Is it me or is the quality of British TV deteriorating beyond a joke? It seems to me that the only new stuff on TV at the moment is the news -and most of that is boring - and the soaps and they are all getting very tired. Everything else is just re-runs and repeats of rubbish that we have all seen over and over again. One wonders how the TV companies are convincing their advertiser's that there are people watching, I hardly watch any of the programs let alone sit through the adverts!
Then there is FREEVIEW - what crap - Multiple choice stations like hell, it the same stuff repeated over and over again at different times, the other night Grand Designs was allegedly showing on five different Freeview channels over the same evening. They think that this is "choice" - bo**ocks! - what was worse was that they were all repeats anyway.
They should change the name from FREEVIEW to VINTAGEVIEW or ANTIQUETV, but hey, soon you will be able to watch all this crap in High Definition - WOW - we can't wait!
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Govenors Speech to the TUC
I quote from Mr King's speech to the TUC, "After a decade-and-a-half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression."
What bulls**t! - There was no stability, the economy of the whole period was a house of cards built on sand. Mr King is attempting to fudge the fact that the Bank of England and Treasury had no control over and no vision of the international banks selling each other completely worthless stocks and bonds for more than a decade.
Further more this rising employment he talks about was masked by the fact that on one hand some people were losing well paid jobs and whilst on the other they were replaced in the overall figures by more people in lower paid jobs, how else can Mr King explain that the gap between rich and poor getting wider every year. If the jobs available were improving every body's wealth fairly, the gap could not be widening, could it?
And finally the gross national living standard as a statistic may have risen, but only because the minority at the top are getting far more of it than their fair share. That's the only way his statement can stack up. Talk about spin, he would be better off working as a gyroscope!
What bulls**t! - There was no stability, the economy of the whole period was a house of cards built on sand. Mr King is attempting to fudge the fact that the Bank of England and Treasury had no control over and no vision of the international banks selling each other completely worthless stocks and bonds for more than a decade.
Further more this rising employment he talks about was masked by the fact that on one hand some people were losing well paid jobs and whilst on the other they were replaced in the overall figures by more people in lower paid jobs, how else can Mr King explain that the gap between rich and poor getting wider every year. If the jobs available were improving every body's wealth fairly, the gap could not be widening, could it?
And finally the gross national living standard as a statistic may have risen, but only because the minority at the top are getting far more of it than their fair share. That's the only way his statement can stack up. Talk about spin, he would be better off working as a gyroscope!
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Supermarket creates new jobs!
We are constantly being told about this or that major retailer, usually one of the big five supermarkets, about the quantity of new jobs that they have created somewhere. However we are not told how many jobs the new business destroyed, the brand new supermarket or super store opens up and all the smaller retailers around it close down.
What's perhaps worse is that most of these "new" jobs are part time, very low paid and with little prospect of promotion. The retailers will no doubt argue with me that there is much potential for staff to work their way up inside the business but against what odds, today one of the biggest retailers ran an advert in our local paper for 75 new jobs and got 500 applications from desperate people. At this rate you will soon need a degree in retailing to operate a checkout or even stack shelves.
Expanding businesses rarely create new jobs they just destroy older, and in their eyes, more costly and less efficient ones, its called "economics". Just remeber that one new job probably means the loss of more than one old one, that's why there are more and more people becoming unemployed.
What's perhaps worse is that most of these "new" jobs are part time, very low paid and with little prospect of promotion. The retailers will no doubt argue with me that there is much potential for staff to work their way up inside the business but against what odds, today one of the biggest retailers ran an advert in our local paper for 75 new jobs and got 500 applications from desperate people. At this rate you will soon need a degree in retailing to operate a checkout or even stack shelves.
Expanding businesses rarely create new jobs they just destroy older, and in their eyes, more costly and less efficient ones, its called "economics". Just remeber that one new job probably means the loss of more than one old one, that's why there are more and more people becoming unemployed.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Number of MPs, what about the others?
Central government is considering reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 (that is still to many!) but what about the other elected representatives. Our county, Cambridgeshire, has 69 county councillors and then the District Council, Huntingdonshire, in addition has another 52 and then our town council has a further 16.
Just how many people do we need to represent us? Quantity has never produced quality!
A county should have no more than 20 and a district or borough no more than 10 or perhaps 12 and the town/parish no more than 6 or perhaps 8. In preference, the later two councils should each be replaced by one elected mayor. The amount of money we would save in expenses, office space and administration staff would be enormous, decisions would take half the time and also reduce one of the global warming hot air sources.
Just how many people do we need to represent us? Quantity has never produced quality!
A county should have no more than 20 and a district or borough no more than 10 or perhaps 12 and the town/parish no more than 6 or perhaps 8. In preference, the later two councils should each be replaced by one elected mayor. The amount of money we would save in expenses, office space and administration staff would be enormous, decisions would take half the time and also reduce one of the global warming hot air sources.
A cap on Parish Councils
A little bird informs me that the government is considering introducing a cap on the precept of parish councils. This means that for the first time since parish councils were introduced they will not be able to just increase the amount they add onto our Council Taxes to pay their bills.
Perhaps someone has read my previous blog?
Perhaps someone has read my previous blog?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Local Authorities reducing expenditure?
Well no, not exactly. They are just moving it elsewhere. In England District and Borough Councils are transferring costs down to the Parish Councils in their area because they know Parish Councils are not subject to the capping rules that apply them.
The District and/or Borough Council simply refuses to contribute to essential items like toilets leaving the parish or town council to pick up the bill or loose them. This type of liability transfer is not restricted to toilets but being applied to a whole range of services that the District or Borough Council are not forced by law to provide but the loss of which will have serious effects on the local people.
Similarly District and Borough Councils are raising revenues elsewhere by increasing fees for services like local car parks and leisure services BUT are very secretive with what savings they have made by efficiency improvements, staff reductions and reduced remunerations.
If you think I am making this up be sure that I am not, the precept of our local town council has increased from 3% of the total Council Tax to a massive 8%. They have picked up the costs of services that were once provided elsewhere. This is not saving money this is "cooking the books" and deceiving the general public once again.
This leaves us with higher council tax bills, higher car parking and higher other local charges. The Local Authorities have not got the message yet that they need to actually CUT costs and stop trying to pass the buck by moving things about pretending that they are doing something.
We need toilets and we need car parks and we need leisure services BUT we need them provided economically and efficiently and that is NOT done by fiddling about with who pays for them.
The District and/or Borough Council simply refuses to contribute to essential items like toilets leaving the parish or town council to pick up the bill or loose them. This type of liability transfer is not restricted to toilets but being applied to a whole range of services that the District or Borough Council are not forced by law to provide but the loss of which will have serious effects on the local people.
Similarly District and Borough Councils are raising revenues elsewhere by increasing fees for services like local car parks and leisure services BUT are very secretive with what savings they have made by efficiency improvements, staff reductions and reduced remunerations.
If you think I am making this up be sure that I am not, the precept of our local town council has increased from 3% of the total Council Tax to a massive 8%. They have picked up the costs of services that were once provided elsewhere. This is not saving money this is "cooking the books" and deceiving the general public once again.
This leaves us with higher council tax bills, higher car parking and higher other local charges. The Local Authorities have not got the message yet that they need to actually CUT costs and stop trying to pass the buck by moving things about pretending that they are doing something.
We need toilets and we need car parks and we need leisure services BUT we need them provided economically and efficiently and that is NOT done by fiddling about with who pays for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)