Amazing,
parts 1
and
2
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Forget cuts and keep spending, Brown told
I am inclined to agree because the deficit will be reduced as a positive side-effect of the growth, while the reverse is not necessarily true. That this, growth will not automatically resume as a side-effect of deficit reduction.
I think there are both ideological and practical differences between the two main parties here: ideological in that Labour favour higher spending while the Tories generally prefer lower public spending. That's obvious.
The second, practical, point is perhaps a little naivety on the Tories' behalf, while a deficit like that is no good thing, it's relative importance in all matters is debatable. I think they've focused on it too quickly, rather than looking at other aspects of the wider fiscal and monetary picture which show the proper way out of, what I like to call in my semi-pro economic speak The Great Fuck Up.
We have to grow our way out of this mess, but we can't afford to have the sort of unemployment and social degradation that the 80s saw, and so that needs to be taken into account when considering where to go from here.
Hence, as much investment as possible. Although a note of caution there
I think there are both ideological and practical differences between the two main parties here: ideological in that Labour favour higher spending while the Tories generally prefer lower public spending. That's obvious.
The second, practical, point is perhaps a little naivety on the Tories' behalf, while a deficit like that is no good thing, it's relative importance in all matters is debatable. I think they've focused on it too quickly, rather than looking at other aspects of the wider fiscal and monetary picture which show the proper way out of, what I like to call in my semi-pro economic speak The Great Fuck Up.
We have to grow our way out of this mess, but we can't afford to have the sort of unemployment and social degradation that the 80s saw, and so that needs to be taken into account when considering where to go from here.
Hence, as much investment as possible. Although a note of caution there
Did immigration transform Britain by accident?
So, immigration eh? There are plenty of factors at work here, so I'll touch on the odd one or two. Firstly, one bone of contention that I've long held is 'they're taking our jobs'. No, they're not. It's the employer who gives the job to the employee, and yet employers get away scot free while some poor bugger gets the blame. Polish plumbers. Plumbers used to be the popular comedy character for someone lazy who drank your tea and emptied your wallet. Now they are seen as foreign, quiet, cheap and efficient. I wonder if any BNP supporters ever had a Pole doing up their kitchen, probably.
Now if a little bit of logic can be injected into this debate (unlikely I know), then to follow the argument through would mean deliberately having a less competitive labour market. I can't help but think that is a recipe for disaster. We're never going to be a world leader with a LESS productive work force, seeing as ours is bad enough as it is. In part I blame a lack of public holidays and too long hours.
Now I'm generally a liberal, and even free-ish on the market some times. But immigration needs some controls on it to balance the needs of those who have and those who need. A minimum wage is a good one, but the enforcement needs to be better. Not a new law, just better implementation of the current one.
London is crowded, massively. There are people who say this country is full etc. etc. bollocks. The country is not full, we may need to tinker around the edges with some bits, but we're not full. Is there enough affordable housing? No. is infrastructure properly resourced? No. in part, this is because of the more people having come here and using it, but it's also because the money is not being collected properly at the other end. If it needs to be paid for, it needs to be paid for.
As with most things it's a matter of drawing the line in the right place. That, sadly, is a very boring conclusion to come to, but there it is.
Now if a little bit of logic can be injected into this debate (unlikely I know), then to follow the argument through would mean deliberately having a less competitive labour market. I can't help but think that is a recipe for disaster. We're never going to be a world leader with a LESS productive work force, seeing as ours is bad enough as it is. In part I blame a lack of public holidays and too long hours.
Now I'm generally a liberal, and even free-ish on the market some times. But immigration needs some controls on it to balance the needs of those who have and those who need. A minimum wage is a good one, but the enforcement needs to be better. Not a new law, just better implementation of the current one.
London is crowded, massively. There are people who say this country is full etc. etc. bollocks. The country is not full, we may need to tinker around the edges with some bits, but we're not full. Is there enough affordable housing? No. is infrastructure properly resourced? No. in part, this is because of the more people having come here and using it, but it's also because the money is not being collected properly at the other end. If it needs to be paid for, it needs to be paid for.
As with most things it's a matter of drawing the line in the right place. That, sadly, is a very boring conclusion to come to, but there it is.
Tory cuts pave the way for a return to 80s dole queues
Ol' Comrade Polly finally seems to have realised there's an election on and that Labour are going to loose. To be fair, for the last couple of months her articles have been rallying calls, pointing out how wonderful Labour is and hoe crappy the Tories are. Obvious, but a necessary step.
I have limited experience of signing on, I did it for a month and was then told that I wasn't eligible because I hadn't earned enough. I was lucky in that I found a job, but being a temp my contract is coming to an end and I shall once again be on the look out, so lock up your jobs.
Toynbee paints a wonderful black and white picture of government investment being great while cuts would leave people begging to be let into the workhouse, but I think she's broadly right. Even if her article is as subtle as cracking a nut with a nuclear bomb, she's going on the right track.
Let's just hope that come mid-April those job centres are doing their good work and can help this fine bearded individual back into employment
I have limited experience of signing on, I did it for a month and was then told that I wasn't eligible because I hadn't earned enough. I was lucky in that I found a job, but being a temp my contract is coming to an end and I shall once again be on the look out, so lock up your jobs.
Toynbee paints a wonderful black and white picture of government investment being great while cuts would leave people begging to be let into the workhouse, but I think she's broadly right. Even if her article is as subtle as cracking a nut with a nuclear bomb, she's going on the right track.
Let's just hope that come mid-April those job centres are doing their good work and can help this fine bearded individual back into employment
Friday, 5 February 2010
Angry Portsmouth supporters beg for help | Portsmouth - Times Online
Five representatives of angry Portsmouth fans will walk into the Premier League's luxurious offices in London today looking for answers as to why their club has become football's financial basket case.
Well, because they spent too much money. We see the same thing at Southend, the fans all call for the board to spend all this money which we clearly don't have. It's up to the board to tell the fans to fuck off when they start getting silly.
The fit and proper persons test is weak to say the least. I used to think it was just a matter of 'do you have lots of money?', but now half the new owners appear to be broke so even that doesn't stand up. I mean, anything that considers Thaksin Shinawatra a 'fit and proper person' is pathetic.
So who's fault, at the end of the day? Portsmouth's. The Premier League certainly played a part, but it's Portsmouth where the blame lies. Well, their owners and their fans (to a lesser extent). Fans call for the earth, it's the board's job to make sure they (or we, as in supporters generally) don't get what we can't afford.
Well, because they spent too much money. We see the same thing at Southend, the fans all call for the board to spend all this money which we clearly don't have. It's up to the board to tell the fans to fuck off when they start getting silly.
The fit and proper persons test is weak to say the least. I used to think it was just a matter of 'do you have lots of money?', but now half the new owners appear to be broke so even that doesn't stand up. I mean, anything that considers Thaksin Shinawatra a 'fit and proper person' is pathetic.
So who's fault, at the end of the day? Portsmouth's. The Premier League certainly played a part, but it's Portsmouth where the blame lies. Well, their owners and their fans (to a lesser extent). Fans call for the earth, it's the board's job to make sure they (or we, as in supporters generally) don't get what we can't afford.
John Terry
Just listening to the new, and Gordy has been quoted giving his opinion on Terry's sacking by Capello.
I give not a shit about the Terry thing, nor what Gordy thinks about it. Why's it on the bloody news?
I give not a shit about the Terry thing, nor what Gordy thinks about it. Why's it on the bloody news?
BBC News - Should we elect MPs on reality TV rules?
I had written a thing on this, but once again the computer crashed and lost it. Suppose I should be doing some work, yeah yeah yeah.
Anyway.
I think the voting system in Britain has to change. Reasons for this is that voting patterns are not properly expressed in the result, such as the Tories' 11-point poll lead roughly equating to a majority of 1 (also see 1983 election). Also, the thing about the entire election being decided by 4% of the electorate is wrong and very undemocratic.
But I support a system which delivers a decisive result, as opposed to the American system where the minority party can block everything the government tries to do. Let the government take their mandate and rule, and live and die by their actions.
I personally prefer the French style, so that if there is no clear winner (majority) then the top two run off about a week later, thereby everyone who's been elected has at least 50% of the vote.
And I'd make polling day a national holiday, and it fixed term parliaments so that voting day was always the first Thursday in April every 4 years, with sub-national elections on the same day in the in-between years.
And I'd make St. George's day a national holiday and an excuse for a national piss-up
Anyway.
I think the voting system in Britain has to change. Reasons for this is that voting patterns are not properly expressed in the result, such as the Tories' 11-point poll lead roughly equating to a majority of 1 (also see 1983 election). Also, the thing about the entire election being decided by 4% of the electorate is wrong and very undemocratic.
But I support a system which delivers a decisive result, as opposed to the American system where the minority party can block everything the government tries to do. Let the government take their mandate and rule, and live and die by their actions.
I personally prefer the French style, so that if there is no clear winner (majority) then the top two run off about a week later, thereby everyone who's been elected has at least 50% of the vote.
And I'd make polling day a national holiday, and it fixed term parliaments so that voting day was always the first Thursday in April every 4 years, with sub-national elections on the same day in the in-between years.
And I'd make St. George's day a national holiday and an excuse for a national piss-up
Thursday, 4 February 2010
BBC - Mark Easton's UK: Watchdog: Grayling 'likely to damage' trust in statistics
Is that a lying Tory bastard I spy?
If I was being fair and balanced I'd say something about all politicians, and people from most walks of life, distorting statistics to press their own case in the face of opposition.
But that's boring, so instead I hold up the damaging lies spread by the Tories in to further their agenda in the face of a government doing it's best to deal with serious issues instead of cheap political point scoring.
But that's not quite true either, sadly.
If I was being fair and balanced I'd say something about all politicians, and people from most walks of life, distorting statistics to press their own case in the face of opposition.
But that's boring, so instead I hold up the damaging lies spread by the Tories in to further their agenda in the face of a government doing it's best to deal with serious issues instead of cheap political point scoring.
But that's not quite true either, sadly.
Ozzy economics
So Ozzy is following Brown's lead and has come up with some 'Golden Rules'. Using such detailed policy measures as 'get Britain working'. Yeah, nice one mate. All those years of education at some of the most highly regarded institutions in the western world and that's all we get. I could have told you that's a good idea, you tart.
While there are some measures which all sound very appealing, most of it is 'cut the public sector' and 'privatise anything not nailed down'. Which sounds great, but doesn't necessarily work in practice. In part because there is almost nothing left to privatise.
Deficit reduction is important, yes. But what's the best method of getting there? Boosting market confidence by doing it now but risking the economic recovery which will make the biggest (positive) difference? Or ride the wave of growth to reduce the deficit and hope that the markets and credit rating agencies don't start pulling the carpet from under it.
I'd go for the latter but with a keen eye on the possible pitfalls.
Investment is the best way, not cuts
While there are some measures which all sound very appealing, most of it is 'cut the public sector' and 'privatise anything not nailed down'. Which sounds great, but doesn't necessarily work in practice. In part because there is almost nothing left to privatise.
Deficit reduction is important, yes. But what's the best method of getting there? Boosting market confidence by doing it now but risking the economic recovery which will make the biggest (positive) difference? Or ride the wave of growth to reduce the deficit and hope that the markets and credit rating agencies don't start pulling the carpet from under it.
I'd go for the latter but with a keen eye on the possible pitfalls.
Investment is the best way, not cuts
Friday, 29 January 2010
Court gives BNP last chance to scrap whites-only policy
The party constitution all sounds deeply worrying to me. It's the fact that they are going on about one group to the exclusion of others that doesn't sit well with me, and doesn't sound very British. At our best we deal with people who who they themselves are, not their parents, birthplace or skin colour
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
