The police and politicians are always trying to play down the "fear of crime", but when things like this can happen virtually any time at any place you know they are out of touch.
A father has been stabbed to death in front of his three-year-old daughter as they went to visit his wife and newborn son in hospital.
It's not just the fact that this young man had a wife and kids to support or even that it happened during rush hour - it's that the piece of crap who killed him did it in front of his three year old daughter.
There have always been people who were prepared to use violence, but the fact that there are people around today who are prepared to use the most extreme forms of it in front of tiny children is compelling evidence of the collapse of morality in this country.
I wonder if these people would be quite so willing to resort to such behaviour in plain view of many witnesses if the penalty for murder was still death by hanging?
I doubt it - but I know that the liberals will put up their usual wall of denial. "We need to understand why they do this" the progressives will cry. No we don't - we just need those who might consider doing it to understand that they will forfeit their own life by doing so.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Doing it right is just too hard
Birmingham Council have decided to obliterate the apostrophe.
Why? Because staff there spend too much time dealing with complaints about grammar, apparently - but when you read on, you realise that the reason people are complaining in the first place is because this is not a new policy.
Martin Mullaney, a councillor who chairs the city's transportation scrutiny committee, pointed out that Birmingham had been quietly phasing out apostrophes since the 1950s.
Yet he suggested the move was necessary in order to end time-consuming queries from local pedants once and for all.
"We are constantly getting residents asking for apostrophes to be put back in and as a council we have got to make a decision one way or another," Mr Mullaney said.
So the reason people are complaining is the existence of this policy in the first place. If you read on a little bit further you get a feeling for the kind of person Martn Mullaney is.
Regarding nearby locations whose names derived from the crown, Mr Mullaney said: "Since the monarchy no longer own either Kings Heath or Kings Norton it is argued that it is no longer grammatically correct to include the possessive apostrophe."
I doubt whether the monarchy ever owned Kings Norton, but why make an issue over place names derived from the royalty? I'm certain All Saints' Avenue has never been owned by all the saints and I seriously wonder if the Brickmaker's Arms used to be owned by a brickmaker, but Mr. Mullaney makes it an issue of royal ownership. You don't suppose he might be a left wing republican, by any chance?
Grammar isn't always easy - we all get it wrong from time to time (I know I certainly do!) - but it is important. A grammatical error can completely change the meaning of something, but if our local authorities can't be bothered to do it correctly then what chance is there that our children will?
Why? Because staff there spend too much time dealing with complaints about grammar, apparently - but when you read on, you realise that the reason people are complaining in the first place is because this is not a new policy.
Martin Mullaney, a councillor who chairs the city's transportation scrutiny committee, pointed out that Birmingham had been quietly phasing out apostrophes since the 1950s.
Yet he suggested the move was necessary in order to end time-consuming queries from local pedants once and for all.
"We are constantly getting residents asking for apostrophes to be put back in and as a council we have got to make a decision one way or another," Mr Mullaney said.
So the reason people are complaining is the existence of this policy in the first place. If you read on a little bit further you get a feeling for the kind of person Martn Mullaney is.
Regarding nearby locations whose names derived from the crown, Mr Mullaney said: "Since the monarchy no longer own either Kings Heath or Kings Norton it is argued that it is no longer grammatically correct to include the possessive apostrophe."
I doubt whether the monarchy ever owned Kings Norton, but why make an issue over place names derived from the royalty? I'm certain All Saints' Avenue has never been owned by all the saints and I seriously wonder if the Brickmaker's Arms used to be owned by a brickmaker, but Mr. Mullaney makes it an issue of royal ownership. You don't suppose he might be a left wing republican, by any chance?
Grammar isn't always easy - we all get it wrong from time to time (I know I certainly do!) - but it is important. A grammatical error can completely change the meaning of something, but if our local authorities can't be bothered to do it correctly then what chance is there that our children will?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
If it ain't broke ....
Mary Riddell offers her two penneth worth on the Lords corruption scandal in today's Telegraph. It is, of course, leftist nonsense - but I can see those on the left with more persuasive tongues than the ridiculous Riddell using this as an excuse to push forward their own agenda. Which has a certain chutzpah seeing how all those Lords who are involved in this are Labour peers.
I've written a lot about the Lords in the past and my opinion hasn't changed. An elected upper house will not be immune from corruption anymore than the current house is or, indeed, the Commons is. Indeed, as Britain continues to spiral into authoritarianism it is inevitable that corruption will become more prevalent as that is the norm in authoritarian systems.
Why do you think individuals and companies give large donations to political parties? For the "feel good" factor? They do so to buy influence and amend legislation to suit them - remember the exemption from tobacco advertising for Formula 1? I can't decide it Riddell is just naive or plain stupid - probably both.
An elected upper house will inevitably be weighted in favour of one political party or another. Forget all the promises of "safeguards" and "checks and balances" - it would happen as it does in the USA. The result of this is what we see in the US - that they end up with a governing administration which is either too powerful (as with Bush's first term) or a lame duck (as with his second term) depending on which way the upper house leans.
The Lords had worked as it was supposed to do for decades and was the product of a constitution honed over centuries by political minds far more capable than those of today. It provided a vital check and balance against the abuse of power by a government and was the reason why Britain had never fallen the way of other "democratic" nations into authoritarianism.
The "problem" with the House of Lords was never really a problem except for those who could not see past their own envy and spite and were incapable of looking past their bigoted prejudices at the historical context of the Lords. As soon as they felt they could do so, they began to take the axe to the Lords and our constitution - the result is a considerably weakened Upper House, an overly powerful government and the descent into authoritarianism.
When we eventually come through these times and re-emerge as a proper and fit democratic nation once again as we once were - whether it be as a united Britain or an independent England (more likely) - then our historians will look back at this period of history with utter contempt for this generation of politicians. They will look at the turmoil of the 21st century and wonder how on earth we allowed such people to gain control.
I've written a lot about the Lords in the past and my opinion hasn't changed. An elected upper house will not be immune from corruption anymore than the current house is or, indeed, the Commons is. Indeed, as Britain continues to spiral into authoritarianism it is inevitable that corruption will become more prevalent as that is the norm in authoritarian systems.
Why do you think individuals and companies give large donations to political parties? For the "feel good" factor? They do so to buy influence and amend legislation to suit them - remember the exemption from tobacco advertising for Formula 1? I can't decide it Riddell is just naive or plain stupid - probably both.
An elected upper house will inevitably be weighted in favour of one political party or another. Forget all the promises of "safeguards" and "checks and balances" - it would happen as it does in the USA. The result of this is what we see in the US - that they end up with a governing administration which is either too powerful (as with Bush's first term) or a lame duck (as with his second term) depending on which way the upper house leans.
The Lords had worked as it was supposed to do for decades and was the product of a constitution honed over centuries by political minds far more capable than those of today. It provided a vital check and balance against the abuse of power by a government and was the reason why Britain had never fallen the way of other "democratic" nations into authoritarianism.
The "problem" with the House of Lords was never really a problem except for those who could not see past their own envy and spite and were incapable of looking past their bigoted prejudices at the historical context of the Lords. As soon as they felt they could do so, they began to take the axe to the Lords and our constitution - the result is a considerably weakened Upper House, an overly powerful government and the descent into authoritarianism.
When we eventually come through these times and re-emerge as a proper and fit democratic nation once again as we once were - whether it be as a united Britain or an independent England (more likely) - then our historians will look back at this period of history with utter contempt for this generation of politicians. They will look at the turmoil of the 21st century and wonder how on earth we allowed such people to gain control.
The Italian jobs
Trouble at t'mill.
HUNDREDS of furious British oil workers downed tools yesterday in protest at the hiring of cheap foreign labour.
As the UK jobs crisis continues to deepen, the entire workforce at a refinery near Immingham Docks, Humberside, walked off the job.
The 600 workers – made up of skilled riggers, scaffolders, welders and construction engineers – were outraged after learning that 220 Italian workers have been brought in to join them on the Lindsey Oil Refinery, Britain’s third largest.
The foreign workforce has been staying in a “floating hotel” at nearby Grimsby and was brought in by Total, the French oil giant which owns the refinery. Under EU law the company is allowed to undercut British wages by hiring employees from other member states.
It follows similar outrage over foreign construction teams allegedly being favoured for the building of a new power station at Staythorpe, near Newark, Nottinghamshire.
Union chiefs say the situations in Grimsby and Staythorpe make a mockery of Gordon Brown’s promise of “British jobs for British workers”.
And they believed him? There is no mainstream political party in Britain which supports the notion of British jobs for British workers or even one that places British interests as a priority. They all favour membership of the EU and this is what that membership means. Where it is possible to move jobs to cheaper states they will do that - where it isn't possible they will bring in foreign, cheaper workers to take jobs that would otherwise be performed by British workers.
Britain is one of the few member states that actually plays by the EU rules. While Gordon Brown bleats about how we mustn't allow protectionism to creep back into our trade systems, other EU nations - particularly France and Germany - use loopholes to implement protectionist policies or blatantly ignore the rules. They can do this because they dominate the EU.
As long as we remain in the EU our political classes will continue to weight British jobs, British workers and British interests no higher than those of the other member states - while those other member states will continue to put their national interests in the forefront.
There is only one answer. Leave the EU.
HUNDREDS of furious British oil workers downed tools yesterday in protest at the hiring of cheap foreign labour.
As the UK jobs crisis continues to deepen, the entire workforce at a refinery near Immingham Docks, Humberside, walked off the job.
The 600 workers – made up of skilled riggers, scaffolders, welders and construction engineers – were outraged after learning that 220 Italian workers have been brought in to join them on the Lindsey Oil Refinery, Britain’s third largest.
The foreign workforce has been staying in a “floating hotel” at nearby Grimsby and was brought in by Total, the French oil giant which owns the refinery. Under EU law the company is allowed to undercut British wages by hiring employees from other member states.
It follows similar outrage over foreign construction teams allegedly being favoured for the building of a new power station at Staythorpe, near Newark, Nottinghamshire.
Union chiefs say the situations in Grimsby and Staythorpe make a mockery of Gordon Brown’s promise of “British jobs for British workers”.
And they believed him? There is no mainstream political party in Britain which supports the notion of British jobs for British workers or even one that places British interests as a priority. They all favour membership of the EU and this is what that membership means. Where it is possible to move jobs to cheaper states they will do that - where it isn't possible they will bring in foreign, cheaper workers to take jobs that would otherwise be performed by British workers.
Britain is one of the few member states that actually plays by the EU rules. While Gordon Brown bleats about how we mustn't allow protectionism to creep back into our trade systems, other EU nations - particularly France and Germany - use loopholes to implement protectionist policies or blatantly ignore the rules. They can do this because they dominate the EU.
As long as we remain in the EU our political classes will continue to weight British jobs, British workers and British interests no higher than those of the other member states - while those other member states will continue to put their national interests in the forefront.
There is only one answer. Leave the EU.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
How do you know when the state becomes authoritarian?
When this sort of thing happens.
Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.
They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.
The children have been in foster care for two years while their grandparents battled the social services department in court.
However, the cost of legal bills forced them to drop the case and relinquish their rights.
The grandparents reluctantly agreed to adoption, provided the children were found a "loving mother and father".
They were told last Thursday that two homosexual men had been chosen as the adoptive parents.
When he protested to social workers, the grandfather alleges he was told: "You can either accept it and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again."
There are still people in Britain who will tell you that becoming an authoritarian state "couldn't happen here". They are wrong - it already has.
Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.
They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.
The children have been in foster care for two years while their grandparents battled the social services department in court.
However, the cost of legal bills forced them to drop the case and relinquish their rights.
The grandparents reluctantly agreed to adoption, provided the children were found a "loving mother and father".
They were told last Thursday that two homosexual men had been chosen as the adoptive parents.
When he protested to social workers, the grandfather alleges he was told: "You can either accept it and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again."
There are still people in Britain who will tell you that becoming an authoritarian state "couldn't happen here". They are wrong - it already has.
The new privileged class
Remember the class war? Does anyone remember what it was about? Something to do with removing privileges that a certain class of people enjoyed which the average person didn't, wasn't it?
Civil servants have clocked up £4.5 billion of extra pension entitlements in the past year, the Conservatives have revealed.
£4.5 billion in one year, eh? Certainly puts the "bail out" of the car industry into perspective doesn't it.
Total liabilities for the civil service pension scheme, which has more than half a million members, now stand at £119 billion, the equivalent of £4,700 for every household in the country.
Except, of course, that not every household in the country contributes to the pot. No, just us in the cash cow of the private sector who are being milked dry by a new breed of privileged classes - the public sector. No, public sector employees do not contribute to it at all - all their money comes from the private sector as all state cash does. If you take £20 off the church collection plate and put £5 back in you've not contributed.
I've stated before that the class structure in Britain never went away - it just changed - and we have a new breed of over-privileged people who enjoy benefits, concessions and opportunities which are denied to the rest of us.
Civil servants have clocked up £4.5 billion of extra pension entitlements in the past year, the Conservatives have revealed.
£4.5 billion in one year, eh? Certainly puts the "bail out" of the car industry into perspective doesn't it.
Total liabilities for the civil service pension scheme, which has more than half a million members, now stand at £119 billion, the equivalent of £4,700 for every household in the country.
Except, of course, that not every household in the country contributes to the pot. No, just us in the cash cow of the private sector who are being milked dry by a new breed of privileged classes - the public sector. No, public sector employees do not contribute to it at all - all their money comes from the private sector as all state cash does. If you take £20 off the church collection plate and put £5 back in you've not contributed.
I've stated before that the class structure in Britain never went away - it just changed - and we have a new breed of over-privileged people who enjoy benefits, concessions and opportunities which are denied to the rest of us.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Birth pangs of a new global order
That is how Gordon Brown is describing the current crisis.
In a speech in London ahead of a series of meetings with the heads of world financial institutions and Asian economic powers, Mr Brown will say there must be no retreat into trade protectionism or a "financial mercantilism" which would restrict banking activities like lending to domestic markets.
Brown is expected to say that this current economic crisis should not be used as an excuse to ditch globalisation. He is wrong. I know a lot of people on the right think that globalisation is a good thing - supposedly market driven, capitalist and conservative - but it isn't.
Let's just put some historical perspective on this first of all. Since industrialisation there have been two major worldwide depressions. The first in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the second in the 1930's. Both came after a period of "globalisation" and on both occasions, the countries that fared best during those depressions were those countries that retained some degree of self-sufficiency and trade protection.
Globalisation is not a form of capitalism either, rather it is a form of corporatism - the situation whereby governance is by or influenced by unelected bodies of people rather than by direct democracy. The obvious examples of corporatism are the usual suspects - the UN, EU, WTO and World Bank - but less obvious are the countless NGOs that have proliferated in recent years and which have developed very sophisticated methods for influencing governments by utilising the pre-existing corporate bodies such as the UN, EU and so on.
The one thing these groups all have in common is the Utopian dream of establishing a corporatist network of world government - the "new global order" that Brown speaks of - and globalisation is a key tool of that dream. It always has been. It would be wrong for me to assert that corporatism is exclusively socialist - it is not - but it is a key component of socialism and with the vast majority of western governments being left leaning there is a natural tendency for any drift to corporatism to result in a socialist dominance.
And although corporatism isn't about business corporations, the rise of corporatism does give big business a massive advantage over smaller companies as they can influence policy making in their favour. This restricts the "free market" and "free trade" rather than encouraging it resulting in a few huge global corporations having larger and larger slices of a market.
This is why I claim to be a supporter of capitalism and free markets, but opposed to globalisation. Capitalism, a free market and free trade are essential for any national economy, but equally essential is the ability of a nation to decide what it imports and what effect that will have on the national economy and independence. It is also why I am opposed to us allowing foreign ownership of major key industries.
This isn't xenophobia - I have no problem with foreigners starting new British businesses - but a nation has to retain a considerable degree of control over its economy or it will suffer in the long term and you can not do that if your economy is subject to the whims of a global economy.
Let me reiterate that this is nothing new. It has happened before and in exactly the same way. Incidentally - and probably connected - on all three occasions where there has been a period of globalisation it was preceded by the birth of a new global communications system. The telegraph in the late 19th century, the radio in the early 20th century and the Internet in the late 20th century/early 21st century.
That doesn't mean I am opposed to new technologies - far from it - but it does mean that we have to keep an eye out for those people who will use these technologies for their own ends - as there always are - and guard against it. Does that mean I think we should restrict the Internet? Good God, no! What it does mean is that we shouldn't fall for the lies of people like Brown who claim to put Britain first, but who really puts his own socialist ideals above anything to do with this nation.
Globalisation (along with interdependence) is a key tool of establishing a system of world governance through corporatism. It is anti-competitive and therefore anti-free market and anti-free trade. Don't be fooled with the "free trade", "free market" and "capitalism at work" hype - people like Gordon Brown wouldn't support it if that was what it was really about.
In a speech in London ahead of a series of meetings with the heads of world financial institutions and Asian economic powers, Mr Brown will say there must be no retreat into trade protectionism or a "financial mercantilism" which would restrict banking activities like lending to domestic markets.
Brown is expected to say that this current economic crisis should not be used as an excuse to ditch globalisation. He is wrong. I know a lot of people on the right think that globalisation is a good thing - supposedly market driven, capitalist and conservative - but it isn't.
Let's just put some historical perspective on this first of all. Since industrialisation there have been two major worldwide depressions. The first in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the second in the 1930's. Both came after a period of "globalisation" and on both occasions, the countries that fared best during those depressions were those countries that retained some degree of self-sufficiency and trade protection.
Globalisation is not a form of capitalism either, rather it is a form of corporatism - the situation whereby governance is by or influenced by unelected bodies of people rather than by direct democracy. The obvious examples of corporatism are the usual suspects - the UN, EU, WTO and World Bank - but less obvious are the countless NGOs that have proliferated in recent years and which have developed very sophisticated methods for influencing governments by utilising the pre-existing corporate bodies such as the UN, EU and so on.
The one thing these groups all have in common is the Utopian dream of establishing a corporatist network of world government - the "new global order" that Brown speaks of - and globalisation is a key tool of that dream. It always has been. It would be wrong for me to assert that corporatism is exclusively socialist - it is not - but it is a key component of socialism and with the vast majority of western governments being left leaning there is a natural tendency for any drift to corporatism to result in a socialist dominance.
And although corporatism isn't about business corporations, the rise of corporatism does give big business a massive advantage over smaller companies as they can influence policy making in their favour. This restricts the "free market" and "free trade" rather than encouraging it resulting in a few huge global corporations having larger and larger slices of a market.
This is why I claim to be a supporter of capitalism and free markets, but opposed to globalisation. Capitalism, a free market and free trade are essential for any national economy, but equally essential is the ability of a nation to decide what it imports and what effect that will have on the national economy and independence. It is also why I am opposed to us allowing foreign ownership of major key industries.
This isn't xenophobia - I have no problem with foreigners starting new British businesses - but a nation has to retain a considerable degree of control over its economy or it will suffer in the long term and you can not do that if your economy is subject to the whims of a global economy.
Let me reiterate that this is nothing new. It has happened before and in exactly the same way. Incidentally - and probably connected - on all three occasions where there has been a period of globalisation it was preceded by the birth of a new global communications system. The telegraph in the late 19th century, the radio in the early 20th century and the Internet in the late 20th century/early 21st century.
That doesn't mean I am opposed to new technologies - far from it - but it does mean that we have to keep an eye out for those people who will use these technologies for their own ends - as there always are - and guard against it. Does that mean I think we should restrict the Internet? Good God, no! What it does mean is that we shouldn't fall for the lies of people like Brown who claim to put Britain first, but who really puts his own socialist ideals above anything to do with this nation.
Globalisation (along with interdependence) is a key tool of establishing a system of world governance through corporatism. It is anti-competitive and therefore anti-free market and anti-free trade. Don't be fooled with the "free trade", "free market" and "capitalism at work" hype - people like Gordon Brown wouldn't support it if that was what it was really about.
Promises, money and manipulation
Remember how Gordon Brown promised to revive our flagging economic fortunes by pushing on with capital projects? Barely had the words passed from his lips when the MoD announced they were delaying the building of two new, much needed aircraft carriers. Now we have this.
The Times has learnt that projects worth billions of pounds and involving more than 100 schools and hospitals have been delayed or are on hold.
Isn't always the "schools and hospitals" that the left are always saying the Tories will cut first if they get into power? Looks as if Brown has nicked another Tory policy then. The blame, as usual, is being laid at the feet of the private sector.
Gordon Brown’s promise to revive the economy by spending billions on building schools, hospitals and roads has suffered a major setback over the lack of private finance ...
I've always had my doubts about these public/private initiatives for state projects, but blaming the private sector for not putting up cash it doesn't have wasn't one of those concerns. I mean - what do they expect?
The point is, though, that there isn't a shortage of cash in the public sector - just a shortage of will to divert the money away from self-justifying jobs, quangos and government agencies into where it is really needed. I've said since this crisis really got going that I don't disagree with the idea of the government spending taxpayers money on capital projects, but I strongly disagree with the idea that they need more of it to do so.
Treasury officials said that the £3 billion “fiscal stimulus” announced in the PreBudget Report was for smaller nonPFI schemes such as painting classrooms, refurbishing council homes and building small GP surgeries. Industry chiefs said these would do little to kick-start the economy.
Painting classrooms won't do anything to kick start the economy. We've had the promises, the money and here comes the manipulation bit.
David Metter, chairman of PPP forum, which represents the PFI industry, urged the Government to follow the example of countries such as Canada and put more money into the system.
"More money into the system" - just the thought of it depresses me. Just one thing, though - PPP presumably stands for Public Private Partnership? If all the money for a project comes from the Public part of that then what the hell has it got to do with the PPP Forum?
The word "farce" never seems to be far away from my mind when I look at the modern world of politics.
The Times has learnt that projects worth billions of pounds and involving more than 100 schools and hospitals have been delayed or are on hold.
Isn't always the "schools and hospitals" that the left are always saying the Tories will cut first if they get into power? Looks as if Brown has nicked another Tory policy then. The blame, as usual, is being laid at the feet of the private sector.
Gordon Brown’s promise to revive the economy by spending billions on building schools, hospitals and roads has suffered a major setback over the lack of private finance ...
I've always had my doubts about these public/private initiatives for state projects, but blaming the private sector for not putting up cash it doesn't have wasn't one of those concerns. I mean - what do they expect?
The point is, though, that there isn't a shortage of cash in the public sector - just a shortage of will to divert the money away from self-justifying jobs, quangos and government agencies into where it is really needed. I've said since this crisis really got going that I don't disagree with the idea of the government spending taxpayers money on capital projects, but I strongly disagree with the idea that they need more of it to do so.
Treasury officials said that the £3 billion “fiscal stimulus” announced in the PreBudget Report was for smaller nonPFI schemes such as painting classrooms, refurbishing council homes and building small GP surgeries. Industry chiefs said these would do little to kick-start the economy.
Painting classrooms won't do anything to kick start the economy. We've had the promises, the money and here comes the manipulation bit.
David Metter, chairman of PPP forum, which represents the PFI industry, urged the Government to follow the example of countries such as Canada and put more money into the system.
"More money into the system" - just the thought of it depresses me. Just one thing, though - PPP presumably stands for Public Private Partnership? If all the money for a project comes from the Public part of that then what the hell has it got to do with the PPP Forum?
The word "farce" never seems to be far away from my mind when I look at the modern world of politics.
Well that really worked!
When Labour promised to reform the House Of Lords, this isn't what most people would have imagined.
The four peers, including two former ministers, face a Parliamentary inquiry into allegations that they pledged to amend laws in return for payments from lobbyists. They were secretly recorded in an undercover newspaper sting apparently pledging to seek changes to proposed laws as paid consultants for a foreign businessman.
But it is what I expected. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the Labour Party used the misbehaviour of their own appointed peers to push for more changes to the Upper Chamber? Yes, I really do believe they have that much cheek.
The four peers, including two former ministers, face a Parliamentary inquiry into allegations that they pledged to amend laws in return for payments from lobbyists. They were secretly recorded in an undercover newspaper sting apparently pledging to seek changes to proposed laws as paid consultants for a foreign businessman.
But it is what I expected. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the Labour Party used the misbehaviour of their own appointed peers to push for more changes to the Upper Chamber? Yes, I really do believe they have that much cheek.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Great telly, but rather them than me
I don't know if you've been watching the excellent "Victorian Farm" on BBC2 over the last few weeks, but it's become one of the few highlights on TV for me since it started. The programme follows a group of people living and working a farm as they would have done in Victorian times - using traditional methods combined with the "new technology" that was transforming farming in the late 19th century.
The programme makes frequent references to how the new technology of the time was replacing the intensive labour that had been needed before - although makes little judgement on why this was happening. I believe that the general opinion is that the advent of new machinery forced many people out of the country and into the cities, towns and factories - but I would argue that it was possibly the other way around.
People started flocking to the industrial centres from the country because the factories offered higher wages - and businessmen don't pay higher wages unless they have to! If it really had been a case that the new farming technology was putting farm workers out of work then the wages offered by the industrialist would have been lower - not higher. Add on the fact that working in factories offered predictable hours (though long) and less backbreaking (though still very hard) work and you can see why people moved to the cities and why farming had to change.
Despite all the advances in technology, farming actually remained quite labour intensive long after the Victorian era. One of my favourite books about the local area is called "The Spacious Days" by Michael Twist recounting his early life living and working on a farm not far from Slough in the 1930's. It's a charming and witty read, but it also reveals that farming was still a very labour intensive occupation even up to just before the start of WW2.
Watching Victorian Farm reveals just how hard life was back then - even if the participants in the programme seem to be enjoying themselves. I actually think they are enjoying the simplicity and honesty of that way of life more than anything - the work itself, particularly during the harsh winter months, was arduous although ultimately rewarding - and they know that they'll be back in the modern world soon enough. You also have to admire the sheer creativity and skill of the craftsmen back then.
Contrary to what many might think - although I believe we could do far worse than reacquaint ourselves with some of the Victorian morality, can do attitude and work ethic - I don't dream of us going back to those sort of times. What we forget, though, is that without the power provided by fuel such as coal and the freedom provided by the internal combustion engine we wouldn't be that much different today. For me, there is a certain irony that so-called "progressive" policy towards "man-made" global warming is likely to force a return to a Victorian style existence far more than any conservative policy would.
The programme makes frequent references to how the new technology of the time was replacing the intensive labour that had been needed before - although makes little judgement on why this was happening. I believe that the general opinion is that the advent of new machinery forced many people out of the country and into the cities, towns and factories - but I would argue that it was possibly the other way around.
People started flocking to the industrial centres from the country because the factories offered higher wages - and businessmen don't pay higher wages unless they have to! If it really had been a case that the new farming technology was putting farm workers out of work then the wages offered by the industrialist would have been lower - not higher. Add on the fact that working in factories offered predictable hours (though long) and less backbreaking (though still very hard) work and you can see why people moved to the cities and why farming had to change.
Despite all the advances in technology, farming actually remained quite labour intensive long after the Victorian era. One of my favourite books about the local area is called "The Spacious Days" by Michael Twist recounting his early life living and working on a farm not far from Slough in the 1930's. It's a charming and witty read, but it also reveals that farming was still a very labour intensive occupation even up to just before the start of WW2.
Watching Victorian Farm reveals just how hard life was back then - even if the participants in the programme seem to be enjoying themselves. I actually think they are enjoying the simplicity and honesty of that way of life more than anything - the work itself, particularly during the harsh winter months, was arduous although ultimately rewarding - and they know that they'll be back in the modern world soon enough. You also have to admire the sheer creativity and skill of the craftsmen back then.
Contrary to what many might think - although I believe we could do far worse than reacquaint ourselves with some of the Victorian morality, can do attitude and work ethic - I don't dream of us going back to those sort of times. What we forget, though, is that without the power provided by fuel such as coal and the freedom provided by the internal combustion engine we wouldn't be that much different today. For me, there is a certain irony that so-called "progressive" policy towards "man-made" global warming is likely to force a return to a Victorian style existence far more than any conservative policy would.
How to lose friends and influence people
Great, scathing piece by Andrew Pierce on the Telegraph about Mr Bean's tour of India.
David Miliband, aged 44 but with the face of a 30-year-old, has proved yet again he is even more immature than he looks. His performance in India was rude, stupid and politically and diplomatically naive – pretty impressive in a Foreign Secretary.
Ah, that's the sort of thing we've been missing in the right side of journalism for some time! It's about time someone other than bloggers started hitting these pompous lefties where it hurts - in their ego.
What does matter, though, is that this so-called intellectual is allowed to strut his stuff on the world stage, desperate to prove he is still a big player, and in the process deeply offend India, one of Britain's staunchest allies.
Love it! Perhaps even more remarkable than the fact that Mr Bean abroad managed to piss off one of the few friends we still have overseas is the fact that so little attention was given to it by the broadcast media.
If a member of the real royalty rather than the Marxist Monarchy had managed to offend our colonial colleagues to even a modest degree then you can bet it would be all over the BBC news - pretty much like the supposed "racist" nickname given by the Prince of Wales to an Indian friend (who found the nickname affectionate and not the least bit offensive).
But the pathetic Miliband can trample over the toes of one of our most relaible allies in their own country and this warrants barely a mention? Strange, don't you think?
The charge sheet makes grim reading. Why did he think it was tactful or clever to deliver a speech declaring there was no such thing "as the war on terror" in the Taj Hotel in Mumbai where dozens of innocent people were killed in a hail of machine gun bullets by terrorists? Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group linked with the murderous attack, welcomed our Foreign Secretary's "positive comments!".
As Pierce points out, those comments were intended to impress a certain incoming President rather than any terrorist organisation, but the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba pounced on it with relish gives you some clue as to where we headed over the next 4-8 years.
Miliband, Oxford educated and a Kennedy scholar – which apparently makes you clever – showed off in private meetings hence the official complaint about his conduct from Delhi. He also caused grave offence by addressing his host, Pranab Mukherjee, 73, by his first name even though the veteran foreign minister called Miliband "Your Excellency". My, little David must have loved that.
One of the things I love about India and its people is that even though we ruled over them for so long - and not always particularly well - they still have huge admiration for Britain and many things British. The trouble is that many of the things which they retain and still believe are British - such as etiquette, manners and politeness - have been thrown out in this country.
This whole episode highlights the poor standard of our politicians today. By all accounts, as Pierce remarks on, Miliband is well-educated and intelligent but the reality is that he has lived a closeted and insulated life. Brought up in a Marxist family and groomed from an early age (like his brother) to be a politician, Miliband has no exposure to the real world. All his life he has listened to a one sided political viewpoint which he has accepted as correct and never questioned. This is the way of all politicians these days - Labour or Conservative - they virtually all come through a system.
Some might argue that that was always the way. Churchill had a closeted and insulated early life - but unlike Miliband and the modern breed of career politician, Churchill had an army career during which he would have been exposed to all sorts of different political viewpoints - from barrack room lawyers to important foreign diplomats. All of these things are necessary for anyone to get a rounded view of politics - it may not change your overall standpoint, but it will help you to understand the real nature of politics and diplomacy. You can't be taught that in a classroom by some lecturer.
Miliband's disgraceful performance should mark the end of his political career. Nobody should be that bad as a foreign secretary and be able to move on up the ladder. A couple of decades ago he'd be staring into the abyss of a life on the back benches (at best) by now - but not the chosen one. He's still seen as the golden boy of the left by the left and is still marked for "great" things.
But God help us if he ever does get to be Prime Minister.
David Miliband, aged 44 but with the face of a 30-year-old, has proved yet again he is even more immature than he looks. His performance in India was rude, stupid and politically and diplomatically naive – pretty impressive in a Foreign Secretary.
Ah, that's the sort of thing we've been missing in the right side of journalism for some time! It's about time someone other than bloggers started hitting these pompous lefties where it hurts - in their ego.
What does matter, though, is that this so-called intellectual is allowed to strut his stuff on the world stage, desperate to prove he is still a big player, and in the process deeply offend India, one of Britain's staunchest allies.
Love it! Perhaps even more remarkable than the fact that Mr Bean abroad managed to piss off one of the few friends we still have overseas is the fact that so little attention was given to it by the broadcast media.
If a member of the real royalty rather than the Marxist Monarchy had managed to offend our colonial colleagues to even a modest degree then you can bet it would be all over the BBC news - pretty much like the supposed "racist" nickname given by the Prince of Wales to an Indian friend (who found the nickname affectionate and not the least bit offensive).
But the pathetic Miliband can trample over the toes of one of our most relaible allies in their own country and this warrants barely a mention? Strange, don't you think?
The charge sheet makes grim reading. Why did he think it was tactful or clever to deliver a speech declaring there was no such thing "as the war on terror" in the Taj Hotel in Mumbai where dozens of innocent people were killed in a hail of machine gun bullets by terrorists? Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group linked with the murderous attack, welcomed our Foreign Secretary's "positive comments!".
As Pierce points out, those comments were intended to impress a certain incoming President rather than any terrorist organisation, but the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba pounced on it with relish gives you some clue as to where we headed over the next 4-8 years.
Miliband, Oxford educated and a Kennedy scholar – which apparently makes you clever – showed off in private meetings hence the official complaint about his conduct from Delhi. He also caused grave offence by addressing his host, Pranab Mukherjee, 73, by his first name even though the veteran foreign minister called Miliband "Your Excellency". My, little David must have loved that.
One of the things I love about India and its people is that even though we ruled over them for so long - and not always particularly well - they still have huge admiration for Britain and many things British. The trouble is that many of the things which they retain and still believe are British - such as etiquette, manners and politeness - have been thrown out in this country.
This whole episode highlights the poor standard of our politicians today. By all accounts, as Pierce remarks on, Miliband is well-educated and intelligent but the reality is that he has lived a closeted and insulated life. Brought up in a Marxist family and groomed from an early age (like his brother) to be a politician, Miliband has no exposure to the real world. All his life he has listened to a one sided political viewpoint which he has accepted as correct and never questioned. This is the way of all politicians these days - Labour or Conservative - they virtually all come through a system.
Some might argue that that was always the way. Churchill had a closeted and insulated early life - but unlike Miliband and the modern breed of career politician, Churchill had an army career during which he would have been exposed to all sorts of different political viewpoints - from barrack room lawyers to important foreign diplomats. All of these things are necessary for anyone to get a rounded view of politics - it may not change your overall standpoint, but it will help you to understand the real nature of politics and diplomacy. You can't be taught that in a classroom by some lecturer.
Miliband's disgraceful performance should mark the end of his political career. Nobody should be that bad as a foreign secretary and be able to move on up the ladder. A couple of decades ago he'd be staring into the abyss of a life on the back benches (at best) by now - but not the chosen one. He's still seen as the golden boy of the left by the left and is still marked for "great" things.
But God help us if he ever does get to be Prime Minister.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Lies, damn lies ....
The latest crime figures are out along with the usual spin.
Good or bad, up or down, whatever these statistics might appear to say does anybody believe this crap anymore?
Good or bad, up or down, whatever these statistics might appear to say does anybody believe this crap anymore?
A bit late, mate!
With the banking system in ruins, financial services in meltdown and the taxpayer footing the bill the City "watchdog" has finally awoken from a ten year slumber and turned one bleary, misty eye to its domain.
The banking system must undergo “profound” changes if a repeat of the current collapse is to be avoided in future, the head of the City watchdog has warned.
With that, it snuffles it's snout back into its own crotch and goes back to sleep again. Yeah, thanks, Lord Turner - that was really really helpful. At least it would have been if you'd said it ten, five or even two years ago.
“Central banks and regulators between them need to ... identify the combination of measures which can take away the punchbowl before the party gets out of hand.”
Sorry, mate - but you are way too late. The party got well out of hand a long time ago and is, in fact, all over. All that is left is the shattered remnants of the venue; the house has been trashed and the gatecrashers have gone home with their plunder.
To be fair to Lord Turner, he's new to the role - but it doesn't excuse the FSA from the fact that it was patently asleep on the job. Oh, and what needs to happen to avoid a repeat of this in the future is that around 50-100 of the financial world's top people should be arrested, charged with corporate fraud, found guilty, chucked in prison for 10 years or so and have all their assets seized.
That might help to prevent the situation happening again. I doubt that showering them with cash and the empty threats of a toothless, useless quango will.
The banking system must undergo “profound” changes if a repeat of the current collapse is to be avoided in future, the head of the City watchdog has warned.
With that, it snuffles it's snout back into its own crotch and goes back to sleep again. Yeah, thanks, Lord Turner - that was really really helpful. At least it would have been if you'd said it ten, five or even two years ago.
“Central banks and regulators between them need to ... identify the combination of measures which can take away the punchbowl before the party gets out of hand.”
Sorry, mate - but you are way too late. The party got well out of hand a long time ago and is, in fact, all over. All that is left is the shattered remnants of the venue; the house has been trashed and the gatecrashers have gone home with their plunder.
To be fair to Lord Turner, he's new to the role - but it doesn't excuse the FSA from the fact that it was patently asleep on the job. Oh, and what needs to happen to avoid a repeat of this in the future is that around 50-100 of the financial world's top people should be arrested, charged with corporate fraud, found guilty, chucked in prison for 10 years or so and have all their assets seized.
That might help to prevent the situation happening again. I doubt that showering them with cash and the empty threats of a toothless, useless quango will.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The first cut is the hardest
A nation is not unlike a household and governing a nation is not unlike managing a home - which is why you shouldn't let politicians and political commentators tell you how difficult and what a mammoth task it is - it isn't. The only significant difference is scale.
You've got income and expenditure, things you can sell and things you need to buy and pay for. You've got things to maintain, things to improve and new things that could save you time and money. You've got to deal with those who break the rules and punish them when necessary and you've got to educate those who are going to one day take over from you. You've got to deal with your neighbours and settle your disputes where necessary. Perhaps most importantly, you've got to manage your budget.
With the national debt spiralling out of control as Gordon Brown tries to save the world (at the expense of British taxpayers) my mind wanders to the question of how we are going to pay this massive debt off. As a homeowner, virtually the first thing I think of when I acquire any debt (after the missus has decided how to spend it in the first place) is how am I going to pay it off? How much, how often and for how long?
To be honest, I don't think Brown has even considered this - probably because he realises that he will be long gone before the sheer enormity of the problem is realised - and I don't really believe Cameron has considered it much either, even though he is quite possibly the one who is going to be most exposed to the crap left behind by the NuLabour years.
If Cameron is really serious about gaining power and doing something positive in that time he needs to think about that now. I believe there are troubled times ahead for whoever wins power at the next election and that it is quite likely that whoever does get in isn't going to be around for more than the five years maximum between elections - so if Cameron wins at the next time of asking he isn't going to have much time.
And as any householder knows, when your debt is so large it is causing you difficulties in your everyday life the first thing you need to do is reduce that debt. Cameron can try and spin that anyway he likes, but the simple fact remains that to do that he has two choices - either put up taxes or reduce public spending.
That's the way it works in a household - you either increase your income (put up taxes) or decrease your expenditure (cut spending). My bet, at the moment, is that Cameron is planning tax hikes in the short term - another reason why he isn't likely to serve beyond one term - but with rising unemployment and rapidly declining productivity any increase in taxation is unlikely to raise the overall tax take significantly (if at all). Try and push it higher to increase the national income and you'll drive businesses away and it will fall further.
That's why I believe the only real option is to cut spending - public sector cuts. There are, of course, essential services that shouldn't be cut - the schools and hospitals that the left always whinge will be the first to go. They won't, but only the most entrenched leftie would argue that we really can't do without all those quangos, agencies and jobsworth five-a-day coordinators, street scene directors and anti-smoking patrols.
The NHS accounts for less than 20% of public spending, education even less and defence around 10% (if that). So you can leave schools, hospitals and soldiers untouched and still have scope to look at cutting a proportion of the 50% that isn't covered by those areas. A simple, across the board reduction of 20% cut in quango spending will save us some £25 billion a year - yep, really that much - without any increase in taxation or any noticeable cut in public services. You'd probably notice a significant improvement if anything!
A 20% cut now followed by a year on year reduction of 5% would contribute billions towards paying off the huge debt that Gordon Brown has saddled us with. You just tell every quango that their budget is to be reduced by 20% next year and let them work out how that pans out. If its budget is £5 million that means that next year it will be £4 million - if their budget is £500 million then next year it will be £400 million. Surely they can work that out?
It really isn't rocket science and isn't even that painful - unless you are a quangocrat - and it certainly isn't hard. So why won't they do it? Could it be that quangos have become the retirement home for has-been ministers and their cronies?
You've got income and expenditure, things you can sell and things you need to buy and pay for. You've got things to maintain, things to improve and new things that could save you time and money. You've got to deal with those who break the rules and punish them when necessary and you've got to educate those who are going to one day take over from you. You've got to deal with your neighbours and settle your disputes where necessary. Perhaps most importantly, you've got to manage your budget.
With the national debt spiralling out of control as Gordon Brown tries to save the world (at the expense of British taxpayers) my mind wanders to the question of how we are going to pay this massive debt off. As a homeowner, virtually the first thing I think of when I acquire any debt (after the missus has decided how to spend it in the first place) is how am I going to pay it off? How much, how often and for how long?
To be honest, I don't think Brown has even considered this - probably because he realises that he will be long gone before the sheer enormity of the problem is realised - and I don't really believe Cameron has considered it much either, even though he is quite possibly the one who is going to be most exposed to the crap left behind by the NuLabour years.
If Cameron is really serious about gaining power and doing something positive in that time he needs to think about that now. I believe there are troubled times ahead for whoever wins power at the next election and that it is quite likely that whoever does get in isn't going to be around for more than the five years maximum between elections - so if Cameron wins at the next time of asking he isn't going to have much time.
And as any householder knows, when your debt is so large it is causing you difficulties in your everyday life the first thing you need to do is reduce that debt. Cameron can try and spin that anyway he likes, but the simple fact remains that to do that he has two choices - either put up taxes or reduce public spending.
That's the way it works in a household - you either increase your income (put up taxes) or decrease your expenditure (cut spending). My bet, at the moment, is that Cameron is planning tax hikes in the short term - another reason why he isn't likely to serve beyond one term - but with rising unemployment and rapidly declining productivity any increase in taxation is unlikely to raise the overall tax take significantly (if at all). Try and push it higher to increase the national income and you'll drive businesses away and it will fall further.
That's why I believe the only real option is to cut spending - public sector cuts. There are, of course, essential services that shouldn't be cut - the schools and hospitals that the left always whinge will be the first to go. They won't, but only the most entrenched leftie would argue that we really can't do without all those quangos, agencies and jobsworth five-a-day coordinators, street scene directors and anti-smoking patrols.
The NHS accounts for less than 20% of public spending, education even less and defence around 10% (if that). So you can leave schools, hospitals and soldiers untouched and still have scope to look at cutting a proportion of the 50% that isn't covered by those areas. A simple, across the board reduction of 20% cut in quango spending will save us some £25 billion a year - yep, really that much - without any increase in taxation or any noticeable cut in public services. You'd probably notice a significant improvement if anything!
A 20% cut now followed by a year on year reduction of 5% would contribute billions towards paying off the huge debt that Gordon Brown has saddled us with. You just tell every quango that their budget is to be reduced by 20% next year and let them work out how that pans out. If its budget is £5 million that means that next year it will be £4 million - if their budget is £500 million then next year it will be £400 million. Surely they can work that out?
It really isn't rocket science and isn't even that painful - unless you are a quangocrat - and it certainly isn't hard. So why won't they do it? Could it be that quangos have become the retirement home for has-been ministers and their cronies?
Trouble in paradise
The Gaza strip lies on the Mediterranean Sea, has miles of great beaches and a pleasant climate. Contrary to popular belief, the Gaza strip also boasts acres of open spaces and beautiful countryside. It could and should be a tourist haven - however ....
If the "government" and people wanted it then Gaza could be one of the tourist hot spots of the Med - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza had used the billions of dollars of aid money to build an infrastructure to support tourism they'd be well on the way to achieving a very nice lifestyle for their people - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza stopped trying to attack Israel then Israel would leave them alone - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza were genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Gazan people they'd concentrate on building a tourist economy rather than a military dictatorship - but they don't.
Do the "government" and people of Gaza want peace and prosperity - or do they just want to kill Jews?
Everyone seems to think the Israeli response was "disproportionate" - even though there is no such thing as proportionality in warfare (the whole point is to kill as many enemies as possible with as few losses on your own side as possible) - but if you want to consider proportions, consider this.
Roughly one third of Israeli dead were civilians. Roughly one quarter to one third of Gazan dead were civilian - so, proportionately, they are about even. However, seeing how 99.99999999% of the fighting took place in Gaza one would normally expect the civilian proportion of Gazan dead to be considerably higher than that of the attacking Israelis. It isn't - that tells a story on its own.
If the "government" and people wanted it then Gaza could be one of the tourist hot spots of the Med - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza had used the billions of dollars of aid money to build an infrastructure to support tourism they'd be well on the way to achieving a very nice lifestyle for their people - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza stopped trying to attack Israel then Israel would leave them alone - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza were genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Gazan people they'd concentrate on building a tourist economy rather than a military dictatorship - but they don't.
Do the "government" and people of Gaza want peace and prosperity - or do they just want to kill Jews?
Everyone seems to think the Israeli response was "disproportionate" - even though there is no such thing as proportionality in warfare (the whole point is to kill as many enemies as possible with as few losses on your own side as possible) - but if you want to consider proportions, consider this.
Roughly one third of Israeli dead were civilians. Roughly one quarter to one third of Gazan dead were civilian - so, proportionately, they are about even. However, seeing how 99.99999999% of the fighting took place in Gaza one would normally expect the civilian proportion of Gazan dead to be considerably higher than that of the attacking Israelis. It isn't - that tells a story on its own.
Looking for clues
A Labour MP has warned of the growing problem of young girls being groomed and manipulated into prostitution by "gangs of men".
Labour's Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, claimed skilful methods were being used by criminals to lure teenagers into the sex trade.
He said young men were initially targeting girls at school and acting as their boyfriends before passing them on to older men who would become their pimps.
The MP said he knew of cases in his Huddersfield constituency where girls first met young men, perhaps driving "flash cars" outside school who made the initial contact.
The girl would believe they were with their first boyfriend but before long, older men would then take over, forcing them to have sex and selling them to others.
Sounds awful, but I thought we'd eradicated the problem of child prostitution long ago. I wonder what could have happened that has allowed such despicable practices to flourish again?
He likened the psychological techniques employed at first to those used by US cult leaders. He added: "These men who prey on children have great skill in identifying the vulnerability of these children whatever the background they come from."
Ah, right! So the problem is caused by US cultists then? For a moment I thought that this Labour MP was confirming the BNP allegations of Asian gangs grooming white girls for prostitution. I guess I was mistaken.
Labour's Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, claimed skilful methods were being used by criminals to lure teenagers into the sex trade.
He said young men were initially targeting girls at school and acting as their boyfriends before passing them on to older men who would become their pimps.
The MP said he knew of cases in his Huddersfield constituency where girls first met young men, perhaps driving "flash cars" outside school who made the initial contact.
The girl would believe they were with their first boyfriend but before long, older men would then take over, forcing them to have sex and selling them to others.
Sounds awful, but I thought we'd eradicated the problem of child prostitution long ago. I wonder what could have happened that has allowed such despicable practices to flourish again?
He likened the psychological techniques employed at first to those used by US cult leaders. He added: "These men who prey on children have great skill in identifying the vulnerability of these children whatever the background they come from."
Ah, right! So the problem is caused by US cultists then? For a moment I thought that this Labour MP was confirming the BNP allegations of Asian gangs grooming white girls for prostitution. I guess I was mistaken.
The reason we are in this financial mess
I've already mentioned it in an earlier post, but it's nice to see The Telegraph catching up with me with this piece by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.
Britain has foreign reserves of under $61bn dollars (£43.7bn), less than Malaysia or Thailand. The foreign liabilities of the UK banks are $4.4 trillion – or twice annual GDP – according to the Bank of England. The mismatch is perilous.
Perilous is soemthing of an understatement. Evans-Pritchard doesn't believe we can do what I believe we should do - i.e. let the banks crash and set up new, British only banks to get our economy moving again - what he calls the "Iceland option".
But Iceland at least had the luxury of letting banks default – shifting losses on to the rest of the world. It refused to honour foreign debts.
"They drew a line," said Jerry Rawclifffe, who tracks Iceland for Fitch Ratings. "They created new banks, parking the old losses in resolution committees. It is not easy for other governments to walk away. They have a duty of care."
I guess these guys know better than me, but I remain dubious.
Indeed, if Britain walked away from UK banks' $4.4 trillion of foreign liabilities – worth eight times Lehman Brothers – it would destroy the credibility of the City and take the whole world into deeper depression.
Well, my view is that we're heading into a depression anyway - one that will last years. The responsibility of our government is to look after the British economy and British interests and if that means bad luck for others .... tough.
"The UK cannot go down that route because it would set off an asset price death spiral," said Marc Ostwald, a bond expert at Monument Securities. "The Western banking system is already on life support. That would turn it off altogether."
Am I supposed to care? As long as we in Britain have a working banking system - which we don't at the moment - then why should we be bothered whether the rest of the world's banks are up shit creek or not? The "credibility of the City"? In case these idiots haven't noticed - that has already gone. It doesn't have any credibility!
The financial sector has achieved the unachievable. They are now regarded with even more contempt from Joe Public than estate agents. Fair's fair, though - they've been regarding us with utter contempt for years and by the sounds of things that is set to continue.
Britain has foreign reserves of under $61bn dollars (£43.7bn), less than Malaysia or Thailand. The foreign liabilities of the UK banks are $4.4 trillion – or twice annual GDP – according to the Bank of England. The mismatch is perilous.
Perilous is soemthing of an understatement. Evans-Pritchard doesn't believe we can do what I believe we should do - i.e. let the banks crash and set up new, British only banks to get our economy moving again - what he calls the "Iceland option".
But Iceland at least had the luxury of letting banks default – shifting losses on to the rest of the world. It refused to honour foreign debts.
"They drew a line," said Jerry Rawclifffe, who tracks Iceland for Fitch Ratings. "They created new banks, parking the old losses in resolution committees. It is not easy for other governments to walk away. They have a duty of care."
I guess these guys know better than me, but I remain dubious.
Indeed, if Britain walked away from UK banks' $4.4 trillion of foreign liabilities – worth eight times Lehman Brothers – it would destroy the credibility of the City and take the whole world into deeper depression.
Well, my view is that we're heading into a depression anyway - one that will last years. The responsibility of our government is to look after the British economy and British interests and if that means bad luck for others .... tough.
"The UK cannot go down that route because it would set off an asset price death spiral," said Marc Ostwald, a bond expert at Monument Securities. "The Western banking system is already on life support. That would turn it off altogether."
Am I supposed to care? As long as we in Britain have a working banking system - which we don't at the moment - then why should we be bothered whether the rest of the world's banks are up shit creek or not? The "credibility of the City"? In case these idiots haven't noticed - that has already gone. It doesn't have any credibility!
The financial sector has achieved the unachievable. They are now regarded with even more contempt from Joe Public than estate agents. Fair's fair, though - they've been regarding us with utter contempt for years and by the sounds of things that is set to continue.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Power grab
As I feared, the government are using the exposure of local government failures in child welfare to grab more power for the state.
Thousands of children supposedly educated at home by their parents are at risk of abuse, neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude, the Government said yesterday.
I don't home school either of my kids (although I have been considering it recently), but I do know a few people who do. In all circumstances they are doing so because the schools their children were in repeatedly failed to address the concerns they had as parents with regards to their child's education and welfare within their school - an experience which I have recently had too.
The review follows mounting concern from local authorities that their overarching duty to promote and protect child welfare is undermined by the present rules, under which responsibility for a child's education rests squarely with the parents.
This is utter bullshit. The fact is that in the case of Baby P and numerous other instances of child abuse, the child in question was not of school age and would not have been in education.They were also well known to local authorities who, quite simply, failed to act more because of the culture of political correctness that permeates social work rather than any deficiency of knowledge of the child's circumstances.
If you extend this reviews concern, the logical conclusion is that they can not perform their duty to protect child welfare unless the child is in full time education - which is patently ridiculous - and is the precursor to children being placed into state baby farms virtually from the moment they are born.
It is another attempt by the state to undermine the role of parents and family and increase the reach of the state into ever more areas of our lives. It will make no difference to the welfare of children who are vulnerable, but it will increase the power of the state and the grip of the progressives on society.
Perhaps that is the real purpose?
Thousands of children supposedly educated at home by their parents are at risk of abuse, neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude, the Government said yesterday.
I don't home school either of my kids (although I have been considering it recently), but I do know a few people who do. In all circumstances they are doing so because the schools their children were in repeatedly failed to address the concerns they had as parents with regards to their child's education and welfare within their school - an experience which I have recently had too.
The review follows mounting concern from local authorities that their overarching duty to promote and protect child welfare is undermined by the present rules, under which responsibility for a child's education rests squarely with the parents.
This is utter bullshit. The fact is that in the case of Baby P and numerous other instances of child abuse, the child in question was not of school age and would not have been in education.They were also well known to local authorities who, quite simply, failed to act more because of the culture of political correctness that permeates social work rather than any deficiency of knowledge of the child's circumstances.
If you extend this reviews concern, the logical conclusion is that they can not perform their duty to protect child welfare unless the child is in full time education - which is patently ridiculous - and is the precursor to children being placed into state baby farms virtually from the moment they are born.
It is another attempt by the state to undermine the role of parents and family and increase the reach of the state into ever more areas of our lives. It will make no difference to the welfare of children who are vulnerable, but it will increase the power of the state and the grip of the progressives on society.
Perhaps that is the real purpose?
Get set for depression
This is going to last years.
You know, there have been two previous major depressions since industrialisation - the first midway through the second half of the 19th century and the second coming between the wars in the 20th century. Both had three things in common.
One - each was preceded by a period of "globalisation". Two - each was preceded by an expansion of credit leading to unsustainable debt. Three - the first two happened because of a period of relatively free international trade for 20 years or so before hand.
Indeed, there have been, since industrialisation, only three occasions when "free trade" existed in any accepted sense - the two occasions mentioned above and the last 20 years or so.
Oh, I know that the economists have argued for decades about what caused the depressions and haven't been able to agree, but sometimes those immersed in the detail really can't see the wood for the trees.
I'm certainly no economist and I'm not denying that my opinion is based more on a "gut feel" than any knowledge - but, to be brutally frank, the opinions of economists haven't been worth much either in light of recent events.
What I do know, however, is that those nations which came through the last Great Depression relatively unscathed were those nations which had resisted the temptation to join the international free trade bandwagon. Only those nations with strong protectionist trade policies and a high degree of self sufficiency were able to ride out the depression with very little damage to their economy.
I still believe in capitalism, free trade and free markets as the principle mechanism for internal (national) economic policy, but remain convinced that a nation has to protect its industry, agriculture and businesses from foreign challenges otherwise that nation is going to affected strongly by a depression when it hits. And I remain convinced that depression is the inevitable consequence of international free trade.
This isn't about xenophobia, it's about being British and putting British interests first. I believe that is the right thing for a British government to do - and that a French government should put French interests above all others, a German government should do what is right for the German people and so on.
I don't believe we, as Britons, owe the world any favours regardless of any historical slight real or imagined. Nor do I believe that any other nation owes us any favours either. The only thing special about our relationship with the USA is that we both had a shared strong belief in the fundamental principles of democracy and how those should be applied. That has diminished considerably in the last 20 years thanks entirely to the fact that we, in Britain, thanks to our membership of the EU, no longer hold those principles that strongly.
The eurozone is dominated by France and Germany and now those smaller nations in the eurozone are finding out that the euro is being used to support the interests of those nations ahead of their own. I don't blame France or Germany for doing that - I would hope that we'd do the same if we were in their position (thank God we aren't!).
If I am right - and it is a big if - and we are about to enter a major depression then there are going to be some seismic shifts in geo-politics over the next ten years. The euro will be the first thing to go as smaller nations look to regain control over monetary policy. Oh, it might survive as some Franco-German currency, but other than that it is dead and buried if we enter a depression.
I also believe it will mean the end of the EU as there will be a sharp rise in nationalism and protectionism. As a nationalist and being anti-EU as I am I welcome that, but would rather we didn't have to go through a depression to achieve it. Worse still, I fear that a depression will mark a rise in extremist nationalism which is something I most certainly do not want.
The general opinion of nationalism is that you are either a civic or ethnic nationalist - but I don't think I'm either. I'm something in between - and I believe that most British/English nationalists are the same. I'm not opposed to immigration - just opposed to unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism.
I don't take the view that you can't be black or Asian and British - being British is more of a state of mind than a skin colour - but key to that state of mind is acceptance of and integration into the British culture. What I am certain of is that you can not be black, white, Asian or green with yellow spots and British if you subscribe to different, non-British cultural values. Oh, and I don't believe you can change the culture either - not substantially. As I've said before, if you try to then all you will do is create a divided nation and that will, eventually, shatter into a number of smaller nations.
Britain was always a nationalist nation up until relatively recently and we always managed to maintain that nationalism with the world renowned British qualities of tolerance and fair play. I would hope that if, as I am predicting, Europe does revert to nationalism again, we in Britain would rediscover that British nationalism and embrace it. No, it's more than a hope - I believe that our history of democracy and social conservatism will ensure that we don't become an extremist nationalist nation.
Unfortunately, most of Europe doesn't have that history of democracy and social conservatism. Many parts of Europe have a history of being extremist and reactionary which does not bode well for the future of continental Europe if - as I suspect - depression grips the world and the EU collapses.
All of this is supposing that the recession turns into depression and, personally, I can not see how that can be avoided right now. And having said all that, I still believe - even if we do manage to avoid a depression - that the EU will collapse anyway. It would just take a little longer.
These are worrying, but interesting times.
You know, there have been two previous major depressions since industrialisation - the first midway through the second half of the 19th century and the second coming between the wars in the 20th century. Both had three things in common.
One - each was preceded by a period of "globalisation". Two - each was preceded by an expansion of credit leading to unsustainable debt. Three - the first two happened because of a period of relatively free international trade for 20 years or so before hand.
Indeed, there have been, since industrialisation, only three occasions when "free trade" existed in any accepted sense - the two occasions mentioned above and the last 20 years or so.
Oh, I know that the economists have argued for decades about what caused the depressions and haven't been able to agree, but sometimes those immersed in the detail really can't see the wood for the trees.
I'm certainly no economist and I'm not denying that my opinion is based more on a "gut feel" than any knowledge - but, to be brutally frank, the opinions of economists haven't been worth much either in light of recent events.
What I do know, however, is that those nations which came through the last Great Depression relatively unscathed were those nations which had resisted the temptation to join the international free trade bandwagon. Only those nations with strong protectionist trade policies and a high degree of self sufficiency were able to ride out the depression with very little damage to their economy.
I still believe in capitalism, free trade and free markets as the principle mechanism for internal (national) economic policy, but remain convinced that a nation has to protect its industry, agriculture and businesses from foreign challenges otherwise that nation is going to affected strongly by a depression when it hits. And I remain convinced that depression is the inevitable consequence of international free trade.
This isn't about xenophobia, it's about being British and putting British interests first. I believe that is the right thing for a British government to do - and that a French government should put French interests above all others, a German government should do what is right for the German people and so on.
I don't believe we, as Britons, owe the world any favours regardless of any historical slight real or imagined. Nor do I believe that any other nation owes us any favours either. The only thing special about our relationship with the USA is that we both had a shared strong belief in the fundamental principles of democracy and how those should be applied. That has diminished considerably in the last 20 years thanks entirely to the fact that we, in Britain, thanks to our membership of the EU, no longer hold those principles that strongly.
The eurozone is dominated by France and Germany and now those smaller nations in the eurozone are finding out that the euro is being used to support the interests of those nations ahead of their own. I don't blame France or Germany for doing that - I would hope that we'd do the same if we were in their position (thank God we aren't!).
If I am right - and it is a big if - and we are about to enter a major depression then there are going to be some seismic shifts in geo-politics over the next ten years. The euro will be the first thing to go as smaller nations look to regain control over monetary policy. Oh, it might survive as some Franco-German currency, but other than that it is dead and buried if we enter a depression.
I also believe it will mean the end of the EU as there will be a sharp rise in nationalism and protectionism. As a nationalist and being anti-EU as I am I welcome that, but would rather we didn't have to go through a depression to achieve it. Worse still, I fear that a depression will mark a rise in extremist nationalism which is something I most certainly do not want.
The general opinion of nationalism is that you are either a civic or ethnic nationalist - but I don't think I'm either. I'm something in between - and I believe that most British/English nationalists are the same. I'm not opposed to immigration - just opposed to unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism.
I don't take the view that you can't be black or Asian and British - being British is more of a state of mind than a skin colour - but key to that state of mind is acceptance of and integration into the British culture. What I am certain of is that you can not be black, white, Asian or green with yellow spots and British if you subscribe to different, non-British cultural values. Oh, and I don't believe you can change the culture either - not substantially. As I've said before, if you try to then all you will do is create a divided nation and that will, eventually, shatter into a number of smaller nations.
Britain was always a nationalist nation up until relatively recently and we always managed to maintain that nationalism with the world renowned British qualities of tolerance and fair play. I would hope that if, as I am predicting, Europe does revert to nationalism again, we in Britain would rediscover that British nationalism and embrace it. No, it's more than a hope - I believe that our history of democracy and social conservatism will ensure that we don't become an extremist nationalist nation.
Unfortunately, most of Europe doesn't have that history of democracy and social conservatism. Many parts of Europe have a history of being extremist and reactionary which does not bode well for the future of continental Europe if - as I suspect - depression grips the world and the EU collapses.
All of this is supposing that the recession turns into depression and, personally, I can not see how that can be avoided right now. And having said all that, I still believe - even if we do manage to avoid a depression - that the EU will collapse anyway. It would just take a little longer.
These are worrying, but interesting times.
Great expectations
After weeks - no, months of buildup we've finally reached the point when America has its first black president and the media plan to give us wall to wall coverage of the event even if we don't give a monkeys either way.
Obama will take office as, quite possibly, the least examined and most un-criticised incoming president ever - certainly of modern times. The media have made no attempt to find out what he actually stands for, what his plans are, how he intends to go about implementing them or anything else that they should be asking. Instead they've just accepted him and his mantra of "change" unquestioningly and at face value.
Unfortunately for Obama, that is not enough now. He can no longer hide behind ambiguity and disingenuous statements - he has to deliver the detail and the media are going to have to start asking awkward questions even if they don't want to.
The media have pinned great expectations on Obama and now he has to either live up to that or fall flat on his face. There is no in between for Obama - it is all or nothing. For that reason I expect him to be even more "radical" than most were expecting.
For that reason ... I fear for the USA.
Obama will take office as, quite possibly, the least examined and most un-criticised incoming president ever - certainly of modern times. The media have made no attempt to find out what he actually stands for, what his plans are, how he intends to go about implementing them or anything else that they should be asking. Instead they've just accepted him and his mantra of "change" unquestioningly and at face value.
Unfortunately for Obama, that is not enough now. He can no longer hide behind ambiguity and disingenuous statements - he has to deliver the detail and the media are going to have to start asking awkward questions even if they don't want to.
The media have pinned great expectations on Obama and now he has to either live up to that or fall flat on his face. There is no in between for Obama - it is all or nothing. For that reason I expect him to be even more "radical" than most were expecting.
For that reason ... I fear for the USA.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Why the latest bank bail out won't work
Brown has pledged billions of pounds more of taxpayers money to guarantee the bad debts of our banks.
The Prime Minister announced a scheme to allow banks to exchange cash or shares for a Government guarantee on their "toxic" debts, transferring any losses they suffer from the banks to the taxpayer.
The hope is that the banks will start lending money again. It is a forlorn hope. The problem with the banks debts are that they are global - I believe the figure is something like 80% of the debt held by British banks is overseas debt. If that figure is correct then regardless of what Brown does the banks are not going to be lending money either to each other or anyone else - and it also calls into question why our government are spending so much money to support foreign debt.
The problem, as I understand it, is getting British banks to start lending money to British businesses and individuals - but because all the banks are interwoven into this intricate and rapidly collapsing foreign web of finance they can't. Nor can it be solved by simply "nationalising" a particular bank - they will still have substantial foreign debt and that will still affect their lending.
The government would have been far better off letting those big name banks collapse into the self-inflicted pile of shite they created and serves them bloody right. They could have used those billions of pounds to set up a new, national and British only bank serving British business and British customers only.
It's not the banking system that is in crisis - it is globalisation and we are pumping billions of pounds into supporting that at the expense of our own national economy. Stupid.
The Prime Minister announced a scheme to allow banks to exchange cash or shares for a Government guarantee on their "toxic" debts, transferring any losses they suffer from the banks to the taxpayer.
The hope is that the banks will start lending money again. It is a forlorn hope. The problem with the banks debts are that they are global - I believe the figure is something like 80% of the debt held by British banks is overseas debt. If that figure is correct then regardless of what Brown does the banks are not going to be lending money either to each other or anyone else - and it also calls into question why our government are spending so much money to support foreign debt.
The problem, as I understand it, is getting British banks to start lending money to British businesses and individuals - but because all the banks are interwoven into this intricate and rapidly collapsing foreign web of finance they can't. Nor can it be solved by simply "nationalising" a particular bank - they will still have substantial foreign debt and that will still affect their lending.
The government would have been far better off letting those big name banks collapse into the self-inflicted pile of shite they created and serves them bloody right. They could have used those billions of pounds to set up a new, national and British only bank serving British business and British customers only.
It's not the banking system that is in crisis - it is globalisation and we are pumping billions of pounds into supporting that at the expense of our own national economy. Stupid.
Heathrow's third runway is throwing good money after bad
Perhaps the most annoying thing for me, in respect to the planned third runway at Heathrow, is the way that the decision about whether to have it or not has been boiled down to a question of environmentalism.
I'm as environmentally concerned as anyone - although my concerns are about real, immediate and local environmental issues not half-baked computer led fantasises - but when it comes to Heathrow's third runway my arguments against are not based on on environmental issues, but on common sense.
There is no getting away from the fact that Heathrow is in the wrong place for a major international airport. The flight path for aircraft taking off and landing take them directly over a major city in one direction and a mass of conurbations in the other. The miracle of flight 1549 is not so much that they all survived, but that the plane was able to find somewhere to "land" that wasn't densely populated. That owes much to the fact that La Guardia is surrounded by large expanses of water - Heathrow is not.
Had the same situation occurred at Heathrow, the plane would almost certainly have come down on a densely populated area leading to the probable loss of life for all on board and dozens - maybe even hundreds - on the ground.
The area surrounding Heathrow is also a heavily congested traffic area. The roads into Heathrow - including three major motorways - are frequently clogged up with traffic and adding more flights to and from that airport will only exacerbate that. Short of tearing up hundreds of villages and building hundreds of new major road arteries to the west of London, nothing will alleviate that - certainly not new or improved rail links.
And with the airspace around London set to get even busier - particularly the four holding areas - the likelihood of a mid-air collision is only going to increase. Much has been said about Heathrow running at 99% capacity, but if you own an airport you want it to run at capacity. Adding a third runway is not intended to reduce that - the airport owners will still want it running at 99% capacity or more - it is simply intended to increase capacity. Heathrow with a third runway will still be beset by delays and missed connections.
But the real problem for me is that in 20 or 30 years time Heathrow will still be in the wrong place for a major international hub airport. You can expand Heathrow all you like, but nothing will ever change that. This is why this option is not a solution - just putting off the inevitable. The inevitable being that they will, eventually, have to bite the bullet and build a new airport somewhere else. By building a third runway they may delay this for a short time, but it is just throwing good money after bad.
I'm as environmentally concerned as anyone - although my concerns are about real, immediate and local environmental issues not half-baked computer led fantasises - but when it comes to Heathrow's third runway my arguments against are not based on on environmental issues, but on common sense.
There is no getting away from the fact that Heathrow is in the wrong place for a major international airport. The flight path for aircraft taking off and landing take them directly over a major city in one direction and a mass of conurbations in the other. The miracle of flight 1549 is not so much that they all survived, but that the plane was able to find somewhere to "land" that wasn't densely populated. That owes much to the fact that La Guardia is surrounded by large expanses of water - Heathrow is not.
Had the same situation occurred at Heathrow, the plane would almost certainly have come down on a densely populated area leading to the probable loss of life for all on board and dozens - maybe even hundreds - on the ground.
The area surrounding Heathrow is also a heavily congested traffic area. The roads into Heathrow - including three major motorways - are frequently clogged up with traffic and adding more flights to and from that airport will only exacerbate that. Short of tearing up hundreds of villages and building hundreds of new major road arteries to the west of London, nothing will alleviate that - certainly not new or improved rail links.
And with the airspace around London set to get even busier - particularly the four holding areas - the likelihood of a mid-air collision is only going to increase. Much has been said about Heathrow running at 99% capacity, but if you own an airport you want it to run at capacity. Adding a third runway is not intended to reduce that - the airport owners will still want it running at 99% capacity or more - it is simply intended to increase capacity. Heathrow with a third runway will still be beset by delays and missed connections.
But the real problem for me is that in 20 or 30 years time Heathrow will still be in the wrong place for a major international hub airport. You can expand Heathrow all you like, but nothing will ever change that. This is why this option is not a solution - just putting off the inevitable. The inevitable being that they will, eventually, have to bite the bullet and build a new airport somewhere else. By building a third runway they may delay this for a short time, but it is just throwing good money after bad.
Tories living in fantasy land
I've written many times about how so many conservatives still convince themselves that the Cameron is planning some sort of Trojan horse offensive if and when he leads the Conservative Party to victory in a General Election. In today's Telegraph comment section George Bridges still believes this will happen.
When finally we emerge from these dark days, the Tories will be ready to make some startling changes to social policies, says George Bridges.
He headline at the top of the page reads .... "Prepare for a Conservative revolution. No, seriously" .. which tends to suggest that Bridges is desperate to believe that the Tories are still conservative. The "no, seriously, tells you that he is having a hard time finding any real evidence of that.
Bridges starts his piece by harking back to WW2 and the Beveridge report.
Beveridge boasted to Harold Wilson that "Beveridge is no longer the name of a man; it is the name of a way of life". (Clearly he was a modest man.) Now we know what that "way of life" is. It is a culture of dependency and entitlement that is deeply engrained in communities across Britain. Why bother working, when you can be paid by the state to watch Sky all day?
Quite. Bridges goes on ....
So, when I ask, "What is the Britain we want to build when this economic war is over?", the answer is not another Beveridge report. No, we need a Britain in which the state does less, and in which the failures of Beveridge's welfarism are addressed.
Ok - so far so good.
The Left, obviously, cannot do this. The Beveridge Report is its tablet of stone, passed down from Labour leader to Labour leader. The task looks increasingly as though it will fall squarely to the Conservatives. And I have faith that David Cameron does not merely understand the scale of the challenge, but is prepared to act.
Well, it's all well and good having faith, but in the real world of politics that alone is never going to be enough. Cameron may well understand the scale of the task - personally, I doubt that he has even begun to grasp the sheer enormity of the situation - but if Bridges really believes he is prepared to act then he really needs some concrete evidence of that. The problem I have is that Bridges rightly says that "the left" is never going to make the changes needed - but all the evidence I see points to a Conservative Party that leans considerably to the left.
To his credit, at least Bridges doesn't go on about the Tories commitment to capitalism as reason for his optimism. Capitalism - as I have pointed out many times - is not an indicator of political leaning, just an economic system which, despite it's all too apparent problems, remains the best economic system. It is used and supported by parties on the left and right of the political spectrum - from The US Republicans to the Communist Party of China. Instead, Bridges seems to see something in the current Conservative policies which gives him hope.
Surveying the panoply of current Conservative policies, the revolution I foresee is one of values – the values that determine our social policies, and how our institutions are run. In welfare, tax, health, law and order, the Conservatives advocate profound change. The balance will be tipped away from rights to responsibilities.
Ah - the old "values" thing. Forgive me for saying so, but isn't the "revolution" of values exactly the same thing that John Major promised with his "Back to Basics" campaign? How did that pan out?
Families will get explicit support in the tax system. The presumption will be that the man in Whitehall does not always know best. The legal system should unequivocally support the victim, not the criminal.
Again, forgive me, but even though the Tories (and Labour) have talked a lot about this, the reality is that they still have not put forward any cast iron policies which will actually do anything about any of this. Airy fairy talk does not make a policy - but that is all we've had from Cameron and the Tories. Bridges sees the revolution taking off in our schools.
But perhaps the greatest cultural change promises to be in our schools. For generations, our education system has been in the grip of "progressives", who have been anything but. Their fundamentalist doctrine is "all must have prizes", "children should learn from experience", "treat every child the same". Thanks to LEAs, teacher training colleges, Whitehall, government quangos and the trade unions, this approach has polluted the bloodstream of our education system.
I don't disagree, but where does this "promise" of cultural change come from? I can't recall a single Tory policy that even hints at such a thing, let alone promises it.
In response, Michael Gove, the Conservatives' education spokesman, is planning a full-frontal assault on the teaching Taliban. Every state school would become an autonomous unit, able to compete for pupils; out would go "continual assessment"; so too would soft exams, which all pupils can pass. Subjects would not be reduced to "areas of study" or "skills set". Again, the values are clear: equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome; passing a body of knowledge down from one generation to another and schools preparing children properly for life.
OK - I readily admit I am not a Conservative "insider" and therefore not privy to what is going on inside the Tories education spokesman's head, but I've not seen or heard anything from Michael Gove that suggests that this is either the plan or will actually happen should the Tories attain power. And if he is planning such a coup, then it is clear to me that Cameron really hasn't grasped the sheer scale of the task involved. Because, to defeat the "teaching Taliban" will require more than a few policies - it requires a complete dismantling of the whole progressive system that pervades our society and institutions including (especially?) our media.
And all of this is supposing that the Cameron Conservatives aren't just another liberal progressive party. Which is far from apparent to me.
Bridges piece demonstrates once more that conservative voters are still pinning their hopes on the belief that Cameron will shrug off his progressive cloak once he gets into power and turn into some reincarnated Thatcherite conservative. It's a vain hope in my opinion - and all the evidence, particularly from the Tory councils who often lead the way in implementing progressive policies, points to Cameron being just another progressive with the same ideas as all the others.
When finally we emerge from these dark days, the Tories will be ready to make some startling changes to social policies, says George Bridges.
He headline at the top of the page reads .... "Prepare for a Conservative revolution. No, seriously" .. which tends to suggest that Bridges is desperate to believe that the Tories are still conservative. The "no, seriously, tells you that he is having a hard time finding any real evidence of that.
Bridges starts his piece by harking back to WW2 and the Beveridge report.
Beveridge boasted to Harold Wilson that "Beveridge is no longer the name of a man; it is the name of a way of life". (Clearly he was a modest man.) Now we know what that "way of life" is. It is a culture of dependency and entitlement that is deeply engrained in communities across Britain. Why bother working, when you can be paid by the state to watch Sky all day?
Quite. Bridges goes on ....
So, when I ask, "What is the Britain we want to build when this economic war is over?", the answer is not another Beveridge report. No, we need a Britain in which the state does less, and in which the failures of Beveridge's welfarism are addressed.
Ok - so far so good.
The Left, obviously, cannot do this. The Beveridge Report is its tablet of stone, passed down from Labour leader to Labour leader. The task looks increasingly as though it will fall squarely to the Conservatives. And I have faith that David Cameron does not merely understand the scale of the challenge, but is prepared to act.
Well, it's all well and good having faith, but in the real world of politics that alone is never going to be enough. Cameron may well understand the scale of the task - personally, I doubt that he has even begun to grasp the sheer enormity of the situation - but if Bridges really believes he is prepared to act then he really needs some concrete evidence of that. The problem I have is that Bridges rightly says that "the left" is never going to make the changes needed - but all the evidence I see points to a Conservative Party that leans considerably to the left.
To his credit, at least Bridges doesn't go on about the Tories commitment to capitalism as reason for his optimism. Capitalism - as I have pointed out many times - is not an indicator of political leaning, just an economic system which, despite it's all too apparent problems, remains the best economic system. It is used and supported by parties on the left and right of the political spectrum - from The US Republicans to the Communist Party of China. Instead, Bridges seems to see something in the current Conservative policies which gives him hope.
Surveying the panoply of current Conservative policies, the revolution I foresee is one of values – the values that determine our social policies, and how our institutions are run. In welfare, tax, health, law and order, the Conservatives advocate profound change. The balance will be tipped away from rights to responsibilities.
Ah - the old "values" thing. Forgive me for saying so, but isn't the "revolution" of values exactly the same thing that John Major promised with his "Back to Basics" campaign? How did that pan out?
Families will get explicit support in the tax system. The presumption will be that the man in Whitehall does not always know best. The legal system should unequivocally support the victim, not the criminal.
Again, forgive me, but even though the Tories (and Labour) have talked a lot about this, the reality is that they still have not put forward any cast iron policies which will actually do anything about any of this. Airy fairy talk does not make a policy - but that is all we've had from Cameron and the Tories. Bridges sees the revolution taking off in our schools.
But perhaps the greatest cultural change promises to be in our schools. For generations, our education system has been in the grip of "progressives", who have been anything but. Their fundamentalist doctrine is "all must have prizes", "children should learn from experience", "treat every child the same". Thanks to LEAs, teacher training colleges, Whitehall, government quangos and the trade unions, this approach has polluted the bloodstream of our education system.
I don't disagree, but where does this "promise" of cultural change come from? I can't recall a single Tory policy that even hints at such a thing, let alone promises it.
In response, Michael Gove, the Conservatives' education spokesman, is planning a full-frontal assault on the teaching Taliban. Every state school would become an autonomous unit, able to compete for pupils; out would go "continual assessment"; so too would soft exams, which all pupils can pass. Subjects would not be reduced to "areas of study" or "skills set". Again, the values are clear: equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome; passing a body of knowledge down from one generation to another and schools preparing children properly for life.
OK - I readily admit I am not a Conservative "insider" and therefore not privy to what is going on inside the Tories education spokesman's head, but I've not seen or heard anything from Michael Gove that suggests that this is either the plan or will actually happen should the Tories attain power. And if he is planning such a coup, then it is clear to me that Cameron really hasn't grasped the sheer scale of the task involved. Because, to defeat the "teaching Taliban" will require more than a few policies - it requires a complete dismantling of the whole progressive system that pervades our society and institutions including (especially?) our media.
And all of this is supposing that the Cameron Conservatives aren't just another liberal progressive party. Which is far from apparent to me.
Bridges piece demonstrates once more that conservative voters are still pinning their hopes on the belief that Cameron will shrug off his progressive cloak once he gets into power and turn into some reincarnated Thatcherite conservative. It's a vain hope in my opinion - and all the evidence, particularly from the Tory councils who often lead the way in implementing progressive policies, points to Cameron being just another progressive with the same ideas as all the others.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Food for thought
Over on the Civitas blog, David Conway has some interesting thoughts on social mobility.
Doubts about the value of social mobility have begun to arise after reading, in addition to all the newspaper reports about it, about the results of a recently published nationwide survey conducted by Ofsted of 150,000 teenagers living throughout England.
It found that the seemingly most happy of them were those living in the most deprived areas and attending the least well-performing schools. Meanwhile, amongst the least happy of them were those living in middle class districts and attending high-achieving schools.
This got me thinking about my own situation - not for the first time!
As I've mentioned before, I come from a very working class family and grew up in a very working class and tight-knit community. Pretty much everyone knew everybody else and looked out for one another. We all lived on the same streets, worked in the same factories, shops and offices and played in the same places.
We didn't have much money - it was well into the seventies (might even have been the early eighties) before we got our first colour television - but for some reason we were always pretty happy and satisfied. There were always visitors to our humble home, you'd always bump into someone you knew when you walked up the local street and the few "bad eggs" that there were were well known and kept their distance.
But I, like my brothers and many of my friends, attended grammar school and became (unintentionally) socially mobile. Now I suppose I would be considered middle class by many - though I still think of myself as working class (but I believe that everyone who works in the private sector is now a member of the new working class - i.e. the ones that pay taxes to pay for the state).
Unlike my brothers and most of my friends, I stayed in this area - despite everything you hear about Slough, it is MY home town and I still love it ... though probably more for what it used to be than what it is now.
The reality is, though, that the once tight knit community is long gone. The area has been deluged with people from other areas - some socially mobile, many of them geographically mobile - and I'm now more likely to meet someone from Lithuania in my local high street than someone I know.
I can't say I was particularly bothered by or aware of this dismantling of my community when I was 25 or so. I was well paid, drove fast, expensive cars, wore good clothes and took foreign holidays - but now I'm approaching 50 and have a family of my own I realise how shallow that all was. I regret the loss of community that has happened in this area over the last 30 years or so - mostly because my children don't benefit from the community spirit that existed when I was a kid growing up in this area.
Now whether that is the fault of social mobility or something else I can not be certain. My gut feeling is that it has more to do with the massive influx of new immigrants to Slough over the last ten years as much as anything - as new people come in, many of the old people move out. It is certainly true that even as recently as 8 or 10 years ago I would still bump into lots of people I know on a walk down the hight street. Now I hardly ever do.
What I do know, however, is that there is much more to life than material things. My childhood - which, by today's standards would probably be classed as "deprived" was very happy. I would almost say "extraordinarily" happy - but I know that there was nothing extraordinary about it. Most kids back then were happy and enjoyed their childhood. What was always far more important than money, material possessions and fancy job titles was family, friends and familiarity.
Doubts about the value of social mobility have begun to arise after reading, in addition to all the newspaper reports about it, about the results of a recently published nationwide survey conducted by Ofsted of 150,000 teenagers living throughout England.
It found that the seemingly most happy of them were those living in the most deprived areas and attending the least well-performing schools. Meanwhile, amongst the least happy of them were those living in middle class districts and attending high-achieving schools.
This got me thinking about my own situation - not for the first time!
As I've mentioned before, I come from a very working class family and grew up in a very working class and tight-knit community. Pretty much everyone knew everybody else and looked out for one another. We all lived on the same streets, worked in the same factories, shops and offices and played in the same places.
We didn't have much money - it was well into the seventies (might even have been the early eighties) before we got our first colour television - but for some reason we were always pretty happy and satisfied. There were always visitors to our humble home, you'd always bump into someone you knew when you walked up the local street and the few "bad eggs" that there were were well known and kept their distance.
But I, like my brothers and many of my friends, attended grammar school and became (unintentionally) socially mobile. Now I suppose I would be considered middle class by many - though I still think of myself as working class (but I believe that everyone who works in the private sector is now a member of the new working class - i.e. the ones that pay taxes to pay for the state).
Unlike my brothers and most of my friends, I stayed in this area - despite everything you hear about Slough, it is MY home town and I still love it ... though probably more for what it used to be than what it is now.
The reality is, though, that the once tight knit community is long gone. The area has been deluged with people from other areas - some socially mobile, many of them geographically mobile - and I'm now more likely to meet someone from Lithuania in my local high street than someone I know.
I can't say I was particularly bothered by or aware of this dismantling of my community when I was 25 or so. I was well paid, drove fast, expensive cars, wore good clothes and took foreign holidays - but now I'm approaching 50 and have a family of my own I realise how shallow that all was. I regret the loss of community that has happened in this area over the last 30 years or so - mostly because my children don't benefit from the community spirit that existed when I was a kid growing up in this area.
Now whether that is the fault of social mobility or something else I can not be certain. My gut feeling is that it has more to do with the massive influx of new immigrants to Slough over the last ten years as much as anything - as new people come in, many of the old people move out. It is certainly true that even as recently as 8 or 10 years ago I would still bump into lots of people I know on a walk down the hight street. Now I hardly ever do.
What I do know, however, is that there is much more to life than material things. My childhood - which, by today's standards would probably be classed as "deprived" was very happy. I would almost say "extraordinarily" happy - but I know that there was nothing extraordinary about it. Most kids back then were happy and enjoyed their childhood. What was always far more important than money, material possessions and fancy job titles was family, friends and familiarity.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The dismal failure of progressive education
I'm not a fan of these school "league tables", but this says it all about our education system. One of the more curious statements Ed Balls makes - and he is very good at curious statements - is pledging to "shut down or take over any state school unable to improve within two years."
Err - how is the state going to take over a state school exactly?
Mr Balls unveiled a programme of reforms this week to improve remaining schools, including £10,000 "golden handcuff" deals to encourage the best teachers to work in the worst schools.
Yeah - like that is really going to make a difference. Many of the best teachers are choosing to work in independent schools even though they may actually earn less money than they could at state comprehensives simply because they can't stand the crap ladled out by the government, the pupils and the parents anymore.
The failure of progressive education is now apparent and undeniable - no amount of grade inflation and over hyped pass marks for easier exams can hide this now. This is not a failure of the children - children are as bright now as they ever were (no more, no less) - it is a failure of the system and particularly the progressive meddlers who destroyed what was once a successful and much envied education system.
We have failed two generations of school children - we can not allow the progressives to fail another. We can not afford to allow them to.
Err - how is the state going to take over a state school exactly?
Mr Balls unveiled a programme of reforms this week to improve remaining schools, including £10,000 "golden handcuff" deals to encourage the best teachers to work in the worst schools.
Yeah - like that is really going to make a difference. Many of the best teachers are choosing to work in independent schools even though they may actually earn less money than they could at state comprehensives simply because they can't stand the crap ladled out by the government, the pupils and the parents anymore.
The failure of progressive education is now apparent and undeniable - no amount of grade inflation and over hyped pass marks for easier exams can hide this now. This is not a failure of the children - children are as bright now as they ever were (no more, no less) - it is a failure of the system and particularly the progressive meddlers who destroyed what was once a successful and much envied education system.
We have failed two generations of school children - we can not allow the progressives to fail another. We can not afford to allow them to.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Quick! Shut the stable door ... the horse has gone!!!
Nice comment piece in The Telegraph by Simon Heffer about us "squandering" the Victorian legacy.
We imagine the Victorians as stuffy and orthodox; yet they were the most questioning, most radical and most open-minded generation in our history. Perhaps it is our own arrogance, rooted in a belief that we invented modernity, that prevents our seeing this.
There's no "perhaps" about it in my view. There is no doubt as far as I'm concerned that the arrogance of this political generation - motivated by their belief in progressive liberalism - has led to the decay and decline of this nation. The Victorian era began with Britain in a state not unlike it is today. Morally bankrupt, rife with crime, entrenched poverty and culturally drifting - but in a generation they had changed all that to create the most modern, powerful nation on earth.
By the end of Victoria's reign we were not only the most mighty nation on earth, but we were making gargantuan strides in social improvements too - particularly in education and health - which would continue to snowball for many years to come. Social mobility - all but eradicated now - blossomed with a massive expansion of the middle classes.
When Victoria died in 1901 the usual style of house building was still the Victorian terraced cottage to house the working man's family, but just twenty years later they were building more and more semi-detached homes complete with drives and garages to accommodate the burgeoning and increasingly affluent, car owning middle-classes. Suburbia was born.
The much-derided suburbia was born out of the rise in social mobility, but was never given the credit it deserved. Instead it was seen - particularly by the liberal left - as something to be mocked and pilloried.
And despite Heffer's repeated references to Darwin (a sop to the liberal left I suspect), there is no doubt that the underlying belief that allowed the Victorians to make such progress in such a short time was their reaffirmation of the Christian faith as the underpinning of society. That, as much as anything else, is what led to the great progress this nation saw in the second half of the nineteenth century.
With all that said, Heffer is a little bit late in suggesting that we should not squander the Victorian legacy - we already have. It's a bit late to shut the stable door - the horse has not only bolted, but it's been dead and buried for forty years.
We imagine the Victorians as stuffy and orthodox; yet they were the most questioning, most radical and most open-minded generation in our history. Perhaps it is our own arrogance, rooted in a belief that we invented modernity, that prevents our seeing this.
There's no "perhaps" about it in my view. There is no doubt as far as I'm concerned that the arrogance of this political generation - motivated by their belief in progressive liberalism - has led to the decay and decline of this nation. The Victorian era began with Britain in a state not unlike it is today. Morally bankrupt, rife with crime, entrenched poverty and culturally drifting - but in a generation they had changed all that to create the most modern, powerful nation on earth.
By the end of Victoria's reign we were not only the most mighty nation on earth, but we were making gargantuan strides in social improvements too - particularly in education and health - which would continue to snowball for many years to come. Social mobility - all but eradicated now - blossomed with a massive expansion of the middle classes.
When Victoria died in 1901 the usual style of house building was still the Victorian terraced cottage to house the working man's family, but just twenty years later they were building more and more semi-detached homes complete with drives and garages to accommodate the burgeoning and increasingly affluent, car owning middle-classes. Suburbia was born.
The much-derided suburbia was born out of the rise in social mobility, but was never given the credit it deserved. Instead it was seen - particularly by the liberal left - as something to be mocked and pilloried.
And despite Heffer's repeated references to Darwin (a sop to the liberal left I suspect), there is no doubt that the underlying belief that allowed the Victorians to make such progress in such a short time was their reaffirmation of the Christian faith as the underpinning of society. That, as much as anything else, is what led to the great progress this nation saw in the second half of the nineteenth century.
With all that said, Heffer is a little bit late in suggesting that we should not squander the Victorian legacy - we already have. It's a bit late to shut the stable door - the horse has not only bolted, but it's been dead and buried for forty years.
1+1
On the comments of another post, Old Greeny, a teacher, asks ....
"For instance, we are now required to teach "Community Cohesion" (whatever THAT is!).....I presume it's a case of....erm....treating ech other with respect? But what do I know? I teach maths...If someone knows how to teach "Community Cohesion" in maths, please let me know...."
Well, here's my answer Old Greeny.
1 language + 1 culture = 1 community
1000 communities + 1 shared history = 1 nation
1 nation + 10 new cultures + 50 new languages = 1 hell of a mess
"For instance, we are now required to teach "Community Cohesion" (whatever THAT is!).....I presume it's a case of....erm....treating ech other with respect? But what do I know? I teach maths...If someone knows how to teach "Community Cohesion" in maths, please let me know...."
Well, here's my answer Old Greeny.
1 language + 1 culture = 1 community
1000 communities + 1 shared history = 1 nation
1 nation + 10 new cultures + 50 new languages = 1 hell of a mess
Don't mention the (culture) war
Following on from my post about schools and social mobility the other day, I saw an item on the news yesterday (probably BBC, but it may have been ITV or even Sky - I can't remember) in which they reported that social mobility was worse now than it was in the fifties. The report made several references to education - but didn't mention grammar schools once.
The same report also featured the awful Baroness Shirley Williams - one of the architects of the demise of our education system - claiming that, as her stupid plans had clearly failed (my words, not hers) what was needed was something even more radical (her words, not mine).
I find it incredible that a news team can report the decline in social mobility since the 1950's, specifically single out education as the key contributor to that and NOT mention the very obvious fact that the one thing that changed between then and now was the demise of the grammar school!
Even more remarkable is to then go to the person who presided over the destruction of our education system to ask what we need to do to put it right. It's like asking Goebbels how we go about solving the Middle East question!
This is the thing with the progressive liberals - they never ever admit that got it wrong. Worse still, they pretend that the damage which they caused either never happened or occurred despite what they did - not because of it. With our education system in turmoil and social mobility all but ended, Shirley Williams should be pilloried endlessly rather than treated like an education oracle. Bright and articulate she may be, but she is still wrong and still refusing to admit it.
You don't have to be that old or that bright to work out what has changed in our education system since the 1950's - but those who worked to destroy the grammar school system are never going to admit that they one thing that could restore social mobility is the restoration of it. Instead they will come up with increasingly convoluted methods of pupil allocation, systems of bribes and punishments for school and universities to get them to take certain pupils and things will get progressively worse.
Only when someone has the guts to stand up and say that the grammar school system worked, worked well and will work well again - and go onto to commit to rebuilding that system - will we ever solve the problem of social mobility.
But who is going to do that?
The same report also featured the awful Baroness Shirley Williams - one of the architects of the demise of our education system - claiming that, as her stupid plans had clearly failed (my words, not hers) what was needed was something even more radical (her words, not mine).
I find it incredible that a news team can report the decline in social mobility since the 1950's, specifically single out education as the key contributor to that and NOT mention the very obvious fact that the one thing that changed between then and now was the demise of the grammar school!
Even more remarkable is to then go to the person who presided over the destruction of our education system to ask what we need to do to put it right. It's like asking Goebbels how we go about solving the Middle East question!
This is the thing with the progressive liberals - they never ever admit that got it wrong. Worse still, they pretend that the damage which they caused either never happened or occurred despite what they did - not because of it. With our education system in turmoil and social mobility all but ended, Shirley Williams should be pilloried endlessly rather than treated like an education oracle. Bright and articulate she may be, but she is still wrong and still refusing to admit it.
You don't have to be that old or that bright to work out what has changed in our education system since the 1950's - but those who worked to destroy the grammar school system are never going to admit that they one thing that could restore social mobility is the restoration of it. Instead they will come up with increasingly convoluted methods of pupil allocation, systems of bribes and punishments for school and universities to get them to take certain pupils and things will get progressively worse.
Only when someone has the guts to stand up and say that the grammar school system worked, worked well and will work well again - and go onto to commit to rebuilding that system - will we ever solve the problem of social mobility.
But who is going to do that?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Grasping the nettle
Unusually good article from Libby Purves on The Times comment page today about how the laws put in place to protect workers often work against them.
The thing which ministers seem never to consider is removing some of the impediments to hiring that they gaily put in place during the palmy years. Note that in the US in normal times the average gap between redundancy and a new job was four weeks. Here it was six months.
This is because in America you can fire people you can't afford. Thus when an upturn begins, US employers hire early. Here, employment protection law makes an exhausting and time-consuming process of “managing people out”: written warnings, meetings, monitoring, watching your language lest lawyers pounce. It takes three months, during which time you are still paying wages as business crumbles.
And, as Purves also points out, what we need are real jobs not more training and more reasons for employers not to hire.
But in the end people need real work. To leave university and spend three impoverished months being half-trusted at a corporate keyboard is clearly better than hanging around on benefits. But what all workers deserve, as much as money and experience, is honour. Whether you are a cleaner or a QC, you want to know that you earned your money and would be missed.
And, by happy coincidence, this is also what the economy needs: not millions on benefits and millions more in perpetual training that leads nowhere, nor artificial jobs (such as the new “food leftovers advisers” now allegedly turning up on doorsteps after a one-day course).
The trouble is, this government's idea of job creation is more and more people on the public sector payroll which might look good statistically, but does nothing to help the economy really. Real jobs means employment in the wealth producing private sector not in the wealth consuming public sector. It doesn't mean offering employers bribes to take people on, but creating the conditions under which employers want to take someone on.
The trouble is, the leftist mindset is so gripped by the belief that employers only want to employ someone so that they can exploit them, grind them down and then spit them out, that they are unable to see beyond that - and that leftist mindset is now so pervasive in our ruling class that it is difficult to see where the required mettle to grasp the nettle is going to come from.
The thing which ministers seem never to consider is removing some of the impediments to hiring that they gaily put in place during the palmy years. Note that in the US in normal times the average gap between redundancy and a new job was four weeks. Here it was six months.
This is because in America you can fire people you can't afford. Thus when an upturn begins, US employers hire early. Here, employment protection law makes an exhausting and time-consuming process of “managing people out”: written warnings, meetings, monitoring, watching your language lest lawyers pounce. It takes three months, during which time you are still paying wages as business crumbles.
And, as Purves also points out, what we need are real jobs not more training and more reasons for employers not to hire.
But in the end people need real work. To leave university and spend three impoverished months being half-trusted at a corporate keyboard is clearly better than hanging around on benefits. But what all workers deserve, as much as money and experience, is honour. Whether you are a cleaner or a QC, you want to know that you earned your money and would be missed.
And, by happy coincidence, this is also what the economy needs: not millions on benefits and millions more in perpetual training that leads nowhere, nor artificial jobs (such as the new “food leftovers advisers” now allegedly turning up on doorsteps after a one-day course).
The trouble is, this government's idea of job creation is more and more people on the public sector payroll which might look good statistically, but does nothing to help the economy really. Real jobs means employment in the wealth producing private sector not in the wealth consuming public sector. It doesn't mean offering employers bribes to take people on, but creating the conditions under which employers want to take someone on.
The trouble is, the leftist mindset is so gripped by the belief that employers only want to employ someone so that they can exploit them, grind them down and then spit them out, that they are unable to see beyond that - and that leftist mindset is now so pervasive in our ruling class that it is difficult to see where the required mettle to grasp the nettle is going to come from.
Finger pointing
Having spent decades on wrecking the one thing that provided social mobility to working class families - grammar schools - it's a bit of a cheek that the government is now to launch an investigation into why children from the lower classes are finding it harder to break into the "professions"?
Gordon Brown was accused of waging war on the middle classes after he put one of his fiercest critics in charge of an inquiry into social mobility.
As usual, the press make a big deal out of Brown bringing in a "critic" to his inner circle - haven't they heard the expression "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? - and they seem to have overlooked the fact that there isn't a middle class as such anymore. What used to be the middle class is now the working class - i.e. the ones working in the private sector to finance the state.
Social mobility was always a problem until the grammar school system was opened up. That is when social mobility really soared. For the first (and only) time, bright children from less well off backgrounds could gain access to the high quality academic education needed to develop their knowledge as a matter of course.
With grammar schools in pretty much every town, it didn't matter where you lived, what your parents did or how much money you had - if you had the intelligence you were in. After that it was up to you what you did with the opportunity. That was the key back then - equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
There was a problem with the secondary modern schools for those who didn't qualify for grammar (but not half as bad as some make out), but instead of addressing those issues with secondary moderns the socialists destroyed the functioning part of education in a grotesque display of spite and bigotry.
In doing so, they ended social mobility at a stroke - entrenching generations of children into the same social order they were born into. Getting access for your child to a high quality education is now dependent on where you live, what your parents do and how much money they have to spend and this is the direct result of destroying the grammar school system.
The government doesn't need an investigation into why this happened - they just have to look at themselves and see how many of they and their fellow MPs came through the grammar school system they destroyed. These people would do well to remember the old adage that those who point fingers have three more pointing back at them.
Incidentally, the Mail article adds that the government is to "examine the informal networks used by the better-off to secure work experience and unpaid internships for their children". Why? This has always been the case for ALL parents. My father - a factory worker - used his contacts to get me various summer jobs in factories (usually paid to be fair). It was largely thanks to this that I decided that there was no way I was going to work in a factory!
I also have a cousin who, having developed good basic building skills at the local secondary modern, was able to get various summer jobs working for local builders through his fathers contacts (his father was a dentist). That cousin is now a respected property developer and lives in a five bed mansion with over an acre of land in Dorset!
Gordon Brown was accused of waging war on the middle classes after he put one of his fiercest critics in charge of an inquiry into social mobility.
As usual, the press make a big deal out of Brown bringing in a "critic" to his inner circle - haven't they heard the expression "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? - and they seem to have overlooked the fact that there isn't a middle class as such anymore. What used to be the middle class is now the working class - i.e. the ones working in the private sector to finance the state.
Social mobility was always a problem until the grammar school system was opened up. That is when social mobility really soared. For the first (and only) time, bright children from less well off backgrounds could gain access to the high quality academic education needed to develop their knowledge as a matter of course.
With grammar schools in pretty much every town, it didn't matter where you lived, what your parents did or how much money you had - if you had the intelligence you were in. After that it was up to you what you did with the opportunity. That was the key back then - equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
There was a problem with the secondary modern schools for those who didn't qualify for grammar (but not half as bad as some make out), but instead of addressing those issues with secondary moderns the socialists destroyed the functioning part of education in a grotesque display of spite and bigotry.
In doing so, they ended social mobility at a stroke - entrenching generations of children into the same social order they were born into. Getting access for your child to a high quality education is now dependent on where you live, what your parents do and how much money they have to spend and this is the direct result of destroying the grammar school system.
The government doesn't need an investigation into why this happened - they just have to look at themselves and see how many of they and their fellow MPs came through the grammar school system they destroyed. These people would do well to remember the old adage that those who point fingers have three more pointing back at them.
Incidentally, the Mail article adds that the government is to "examine the informal networks used by the better-off to secure work experience and unpaid internships for their children". Why? This has always been the case for ALL parents. My father - a factory worker - used his contacts to get me various summer jobs in factories (usually paid to be fair). It was largely thanks to this that I decided that there was no way I was going to work in a factory!
I also have a cousin who, having developed good basic building skills at the local secondary modern, was able to get various summer jobs working for local builders through his fathers contacts (his father was a dentist). That cousin is now a respected property developer and lives in a five bed mansion with over an acre of land in Dorset!
Just how useless is the UN?
If an organisation is so inept it can not impose a simple smoking ban in its own headquarters building - just how effective will they be at resolving complex international disputes?
Property wrongs
Over on The Telegraph comments section, Philip Johnston gives a brief, but clear account of how Nu Labour rode roughshod over our ancient property rights which once gave rise to the expression an Englishman's home is his castle.
In 1760, William Pitt (the Elder) made a famous declaration of this right. "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the king of England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
Now this is not the case with bailiffs given extraordinary powers of entry - they are advised that they can break down doors although it is suggested that they don't go as far as smashing holes through walls.
Perhaps one of the most revealing things in this country of ours is how the state seems to behave towards property owners. On the one hand they are giving more and more power to more and more people to enter our homes without our consent, while on another they seem strangely ambivalent to people who set up home in a property without the owners permission - i.e. squatters.
I think Henry Ireton may have been right after all.
In 1760, William Pitt (the Elder) made a famous declaration of this right. "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the king of England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
Now this is not the case with bailiffs given extraordinary powers of entry - they are advised that they can break down doors although it is suggested that they don't go as far as smashing holes through walls.
Perhaps one of the most revealing things in this country of ours is how the state seems to behave towards property owners. On the one hand they are giving more and more power to more and more people to enter our homes without our consent, while on another they seem strangely ambivalent to people who set up home in a property without the owners permission - i.e. squatters.
I think Henry Ireton may have been right after all.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Tip of the iceberg
The appalling behaviour of Norwich housing boss, Kristine Reeves has earned her the sack.
A £52,000-a-year housing chief was sacked last night after an investigation by The Times found that she had shifted elderly people from their sheltered homes and moved into one with her boyfriend at a rent of £47 a week.
This dreadful woman kicked out the pensioners from their homes and then moved herself and other council cronies in on reduced rent. Clearly there is an obvious moral issue about this, but I seriously can not believe that it is not a criminal issue as well. After all, if Damian Green is being investigated for "misconduct in a public office" then surely Reeves is guilty of that at the very least?
The reason it should be the subject of a criminal investigation - and if found guilty, she should be punished with a long prison sentence - is that I personally believe that the revelation of Reeves behaviour and misuse of power is barely the tip of the tip of the iceberg of public sector employees milking the taxpayer for their own benefit - this tends to reinforce that view.
In this case there isn't the proof that these civil servants are doing anything illegal - although there are questions to be answered - but there is a massive moral question over their behaviour particularly when the taxpayers are being hammered by the credit crunch.
What on earth goes through the minds of these people like Reeves? Just one look at her tells you that she breathes left wing spite from every pore. Her behaviour highlights the true moral vacuum of the left - who like to pretend they are morally superior to the right wing. They are spiteful, hateful, vengeful and corrupt and need to be weeded out from our public sector institutions.
All our public sector is institutionally leftist and that is why - despite more and more people employed in the sector at ever higher wages with more and more power - our public sector is collapsing and failing.
There is a kind of irony in a nation so politically obsessed with "diversity", the one area of diversity we really need - in political opinion in our public sector - is missing.
A £52,000-a-year housing chief was sacked last night after an investigation by The Times found that she had shifted elderly people from their sheltered homes and moved into one with her boyfriend at a rent of £47 a week.
This dreadful woman kicked out the pensioners from their homes and then moved herself and other council cronies in on reduced rent. Clearly there is an obvious moral issue about this, but I seriously can not believe that it is not a criminal issue as well. After all, if Damian Green is being investigated for "misconduct in a public office" then surely Reeves is guilty of that at the very least?
The reason it should be the subject of a criminal investigation - and if found guilty, she should be punished with a long prison sentence - is that I personally believe that the revelation of Reeves behaviour and misuse of power is barely the tip of the tip of the iceberg of public sector employees milking the taxpayer for their own benefit - this tends to reinforce that view.
In this case there isn't the proof that these civil servants are doing anything illegal - although there are questions to be answered - but there is a massive moral question over their behaviour particularly when the taxpayers are being hammered by the credit crunch.
What on earth goes through the minds of these people like Reeves? Just one look at her tells you that she breathes left wing spite from every pore. Her behaviour highlights the true moral vacuum of the left - who like to pretend they are morally superior to the right wing. They are spiteful, hateful, vengeful and corrupt and need to be weeded out from our public sector institutions.
All our public sector is institutionally leftist and that is why - despite more and more people employed in the sector at ever higher wages with more and more power - our public sector is collapsing and failing.
There is a kind of irony in a nation so politically obsessed with "diversity", the one area of diversity we really need - in political opinion in our public sector - is missing.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The three keys to good education
Since I wrote about class sizes yesterday I've come across a few other articles about class sizes - most of which seem to think that smaller class sizes are what matters. They are wrong.
Class size is largely immaterial. Many countries have far larger class sizes than Britain - even as high as 50 to 70 - but still achieve better results. I should point out that I'm referring to general education here. Once you get onto university and specialised education - by which time the learner has, or should have, developed good study skills - it helps enormously to have smaller groups and one to one tuition, but for general education class size really isn't a big deal.
There are, in fact, just three key factors in delivering high quality education.
First of all, discipline. This doesn't mean caning and thrashing children for every minor infringement of school rules, but it does mean having rules and making sure that the children understand them and follow them - with suitable punishment for those that do infringe those rules. Discipline is important because, as I hinted at earlier, studying IS a discipline that has to be learned. It's also important in teaching children that their actions have consequences and if they break rules they will be punished accordingly.
The second thing is good teachers. What makes a good teacher? Well, contrary to most peoples view it is not a high level of knowledge. What makes a good teacher is having the ability to pass knowledge on to others and help them to understand. Quite often, as I'm sure most of you are aware, the most gifted, qualified and knowledgeable people are utterly incapable of passing that knowledge on to others. So it's not about how qualified a teacher is - largely irrelevant at primary school level, to be honest - but how good they are at communicating with children.
The third thing and the most overlooked today is good teaching methods. Over the last 40-50 years we've seen countless new "trendy" teaching methods introduced most of which have have failed to improve standards and, far worse, have often lowered standards. Ditch trendy teaching methods and go back to tried and trusted teaching methods that are proven to be effective.
That's all you need - certainly in primary school. As I said, the more specialised the learning becomes the more attention you need to give individual pupils and it then helps to have smaller groups - but for teaching kids to read, write and count the size of the class isn't really that important.
Class size is largely immaterial. Many countries have far larger class sizes than Britain - even as high as 50 to 70 - but still achieve better results. I should point out that I'm referring to general education here. Once you get onto university and specialised education - by which time the learner has, or should have, developed good study skills - it helps enormously to have smaller groups and one to one tuition, but for general education class size really isn't a big deal.
There are, in fact, just three key factors in delivering high quality education.
First of all, discipline. This doesn't mean caning and thrashing children for every minor infringement of school rules, but it does mean having rules and making sure that the children understand them and follow them - with suitable punishment for those that do infringe those rules. Discipline is important because, as I hinted at earlier, studying IS a discipline that has to be learned. It's also important in teaching children that their actions have consequences and if they break rules they will be punished accordingly.
The second thing is good teachers. What makes a good teacher? Well, contrary to most peoples view it is not a high level of knowledge. What makes a good teacher is having the ability to pass knowledge on to others and help them to understand. Quite often, as I'm sure most of you are aware, the most gifted, qualified and knowledgeable people are utterly incapable of passing that knowledge on to others. So it's not about how qualified a teacher is - largely irrelevant at primary school level, to be honest - but how good they are at communicating with children.
The third thing and the most overlooked today is good teaching methods. Over the last 40-50 years we've seen countless new "trendy" teaching methods introduced most of which have have failed to improve standards and, far worse, have often lowered standards. Ditch trendy teaching methods and go back to tried and trusted teaching methods that are proven to be effective.
That's all you need - certainly in primary school. As I said, the more specialised the learning becomes the more attention you need to give individual pupils and it then helps to have smaller groups - but for teaching kids to read, write and count the size of the class isn't really that important.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Size isn't everything
The BBC were making a big thing of this earlier this morning.
Government action to prepare schools for a predicted influx of pupils from the private sector is being demanded.
By the Lib Dems for some reason - probably because so many Lib Dem voters are the sort of middle class ponces who way lyrical about the benefits of comprehensive education while sending their little darlings off to some fee paying school.
Funny how they didn't seem so concerned about the problem of finding places for children when our schools were being inundated with the children of Polish immigrants. Leaving that aside, though, I don't believe there is any problem anyway. I doubt that Slough is particularly exceptional (except that it still retains grammar schools and the 11+ system), but there are only around 30 per class in my kids school.
I've never believed that class sizes were all that important. I'm pretty sure that there are schools in China and India turning out highly literate and educated primary school children with class sizes of 50 or more so why we think 30 is the absolute limit is beyond me. I think it stems more from the educationalists need to expand their little empires and their inability to impose discipline rather than any genuine research.
At junior school my class size fluctuated around the 40 mark while I was there and we had the same one teacher - there were no "teaching assistants" - who taught us from age 7 to 11. I don't recall it ever being a problem for her that there were 40 or so pupils in her class.
Mind you, we did all speak the same language so I guess that helped a little.
Government action to prepare schools for a predicted influx of pupils from the private sector is being demanded.
By the Lib Dems for some reason - probably because so many Lib Dem voters are the sort of middle class ponces who way lyrical about the benefits of comprehensive education while sending their little darlings off to some fee paying school.
Funny how they didn't seem so concerned about the problem of finding places for children when our schools were being inundated with the children of Polish immigrants. Leaving that aside, though, I don't believe there is any problem anyway. I doubt that Slough is particularly exceptional (except that it still retains grammar schools and the 11+ system), but there are only around 30 per class in my kids school.
I've never believed that class sizes were all that important. I'm pretty sure that there are schools in China and India turning out highly literate and educated primary school children with class sizes of 50 or more so why we think 30 is the absolute limit is beyond me. I think it stems more from the educationalists need to expand their little empires and their inability to impose discipline rather than any genuine research.
At junior school my class size fluctuated around the 40 mark while I was there and we had the same one teacher - there were no "teaching assistants" - who taught us from age 7 to 11. I don't recall it ever being a problem for her that there were 40 or so pupils in her class.
Mind you, we did all speak the same language so I guess that helped a little.
Smarter spending not more spending is what we need
The business editor of the Times, David Wighton, wonders whether rate cuts are really going to help the economy.
The Bank of England rather missed the point yesterday. Not because it cut base rates to 1.5 per cent, instead of the 1 per cent many pundits had expected, but because lowering interest rates will do little to revive the flagging economy.
I have to say that I tend to agree - what is the point of lowering the interest rates at the moment? I really can't see what they hope to achieve.
As Justin King, the chief executive of Sainsbury, said yesterday, it is not how much you have to pay to borrow that is the issue, it is that there is no money being lent in the first place.
That is so true. For instance, people were quite happy to take out mortgages at 6, 7 or 8% - and when I started my first mortgage it was considerably more than that - it's just that nobody is lending money at the moment. They are not lending money because there is no cash to lend - it's because they are concerned that they won't get it back.
Wighton goes on to say that the interest rate cut will have some effect, but I'm dubious personally.
The cut in base rates will have at least some impact on the economy. Millions of mortgage borrowers will see their monthly bills fall and some of this should feed through into higher spending.
I seriously doubt this. I expect many will do what I'm doing - keeping their payments the same and paying off more of the loan. Most people will do this because the key at the moment - for the average person - is debt reduction. Any extra cash people have available through reduced interest rates will be used to reduce whatever debt they have built up - and in a lot of cases that debt is considerable - but they will also find that money freed up from lower interest rates will be quickly swallowed up by increases in council tax and energy/water bills.
So if interest rates is not going to boost the economy, what is? To Wighton's credit he does ask this question and does attempt to answer it.
If rate cuts are largely beside the point, what is the answer? Almost certainly more taxpayers' money. Although the Government has ploughed billions into the banks already, it may have to put in more. So far it has invested a sum equivalent to 2.5 per cent of economic output. In previous banking crises, governments have had to fork out four times as much.
I disagree with him for the most part. Yes, it is important for the government to spend taxpayers money on things that will stimulate the economy, but it is not necessary to take MORE taxpayers money to do that. If anything, the thing to do is cut taxes so that people really do have more cash in their pockets to buy things with. Modest tax cuts on indirect taxation - such as the VAT cut and the Tory idea of tax cuts on savings will do little to boost the confidence of people to spend cash, but direct tax cuts that physically puts more cash into peoples wallets will.
The government needs to get smart with taxpayers money. It needs to stop wasting the vast sums it spends on ineffective and unnecessary schemes and divert the cash to areas where it will boost the economy and provide a decent return on investment. Building schools, hospitals, roads and so on might mean a boost to the construction industry, but ultimately it is dead money. Those things do not give an income boost to the economy once they have been completed - just the opposite in fact - and that is where the idea of more spending on capital projects ultimately flounders.
Manufacturing is the key to an economy. It always has been. It is too late to do anything now to alleviate the short term problem, but there is much the government could do in the longer term if only they could think beyond the next election. As I've said many times before, a nation that makes nothing is worth nothing. While the world was riding the global economic boom we could kid ourselves that we can do without manufacturing and maintain a service based economy. Now that boom has come to a crashingly spectacular end the reality is starting to hit home.
The Bank of England rather missed the point yesterday. Not because it cut base rates to 1.5 per cent, instead of the 1 per cent many pundits had expected, but because lowering interest rates will do little to revive the flagging economy.
I have to say that I tend to agree - what is the point of lowering the interest rates at the moment? I really can't see what they hope to achieve.
As Justin King, the chief executive of Sainsbury, said yesterday, it is not how much you have to pay to borrow that is the issue, it is that there is no money being lent in the first place.
That is so true. For instance, people were quite happy to take out mortgages at 6, 7 or 8% - and when I started my first mortgage it was considerably more than that - it's just that nobody is lending money at the moment. They are not lending money because there is no cash to lend - it's because they are concerned that they won't get it back.
Wighton goes on to say that the interest rate cut will have some effect, but I'm dubious personally.
The cut in base rates will have at least some impact on the economy. Millions of mortgage borrowers will see their monthly bills fall and some of this should feed through into higher spending.
I seriously doubt this. I expect many will do what I'm doing - keeping their payments the same and paying off more of the loan. Most people will do this because the key at the moment - for the average person - is debt reduction. Any extra cash people have available through reduced interest rates will be used to reduce whatever debt they have built up - and in a lot of cases that debt is considerable - but they will also find that money freed up from lower interest rates will be quickly swallowed up by increases in council tax and energy/water bills.
So if interest rates is not going to boost the economy, what is? To Wighton's credit he does ask this question and does attempt to answer it.
If rate cuts are largely beside the point, what is the answer? Almost certainly more taxpayers' money. Although the Government has ploughed billions into the banks already, it may have to put in more. So far it has invested a sum equivalent to 2.5 per cent of economic output. In previous banking crises, governments have had to fork out four times as much.
I disagree with him for the most part. Yes, it is important for the government to spend taxpayers money on things that will stimulate the economy, but it is not necessary to take MORE taxpayers money to do that. If anything, the thing to do is cut taxes so that people really do have more cash in their pockets to buy things with. Modest tax cuts on indirect taxation - such as the VAT cut and the Tory idea of tax cuts on savings will do little to boost the confidence of people to spend cash, but direct tax cuts that physically puts more cash into peoples wallets will.
The government needs to get smart with taxpayers money. It needs to stop wasting the vast sums it spends on ineffective and unnecessary schemes and divert the cash to areas where it will boost the economy and provide a decent return on investment. Building schools, hospitals, roads and so on might mean a boost to the construction industry, but ultimately it is dead money. Those things do not give an income boost to the economy once they have been completed - just the opposite in fact - and that is where the idea of more spending on capital projects ultimately flounders.
Manufacturing is the key to an economy. It always has been. It is too late to do anything now to alleviate the short term problem, but there is much the government could do in the longer term if only they could think beyond the next election. As I've said many times before, a nation that makes nothing is worth nothing. While the world was riding the global economic boom we could kid ourselves that we can do without manufacturing and maintain a service based economy. Now that boom has come to a crashingly spectacular end the reality is starting to hit home.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Whose side are you on?
In an incredible (i.e. barely credible) item, The Telegraph reports that the Scottish Parliament are to debate the Israel/Gaza conflict - but MSPs have been told they can not take sides.
Despite having no control over foreign affairs, the Scottish Parliament has decided to pre-empt Westminster by discussing the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis.
So, even though it is not within their duties and at public expense, these MSPs have decided to have a debate which will serve no useful purpose for the people they are paid to represent.
They are not supposed to take sides in the "debate", but ....
It is understood the debate was initiated by Nationalist and Labour MSPs with Palestinian sympathies.
... it sounds like they already have.
In all honesty, I'm sure there are people both in the Scottish Parliament and in Westminster who are rightly concerned about what is going on in The Levant - both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian - but this smacks of providing MSPs with an opportunity for grandstanding to me.
Mind you, isn't that all politics is these days?
Despite having no control over foreign affairs, the Scottish Parliament has decided to pre-empt Westminster by discussing the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis.
So, even though it is not within their duties and at public expense, these MSPs have decided to have a debate which will serve no useful purpose for the people they are paid to represent.
They are not supposed to take sides in the "debate", but ....
It is understood the debate was initiated by Nationalist and Labour MSPs with Palestinian sympathies.
... it sounds like they already have.
In all honesty, I'm sure there are people both in the Scottish Parliament and in Westminster who are rightly concerned about what is going on in The Levant - both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian - but this smacks of providing MSPs with an opportunity for grandstanding to me.
Mind you, isn't that all politics is these days?
Any excuse
As if they ever needed one?
The Gaza conflict has caused fury among British Muslims and could provoke extremism in this country, Muslim leaders have warned Gordon Brown.
Who'd have thought that? Personally, I don't think Moslems need much of a reason for getting all uppity - seeing how they've been behaving that way for 1300 years or so - but you can always rely on Moslem "leaders" to make the most of any grievance; real or imagined. The fact that they get plenty of encouragement to do so from the liberal left media probably has a lot to do with it.
Of course, any sensible Prime Minister would turn around to these so-called "leaders" and tell them that this is a dispute between Israel and Gazan Palestinians and nothing to do with Britain whatsoever. We don't supply arms to either side - but we do provide funding to Hamas through the EU and UN and various other agencies so why the fuck are these Moslems getting upset with us?
Of course it is all bullshit. Just another excuse to make more demands and extract more concessions from a lily-livered government who don't have the stomach to confront these extremists and their ideology. We should tell these leaders to go back to their people and tell them this ....
If there is any terrorist attack by Moslems in Britain then we will close down every mosque, Islamic school and Moslem shop that those terrorists have been known to frequent. We will impose restrictions on travel to and from Islamic nations known to harbour terrorists and we will deport anyone associated with terrorism.
That would do for starters.
The Gaza conflict has caused fury among British Muslims and could provoke extremism in this country, Muslim leaders have warned Gordon Brown.
Who'd have thought that? Personally, I don't think Moslems need much of a reason for getting all uppity - seeing how they've been behaving that way for 1300 years or so - but you can always rely on Moslem "leaders" to make the most of any grievance; real or imagined. The fact that they get plenty of encouragement to do so from the liberal left media probably has a lot to do with it.
Of course, any sensible Prime Minister would turn around to these so-called "leaders" and tell them that this is a dispute between Israel and Gazan Palestinians and nothing to do with Britain whatsoever. We don't supply arms to either side - but we do provide funding to Hamas through the EU and UN and various other agencies so why the fuck are these Moslems getting upset with us?
Of course it is all bullshit. Just another excuse to make more demands and extract more concessions from a lily-livered government who don't have the stomach to confront these extremists and their ideology. We should tell these leaders to go back to their people and tell them this ....
If there is any terrorist attack by Moslems in Britain then we will close down every mosque, Islamic school and Moslem shop that those terrorists have been known to frequent. We will impose restrictions on travel to and from Islamic nations known to harbour terrorists and we will deport anyone associated with terrorism.
That would do for starters.
Main line misery
As you know, I don't buy into the anthropogenic global warming fantasy and I particularly disagree with the idea that we need to virtually disable our economy to deal with it. One of the most idiotic moves in my opinion is the idea that we should use electrically powered trains on our railways.
First of all, there is the obvious matter of the fact that the electricity used to power these trains has to come from somewhere, but my other criticism of it - which I have made previously - is that, although it might just about be acceptable in urban areas, once outside of the cities electrified railways are incredibly hard to maintain - particularly overhead power cables which are susceptible to all sorts of damage and, consequently, failure. And this has been demonstrated this week.
The travel chaos was particularly harsh for Virgin passengers on the West Coast Main Line, who have been hit by a series of incidents over the last few days. The line was closed after a light plane crashed near the tracks near Stafford on Friday in an accident which claimed three lives.
Then overhead cable problems at Watford in Hertfordshire led to delays and cancellations on Sunday and Monday this week.
Just as the Watford incident was fixed, West Coast passengers had to put up with more delays yesterday following two overhead wire problems - one north of Rugby in the West Midlands, the other at Bletchley in Buckinghamshire.
Get used to it - because this will be increasingly common. Because of the nature of the repairs, it doesn't only affect electric powered trains either - self-powered trains are also affected by the ongoing repairs needed to the overhead power lines causing delays and cancellations.
This is just the latest debacle in what has become a pantomime farce of an industry - even before Beeching wiped a third of our network off the map with a stroke of his pen. There have been vast sums of public money spent on the railways since then and the service is no better now - and in many ways far worse - than it was in 1955.
I tend to think of the railways as something of a euphemism for Britain itself. Something that was once functional, successful, inspirational and aesthetically pleasing has been turned into a decrepit, broken and ugly shadow of its former self - and all in the name of "progress". The irony being that there has been no progress made whatsoever.
First of all, there is the obvious matter of the fact that the electricity used to power these trains has to come from somewhere, but my other criticism of it - which I have made previously - is that, although it might just about be acceptable in urban areas, once outside of the cities electrified railways are incredibly hard to maintain - particularly overhead power cables which are susceptible to all sorts of damage and, consequently, failure. And this has been demonstrated this week.
The travel chaos was particularly harsh for Virgin passengers on the West Coast Main Line, who have been hit by a series of incidents over the last few days. The line was closed after a light plane crashed near the tracks near Stafford on Friday in an accident which claimed three lives.
Then overhead cable problems at Watford in Hertfordshire led to delays and cancellations on Sunday and Monday this week.
Just as the Watford incident was fixed, West Coast passengers had to put up with more delays yesterday following two overhead wire problems - one north of Rugby in the West Midlands, the other at Bletchley in Buckinghamshire.
Get used to it - because this will be increasingly common. Because of the nature of the repairs, it doesn't only affect electric powered trains either - self-powered trains are also affected by the ongoing repairs needed to the overhead power lines causing delays and cancellations.
This is just the latest debacle in what has become a pantomime farce of an industry - even before Beeching wiped a third of our network off the map with a stroke of his pen. There have been vast sums of public money spent on the railways since then and the service is no better now - and in many ways far worse - than it was in 1955.
I tend to think of the railways as something of a euphemism for Britain itself. Something that was once functional, successful, inspirational and aesthetically pleasing has been turned into a decrepit, broken and ugly shadow of its former self - and all in the name of "progress". The irony being that there has been no progress made whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)