What is this?
The new buzz word round town. Today [14-Nov-2012] most of Europe is on strike. Now just stand back and look at that statement.
It is not one company of employees, it is not one group of companies, it is not one town or even one country of employees, it is the whole of Europe! That is amazing.
The strikes are organised by trade unions on behalf of their members and because of last years buzz word, austerity, which is seen by many to be failing and by others as an extravagance.
Countries like Greece and Portugal have had HUGE loans given to them and have raised taxes and have cut expenditure but are frankly still failing. Growth is still non-existent, unemployment is still rising, the rich are getting richer and the poor are falling by the wayside.
How is this going to end?
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Deportation Laws
Today [13-Nov-2012] Abu Qatada is released again!!
Court of Human Rights says that Jordan’s law is ambiguous in regard to evidence giving.
The court says that with a small amendment the deportation can take place. Well, why didn't they say that last time? Is this a different court or the same place? Why has it taken seven years to get this far?
Just how expensive is this process...?
Court of Human Rights says that Jordan’s law is ambiguous in regard to evidence giving.
The court says that with a small amendment the deportation can take place. Well, why didn't they say that last time? Is this a different court or the same place? Why has it taken seven years to get this far?
Just how expensive is this process...?
Monday, 12 November 2012
Farcical
I do not need to say anything else...
Statement from Jeremy Paxman:
“George Entwistle’s departure is a great shame. He has been brought low by cowards and incompetents.
The real problem here is the BBC’s decision, in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry, to play safe by appointing biddable people.
They then compounded the problem by enforcing a series of cuts on programme budgets, while bloating the management
That is how you arrive at the current mess on Newsnight. I very much doubt the problem is unique to that programme.
I had hoped that George might stay to sort this out.It is a great pity that a talented man has been sacrificed. While time-servers prosper.
I shall not be issuing any further statements or doing any interviews.”
Statement from Jeremy Paxman:
“George Entwistle’s departure is a great shame. He has been brought low by cowards and incompetents.
The real problem here is the BBC’s decision, in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry, to play safe by appointing biddable people.
They then compounded the problem by enforcing a series of cuts on programme budgets, while bloating the management
That is how you arrive at the current mess on Newsnight. I very much doubt the problem is unique to that programme.
I had hoped that George might stay to sort this out.It is a great pity that a talented man has been sacrificed. While time-servers prosper.
I shall not be issuing any further statements or doing any interviews.”
Friday, 9 November 2012
Which Hunt
Yesterday [08-Nov-2012] the Prime Minister David Cameron was handed a sheet of paper which reportedly had a list of names on it connected to a 'rumoured' paedophile ring, on live TV without a brief. Without looking at the paper he said it was unwise to invoke a witch hunt over speculation without evidence.
He was right. Not only that but he has already setup an enquiry into this matter.
Online claims about alleged abusers have arisen because of the failure of police and authorities to investigate allegations, this has been said before and will continue to ignite debate until a resolution has been published, so an enquiry is necessary.
The current problem is there are too many enquiries happening at present at there is the possibility of us all getting lost in the woods, which of course means nothing will get done in the end.
Sad times…
He was right. Not only that but he has already setup an enquiry into this matter.
Online claims about alleged abusers have arisen because of the failure of police and authorities to investigate allegations, this has been said before and will continue to ignite debate until a resolution has been published, so an enquiry is necessary.
The current problem is there are too many enquiries happening at present at there is the possibility of us all getting lost in the woods, which of course means nothing will get done in the end.
Sad times…
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
No Stone Unturned
Still reading...
The common census of opinion at the moment is that this is a huge amount of re-hashed ideas, albeit good ones. However, if that is correct, then why haven't they been implemented?
The picture I am getting so far is devolution of powers from Whitehall to local government, not really a new idea but there are some new names like LEPs, Local Enterprise Projects/Programmes and LGTs, Local Growth Teams.
I think the message is more involvement on the ground locally, but this has been tried before and failed due to corruption, hence big government, so it appears we might be going round that big circle again, and all the time it takes the fat cats just get fatter.
If democracy is people thinking they have more power because that is what they are told but in reality those they vote for do nothing constructive and a dictatorship is people knowing they have no power, what is the difference?
The common census of opinion at the moment is that this is a huge amount of re-hashed ideas, albeit good ones. However, if that is correct, then why haven't they been implemented?
The picture I am getting so far is devolution of powers from Whitehall to local government, not really a new idea but there are some new names like LEPs, Local Enterprise Projects/Programmes and LGTs, Local Growth Teams.
I think the message is more involvement on the ground locally, but this has been tried before and failed due to corruption, hence big government, so it appears we might be going round that big circle again, and all the time it takes the fat cats just get fatter.
If democracy is people thinking they have more power because that is what they are told but in reality those they vote for do nothing constructive and a dictatorship is people knowing they have no power, what is the difference?
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
I have been reading no stone unturned
and I haven't either finished it or absorbed it yet. However, the immediate point for me is these four:-
> a Prime Minister-led National Growth Council, ensuring all parts of government play their part to support growth and with an independent secretariat to ensure its conclusions are fully and expeditiously implemented
> a very significant devolution of funding from central government to Local Enterprise Partnerships so that government investment in economic development is tailored directly to the individual challenges and opportunities of our communities, and can be augmented by private sector investment
> a clear statement by government of its priorities to guide Local Enterprise Partnerships in the preparation of strategic plans for their local economies
> and for central government, a clear policy for each sector of the economy conceived in conjunction with industry and academia.
There are 89 recommendations apparently, this is going to take a while...
> a Prime Minister-led National Growth Council, ensuring all parts of government play their part to support growth and with an independent secretariat to ensure its conclusions are fully and expeditiously implemented
> a very significant devolution of funding from central government to Local Enterprise Partnerships so that government investment in economic development is tailored directly to the individual challenges and opportunities of our communities, and can be augmented by private sector investment
> a clear statement by government of its priorities to guide Local Enterprise Partnerships in the preparation of strategic plans for their local economies
> and for central government, a clear policy for each sector of the economy conceived in conjunction with industry and academia.
There are 89 recommendations apparently, this is going to take a while...
Monday, 5 November 2012
Living Wage Week
A KPMG survey has showed that nearly 5 million UK workers earn less than a living wage, and this is Living Wage Week [4-10 November]. Politicians of all stripes like the idea of private companies paying their lowest-paid workers a bit more, for moral reasons and also because it could save the government a shedload of cash.
In 2010 the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated that bringing every private sector worker up to the living wage would raise total earnings (before tax) by around £12bn. Around half of that - £6bn - would go directly to the government, in higher tax revenues and lower benefit and tax credit payments. That's a nice bit of spare change for the chancellor, especially one whose government wants to "make work pay". But no-one wants to be seen to be pushing new costs onto businesses at a tough time for the economy - let alone costing jobs. And it is private employers who would pay that extra £12bn (plus another £1.5bn in employers' national insurance contributions, for good measure).
Does such a miraculous thing exist? Many will be understandably sceptical. But KPMG claims that you can pay higher wages without paying higher costs. "At KPMG, we have found that the improved motivation and performance, and the lower leaver and absentee rate amongst staff in receipt of a living wage means that the cost is offset and paying it is the right thing for our business."
The key point is that the firms reporting these positive consequences are the firms that have chosen to pay this wage. So, presumably, they had done their sums beforehand and decided the benefits outweighed the costs.
Economists used to say no: if employers have to pay more for labour, they use it less. Then, starting in the 1990s, academic evidence started to build up about the minimum wage, in the US and the UK, suggesting that, at the very bottom of the labour market, telling companies to pay people a little more did not actually cost jobs.
In 2010 the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated that bringing every private sector worker up to the living wage would raise total earnings (before tax) by around £12bn. Around half of that - £6bn - would go directly to the government, in higher tax revenues and lower benefit and tax credit payments. That's a nice bit of spare change for the chancellor, especially one whose government wants to "make work pay". But no-one wants to be seen to be pushing new costs onto businesses at a tough time for the economy - let alone costing jobs. And it is private employers who would pay that extra £12bn (plus another £1.5bn in employers' national insurance contributions, for good measure).
Does such a miraculous thing exist? Many will be understandably sceptical. But KPMG claims that you can pay higher wages without paying higher costs. "At KPMG, we have found that the improved motivation and performance, and the lower leaver and absentee rate amongst staff in receipt of a living wage means that the cost is offset and paying it is the right thing for our business."
The key point is that the firms reporting these positive consequences are the firms that have chosen to pay this wage. So, presumably, they had done their sums beforehand and decided the benefits outweighed the costs.
Economists used to say no: if employers have to pay more for labour, they use it less. Then, starting in the 1990s, academic evidence started to build up about the minimum wage, in the US and the UK, suggesting that, at the very bottom of the labour market, telling companies to pay people a little more did not actually cost jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)