Very depressing statistics out today show the unemployment figures have increased again with the Government blaming the poor results on the Eurozone problems. What rubbish!
The current situation is due to what was happening in the economy 6 to 12 months ago not as a result of what is happening now. The awful thing is that with other current economic indicators also showing sluggish, if not zero, growth then the unemployment figures are set to get a lot worse in 6 months time when the Eurozone effect does actually start to influence them.
The Government has to take action to help the million plus young people get some kind of employment and they need to do it now. This mess will not go away for quite a while, probably years, and it is totally unacceptable for youngsters to be dumped on the scrap heap for that length of time.
What can be done? Well, here's a few ideas;
1) Give employers PAYE credits for employing school/college/university leavers.
2) Remove employers NIC contributions on new employees under 21's
3) Give employers grants to take on apprentices.
4) Allow the unemployed to take up short term unpaid secondment to businesses where they are still paid Job Seekers Allowance but don't need to sign on during the secondment. This will allow them to get the experience required to get a proper paid position.
Listening to young people talk about the difficulty getting a job the most common problem is that they don't have the experience required. This is a growing issue and needs some "out of the box" thinking to permanently resolve. Perhaps all education leavers should go on secondment for 'x' months after finishing education. A permanent system, jointly funded by employers and the government, should be set up to provide a route to experience where every employer over a certain size must offer young persons secondment positions.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Nothing on TV!
They, whom ever they are!, warned us that once we got multiple TV channels that the quality of the programs would deteriorate. Well, perhaps the quality has not deteriorated as badly as we imagined because all we get to see are the better (or sometimes the worst) programs that were produced years ago. It's repeat after repeat and then they, the TV companies, throw in "The Best of ..." or "Highlights from ..." or "Revisiting ...". What crap that's just another word for REPEAT. Do they think were all stupid?
Poor programming is blamed on low advertising revenues supposedly due to the recession but more likely due to there being too many channels chasing to few advertisers, with new mobile technologies available there are far better ways for advertisers to get their products to the people than using expensive TV adverts.
However the TV companies don't help themselves; putting adverts 5 or 10 minutes before the end of a film or other program does not make me sit and watch the boring adverts as they show for so long I have time to go and put the kettle on AND visit the loo AND get back to see the last 2 minutes of the real program and I imagine the rest of the country is doing likewise. If per chance there is an excellent program being shown and adverts disturb my enjoyment of it I make a point NOT to buy any of the advertised products, I don't complain to the TV company I just vote with my wallet. Given that TV advertising revenues are constantly falling, and set to fall even more, perhaps others including the advertisers have figured out that bad timing of adverts just antagonises the potential customers and it is a poor way to sell products and services.
Whilst I am spouting off I will not just blame the TV companies, the adverts themselves don't help the advertisers either - WHY DOES THE VOLUME (SOUND LEVEL) GO UP DURING THE AD BREAK - It just makes me turn the sound off completely! - ADVERTISERS DO YOU HEAR ME?
Another AD type that is laughable are those that are obviously recorded in a foreign language and then over-dubbed. There is a current car advert featuring what is supposed to be an English couple in their new offering but if they are in Britain then they are driving on the wrong side of the road! My view is that if you are trying to tempt me to buy your product at least make an effort to appeal to me in my own language and film it in my country or perhaps it's not really an advert you are making but a feeble attempt to produce an out-take for Harry's TV Burp.
COOKERY PROGRAMS
The problem with showing cookery programmes that were filmed last year, or perhaps even earlier, is that they did not reckon on few being able to afford to "put it a slow oven for FOUR HOURS!" - Do you own an electricity generating station or a gas pipeline from Norway too?
And what about your larder - what larder! TV chefs are cooking in kitchens twice the size of most folks houses, using gadgets and gizmo's that few people have room for today.
There is a great need to get back to basics, you don't need all that crap to cook. you don't even need scales (an old fashioned gadget used to weight things), just buy an old cook book from a charity shop as it is likely to use measures like "one and a half a cup of flour" or "a teaspoon full or baking powder" or perhaps even a "pinch of salt". I even saw one gadget that has different size spoons on it to measure a full spoon, a half-spoon and a quarter-spoon! I bet the person who thought that one up could sell sand to Egypt. What idiot needs a gadget other than a teaspoon to measure "half "of one!
Why not make cookery programs using a kitchen space the size of a normal domestic kitchen, with equipment and ingredients that normal people have (and can afford) or perhaps you are not interested in economically feeding the masses but only those who can afford to eat out every day anyway?
Anyway, got to go, the repeat of the repeat of "Coast" has just started and even though I have seen it before, more than once, it's the only decent program on all night. Bye.
Poor programming is blamed on low advertising revenues supposedly due to the recession but more likely due to there being too many channels chasing to few advertisers, with new mobile technologies available there are far better ways for advertisers to get their products to the people than using expensive TV adverts.
However the TV companies don't help themselves; putting adverts 5 or 10 minutes before the end of a film or other program does not make me sit and watch the boring adverts as they show for so long I have time to go and put the kettle on AND visit the loo AND get back to see the last 2 minutes of the real program and I imagine the rest of the country is doing likewise. If per chance there is an excellent program being shown and adverts disturb my enjoyment of it I make a point NOT to buy any of the advertised products, I don't complain to the TV company I just vote with my wallet. Given that TV advertising revenues are constantly falling, and set to fall even more, perhaps others including the advertisers have figured out that bad timing of adverts just antagonises the potential customers and it is a poor way to sell products and services.
Whilst I am spouting off I will not just blame the TV companies, the adverts themselves don't help the advertisers either - WHY DOES THE VOLUME (SOUND LEVEL) GO UP DURING THE AD BREAK - It just makes me turn the sound off completely! - ADVERTISERS DO YOU HEAR ME?
WE TURN THE SOUND OFF!
Another AD type that is laughable are those that are obviously recorded in a foreign language and then over-dubbed. There is a current car advert featuring what is supposed to be an English couple in their new offering but if they are in Britain then they are driving on the wrong side of the road! My view is that if you are trying to tempt me to buy your product at least make an effort to appeal to me in my own language and film it in my country or perhaps it's not really an advert you are making but a feeble attempt to produce an out-take for Harry's TV Burp.
COOKERY PROGRAMS
The problem with showing cookery programmes that were filmed last year, or perhaps even earlier, is that they did not reckon on few being able to afford to "put it a slow oven for FOUR HOURS!" - Do you own an electricity generating station or a gas pipeline from Norway too?
And what about your larder - what larder! TV chefs are cooking in kitchens twice the size of most folks houses, using gadgets and gizmo's that few people have room for today.
There is a great need to get back to basics, you don't need all that crap to cook. you don't even need scales (an old fashioned gadget used to weight things), just buy an old cook book from a charity shop as it is likely to use measures like "one and a half a cup of flour" or "a teaspoon full or baking powder" or perhaps even a "pinch of salt". I even saw one gadget that has different size spoons on it to measure a full spoon, a half-spoon and a quarter-spoon! I bet the person who thought that one up could sell sand to Egypt. What idiot needs a gadget other than a teaspoon to measure "half "of one!
Why not make cookery programs using a kitchen space the size of a normal domestic kitchen, with equipment and ingredients that normal people have (and can afford) or perhaps you are not interested in economically feeding the masses but only those who can afford to eat out every day anyway?
Anyway, got to go, the repeat of the repeat of "Coast" has just started and even though I have seen it before, more than once, it's the only decent program on all night. Bye.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Bank threat to move to Hong Kong
The HSBC, or rather what was the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, makes threats to move to Hong Kong. Let it go then, the sooner we get rid of egotistic organisations that have no care or responsibility for the place and people where they do business the better.
They say we would loose around £1.6 billion in taxation if they move their headquarters. Well we have already lost a lot more than that from having to bail out the banks already, what's a little bit more to be rid of these morons. Oh, yes the HSBC say they did not get any of the bank bail out money so why should they contribute to the additional taxation the government is imposing. One wonders how long HSBC would have survived if the other banks had been left to fail, I imagine not very long.
All the banks benefited from the bail out whether or not they actually received the cash and they are idiots if they think otherwise and even bigger idiots if they think they can convince us otherwise.
I would also think that the Chinese Government would very much like them to move to Hong Kong they will soon need the additional tax revenue to support their expanding economy as that also is a potential "house of cards". Why? because China have very little natural resources so everything needs to be imported to sustain their economy. As the cost of fuel rises they will no longer be in a position to produce the cheap exports that are stuffing up the rest of us. All we have to do is wait.
If HSBC does move to Hong Kong we can still tax its operations in the UK and as they would then be outside the EC we would be free to impose even more stringent regulations and heavier taxation on them than we are proposing at the moment. He who laughs last....go on bu**er off, we'll help you pack!
They say we would loose around £1.6 billion in taxation if they move their headquarters. Well we have already lost a lot more than that from having to bail out the banks already, what's a little bit more to be rid of these morons. Oh, yes the HSBC say they did not get any of the bank bail out money so why should they contribute to the additional taxation the government is imposing. One wonders how long HSBC would have survived if the other banks had been left to fail, I imagine not very long.
All the banks benefited from the bail out whether or not they actually received the cash and they are idiots if they think otherwise and even bigger idiots if they think they can convince us otherwise.
I would also think that the Chinese Government would very much like them to move to Hong Kong they will soon need the additional tax revenue to support their expanding economy as that also is a potential "house of cards". Why? because China have very little natural resources so everything needs to be imported to sustain their economy. As the cost of fuel rises they will no longer be in a position to produce the cheap exports that are stuffing up the rest of us. All we have to do is wait.
If HSBC does move to Hong Kong we can still tax its operations in the UK and as they would then be outside the EC we would be free to impose even more stringent regulations and heavier taxation on them than we are proposing at the moment. He who laughs last....go on bu**er off, we'll help you pack!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Fuel costs more than a fine?
With national budgets and public spending being cut all over the place, including that of the Police and other Emergency Services is it not time to increase the level that drivers, and others, are fined when they break the law. Currently the £80 fixed fine is becoming less than the cost of a tank of petrol. Given the number of cars still on the road, clearly not occupied in travelling to and from work, many people are obviously not bothered too much about the cost of fuel.
Perhaps by dramatically increasing the level of fines one of two things would happen. Either the government would get some income which could be used to help fund the Emergency Services., or everyone would drive more sensibly and the number of accidents would go down thus reducing the costs of the Emergency Services.
I can almost hear the sceptics that say recovering the money from increased fines would erode any benefit from doing so. No it would not, because once an offender had received a Penalty Notice they would have to cease driving and surrender their driving license. The driving ban should last until the fine was paid in full or they had negotiated a payment plan. Oh yes!, if the fine is not paid the car gets crushed too.
Similarly the costs of an accident, or at least a substantial contribution, should be charged to the insurance companies of the parties at fault. Why should all the careful drivers and the public that don’t drive have to pay to clear up the mess created by those that are reckless?
Perhaps by dramatically increasing the level of fines one of two things would happen. Either the government would get some income which could be used to help fund the Emergency Services., or everyone would drive more sensibly and the number of accidents would go down thus reducing the costs of the Emergency Services.
I can almost hear the sceptics that say recovering the money from increased fines would erode any benefit from doing so. No it would not, because once an offender had received a Penalty Notice they would have to cease driving and surrender their driving license. The driving ban should last until the fine was paid in full or they had negotiated a payment plan. Oh yes!, if the fine is not paid the car gets crushed too.
Similarly the costs of an accident, or at least a substantial contribution, should be charged to the insurance companies of the parties at fault. Why should all the careful drivers and the public that don’t drive have to pay to clear up the mess created by those that are reckless?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Recovery will be in jeopardy
A ludicrous situation is going to happen shortly when the Bank of England is forced to raise interest rates to slow down inflation. It will effectively screw up the financial recovery!
I have no confidence in the Bank of England experts or those in the Treasury because just as they should have separated the Investment Banks from the Retail Banks when they had the ideal opportunity. They should also have separated the domestic interest rate from that of commercial borrowing. The Bank of England would then be able increase interest rates on domestic borrowing to slow down inflation whilst leaving the borrowing rate for commerce and industry at a lower rate to encourage growth.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
WHAT IS A JOB WORTH?
Our economy is about the sixth largest in the world, yet we're told we're broke. What rubbish, we're merely spending our money on the wrong things like Local Authority Chief Executives who take home over £300,000 per year. This is OBSCENE.
Even if these people were being paid £100,000 it would be too much. I would hazard a guess that their authorities are over budget and requiring to make dramatic and drastic cuts and even then they will still be over budget and short of funds. They should not just have a pay cut, they should have a P45 because none of them are competent senior managers.
All our local authorities are over borrowed and over budget. What makes the executives think they deserve high salaries? It is obvious why they work for local government, they could not hold down a job in commerce or industry for very long, or even more unlikely, manage a business by themselves.
Every business has to live within it means or it goes bust. Our local authorities and our central government have gone bust, yet the remunerations and pensions of all the idiots that run them go up and up. It is time to call a halt. A graduated remuneration scale for ALL public employees should be defined and enshrined in law then we will not have the ludicrous state of affairs where a Local Authority Chief Executive is getting paid more than the Prime Minister.
Monday, January 17, 2011
BANKERS WILL GO ELSEWHERE?
We are constantly being told that if we put limits on the earnings of the banks or individual bankers that we risk them going elsewhere. What rubbish!
The banks and the other financial institutions are located in London because of geography not for any fiscal reason. The UK market place is convenient as it straddles the "opening hours" of all of most the world major markets, they can do business with the Middle East in the morning, Europe and Africa at lunchtime and the USA in the afternoon. The only other major markets not trading whilst London is open are Hong Kong, China.and perhaps you could include Australia.
This fact is the other major reason that it is unlikely that we, the British Isles, will move to a European time zone as to do so would erode some of this advantage. At the moment we can trade with the USA markets for at least one hour longer than the rest of Europe.
Unless someone is going to physically move the UK then we don't have to worry about the banks and other markets moving elsewhere there is no elsewhere. The threat that they will relocate to another county in response to caps on their earnings or higher taxation is absolute rubbish as they will loose far more than us.
The banks and the other financial institutions are located in London because of geography not for any fiscal reason. The UK market place is convenient as it straddles the "opening hours" of all of most the world major markets, they can do business with the Middle East in the morning, Europe and Africa at lunchtime and the USA in the afternoon. The only other major markets not trading whilst London is open are Hong Kong, China.and perhaps you could include Australia.
This fact is the other major reason that it is unlikely that we, the British Isles, will move to a European time zone as to do so would erode some of this advantage. At the moment we can trade with the USA markets for at least one hour longer than the rest of Europe.
Unless someone is going to physically move the UK then we don't have to worry about the banks and other markets moving elsewhere there is no elsewhere. The threat that they will relocate to another county in response to caps on their earnings or higher taxation is absolute rubbish as they will loose far more than us.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Rubbish on TV?
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!
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!
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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
More evidence that there are two laws!
Once again the actions of the government prove that there are two different laws, one for the rich and one for the poor.
Firstly, the directors of the failed banks escape justice from the Official Receiver and the Bankruptcy Courts that would have banned them from being executives of any company for a number of years and consequently from holding any form of public office.
But now other government officials get to resign rather than being sacked. They are therefore free to move to another job to continue their destruction of the things that British people used to hold in some kind of respect.
To make matters worse we force the resignation of really valuable people, like the Head of the Anti-terrorist Division of the Police, for trivial mistakes. Yes, I do mean trivial, by simply re-organising the schedule of their planned actions very little real harm was done and I imagine that he had a great deal of control over that re-organisation anyway. OK, he probably could not ave stayed in his current role but he should have been simply transferred to another and we, the British people, would not have lost his years of experience and the massive investment that we have made in his career. I imagine that the embarrassment he caused to himself was sufficient punishment without the need for anything else being done, but then he was not a politician and thus exempt from being kicked out.
Anyway a single Downing Street advisor can abuse his position and bring about total distrust of the entire government especially the office of the Prime Minister and all that happens if he is allowed to resign. I imagine that he will have a better paid job with a newspaper or such like within a few days.
If this person had been employed by a normal company he would have got the sack, probably lost pension and other benefit rights and been on the scrap heap as far as further employment is concerned. There would also have been the possibility of legal action for bringing his employer into disrepute or even prosecution under the Misuse of Computers Act. I trust that Downing Street does have an IT Policy that all of its staff is required to sign or am I just kidding myself why should the government follow their own recommendations?
Firstly, the directors of the failed banks escape justice from the Official Receiver and the Bankruptcy Courts that would have banned them from being executives of any company for a number of years and consequently from holding any form of public office.
But now other government officials get to resign rather than being sacked. They are therefore free to move to another job to continue their destruction of the things that British people used to hold in some kind of respect.
To make matters worse we force the resignation of really valuable people, like the Head of the Anti-terrorist Division of the Police, for trivial mistakes. Yes, I do mean trivial, by simply re-organising the schedule of their planned actions very little real harm was done and I imagine that he had a great deal of control over that re-organisation anyway. OK, he probably could not ave stayed in his current role but he should have been simply transferred to another and we, the British people, would not have lost his years of experience and the massive investment that we have made in his career. I imagine that the embarrassment he caused to himself was sufficient punishment without the need for anything else being done, but then he was not a politician and thus exempt from being kicked out.
Anyway a single Downing Street advisor can abuse his position and bring about total distrust of the entire government especially the office of the Prime Minister and all that happens if he is allowed to resign. I imagine that he will have a better paid job with a newspaper or such like within a few days.
If this person had been employed by a normal company he would have got the sack, probably lost pension and other benefit rights and been on the scrap heap as far as further employment is concerned. There would also have been the possibility of legal action for bringing his employer into disrepute or even prosecution under the Misuse of Computers Act. I trust that Downing Street does have an IT Policy that all of its staff is required to sign or am I just kidding myself why should the government follow their own recommendations?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
King Canute II
New Flood Risk Map
The Environment Agency has just released a new flood risk map for the United Kingdom highlighting all the areas at serious risk of flooding, not just from coastal or river flooding but also from flash flooding.
Flash Flooding is that which can be caused just about anywhere as a result of torrential rain. Although this can occur anywhere there are areas at much greater risk than others as shown on the new map.
Great, so now that we have spent a fortune making the map, will anyone take any notice of it?
Stop building in flood risk areas
The scientists keep telling us of the increased likelihood of extreme weather conditions as Global Warming takes effect. So why don't the government pass legislation to stop all building and development of these flood risk areas?
What confidence can anyone have in politicians who ignore warnings about things we know about being able to deal with things we don't? No doubt we'll have to deal with the mess that will inevitably occur when the floods devastate the homes of 1,000's of people probably sadly with some loss of life too. The cost to our economy will be once again enormous adding to the already stretched public borrowing when all it needs now is the stroke of a pen!
The Environment Agency has just released a new flood risk map for the United Kingdom highlighting all the areas at serious risk of flooding, not just from coastal or river flooding but also from flash flooding.
Flash Flooding is that which can be caused just about anywhere as a result of torrential rain. Although this can occur anywhere there are areas at much greater risk than others as shown on the new map.
Great, so now that we have spent a fortune making the map, will anyone take any notice of it?
Stop building in flood risk areas
The scientists keep telling us of the increased likelihood of extreme weather conditions as Global Warming takes effect. So why don't the government pass legislation to stop all building and development of these flood risk areas?
What confidence can anyone have in politicians who ignore warnings about things we know about being able to deal with things we don't? No doubt we'll have to deal with the mess that will inevitably occur when the floods devastate the homes of 1,000's of people probably sadly with some loss of life too. The cost to our economy will be once again enormous adding to the already stretched public borrowing when all it needs now is the stroke of a pen!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
"I think". Oh really!
Politicians that think, that's a novelty.
Listening to the BBC Politics Show this morning my attention was drawn to the fact the all the politicians that were interviewed prefixed almost all their statements with the words "I think". It reminded me of the TV show "The Apprentice" and I wonder what Sir Alan Sugar would say to an apprentice that said that. Something like "You think, why? don't you bl**dy know? - YOU'RE FIRED!"
We don't need to be governed by people who think, people who think should only be advisors. We need to be governed by people who know and if they don't know they should not be in government. If this were the case we would be in a better situation than we are now because the decisions that got us here were made by people who thought - WRONGLY!
Politicians, especially ministers, should be subject to the same rules as a small business owner - one mistake and you're out!
Government needs to be reactive, ours certainly is not. It takes years to come up with any decision because all the decisions are too big. Things should not be suddenly radically altered on the scale they are now, they should be constantly tweaked and adjusted to suit the prevailing conditions. If one radically alters too much at once it makes it almost impossible to determine what it is that is causing the issues if problems arise.
At the moment we wait until things fail dramtically before anyone does anything about them. In business one has to constantly monitor cause and effect and if you want to do anything new you need to produce a detailed cost/benefit analysis with very clear statements as to what the measures of success are and if the project is approved then whomever is managing it has to frequently produce updates documenting the achievement of project milestones, the state of the budget and whether or not the project is achieving its goals.
The government of our nation and the creation of legislation needs to be tackled in a more professional manner. What we don't need are these endless committees trying, after the fact, to determine what went wrong.
Welfare and Benefits Reform Bill
Tomorrow the government publishes the new Welfare and Benefits Reform Bill. Here we go again, let's take something which is not working and completely mess it up. One day we will learn a new approach to slowly change things until they achieve the results we are looking for. One can be absolutely sure, because I KNOW, that this reform bill will not solve our welfare and benefit problems and we'll be reforming the reforms again before too long.
Listening to the BBC Politics Show this morning my attention was drawn to the fact the all the politicians that were interviewed prefixed almost all their statements with the words "I think". It reminded me of the TV show "The Apprentice" and I wonder what Sir Alan Sugar would say to an apprentice that said that. Something like "You think, why? don't you bl**dy know? - YOU'RE FIRED!"
We don't need to be governed by people who think, people who think should only be advisors. We need to be governed by people who know and if they don't know they should not be in government. If this were the case we would be in a better situation than we are now because the decisions that got us here were made by people who thought - WRONGLY!
Politicians, especially ministers, should be subject to the same rules as a small business owner - one mistake and you're out!
Government needs to be reactive, ours certainly is not. It takes years to come up with any decision because all the decisions are too big. Things should not be suddenly radically altered on the scale they are now, they should be constantly tweaked and adjusted to suit the prevailing conditions. If one radically alters too much at once it makes it almost impossible to determine what it is that is causing the issues if problems arise.
At the moment we wait until things fail dramtically before anyone does anything about them. In business one has to constantly monitor cause and effect and if you want to do anything new you need to produce a detailed cost/benefit analysis with very clear statements as to what the measures of success are and if the project is approved then whomever is managing it has to frequently produce updates documenting the achievement of project milestones, the state of the budget and whether or not the project is achieving its goals.
The government of our nation and the creation of legislation needs to be tackled in a more professional manner. What we don't need are these endless committees trying, after the fact, to determine what went wrong.
Welfare and Benefits Reform Bill
Tomorrow the government publishes the new Welfare and Benefits Reform Bill. Here we go again, let's take something which is not working and completely mess it up. One day we will learn a new approach to slowly change things until they achieve the results we are looking for. One can be absolutely sure, because I KNOW, that this reform bill will not solve our welfare and benefit problems and we'll be reforming the reforms again before too long.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
THE RIGHT TO PROTEST
I would be the first in the queue to protect our right to protest as I am doing it right now!
But I wonder if Celtic Supporters would get permission to protest at the same place and at the same time as Rangers Supporters?
OR
Would the pro-nuclear lobby be able to protest in Parliament Square at the same time as the anti-nuclear lobby?
What am I going on about? - Luton!
Yesterday are heroic soldiers of the Anglian Regiment exercised their right to parade through the town of Luton behind their colours and a fine sight they were too. But how on Earth did a handful of fanatics get permission to demonstrate in the same place at the same time when as I have pointed out above no one else would?
OK, they can protest BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Let's have some fairness in the mad world of political correctness and can our authorities apply the same rules to everyone. Equal rights for all, so why were the rights of the Anglian Regiment pushed aside by a small group of fanatics?
But I wonder if Celtic Supporters would get permission to protest at the same place and at the same time as Rangers Supporters?
OR
Would the pro-nuclear lobby be able to protest in Parliament Square at the same time as the anti-nuclear lobby?
Highly unlikely, no, just plain NO!
What am I going on about? - Luton!
Yesterday are heroic soldiers of the Anglian Regiment exercised their right to parade through the town of Luton behind their colours and a fine sight they were too. But how on Earth did a handful of fanatics get permission to demonstrate in the same place at the same time when as I have pointed out above no one else would?
OK, they can protest BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Let's have some fairness in the mad world of political correctness and can our authorities apply the same rules to everyone. Equal rights for all, so why were the rights of the Anglian Regiment pushed aside by a small group of fanatics?
THE RISING TIDE
Yesterday the scientists announced that sea-level was rising much faster than previously predicted. It was estimated that sea-level would rise about 50cm by the end of the century (2100) hoever due to the increased speed of climate change they now recalculate those figures to at least 1 meter by 2100 with some predicting in excess of 1.2m
The Thames Barrier
The Thames Barrier was expected to be able to cope until around 2060 with the original prediction but what now? It took 8 years to build the barrier and if it were to be replaced the second one would have to be much biger in comparison and therefore will take much longer to build. The suggestion being that a new barrier would need to run from Sheerness to Southend, a distance of 16Km. It is also interesting to note that the think tank for the Thames Barrier was set up in 1953 and it took until 1970 before any serious work was begun!
Low lying coastal areas
But there are many other low lying coastal areas that are already suffering from the effects of coastal erosion. These areas are now going to be under greater threat than first thought. Areas of East Anglia, around the Humber Estuary, the Medway and between Folkestone and Hastings are at greatest risk and some of these areas are densely populated.
The UK Government is scheduled to publish a draft bill on flooding and coastal erosion this year, which means most of it is already written. Obviously in the light of the new sea-level rise figures they will need to go back to the drawing board because what ever it proposes is unlikely to be big enough or actioned quickly enough to do any good.
The next best guess...
I would think it would be a good bet to say that the current estimates for sea level rise are wrong and that in a short while they will once again be amended and I would also think it is a good bet to say it will be in an upwards direction.
My personal view is that the rate of sea level rise is increasing exponentially. What this means is that the speed of sea level rise is increasing at an increasing rate, what is 10mm per year this year will be 13mm per year next year and so on. It is because we do not yet know what this logarithmic formula is, we keep getting updated predictions.
Hang on a minute, that is more than TWICE AS HIGH as was originally thought!
So bad things are going to happen twice as quickly than we thought...
So bad things are going to happen twice as quickly than we thought...
The Thames Barrier
The Thames Barrier was expected to be able to cope until around 2060 with the original prediction but what now? It took 8 years to build the barrier and if it were to be replaced the second one would have to be much biger in comparison and therefore will take much longer to build. The suggestion being that a new barrier would need to run from Sheerness to Southend, a distance of 16Km. It is also interesting to note that the think tank for the Thames Barrier was set up in 1953 and it took until 1970 before any serious work was begun!
Low lying coastal areas
But there are many other low lying coastal areas that are already suffering from the effects of coastal erosion. These areas are now going to be under greater threat than first thought. Areas of East Anglia, around the Humber Estuary, the Medway and between Folkestone and Hastings are at greatest risk and some of these areas are densely populated.
The UK Government is scheduled to publish a draft bill on flooding and coastal erosion this year, which means most of it is already written. Obviously in the light of the new sea-level rise figures they will need to go back to the drawing board because what ever it proposes is unlikely to be big enough or actioned quickly enough to do any good.
The next best guess...
I would think it would be a good bet to say that the current estimates for sea level rise are wrong and that in a short while they will once again be amended and I would also think it is a good bet to say it will be in an upwards direction.
My personal view is that the rate of sea level rise is increasing exponentially. What this means is that the speed of sea level rise is increasing at an increasing rate, what is 10mm per year this year will be 13mm per year next year and so on. It is because we do not yet know what this logarithmic formula is, we keep getting updated predictions.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Ya what?
Sustainable - like hell it is!
I was watching a programme on the telly last night about a National Trust property where the old walled garden on the property was being put back in to use to grow produce for sale and use in the visitor restaurant. That in itself is laudable - maybe! But then it went on with lots of waffling on about the sustainable locally ecologically grown organic produce and then..., they showed us the two new POLY TUNNELS!!!!!!
Where do they think polythene comes from?
So the whole idea is about as sustainable as an ice cream on a sunny day and ecological as a land fill.
Petroleum By-products
But it got me thinking. Polythene is a by-product of petroleum, so when the oil runs out we loose polythene - At last no more plastic bags! - I wonder what else we get from oil?
Well apart from the obvious fuels, there are less obvious things at each end of the oil spectrum like benzine or tar. So what are we going to make roads with when we don't have tar?
But the list is huge; nylon, acetate, ethylene, polyesters, detergents, polyurethane, PVC, glycol (anti-freeze), even paraffin wax and many, many more items. So when the oil runs out we don't just have to worry about not having a car we're going to loose thousands of other things at the same time.
Just think:
I was watching a programme on the telly last night about a National Trust property where the old walled garden on the property was being put back in to use to grow produce for sale and use in the visitor restaurant. That in itself is laudable - maybe! But then it went on with lots of waffling on about the sustainable locally ecologically grown organic produce and then..., they showed us the two new POLY TUNNELS!!!!!!
Where do they think polythene comes from?
So the whole idea is about as sustainable as an ice cream on a sunny day and ecological as a land fill.
Petroleum By-products
But it got me thinking. Polythene is a by-product of petroleum, so when the oil runs out we loose polythene - At last no more plastic bags! - I wonder what else we get from oil?
Well apart from the obvious fuels, there are less obvious things at each end of the oil spectrum like benzine or tar. So what are we going to make roads with when we don't have tar?
But the list is huge; nylon, acetate, ethylene, polyesters, detergents, polyurethane, PVC, glycol (anti-freeze), even paraffin wax and many, many more items. So when the oil runs out we don't just have to worry about not having a car we're going to loose thousands of other things at the same time.
Just think:
- Nearly all children's toys are made from plastic. Not for very much longer.
- Planning on using a candle when the power goes off - Nope, no wax!
- Many medicines and cosmetics will vanish
- No oil based paints, glues and solvents
- Much fewer synthetic (hard wearing) cloths and materials
- No more oil based food preservatives
- No more oil based detergents, cleaners and disinfectants
- And just in case your not in a state of panic yet, no more bicycle tyres. They're not just rubber they are nylon too and nylon comes from oil.
- If you wish to see a more comprehensive list of the products we will loose when oil runs out follow this link Ranken Energy
Friday, March 06, 2009
TRANSPORT AND ENERGY POLICY 2
Protect the Permanent Way
One thing I missed out in my previous post was the need to protect what remains of the Permanent Way. This may mean nothing to most folks but to railway people they know what I am talking about, the Permanent Way is the trackbed upon which railways run or used to run.
All that is left of the Permanent Way not currently in use should be immediately protected against development, in fill or an other damage how so ever arising. The Victorians and Edwardians moved millions of tonnes of rock and earth making tunnels, cuttings and embankments for the railway system they used to have. We may need these routes again at some point in the near future and we don't want to have to do it all over again.
Come on politicians put your brains into gear and think past just today.
One thing I missed out in my previous post was the need to protect what remains of the Permanent Way. This may mean nothing to most folks but to railway people they know what I am talking about, the Permanent Way is the trackbed upon which railways run or used to run.
All that is left of the Permanent Way not currently in use should be immediately protected against development, in fill or an other damage how so ever arising. The Victorians and Edwardians moved millions of tonnes of rock and earth making tunnels, cuttings and embankments for the railway system they used to have. We may need these routes again at some point in the near future and we don't want to have to do it all over again.
Come on politicians put your brains into gear and think past just today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)