6 years ago when we were all supposed to "Back the Bid" for the 2012 Olympics, we were told it was a no-brainer. Despite the fact that most of the population were somewhere between indifferent and anti-Olympic hosting, we won the bid and committed to spending 10 billion to build all the infrastructure (although surprise, surprise, the initial figure was much lower!).
We were told that it would not only bring a good feeling but would bring much needed investment into sports and the areas that would be used. The stupid thing was, this "investment" was our tax pounds! So the Olympics didn't bring any investment it was just a ploy for the government to spend more money and pretend they were supporting the country.
Anyway, today I realised another subtle economic issue which has avoided the headlines. We could be convinced that all the money brought in by foreign visitors goes to "the country" and this injection of money is good for the country but the truth is this money does not go to "the country" it goes to a handful of companies that are involved in the Olympics and actually costs money to the rest of us who are not involved in any way, it is indirect taxation, it is moving money from all taxpayers into the hands of a few people. Nice. Again, this wouldn't be the end of the world since you could argue overall that society would benefit by foreign money but another trick has been missed. This money that has been spent is not our money, it is BORROWED from foreign banks and countries. This means that not only do we have to pay this money back to the foreign country, but we also have to pay back massive amounts of interest on top of it. This would be perhaps ok if we didn't have much national debt and could pay it back in a year but the government is riddled with debts and massive interest payments (£132M per day!) so how much will this £10 billion end up costing us if it takes 10 years to pay back? Another £1 billion? More? How does that compare to the amount that foreign visitors will bring in when they visit the Olympics? Is it still worth it?
No, probably not, but it was the way for the government to find support in our hard-working and under-valued athletes and abuse their energies and popularity to draw attention away from a sloppy Labour government who didn't have the money to back the bid in the first place.
As always, we were the ones at fault because we were sucked into the hype and didn't consider the results before all the hundreds of people started waving banners saying, "Back the Bid". Shame on us.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Everyone should use public transport?
I heard from a friend that the government are toying with taxing business parking to encourage use of public transport. Sadly, it is another example of people in London thinking that everyone else in the country has the same public transport facilities that they do. They are wrong.
For example, my situation is fairly average. I travel 10 miles to work by motorbike, I leave home 30 minutes before work starts and arrive home about 30 minutes after I finish. It costs me around £30/month in petrol. Total time away from home = 9 hours/day
If I were to take the train, I would have to cycle 15 minutes to the station 5 minutes before the train leaves (at 7:57 for a 9:00am start) and then arrive about 15 minutes cycle ride from work at 8:05am. Of course, I could arrange flexi-time (which I wouldn't be given, already been there) but even if I could, there is a return train at 3:20 and then not another one till 17:05 which gets back home at 17:13 for a cycle ride home for around 17:30 assuming there are on time. Total time away from home = 10 hours per day, total cost = £96/month!!
By bus, I would have to walk to town (15mins) for an 8:03 bus and be able to return at 17:53 to town plus another 15 minute walk home. Total time away from home = 10hrs25m cost = £30/month.
Basically, it's not going to happen. There are also people who live much further from public transport than me, who can't cycle for some reason and who travel much greater distances. We are already hit by massive fuel tax so just leave it. Until public transport is improved majorly, it will only ever serve about 10% of the population.
For example, my situation is fairly average. I travel 10 miles to work by motorbike, I leave home 30 minutes before work starts and arrive home about 30 minutes after I finish. It costs me around £30/month in petrol. Total time away from home = 9 hours/day
If I were to take the train, I would have to cycle 15 minutes to the station 5 minutes before the train leaves (at 7:57 for a 9:00am start) and then arrive about 15 minutes cycle ride from work at 8:05am. Of course, I could arrange flexi-time (which I wouldn't be given, already been there) but even if I could, there is a return train at 3:20 and then not another one till 17:05 which gets back home at 17:13 for a cycle ride home for around 17:30 assuming there are on time. Total time away from home = 10 hours per day, total cost = £96/month!!
By bus, I would have to walk to town (15mins) for an 8:03 bus and be able to return at 17:53 to town plus another 15 minute walk home. Total time away from home = 10hrs25m cost = £30/month.
Basically, it's not going to happen. There are also people who live much further from public transport than me, who can't cycle for some reason and who travel much greater distances. We are already hit by massive fuel tax so just leave it. Until public transport is improved majorly, it will only ever serve about 10% of the population.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Budget Deficits and the unfairness of government
I was reading a Peter Oborne column about the challenge that the new government faced. Well a challenge would be walking up Kilmanjiro while this is more like the north face of the Eiger in pyjamas.
He said that the current amount that was being overspent was equivalent to around £500 million per DAY. Yes, every day, we are spending around £500M more than we get into government coffers. This equates to around £600B per year and how does anyone reduce that? Well the government have already announced £6B worth of savings but incredibly, despite this being a huge amount, it doesn't sound much compared to £600B but presumably some of that must be projected and could be removed on paper before any money is spent but still.
That makes me then realise how unfair government is. A government can basically run up a massive bill by spending too much, grabbing all the "look at us supporting the NHS/education" headlines and then leave the next government to have to clear up all the mess. The amount we spend on interest every year could replace the whole rail network practically! They then suffer the childishly ignorant headlines of some of the media such as the Daily Mirror whose headline was basically, "vote for the Tories and they will cut all the important spending" as if that decision was taken for no other reason than presumably to give money to rich people! Probably my biggest regret of the recent election was that many people in the country still either believed the half-truths of the Mirror or simply decided that it is only worth voting for people who will give you the benefits you want regardless of the knock-on effect.
Whether you like the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition or not, at least they understand that we need to reduce wasteful government spending that ballooned under Labour and encourage businesses so that they can employ all these people who bemoan the lack of jobs. They have an impossible task and possibly will need to raise income tax but then alas, after 5 years, no doubt everyone will accuse them or incompetence and Labour will be handed another clean set of finances to go and spend again grabbing all the headlines.
What can be done? No idea but I would like some regulations that can legally prevent government from borrowing when the economy is strong and from creative accounting that would be illegal in the real world. hmm
He said that the current amount that was being overspent was equivalent to around £500 million per DAY. Yes, every day, we are spending around £500M more than we get into government coffers. This equates to around £600B per year and how does anyone reduce that? Well the government have already announced £6B worth of savings but incredibly, despite this being a huge amount, it doesn't sound much compared to £600B but presumably some of that must be projected and could be removed on paper before any money is spent but still.
That makes me then realise how unfair government is. A government can basically run up a massive bill by spending too much, grabbing all the "look at us supporting the NHS/education" headlines and then leave the next government to have to clear up all the mess. The amount we spend on interest every year could replace the whole rail network practically! They then suffer the childishly ignorant headlines of some of the media such as the Daily Mirror whose headline was basically, "vote for the Tories and they will cut all the important spending" as if that decision was taken for no other reason than presumably to give money to rich people! Probably my biggest regret of the recent election was that many people in the country still either believed the half-truths of the Mirror or simply decided that it is only worth voting for people who will give you the benefits you want regardless of the knock-on effect.
Whether you like the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition or not, at least they understand that we need to reduce wasteful government spending that ballooned under Labour and encourage businesses so that they can employ all these people who bemoan the lack of jobs. They have an impossible task and possibly will need to raise income tax but then alas, after 5 years, no doubt everyone will accuse them or incompetence and Labour will be handed another clean set of finances to go and spend again grabbing all the headlines.
What can be done? No idea but I would like some regulations that can legally prevent government from borrowing when the economy is strong and from creative accounting that would be illegal in the real world. hmm
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Government's Challenge or Government's Making?
I read the following on the BBC News today: "He added that the deterioration emphasised the scale of the fiscal challenge still facing the government, with Chancellor Alistair Darling facing growing calls to act more quickly to tackle the deficit."
Interesting how people can put a spin on things. When you read this, you think that somehow a financial problem jumped onto the government without warning and they face a challenge to deal with it. However, most people know that the government have been spending more than they have for years and years and the so-called 'challenge' is simply the rod that the government made for its own back. I never really understand how this is allowed to continue and then left for the next government to deal with. Isn't there a point at which someone has the power to order the government to cut spending?
It all seems unfair, any new government will have to cut spending massively to keep things afloat and they will of course be accused of being a government that doesn't care about things like the welfare system, education and the NHS (the big money 3). So Labour gets all the "we spent loads on important systems" headlines and the next government inherits austerity.
Typical isn't it!
Interesting how people can put a spin on things. When you read this, you think that somehow a financial problem jumped onto the government without warning and they face a challenge to deal with it. However, most people know that the government have been spending more than they have for years and years and the so-called 'challenge' is simply the rod that the government made for its own back. I never really understand how this is allowed to continue and then left for the next government to deal with. Isn't there a point at which someone has the power to order the government to cut spending?
It all seems unfair, any new government will have to cut spending massively to keep things afloat and they will of course be accused of being a government that doesn't care about things like the welfare system, education and the NHS (the big money 3). So Labour gets all the "we spent loads on important systems" headlines and the next government inherits austerity.
Typical isn't it!
Monday, 12 October 2009
The wonderful Sell-Off government
The government have announced they are selling off assets to gain £16 billion pounds "in an effort to reduce the growing budget deficit". Wonderful, wonderful idea. Oh, did I forget to say the man is a total idiot (Gordon Brown). Now I do not have a degree in economics or a related subject and only know a 'pub quiz' amount about governments and how they work but I again feel I have to spell out to these people the folly of this idea. It is this government who has been overspending for the past 15 years. Why make some terrible gesture like it is the "economy's fault" that this has happened. Anyway, down to details.
1) The amount to be raised is small pickings compared to the actual deficit.
2) The obvious answer when outgoings minus income is positive is to reduce your outgoings or to increase recurring income (or both). Raising cash is VERY short-term and does absolutely nothing to fix the underlying deficit. If you borrowed money because your gran was about to die and leave you something then it might make sense but why raise cash just for the sake of it?
3) Selling assets if they are not required is surely something you should do anyway? If you have a spare town hall somewhere, why not sell it and then you do not need to maintain it.
4) If you sell something like the Dartford crossing, you get cash into government but of course the travelling public will pay for it - the cost to run the bridge will not go down so add in some profit for a private company and q.e.d. the charge will go up. You might as well put tax up on fuel and sting everybody!
5) They sold gold before and it bought them nothing.
They haven't learned anything. They are robbing the country and not improving, I like the way one BBC viewer sais, "he has sold the family gold and is now selling the silver". Why does it take 15 years to realise you can't spend more than you have? Are they really that incompetent? This is really, really, really basic. Are they telling us to save, not borrow and then have a deficit of how ever many billions? That is a deficit, that means borrowing money (which incurs interest) because you are spending more than you earn. Why can't the queen invoke some ancient power to dissolve government and have done with it?
1) The amount to be raised is small pickings compared to the actual deficit.
2) The obvious answer when outgoings minus income is positive is to reduce your outgoings or to increase recurring income (or both). Raising cash is VERY short-term and does absolutely nothing to fix the underlying deficit. If you borrowed money because your gran was about to die and leave you something then it might make sense but why raise cash just for the sake of it?
3) Selling assets if they are not required is surely something you should do anyway? If you have a spare town hall somewhere, why not sell it and then you do not need to maintain it.
4) If you sell something like the Dartford crossing, you get cash into government but of course the travelling public will pay for it - the cost to run the bridge will not go down so add in some profit for a private company and q.e.d. the charge will go up. You might as well put tax up on fuel and sting everybody!
5) They sold gold before and it bought them nothing.
They haven't learned anything. They are robbing the country and not improving, I like the way one BBC viewer sais, "he has sold the family gold and is now selling the silver". Why does it take 15 years to realise you can't spend more than you have? Are they really that incompetent? This is really, really, really basic. Are they telling us to save, not borrow and then have a deficit of how ever many billions? That is a deficit, that means borrowing money (which incurs interest) because you are spending more than you earn. Why can't the queen invoke some ancient power to dissolve government and have done with it?
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Ending GP Catchment Areas
Health Secretary Andy Burnham has announced his intention to end catchment areas of GP surgeries which restrict which surgeries you can sign up to. Part of the argument is competition which is supposed to drive up standards as people don't register at poor surgeries and part of it is to provide flexibility for people who might want to register, for instance, near their work or their child's school. It sounds OK and it might be the right thing to do but what really troubled me was the man's statement; "In this day and age I can see no reason why patients should not be able to choose the GP practice they want". The man said publically that he can see no reason not to change it. Well, since he is apparently not very clever, I will provide some, partly courtesy of people on the news article:
1) What happens with home visits if you are registered 40 miles away?
2) What happens when loads of people register near work? The local surgery might be left with stay-at-home patients with potentially a high percentage of ongoing and serious conditions to have to deal with.
3) Most council services work by areas, this might make accountability difficult.
4) If lots of healthier people decide to register elsewhere, it can cause a snowball effect because a struggling surgery now ends up with a disproportionate number of sick people who visit often and who are then even less able to deal with the work since they will get less money for their less patients but most of whom are now sickly.
5) There is no objective evidence that this technique, like schools and hospitals, actually drives up standards. The system is far more complex than that and it can be argued that the problem is related to the community being served rather than any serious incompetence on the part of doctors.
6) What happens if a surgery is oversubscribed because it is good and local people cannot register there and are forced to register far from where they live? This has already happened with NHS dentists and it was obvious there that this 'demand' did not suddenly force lots of other dentists to set up shop or to increase their staffing levels since as stated above, this is not a simple thing to do. The wage levels, general availability of qualified people and the simple practicalities of the work are big obstacles.
7) There is actually a danger that spare demand in an area is met with a practice that sets up to meet that demand with no track record in high-quality care and who might unecessarily put another practice out of business as people move to the new surgery.
There you go Andy, hopefully these few reasons why you might not want to end post code catchment areas will help you at your next meeting into the matter. I wouldn't want to think you go in uninformed and make a massive expensive cock-up on behalf of the tax-payers!
1) What happens with home visits if you are registered 40 miles away?
2) What happens when loads of people register near work? The local surgery might be left with stay-at-home patients with potentially a high percentage of ongoing and serious conditions to have to deal with.
3) Most council services work by areas, this might make accountability difficult.
4) If lots of healthier people decide to register elsewhere, it can cause a snowball effect because a struggling surgery now ends up with a disproportionate number of sick people who visit often and who are then even less able to deal with the work since they will get less money for their less patients but most of whom are now sickly.
5) There is no objective evidence that this technique, like schools and hospitals, actually drives up standards. The system is far more complex than that and it can be argued that the problem is related to the community being served rather than any serious incompetence on the part of doctors.
6) What happens if a surgery is oversubscribed because it is good and local people cannot register there and are forced to register far from where they live? This has already happened with NHS dentists and it was obvious there that this 'demand' did not suddenly force lots of other dentists to set up shop or to increase their staffing levels since as stated above, this is not a simple thing to do. The wage levels, general availability of qualified people and the simple practicalities of the work are big obstacles.
7) There is actually a danger that spare demand in an area is met with a practice that sets up to meet that demand with no track record in high-quality care and who might unecessarily put another practice out of business as people move to the new surgery.
There you go Andy, hopefully these few reasons why you might not want to end post code catchment areas will help you at your next meeting into the matter. I wouldn't want to think you go in uninformed and make a massive expensive cock-up on behalf of the tax-payers!
Friday, 11 September 2009
So Gordon is sorry then?
I read that Gordon Brown has apologized for the treatment of Alan Turing who was prosecuted for homosexual activity and committed suicide 2 years later. Gordon reckons that "while Mr Turing was dealt with under the laws of the time..." he also says, "his treatment, of course, was utterly unfair". Excuse me but who on earth is Gordon Brown to decree that all of the politicians and public petitioners of old who brought in these laws are all wrong and he is right? Why is it "of course" that liberal laws are correct and conservative ones are not?
Regardless of the actual law in question and whether I or he as an individual agrees with it, the job of the government is to execute government now not for the past. Unfortunately there aren't any of these people who died for whatever laws they used to have to appear in parliament and give Gordon Brown another tongue lashing like he usually gets in PMs Questions every week.
The government's ego knows no bounds. The wise man would have said, "sorry but what happened happened under another government in another time and I am not in a position to undo that".
Does Mr Turing deserve a posthumous honour for his work? By all means. The honour is for his achievements not his personal life whether that was 'illegal' or not but Brown, try running the country properly before muddying the waters of everything that comes your way!
Regardless of the actual law in question and whether I or he as an individual agrees with it, the job of the government is to execute government now not for the past. Unfortunately there aren't any of these people who died for whatever laws they used to have to appear in parliament and give Gordon Brown another tongue lashing like he usually gets in PMs Questions every week.
The government's ego knows no bounds. The wise man would have said, "sorry but what happened happened under another government in another time and I am not in a position to undo that".
Does Mr Turing deserve a posthumous honour for his work? By all means. The honour is for his achievements not his personal life whether that was 'illegal' or not but Brown, try running the country properly before muddying the waters of everything that comes your way!
Guilty till presumed innocent
Well, there is always plenty to moan about and today is no exception. Another hair-brained government scheme designed to protect child from paedophiles but which of course will cost an awful lot of money and no doubt do anything except generate more paperwork and more mistakes. The article here basically extends the criminal records check for people who drive for clubs like their children's football clulb. As if the farce of CRBs is not already understood, the problem is that the scheme has the appearance of something useful, surely we want to protect our children from abuse? Of course we do but the problem as always is in the implementation. I would like to see a cost/benefit analysis since I am sure it wouldn't hold up. Here are some scenarios:
- Somebody has been accused of some sort of abuse and is barred from working with children. Well apart from the unacceptable presumption of guilt, it is a case of one or two false accusations and the rest of someones life is in tatters.
- Somebody with accusations who is actually a danger (like Ian Huntley) might well not be considered a risk and be allowed to work with children which defeats the whole point.
- The 99.99% of people who are not a danger have to pay and administer the scheme like people have to do currently for CRB checks for no reason other than a paranoid government making a paranoid society.
Monday, 7 September 2009
The wasted money is sickening
Right, another rant I'm afraid, this one courtesy of no-one in particular, just general incompetence and the government's love affair with wasting money at a staggering level. First let me ask a question. If you were to suggest spending money improving school buildings for economical and aesthetic reasons. What would you do and how much would it cost? I would probably spend up to about a million quid getting a national team together putting together some computer models and working out some industry standard costings for things like double-glazing and room re-fits etc and then let councils use these to work out whether certain work is value for money or not.
Now, what would the government permit? Look here. They would tell councils to look into it and assume they will spend about 3% of the money on 'consultants' which they have done to the tune of £170M. Now, I don't mind big numbers to achieve big things. Investment and all that is good for long-term situations but honestly £170M? You pay people who know how to charge large sums for knowledge that to be honest exists outside of this exclusive club of thieves. To be honest, you could pay a local experienced builder even some quantity surveyors some money or better still, provide a contract job for someone in the industry which will cost, let's say £100,000 each county council and which will not add up to anything like the money spent. But oh no, because we are the government and we can promise ludicrous amounts of money to be magic'd up from nowhere we don't care about value-for-money. God help the next government have to deal with all the debt we have accrued from the happy-go-spending Labour party.
Now, what would the government permit? Look here. They would tell councils to look into it and assume they will spend about 3% of the money on 'consultants' which they have done to the tune of £170M. Now, I don't mind big numbers to achieve big things. Investment and all that is good for long-term situations but honestly £170M? You pay people who know how to charge large sums for knowledge that to be honest exists outside of this exclusive club of thieves. To be honest, you could pay a local experienced builder even some quantity surveyors some money or better still, provide a contract job for someone in the industry which will cost, let's say £100,000 each county council and which will not add up to anything like the money spent. But oh no, because we are the government and we can promise ludicrous amounts of money to be magic'd up from nowhere we don't care about value-for-money. God help the next government have to deal with all the debt we have accrued from the happy-go-spending Labour party.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Hypocrisy or not?
From BBC News:
It also said the [BNP] website asked job applicants to supply a membership number, which appeared to be in breach of legislation banning the "refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation". The statement added: "The commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally."
and in the same paragraph:
"On Monday, the Department for Children, Schools and Families said it was considering banning teachers in England from joining the BNP."
So will the Equality and Human Right's commission investigate the government and uphold teachers' right to join the BNP, which is after all a legal political party? Sounds like another case of, "You can believe what you want as long as we agree with it".
Thursday, 26 June 2008
NO2ID !!
I went to see the NO2ID cards website yesterday and it was interesting to read about the various to-ing and fro-ing in government circles about the whole thing. For some reason the whole idea of ID cards disturbs me, not because I have anything to hide but they really are so far off the mark for the situations they are suppose to resolve. I have listed a few below but there are many reasons why it is a bad idea:
1) The system will be ludicrously expensive. The NHS IT system is already over 10 billion pounds and it isn't finished and only relates to people with medical history! Our government has spent so much money that it would be like borrowing £50K from the bank to buy a 4 x 4 when we only earn £15K per year!
2) The government depts have shown a massive incompetence when dealing with our data. No way I want to trust them with any more, espcially data that is valuable.
3) Identity information, once stolen, cannot be changed without having eye and finger transplants. The risk is too great.
4) It is impossible to say with any certainty that the data will be safe. Just like a dam, one breach and it could all be gone. What happens when we get accused of crimes or screwed up with our finances because of mistakes in the system? The government will shrug their shoulders and be totally unaccountable just like they are with everything else.
5) There are thousands of illegal immigrants here who are not caught and when they are, are not deported for other reasons. ID cards will not change that situation one little bit.
6) The extra trust you would be given by having an ID card means criminals with the ability to forge them or get them by deception would have more access to various systems and locations in which to commit crimes.
7) Most people won't be able to check the validity of an ID card anyway so it has limited value as any sort of proof of ID.
8) Once they are introduced there is every possibility that the requirement will creep and more and more things will require ID cards, even if they are introduced on a partial or volunteer basis, once they are in, they will certainly increase in use.
9) Because most governments are incapable of admitting mistakes, once the system is in and paid for to the tune of 10s of billions of pounds, there is no way that they government would accept it was a waste of money and scrap it. Also, there is no way to prove its real value until the full price is paid, the government would always insist it will be better when it is finished.
10) It's just a rubbish idea that the government have come up with that most Joe public have no way to stop and no say. Stop pretending that the government care about what you think and do something about it. Write to councils, write to MPs sign up to NO2ID and vote for a party that will scrap the whole ludicrous idea!
1) The system will be ludicrously expensive. The NHS IT system is already over 10 billion pounds and it isn't finished and only relates to people with medical history! Our government has spent so much money that it would be like borrowing £50K from the bank to buy a 4 x 4 when we only earn £15K per year!
2) The government depts have shown a massive incompetence when dealing with our data. No way I want to trust them with any more, espcially data that is valuable.
3) Identity information, once stolen, cannot be changed without having eye and finger transplants. The risk is too great.
4) It is impossible to say with any certainty that the data will be safe. Just like a dam, one breach and it could all be gone. What happens when we get accused of crimes or screwed up with our finances because of mistakes in the system? The government will shrug their shoulders and be totally unaccountable just like they are with everything else.
5) There are thousands of illegal immigrants here who are not caught and when they are, are not deported for other reasons. ID cards will not change that situation one little bit.
6) The extra trust you would be given by having an ID card means criminals with the ability to forge them or get them by deception would have more access to various systems and locations in which to commit crimes.
7) Most people won't be able to check the validity of an ID card anyway so it has limited value as any sort of proof of ID.
8) Once they are introduced there is every possibility that the requirement will creep and more and more things will require ID cards, even if they are introduced on a partial or volunteer basis, once they are in, they will certainly increase in use.
9) Because most governments are incapable of admitting mistakes, once the system is in and paid for to the tune of 10s of billions of pounds, there is no way that they government would accept it was a waste of money and scrap it. Also, there is no way to prove its real value until the full price is paid, the government would always insist it will be better when it is finished.
10) It's just a rubbish idea that the government have come up with that most Joe public have no way to stop and no say. Stop pretending that the government care about what you think and do something about it. Write to councils, write to MPs sign up to NO2ID and vote for a party that will scrap the whole ludicrous idea!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)