for most of us, to be eroded by one group.
The problem is that the longer the government fail to grasp this particular nettle, the more entrenched it will become.
(And gag the Archbishop of Canterbury! I hate to think what views he has on this.)
It was a revelation.
I was unaware that Muslim marriages do not go through the same clerical and administrative registration with which other marriages must comply - no bans, no display in register office, to allow objection.
I was unaware that a significant number of Muslim men, and the number is not declining, each year commit polygamy. All that is necessary is the both/all wives and close relatives are content, and so long as all wives and children are treated equally.
I have no doubt that this is consistent with Muslim law, and was practiced in the countries from whence the immigrant families originally came.
But this is Britain, and here polygamy is illegal. This was conceded by Baroness Warsi, who was interviewed on the programme.
Why have there been no prosecutions? I think we know the answer - to prevent inter-community relations from souring. Is the notion of common law, a basic assumption for most of us, to be eroded by one group.
The problem is that the longer the government fail to grasp this particular nettle, the more entrenched it will become.
(And gag the Archbishop of Canterbury! I hate to think what views he has on this.)
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Further devolution
The Conservatives yesterday in a speech by their leader laid out the several ways in which they would move power and decision much nearer to "the people".
Among other proposals, they wish to repatriate powers to local authorities in areas such as finance and planning, and to abolish the unaccountable and central-government-stooges in the regional planning development boards. It is in the power directly to voters that the proposals are revolutionary rather than merely turning back the clock. Voters will be able to elect (and and perhaps fail to re-elect) police commissioners, and also mayors in the large cities where they elect to have them. They will also be able to call for a referendum and hold a vote in such items as the council budget and proposed rates. They will be able to make decision on the number and type of new housing to be built.
There will be many established interests who will oppose all this from their special interest positions or ideologies. There have already been claims that planning has to be on a massive scale, and that electors when once they have exercised wise choice in electing councillors (or MPs) are incapable of understanding large issues. (The logical extension of this latter point is that they should not have a a vote at all!)
Vast layers of bureaucracy and administrative costs and time would be saved, and people affected would be able to express their wishes, have an interest and actually turn out to vote at local elections - this would be really revolutionary!
There is still an objection that all must remember, that in an elective democracy 51% of the voters can impose their will on the other 49%. (In fact, as we see at Westminster with multi party voting, we have at present a dictatorial government returned by less than 40% of electors and we rarely have a government party with in excess of 50%.) To avoid civil strife such majority decisions must be kept to a minimum.)
On his website yesterday Jeremy Hunt the shadow minister for Media, etc., commented from his brief. Why not, he asked, extend this to broadcasting as well? He pointed out that Birmingham, Alabama, has a population of 230,000, but has 8 local TV stations, while Birmingham, UK, four times as large, has none. The stations in Alabama compete for local advertising moneys and for viewers. They stay in business only if they are successful in reflecting viewers' needs and opinions. Hunt promised that any incoming Conservative government would make it easier for local TV than it is at the moment.
Among other proposals, they wish to repatriate powers to local authorities in areas such as finance and planning, and to abolish the unaccountable and central-government-stooges in the regional planning development boards. It is in the power directly to voters that the proposals are revolutionary rather than merely turning back the clock. Voters will be able to elect (and and perhaps fail to re-elect) police commissioners, and also mayors in the large cities where they elect to have them. They will also be able to call for a referendum and hold a vote in such items as the council budget and proposed rates. They will be able to make decision on the number and type of new housing to be built.
There will be many established interests who will oppose all this from their special interest positions or ideologies. There have already been claims that planning has to be on a massive scale, and that electors when once they have exercised wise choice in electing councillors (or MPs) are incapable of understanding large issues. (The logical extension of this latter point is that they should not have a a vote at all!)
Vast layers of bureaucracy and administrative costs and time would be saved, and people affected would be able to express their wishes, have an interest and actually turn out to vote at local elections - this would be really revolutionary!
There is still an objection that all must remember, that in an elective democracy 51% of the voters can impose their will on the other 49%. (In fact, as we see at Westminster with multi party voting, we have at present a dictatorial government returned by less than 40% of electors and we rarely have a government party with in excess of 50%.) To avoid civil strife such majority decisions must be kept to a minimum.)
On his website yesterday Jeremy Hunt the shadow minister for Media, etc., commented from his brief. Why not, he asked, extend this to broadcasting as well? He pointed out that Birmingham, Alabama, has a population of 230,000, but has 8 local TV stations, while Birmingham, UK, four times as large, has none. The stations in Alabama compete for local advertising moneys and for viewers. They stay in business only if they are successful in reflecting viewers' needs and opinions. Hunt promised that any incoming Conservative government would make it easier for local TV than it is at the moment.
Brown's world!
Our prime minister attacks the banks as "them" who let down the rest of us, in today's Times.
It is the familiar plea, "Nothing to do with me, not guilty!" It's the Americans, it's the bankers, it's the foreigners generally, but I am not guilty, by omission or commission.
It's such a regularly repeated refrain, as if he started with the policy of "deny all" and he cannot now change without looking really stupid.
But what if he really believes what he says, that he really believes that he has made no bad judgements or decisions? You would have thought that someone as clever as he is reputed to be would have had a more sophisticated approach, with a way out if it began to tire. Perhaps he really does genuinely believe that our problems are really bad luck and could not have been foreseen, and that he has nothing for which to apologise.
If this is the case then he needs treatment, because there cannot be many who fail to see that he made many errors, and especially an inadequate regulatory system and a failure to see the amount of private and public debt that was being racked up.
The treatment must include surrounding himself with balanced people rather than yes-men and actually listening to their warnings.
It is the familiar plea, "Nothing to do with me, not guilty!" It's the Americans, it's the bankers, it's the foreigners generally, but I am not guilty, by omission or commission.
It's such a regularly repeated refrain, as if he started with the policy of "deny all" and he cannot now change without looking really stupid.
But what if he really believes what he says, that he really believes that he has made no bad judgements or decisions? You would have thought that someone as clever as he is reputed to be would have had a more sophisticated approach, with a way out if it began to tire. Perhaps he really does genuinely believe that our problems are really bad luck and could not have been foreseen, and that he has nothing for which to apologise.
If this is the case then he needs treatment, because there cannot be many who fail to see that he made many errors, and especially an inadequate regulatory system and a failure to see the amount of private and public debt that was being racked up.
The treatment must include surrounding himself with balanced people rather than yes-men and actually listening to their warnings.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Careful where you point your camera!
From today, with the new Counter-Terrorism Act coming into force, among other things it will be illegal for you to take a photo of a police officer if he or they judge that your snap is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism."
You could find yourself in prison for up to 10 years.
There have already been cases of photographers who have spent hours in prison and had their cameras confiscated or damaged.
All this seems to reinforce Stella Rimington's concern about the development of a police state.
This act is really worrying, for a number of reasons.
1) A camera has been in some cases valuable in establishing culpability of the police themselves. This is severely threatened.
2) We saw with the earlier act which gave local authorities various rights, especially in surveillance, that the power was abused. They used powers intended to combat terrorism to spy on people who claimed to live in the catchment area of a particular school, or to snoop on dog owners and their pets. The phrase "likely to be useful to" could be stretched.
3) The government will know, and we know, that potential terrorists will be able to circumvent the law very easily, if they wish, with various sorts of spy cameras almost undetectable in a crowded situation. The BBC and other film makers regularly use cameras concealed in handbags in undercover reporting. We have seen the result of their filming.
It's vagueness, and possibility of misapplication, the fact that it will have probably little impact on potential terrorists, and above all that it gives still more power to the police, suggests that Stella Rimington is right.
This is an unnecessary and dangerous act by a government that has so weakened the ability to do ordinary policing that they have alienated the public. It will do little to restore confidence in the forces of law and order.
You could find yourself in prison for up to 10 years.
There have already been cases of photographers who have spent hours in prison and had their cameras confiscated or damaged.
All this seems to reinforce Stella Rimington's concern about the development of a police state.
This act is really worrying, for a number of reasons.
1) A camera has been in some cases valuable in establishing culpability of the police themselves. This is severely threatened.
2) We saw with the earlier act which gave local authorities various rights, especially in surveillance, that the power was abused. They used powers intended to combat terrorism to spy on people who claimed to live in the catchment area of a particular school, or to snoop on dog owners and their pets. The phrase "likely to be useful to" could be stretched.
3) The government will know, and we know, that potential terrorists will be able to circumvent the law very easily, if they wish, with various sorts of spy cameras almost undetectable in a crowded situation. The BBC and other film makers regularly use cameras concealed in handbags in undercover reporting. We have seen the result of their filming.
It's vagueness, and possibility of misapplication, the fact that it will have probably little impact on potential terrorists, and above all that it gives still more power to the police, suggests that Stella Rimington is right.
This is an unnecessary and dangerous act by a government that has so weakened the ability to do ordinary policing that they have alienated the public. It will do little to restore confidence in the forces of law and order.
Monday, 16 February 2009
The ghost of Ken Livingstone...?
ConservativeHome this morning tells us that a West Midland Council, - the Labour-controlled Halesowen council, is trying to stop to any public celebration of St. George's Day on April 25th.
So far it is merely a refusal to give funding towards the celebration, but if the organisers struggle on without public funding, the council's argument applies even to a privately funded "do".
Their argument? It might attract far right elements. Perhaps they have knowledge of great BNP membership or presence in their area, but more likely it is a violent dislike of an extreme organisation. The BNP, however loathsome to most of us in their readiness to do violence, is a legal organisation.
The result is that the BNP wins. There will be a moral victory for the BNP, -" the Labour Council is opposed to spending on the celebration of the patron saint of England, and coincidently of William Shakespeare, and denying the poeple. We didn't have this problem become immigrants came, etc., etc."
It is reminsicent of the attitude of the ex-mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, who celebrated and funded virtually every minority celebration, but never that of England, so the BNP would exploit further grievance.
The BNP would, conversely, lose, if the celebration took place and many people attended and enjoyed it, and the BNP were shown to be what they are, - a small minority willing to exploit grievances but able to achieve very little positively.
There might be extra policing costs to prevent public disturbance, but we accept this when other small groups mount protests or demonstrations. Why should the large numbers of the English who wish to celebrate their nation by denied?
So far it is merely a refusal to give funding towards the celebration, but if the organisers struggle on without public funding, the council's argument applies even to a privately funded "do".
Their argument? It might attract far right elements. Perhaps they have knowledge of great BNP membership or presence in their area, but more likely it is a violent dislike of an extreme organisation. The BNP, however loathsome to most of us in their readiness to do violence, is a legal organisation.
The result is that the BNP wins. There will be a moral victory for the BNP, -" the Labour Council is opposed to spending on the celebration of the patron saint of England, and coincidently of William Shakespeare, and denying the poeple. We didn't have this problem become immigrants came, etc., etc."
It is reminsicent of the attitude of the ex-mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, who celebrated and funded virtually every minority celebration, but never that of England, so the BNP would exploit further grievance.
The BNP would, conversely, lose, if the celebration took place and many people attended and enjoyed it, and the BNP were shown to be what they are, - a small minority willing to exploit grievances but able to achieve very little positively.
There might be extra policing costs to prevent public disturbance, but we accept this when other small groups mount protests or demonstrations. Why should the large numbers of the English who wish to celebrate their nation by denied?
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Jobs for.........?
The ONS recently let the cat out of the bag and annoyed G. Brown and company.
The picture shows where the new jobs have gone since 1997
(borrowed from "Burning Our Money" - well worth reading all!
Friday, 13 February 2009
Are we any longer a Christian Country?
The answer may be a tentative "Yes", as many traditions continue, but the full answer seems to be "yes, but not for much longer".
It is true that church attendance of the major Christian denominations is generally down, and that all are struggling to recruit priests and ministers. Christian influence is declining as well.
That secularism is growing cannot be challenged, and that there is a well-meaning but slightly ridiculous attempt by elected bodies to reinforce this, e.g. in the renaming Christmas "Winterfest" or some other heathen name. The Red Cross no longer displays its origins in its shops, - no reference to Christianity. Schools have replaced nativity plays at Christmas with a range of other themes, and school assemblies ignore the 1944 Act with what are merely civil and secular occasions.
Recently we have seen signs of a more active "persecution" or limitation on Christians.
1) A mother is sacked for e-mailing church friends and asking them to pray for her five year old daughter who is confused after being reprimanded for talking informally to a fellow student about Jesus and heaven.
2) Foster parents are removed from a list used by the local council, after fostering 80 children previously, because a 16 year old girl who had previously decided that she wished to convert from Islam to Christianity did so while with them.
3) A nurse who asked an elderly patient whether she would like the nurse to pray with her, was sacked, although later reinstated with a caution.
4) A headmistress was pressured into resigning because she felt that separate Muslim and other devotions should be replaced by a united one.
The very strong impression seems to be, that while the state is very careful not to offend Muslims, such as in allowing the wearing a religious symbols, it regards Christians as "open season". It seems to pay to be ready to agitate, protest and threaten in numbers, and the Muslims seem to be organised and more willing to do this at all levels. The message for Christians seems to be, contrary to their faith, that if you wish to protect your faith don't rely on your leaders who seem to be infected with the same multicultarist partiality as politicians. Rather, organise yourselves, - protest, agitate and be awkward. But this does not come easy to their faith.
So we may expect Christians to continue to suffer discrimination, and for other groups to continue to gain concessions. The influence of Christianity seems to be likely to wane, at least until they become more obviously persecuted. In the early church "The martyrs were the seed bed of the church", one of its main sources of recruitment.
It is true that church attendance of the major Christian denominations is generally down, and that all are struggling to recruit priests and ministers. Christian influence is declining as well.
That secularism is growing cannot be challenged, and that there is a well-meaning but slightly ridiculous attempt by elected bodies to reinforce this, e.g. in the renaming Christmas "Winterfest" or some other heathen name. The Red Cross no longer displays its origins in its shops, - no reference to Christianity. Schools have replaced nativity plays at Christmas with a range of other themes, and school assemblies ignore the 1944 Act with what are merely civil and secular occasions.
Recently we have seen signs of a more active "persecution" or limitation on Christians.
1) A mother is sacked for e-mailing church friends and asking them to pray for her five year old daughter who is confused after being reprimanded for talking informally to a fellow student about Jesus and heaven.
2) Foster parents are removed from a list used by the local council, after fostering 80 children previously, because a 16 year old girl who had previously decided that she wished to convert from Islam to Christianity did so while with them.
3) A nurse who asked an elderly patient whether she would like the nurse to pray with her, was sacked, although later reinstated with a caution.
4) A headmistress was pressured into resigning because she felt that separate Muslim and other devotions should be replaced by a united one.
The very strong impression seems to be, that while the state is very careful not to offend Muslims, such as in allowing the wearing a religious symbols, it regards Christians as "open season". It seems to pay to be ready to agitate, protest and threaten in numbers, and the Muslims seem to be organised and more willing to do this at all levels. The message for Christians seems to be, contrary to their faith, that if you wish to protect your faith don't rely on your leaders who seem to be infected with the same multicultarist partiality as politicians. Rather, organise yourselves, - protest, agitate and be awkward. But this does not come easy to their faith.
So we may expect Christians to continue to suffer discrimination, and for other groups to continue to gain concessions. The influence of Christianity seems to be likely to wane, at least until they become more obviously persecuted. In the early church "The martyrs were the seed bed of the church", one of its main sources of recruitment.
Is Britain a banana republic?
Well perhaps not a banana republic, since we export little if any of the fruit, but are we becoming more like a developing country.
Let me give you a number of indicators:
1) Our services are becoming poor. I think particularly of the road outside my house, where for years the road surface has crumbled, and where inadequate and temporary repairs of potholes and infilling after utility digging have contributed to a surface which in many places is dangerous. There does not seem to have been a full and thorough re-surfacing in living memory.
The reason? In short, - money. For years the roads in outlying districts have been neglected in order to finance the duties laid on local authorities by central government and keep rates down, whether by conviction or rate capping, and there has been a "make-do-and mend" attitude to road surfaces. Whatever the reason, road surfaces, and pavements, are a disgrace.
2) We have a health service which spends at European levels but delivers outcomes towards the bottom of the league table, and we have a national education service which spends at more than the European average and yet is sliding down the educational table.
3) We have an overstretched military in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is under-provided and poorly equipped. In the early years they had actually to buy bullets from soldiers in other participating NATO armies, and lives have been lost because of inadequate provision of body armour, helicopters, etc.
Add to this the taunt of the French President that we have no industry left, that the members of parliament seem to be "on the take" (or at least give the impression by the lax rules they have set themselves and their desire for secrecy), of patronage and "jobs for the boys" appointments in government service and quangos. We have prime ministers absenting themselves from parliament, and relying on whips to reinforce their "presidential" power. We have draconian laws seeking to monitor, control and punish people for thought crimes and minor offences. We have a vast army or illiterate and enumerate unskilled people on permanent benefit and living in poverty.
In terms of GNP, it would be difficult to describe us as a banana republic, but we seem to be showing many of the traits.
Let me give you a number of indicators:
1) Our services are becoming poor. I think particularly of the road outside my house, where for years the road surface has crumbled, and where inadequate and temporary repairs of potholes and infilling after utility digging have contributed to a surface which in many places is dangerous. There does not seem to have been a full and thorough re-surfacing in living memory.
The reason? In short, - money. For years the roads in outlying districts have been neglected in order to finance the duties laid on local authorities by central government and keep rates down, whether by conviction or rate capping, and there has been a "make-do-and mend" attitude to road surfaces. Whatever the reason, road surfaces, and pavements, are a disgrace.
2) We have a health service which spends at European levels but delivers outcomes towards the bottom of the league table, and we have a national education service which spends at more than the European average and yet is sliding down the educational table.
3) We have an overstretched military in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is under-provided and poorly equipped. In the early years they had actually to buy bullets from soldiers in other participating NATO armies, and lives have been lost because of inadequate provision of body armour, helicopters, etc.
Add to this the taunt of the French President that we have no industry left, that the members of parliament seem to be "on the take" (or at least give the impression by the lax rules they have set themselves and their desire for secrecy), of patronage and "jobs for the boys" appointments in government service and quangos. We have prime ministers absenting themselves from parliament, and relying on whips to reinforce their "presidential" power. We have draconian laws seeking to monitor, control and punish people for thought crimes and minor offences. We have a vast army or illiterate and enumerate unskilled people on permanent benefit and living in poverty.
In terms of GNP, it would be difficult to describe us as a banana republic, but we seem to be showing many of the traits.
Free Speech or Security?
The Dutch MP has returned home, having been given extra publicity and probably ensuring that more people may be induced to look at his film on the Internet.
Should he have been allowed to have his private meeting in the House of Lords? It is difficult to say "No", given the number of Muslim preachers of hate who have been allowed to enter the country and "publicly" (i.e. in a Mosque) expound their own extreme views.
The British government has caved in and exercised its role of "Thought Police". There is little doubt that had he been allowed in a Muslim rent-a-mob would quickly have made a noisy protest and caused difficulties and expense for the police. This mob would not have been representative of mainstream Muslim opinion, many of whom are puzzled at the exclusion.
So strife has been avoided, and the rent-a-mob element has had a costless victory. But what of the future? At what point do we call their bluff? And what will this do to people already half considering joining extreme parties such the BNP The BNP will almost certainly nurse a grievance and count extra new members.
So the Home Secretary has engaged in the usual short-termism which characterises NuLabour. At what point in the future will much more reasonable lovers of freedom of speech even join a BNP demonstration, and cry "Enough!"? There may be a dreadful long-term price to pay in trying to control people's thoughts by the law.
Should he have been allowed to have his private meeting in the House of Lords? It is difficult to say "No", given the number of Muslim preachers of hate who have been allowed to enter the country and "publicly" (i.e. in a Mosque) expound their own extreme views.
The British government has caved in and exercised its role of "Thought Police". There is little doubt that had he been allowed in a Muslim rent-a-mob would quickly have made a noisy protest and caused difficulties and expense for the police. This mob would not have been representative of mainstream Muslim opinion, many of whom are puzzled at the exclusion.
So strife has been avoided, and the rent-a-mob element has had a costless victory. But what of the future? At what point do we call their bluff? And what will this do to people already half considering joining extreme parties such the BNP The BNP will almost certainly nurse a grievance and count extra new members.
So the Home Secretary has engaged in the usual short-termism which characterises NuLabour. At what point in the future will much more reasonable lovers of freedom of speech even join a BNP demonstration, and cry "Enough!"? There may be a dreadful long-term price to pay in trying to control people's thoughts by the law.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Immigration and the labour market
Two pieces of information became available yesterday.
The ONS, the official statistics agency, in publishing unemployment statistics, revealed the following:
In 2008 employment of British-born workers fell by 278,000.
In 2008 employment of foreign-born workers rose by 214,000.
Lest we think that last rise in foreign-born workers is another example of EU nationals coming here with full rights, there is a further statistic.
On his website this morning Douglas Carswell announces that "A record 150,000 work permits were handed out to non-EU nationals to settle in Britain last year. It's the highest ever."
The picture is clear, with unemployment rising, we are still admitting non-EU workers in great numbers to jobs here. The immigration policy comes seriously into question, and makes the claim of "British jobs for British workers" sound even more hollow.
There could be skills shortages here, of course, which have to be filled from abroad, perhaps to replace the many native born who have emigrated. This after nearly 13 years of masterly management of the economy, surely not?
We don't know the pattern during 2008. If the new admissions took place before the government was aware of coming recession/depression, after all they had abolished bust, perhaps it has curtailed now. If not the recent strikes in the refinery construction could promote many more.
The response of the government has been interesting. When the ONS figures were released, Downing Street complained at the timing of the release, as embarrassing G. Brown. Keith Vaz, one of his ministers complained at releasing only a summary and not the full details, - as if the government even published full or accurate statistics until the recent re-birth of the ONS.
No, let us have more data which shows what a two-faced and incompetent administration we have in London! Let us have real data, not spun data!
The ONS, the official statistics agency, in publishing unemployment statistics, revealed the following:
In 2008 employment of British-born workers fell by 278,000.
In 2008 employment of foreign-born workers rose by 214,000.
Lest we think that last rise in foreign-born workers is another example of EU nationals coming here with full rights, there is a further statistic.
On his website this morning Douglas Carswell announces that "A record 150,000 work permits were handed out to non-EU nationals to settle in Britain last year. It's the highest ever."
The picture is clear, with unemployment rising, we are still admitting non-EU workers in great numbers to jobs here. The immigration policy comes seriously into question, and makes the claim of "British jobs for British workers" sound even more hollow.
There could be skills shortages here, of course, which have to be filled from abroad, perhaps to replace the many native born who have emigrated. This after nearly 13 years of masterly management of the economy, surely not?
We don't know the pattern during 2008. If the new admissions took place before the government was aware of coming recession/depression, after all they had abolished bust, perhaps it has curtailed now. If not the recent strikes in the refinery construction could promote many more.
The response of the government has been interesting. When the ONS figures were released, Downing Street complained at the timing of the release, as embarrassing G. Brown. Keith Vaz, one of his ministers complained at releasing only a summary and not the full details, - as if the government even published full or accurate statistics until the recent re-birth of the ONS.
No, let us have more data which shows what a two-faced and incompetent administration we have in London! Let us have real data, not spun data!
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
They're larning!? - two
One of the government's top schools advisers, Sir Cyril Taylor, has recently found it necessary to comment on what should have been agreed by all concerned many years ago, that mixed ability classes in state schools are a tragic waste of talent.
It should have been obvious long ago, that trying to teach those who will eventually get an outstanding degree at a top university should not be taught in the same class as someone whose level of literacy and numeracy suggest that an academic career will not be their destiny, however much the government wishes it otherwise.
Sir Cyril talks of bright pupils being dragged down by weaker classmates. This must be true if the former are in a small minority and bulk of the teacher's attention is to those who have less potential academic ability, but it is equally true the other way round, that students struggling and discouraged because lesson material is partly above their heads are likely to develop disciplinary problems.
Sir Cyril points to the fact that only a third of top achievers leaving primary school went on to get three As at A-level. (It is possible of course that some may have reached the plateau and not developed any further at an age well short of A-level, but for 70% to have done so suggests that something is wrong. In his view mixed ability classes are one contributory factor among others.)
It should have been obvious long ago, that trying to teach those who will eventually get an outstanding degree at a top university should not be taught in the same class as someone whose level of literacy and numeracy suggest that an academic career will not be their destiny, however much the government wishes it otherwise.
Sir Cyril talks of bright pupils being dragged down by weaker classmates. This must be true if the former are in a small minority and bulk of the teacher's attention is to those who have less potential academic ability, but it is equally true the other way round, that students struggling and discouraged because lesson material is partly above their heads are likely to develop disciplinary problems.
Sir Cyril points to the fact that only a third of top achievers leaving primary school went on to get three As at A-level. (It is possible of course that some may have reached the plateau and not developed any further at an age well short of A-level, but for 70% to have done so suggests that something is wrong. In his view mixed ability classes are one contributory factor among others.)
They're learning!? - one
The Daily Telegraph announced yesterday that Ofqual, the qualification regulator has approved the use of the International GCSE in state schools.
It seems that 250 schools in the fee-paying sector used the IGCSE last year, and regard them as a better preparation for A-levels. (Let us hope that they will do the same for A-levels soon as well.) A number of grammar schools have been asking the government for permission o offer the IGCSE as a highly respected international qualification, but hitherto have been refused.
If the government accept the proposal, then effectively they will have ended the "one test fits all" policy brought in over 20 years ago, and effectively gone back to the old GCE and CSE distinction. This will be hard for the government to accept, but we already see that "one test fits all"has become rather ridiculous, with passes at a few percent, and having starred (and double starred) A grades.
There is thus increasingly and effectively a two tiered system, and so long as equivalencies can be laid down, such the old grade 1 CSE = grade 3 GCE, then all should be protected.
But don't bet on the government swallowing the bitter ideological pill!
It seems that 250 schools in the fee-paying sector used the IGCSE last year, and regard them as a better preparation for A-levels. (Let us hope that they will do the same for A-levels soon as well.) A number of grammar schools have been asking the government for permission o offer the IGCSE as a highly respected international qualification, but hitherto have been refused.
If the government accept the proposal, then effectively they will have ended the "one test fits all" policy brought in over 20 years ago, and effectively gone back to the old GCE and CSE distinction. This will be hard for the government to accept, but we already see that "one test fits all"has become rather ridiculous, with passes at a few percent, and having starred (and double starred) A grades.
There is thus increasingly and effectively a two tiered system, and so long as equivalencies can be laid down, such the old grade 1 CSE = grade 3 GCE, then all should be protected.
But don't bet on the government swallowing the bitter ideological pill!
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
A whiff of hypocrisy?
Today those paragons of virtue, distrusted by all and sundry, will let into some of the obscenely greedy bankers. The treasury Committee is to examine a few bankers and former bankers as to their behaviour during the years leading up to the credit crunch.
Few would defend the bankers, they made huge profits and paid themselves large bonuses. Several of them have already paid for the latter in part by being sacked.
That they made misjudgments is not open to question - the RBS decision to get its hands on the Dutch bank by paying more than other banks was crass, and seemed so at the time.
The criticism that they lent on the basis of "dodgy" securities should not be directed at them alone. The best financial brains had dressed up doubtful paper assets in such a way that few could disentangle them, and defeated regulators and treasuries as well as bankers. To some extent they were reduced to this by the determination here and in the USA that those not able to repay should nonetheless be allowed to purchase houses. In addition interest rates were driven relentlessly down, binge borrowing encouraged and saving discouraged, with the result that banks lacked the normal level of deposits from which to lend.
G. Brown has changed his plea that he is not guilty because it is a world rec/depression. He is now talking of the nasty world bankers whenever he can. What sort of reception will the bankers get today, bearing in mind that the judge and jury have a majority of Labour MPs who are concerned about losing power in the next 18 months?
The saddest thing is that this group of MPs is a selection from the House of Commons, most of whom want to keep hidden how well they are doing at the taxpayer's expense. The Committee members may be honourable exceptions to the "graft" which pervades Westminster, but their occupation is one increasingly held in contempt. That they should sit in judgement on bankers who may have acted imprudently in taking advantage of a situation created by politicians, but who are no more guilty, smells of hypocrisy.
Should we have a reverse case, with bankers sitting in judgement on MPs?
Few would defend the bankers, they made huge profits and paid themselves large bonuses. Several of them have already paid for the latter in part by being sacked.
That they made misjudgments is not open to question - the RBS decision to get its hands on the Dutch bank by paying more than other banks was crass, and seemed so at the time.
The criticism that they lent on the basis of "dodgy" securities should not be directed at them alone. The best financial brains had dressed up doubtful paper assets in such a way that few could disentangle them, and defeated regulators and treasuries as well as bankers. To some extent they were reduced to this by the determination here and in the USA that those not able to repay should nonetheless be allowed to purchase houses. In addition interest rates were driven relentlessly down, binge borrowing encouraged and saving discouraged, with the result that banks lacked the normal level of deposits from which to lend.
G. Brown has changed his plea that he is not guilty because it is a world rec/depression. He is now talking of the nasty world bankers whenever he can. What sort of reception will the bankers get today, bearing in mind that the judge and jury have a majority of Labour MPs who are concerned about losing power in the next 18 months?
The saddest thing is that this group of MPs is a selection from the House of Commons, most of whom want to keep hidden how well they are doing at the taxpayer's expense. The Committee members may be honourable exceptions to the "graft" which pervades Westminster, but their occupation is one increasingly held in contempt. That they should sit in judgement on bankers who may have acted imprudently in taking advantage of a situation created by politicians, but who are no more guilty, smells of hypocrisy.
Should we have a reverse case, with bankers sitting in judgement on MPs?
Friday, 6 February 2009
What happened to sturdy individualism?
One of the results of the recent reduction in the Bank of England base rate, has been to encourage borrowing and discourage saving, - as if we do not have enough of the former!
Many savers, who have denied themselves throughout their working life, in order to put a small amount away regularly towards supplementing their diminishing pensions in old age, now find that they do not have enough, and that with interest rates so low and inflation higher the real value of their savings is actually going down, even if they manage not to withdraw some of their capital.
There is little wonder that our savings to income ratio is now at its lowest for 50 years. There is now little incentive for personal saving and independence, and because there is little saving there are inadequate deposits at banks and building societies. Banks then are driven to borrow from other banks, often involving securitisation from various countries around the world. The result is a credit crunch, with bank failure and an ongoing suspicion of other banks.
Instant gratification is wanted, instead of saving for things, and we increase debt because it is cheap. We need citizens to take a longer term view, to save and accumulate wealth. The problem is that in recession/depression, all short term policies are still being directed towards spending from borrowing!
Cameron and Osborne have seen the problem with savings, and have suggested abolishing income tax on savings. Mr. Darling has made hints that he may do something like this in his budget. The principle is surely right, although much damage has been done, and the removal of tax will add to the size of public debt!
Many savers, who have denied themselves throughout their working life, in order to put a small amount away regularly towards supplementing their diminishing pensions in old age, now find that they do not have enough, and that with interest rates so low and inflation higher the real value of their savings is actually going down, even if they manage not to withdraw some of their capital.
There is little wonder that our savings to income ratio is now at its lowest for 50 years. There is now little incentive for personal saving and independence, and because there is little saving there are inadequate deposits at banks and building societies. Banks then are driven to borrow from other banks, often involving securitisation from various countries around the world. The result is a credit crunch, with bank failure and an ongoing suspicion of other banks.
Instant gratification is wanted, instead of saving for things, and we increase debt because it is cheap. We need citizens to take a longer term view, to save and accumulate wealth. The problem is that in recession/depression, all short term policies are still being directed towards spending from borrowing!
Cameron and Osborne have seen the problem with savings, and have suggested abolishing income tax on savings. Mr. Darling has made hints that he may do something like this in his budget. The principle is surely right, although much damage has been done, and the removal of tax will add to the size of public debt!
Strange?
Why is the Left which claims to be democratic so opposed to "localism", - devolving power as low as possible?
They seem generally happy to devolve it upwards - they have been very quiet in the face of a huge transfer of power to Brussels, but suggest that they transfer more power to local authorities, health service and education, and they suck their teeth, and shake their heads.
Why? Is it because they really want a state-controlled uniformity which is allegedly paternalistic? They don't want people to have the ability to transfer from one authority to another because the the policies on the latter are more attractive - you could even have pockets of conservatism, with people enjoying freedom in spending their money and exercising choice. Unthinkable - no-one should be able to escape the utopia they are imposing from their blueprint!
Whatever the reason, while people on the right are generally happy to devolve decisions to those best able to decide and who are most affected, with one or two exceptions people on the left want no exceptions to that state imposed solution to society's ills. In other words democracy is a special kind, imposed by those who have gained central power, and the power must be centralised.
They seem generally happy to devolve it upwards - they have been very quiet in the face of a huge transfer of power to Brussels, but suggest that they transfer more power to local authorities, health service and education, and they suck their teeth, and shake their heads.
Why? Is it because they really want a state-controlled uniformity which is allegedly paternalistic? They don't want people to have the ability to transfer from one authority to another because the the policies on the latter are more attractive - you could even have pockets of conservatism, with people enjoying freedom in spending their money and exercising choice. Unthinkable - no-one should be able to escape the utopia they are imposing from their blueprint!
Whatever the reason, while people on the right are generally happy to devolve decisions to those best able to decide and who are most affected, with one or two exceptions people on the left want no exceptions to that state imposed solution to society's ills. In other words democracy is a special kind, imposed by those who have gained central power, and the power must be centralised.
No bonus for bankers
And so say all of us! (or nearly all of us). The fat cats who have got us into this mess, or who are partly responsible for it, and who have run their businesses into massive debt, should not be paid bonuses as if they achieved success. In fact they could well be using taxpayers money to pay themselves!
What of other bonuses? I have mentioned before that senior levels of the civil service routinely receive bonuses in addition to their pay. They receive these even if their department has been conspicuously poor, and we couod name quite a few without any difficulty! Shouldn't they be denied, especially those who should have monitored the economy better? Do the quangocrats get bonuses - "they never would be missed"!
And what of the expenses and pension additions which the MPs seem to award themselves every year - they're the last to suffer in recession!
What of other bonuses? I have mentioned before that senior levels of the civil service routinely receive bonuses in addition to their pay. They receive these even if their department has been conspicuously poor, and we couod name quite a few without any difficulty! Shouldn't they be denied, especially those who should have monitored the economy better? Do the quangocrats get bonuses - "they never would be missed"!
And what of the expenses and pension additions which the MPs seem to award themselves every year - they're the last to suffer in recession!
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Why?
The MPC have today, as expected, reduced the Bank of England base rate still further.
What are they expecting to happen?
With rates already almost uniquely low, will a further reduction make any difference to those who want to borrow? The problem is availability of credit or funds, not its price. There will be, admittedly a small reduction in borrower's costs in the case of business borrowing, but not enough to reduce prices or increase profits significantly.
It will almost certainly not mean an increase in saving - this is no incentive to increase saving, or at least depositing with those institutions which need deposits in order to make advances.
This is a transfer of income from savers to borrowers. The latter will pay less on their mortgages, but given uncertainty and that many have debts in other directions, it is unlikely that they will go on a spending spree.
All in all, it is difficult to see what promotion of economic activity this will make. In so far as the lower rate feeds through to the bond market, it could put pressure on sterling and give our exports a slight advantage, but as foreigners are withholding spending at the moment this will surely have little effect. The government also has to maintain overseas held debt, and this will be more difficult, even if it is cheaper.
The message it sends is that the Treasury is becoming more desperate, that nothing seems to be working. This will not do much for confidence.
So it looks like "easement" will be brought in as the final fling, unless somehow confidence among consumers and producers can be raised. "Toxic Bank", purchase of toxic debt, loan guarantees have not yet been tried, or given time in the case of the latter. Why not give a boost here if the only option seems to be a large government splurge.
What are they expecting to happen?
With rates already almost uniquely low, will a further reduction make any difference to those who want to borrow? The problem is availability of credit or funds, not its price. There will be, admittedly a small reduction in borrower's costs in the case of business borrowing, but not enough to reduce prices or increase profits significantly.
It will almost certainly not mean an increase in saving - this is no incentive to increase saving, or at least depositing with those institutions which need deposits in order to make advances.
This is a transfer of income from savers to borrowers. The latter will pay less on their mortgages, but given uncertainty and that many have debts in other directions, it is unlikely that they will go on a spending spree.
All in all, it is difficult to see what promotion of economic activity this will make. In so far as the lower rate feeds through to the bond market, it could put pressure on sterling and give our exports a slight advantage, but as foreigners are withholding spending at the moment this will surely have little effect. The government also has to maintain overseas held debt, and this will be more difficult, even if it is cheaper.
The message it sends is that the Treasury is becoming more desperate, that nothing seems to be working. This will not do much for confidence.
So it looks like "easement" will be brought in as the final fling, unless somehow confidence among consumers and producers can be raised. "Toxic Bank", purchase of toxic debt, loan guarantees have not yet been tried, or given time in the case of the latter. Why not give a boost here if the only option seems to be a large government splurge.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
All things to all men....
On Monday evening the House of Lords held a debate on a LibDem (- called by some bloggers the LimpDumps) motion about parliamentary standards.
During the debate Lord Shailesh Vara, a Conservative frontbencher, quoted extensively from a LibDem strategy handbook, giving page references in the process. He confirmed what most of us have already noticed.
Page 4 suggests, "Positive campaigning will not be enough to win control of the Council." Really, LibDems engaging in negative campaigning, surely not?
Page 6 claims, "..you can secure support from voters who normally vote Tory by being effectively anti-Labour and similarly in a Tory area secure Labour votes by being anti-Tory." So whatever impression is given, where do they actually stand on the various issues?
Page 21 urges, "Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly" and page 23 advises, "Don't be afraid to exaggerate. For example, responses to surveys and petitions are always 'massive'. If a council is doing something badly public expressions are always of 'outrage'."
These seem very appropriate quotations about the party which instituted the debate on parliamentary standards. Significantly the LibDem MP who introduced the debate left the chamber after Lord Vara's speech. Presumably he had read it all before?
During the debate Lord Shailesh Vara, a Conservative frontbencher, quoted extensively from a LibDem strategy handbook, giving page references in the process. He confirmed what most of us have already noticed.
Page 4 suggests, "Positive campaigning will not be enough to win control of the Council." Really, LibDems engaging in negative campaigning, surely not?
Page 6 claims, "..you can secure support from voters who normally vote Tory by being effectively anti-Labour and similarly in a Tory area secure Labour votes by being anti-Tory." So whatever impression is given, where do they actually stand on the various issues?
Page 21 urges, "Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly" and page 23 advises, "Don't be afraid to exaggerate. For example, responses to surveys and petitions are always 'massive'. If a council is doing something badly public expressions are always of 'outrage'."
These seem very appropriate quotations about the party which instituted the debate on parliamentary standards. Significantly the LibDem MP who introduced the debate left the chamber after Lord Vara's speech. Presumably he had read it all before?
Who said what?
Carole Thatcher has been dismissed by the BBC, unlike Jonathan Ross, who can insult a grandfather on air about his granddaughter or even make lewd suggestions, such as that to David Cameron. Chris Moyles on Radio 1 seems also to get away with insults, such as suggesting that Polish women make good prostitutes.
What did Thatcher actually say? Did she, as friends claim, merely say that a tennis player with bushy hair reminded her of the golliwog on Robertson's jars of her youth? It is possible that the player was Andy Murray!
She certainly didn't say it publicly, but in a private conversation, so it was not intended as an insult to the player concerned. Unfortunately the Thought Police were busy, and she was reported to the BBC.
We do not know which of her fellow conversationalists reported her. The strong suspicion is that it was Jo Brand, who had shown hostility towards her in the actual programme, and who regularly shocks by the things she says. It could have been Adrian Chiles.
Whoever it was, what did they report to the BBC? Was it accurate and in context? The trouble about snitches is that they do their work secretly and no-one except the BBC "judge" knows what was reported.
There is a strong suspicion that she was fired because of her surname, and as a way of showing spite to Mrs. Thatcher, whether on the part of the snitch or the BBC.
Whatever was said, and whatever was reported, the fact remains that the BBC shows double standards - wrist slapping or no action when it is clear that a broadcast insult has been made, and sacking when someone says something in a private conversation, and it is reported by the Thought Police, who may have strong motives to report at all and may put a slant on the report that was not present in the original statement.
From being dismayed by the BBC over many years, I am fast becoming an enemy who longs for alternative radio broadcasters to whom to turn for unbiased reporting and interviewing, and who would share even a small part of the tax which is laid upon us every year and called a licence fee.
What did Thatcher actually say? Did she, as friends claim, merely say that a tennis player with bushy hair reminded her of the golliwog on Robertson's jars of her youth? It is possible that the player was Andy Murray!
She certainly didn't say it publicly, but in a private conversation, so it was not intended as an insult to the player concerned. Unfortunately the Thought Police were busy, and she was reported to the BBC.
We do not know which of her fellow conversationalists reported her. The strong suspicion is that it was Jo Brand, who had shown hostility towards her in the actual programme, and who regularly shocks by the things she says. It could have been Adrian Chiles.
Whoever it was, what did they report to the BBC? Was it accurate and in context? The trouble about snitches is that they do their work secretly and no-one except the BBC "judge" knows what was reported.
There is a strong suspicion that she was fired because of her surname, and as a way of showing spite to Mrs. Thatcher, whether on the part of the snitch or the BBC.
Whatever was said, and whatever was reported, the fact remains that the BBC shows double standards - wrist slapping or no action when it is clear that a broadcast insult has been made, and sacking when someone says something in a private conversation, and it is reported by the Thought Police, who may have strong motives to report at all and may put a slant on the report that was not present in the original statement.
From being dismayed by the BBC over many years, I am fast becoming an enemy who longs for alternative radio broadcasters to whom to turn for unbiased reporting and interviewing, and who would share even a small part of the tax which is laid upon us every year and called a licence fee.
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
and not just pensions
I recently posted a message about the superiority of public sector pensions to those in the private sector. I think that Cameron called this pension apartheid.
The Mail this morning suggests that calculations show that public sector salaries are gaining on those in the private sector, and private sector earnings are likely to be subject to downward pressure when the recession really deepens. This will obviously help to make public sector final salary index-linked pensions even more attractive, and hasten the socialist utopia.
It is clearly difficult to compare salary ranges, so comparisons are made of median earnings in each, that is the middle incomes.
Between 1997 and 2004 the differences barely altered. In 2004 the median income in the public sector was £452 per week, and that for the private sector was £410.
In 2008 the figures were £522 public sector, £460 private sector.
Thus in 2004 the difference was £42 per week, while in 2008 the difference was £62. The gap had increased by virtually 50%
The Mail this morning suggests that calculations show that public sector salaries are gaining on those in the private sector, and private sector earnings are likely to be subject to downward pressure when the recession really deepens. This will obviously help to make public sector final salary index-linked pensions even more attractive, and hasten the socialist utopia.
It is clearly difficult to compare salary ranges, so comparisons are made of median earnings in each, that is the middle incomes.
Between 1997 and 2004 the differences barely altered. In 2004 the median income in the public sector was £452 per week, and that for the private sector was £410.
In 2008 the figures were £522 public sector, £460 private sector.
Thus in 2004 the difference was £42 per week, while in 2008 the difference was £62. The gap had increased by virtually 50%
Would we want it?
Have you followed the developments in Scotland, which now has a minority SNP government?
What we see is not so much a minority government, but one which consists of occasional and ephemeral coalitions.
Opposition parties, excluding the Tories, voted against and defeated the proposed budget of £33 billion.
So the Greens offered to support the government, so long as the government increased the money in the insulation scheme. They subsequently asked for 50% more and Mr. Salmon played hard to get and spoke of dissolving the government and calling for an election.
What we have then is the weakness of proportional representation, which usually leads to coalition because there is no overall majority. A small party, which can have as little as 5% of the national vote is able to foist some of its policies, which may be supported by no-one else, on to the governing party. What few people want may become what they get!
The threat of an election may make one or more of the minority parties conform. The horse trading and the question of who blinks first is not a worthy way to decide the future of a country.
What we see is not so much a minority government, but one which consists of occasional and ephemeral coalitions.
Opposition parties, excluding the Tories, voted against and defeated the proposed budget of £33 billion.
So the Greens offered to support the government, so long as the government increased the money in the insulation scheme. They subsequently asked for 50% more and Mr. Salmon played hard to get and spoke of dissolving the government and calling for an election.
What we have then is the weakness of proportional representation, which usually leads to coalition because there is no overall majority. A small party, which can have as little as 5% of the national vote is able to foist some of its policies, which may be supported by no-one else, on to the governing party. What few people want may become what they get!
The threat of an election may make one or more of the minority parties conform. The horse trading and the question of who blinks first is not a worthy way to decide the future of a country.
To judge from the past...
Citigroup recently did calculations to compare with initial output fall (after two quarters) and the eventual cumulative output fall in the four most recent recessions, in the mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the early 1990s and the present recessions. The current one has not yet finished, of course, so there is a necessary forecasting element
The result is that the early fall was greater this time than in any other recession except the early 1980s, but that the fional output fall will equal that in the 1980s. This is on the assumption that output will fall in 2009 by about 3.5 percent. This final figure exceeds the maximum annual fall over the past fifty years.
Is the forecast figure likely to be the actual case? The UK has already suffered a 2.1% fall over the past six months, with 1.65% in the final quarter alone. The next six are expected to produce something like the final quarter of 2008. So in the year September 2008 to ASugust 2009, the increase could well be over 5%.
What will happen for 2009 as a whole? If recovery does occur as the (proxy) Chancellor stated in his November PBR, then even with a rise in output, it will take some going to overcome the 3% fall over the first six months and we shall finish 2009 down over the year.
If Mr. Darling was over-optimistic, as many feel, then even with a late recover in 2009 we are looking for something approaching a 5% fall for the year.
If UK utput were to fall 5% in a year then we would be approaching that 5.5% in 1931, during the slump. It could mean also a longer period needed for recovery, perhaps three years even to restore where we were in early 2008.
The result is that the early fall was greater this time than in any other recession except the early 1980s, but that the fional output fall will equal that in the 1980s. This is on the assumption that output will fall in 2009 by about 3.5 percent. This final figure exceeds the maximum annual fall over the past fifty years.
Is the forecast figure likely to be the actual case? The UK has already suffered a 2.1% fall over the past six months, with 1.65% in the final quarter alone. The next six are expected to produce something like the final quarter of 2008. So in the year September 2008 to ASugust 2009, the increase could well be over 5%.
What will happen for 2009 as a whole? If recovery does occur as the (proxy) Chancellor stated in his November PBR, then even with a rise in output, it will take some going to overcome the 3% fall over the first six months and we shall finish 2009 down over the year.
If Mr. Darling was over-optimistic, as many feel, then even with a late recover in 2009 we are looking for something approaching a 5% fall for the year.
If UK utput were to fall 5% in a year then we would be approaching that 5.5% in 1931, during the slump. It could mean also a longer period needed for recovery, perhaps three years even to restore where we were in early 2008.
What's a little waste among friends?
The Sun newspaper this morning carries two shocking facts about the bungling which has occurred in the management of the NHS computer network scheme.
First, it is running presently at about £18 billion over budget. (Of this the connection of all 30,000 GPs to the system, which was estimated to cost £2.3 billion is now expected to cost £12.7 billion.)
Second, the project is running four years behind schedule, and the the two main system providers, BT and CSC, are threatening to pull out.
This is a serious indictment of a publicly managed IT project. It compares unfavourably with other organisations which have huge networks, such as the banks - go into any branch of your bank or use their on-line banking service or even cashpoints, and you can instantly discover details. In fact local account details are not kept locally. The same is true of companies who sell on line, and also of many commercial organisations with many branches and customers.
It is also a serious waste of resources, and a sacrifice of alternative spending by the government. The Sun points out that the cost increase could have financed 200 hospitals, 2000 Challenger tanks or 1 million heart by-pass operations.
Why is this so familiar in government projects, and especially IT projects?
In private industry care and monitoring take place because it impinges on shareholder and worker alike in competitive situations. In the public sector there is no comeback and the attitude is that the money is other peoples'.
Perhaps for similar reasons there is a tendency to under-estimate costs at the outset.
An important reason is probably the failure to specify features and conditions fully at the start, and almost certainly politicians will intervene in various ways during the implementation. As the man said, "The one who aims at nothing in particular, hits that exactly every time." Then, of course, he has to put things right.
First, it is running presently at about £18 billion over budget. (Of this the connection of all 30,000 GPs to the system, which was estimated to cost £2.3 billion is now expected to cost £12.7 billion.)
Second, the project is running four years behind schedule, and the the two main system providers, BT and CSC, are threatening to pull out.
This is a serious indictment of a publicly managed IT project. It compares unfavourably with other organisations which have huge networks, such as the banks - go into any branch of your bank or use their on-line banking service or even cashpoints, and you can instantly discover details. In fact local account details are not kept locally. The same is true of companies who sell on line, and also of many commercial organisations with many branches and customers.
It is also a serious waste of resources, and a sacrifice of alternative spending by the government. The Sun points out that the cost increase could have financed 200 hospitals, 2000 Challenger tanks or 1 million heart by-pass operations.
Why is this so familiar in government projects, and especially IT projects?
In private industry care and monitoring take place because it impinges on shareholder and worker alike in competitive situations. In the public sector there is no comeback and the attitude is that the money is other peoples'.
Perhaps for similar reasons there is a tendency to under-estimate costs at the outset.
An important reason is probably the failure to specify features and conditions fully at the start, and almost certainly politicians will intervene in various ways during the implementation. As the man said, "The one who aims at nothing in particular, hits that exactly every time." Then, of course, he has to put things right.
The man of conceit ( and error)
"The Man of System.. is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.... He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess board. He does not consider that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it."
(Adam Smith, "The THeory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter 2.)
Which current prime minister does the picture skteched by Smith remind you of? The word hubris comes to mind.
(Adam Smith, "The THeory of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter 2.)
Which current prime minister does the picture skteched by Smith remind you of? The word hubris comes to mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
