Here in the UK we are being asked to vote for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) to oversee the police forces.
As far as I can see this is just another figurehead post whereby the appointed person will receive a lot of our money but offer nothing in return.
One PCC will represent a whole county and therefore has an awful lot of people's views to take into consideration. These views may well be conflicting with priorities in rural areas being totally different from those in inner city locations.
Furthermore, although the PCCs are elected, if they don't perform we have to wait until the next election for the job in order to try and change them so in reality they are unlikely to truly represent the population of the county and are more likely to follow their own agenda, just as other politicians do.
I say other politicians - aren't they supposed to neutral. According to the website explaining all of this http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/about-pccs/ they swear an oath of impartiality and are not supposed to represent any political party. In Derbyshire we have candidates from the Labour party, Conservative party and UKIP. This does not sound independent to me, why do they need to mention their politics if it is to have no effect?
There was to be an Independent but he left the registration process to the last minute and when his payment was delayed in traffic he missed the deadline. Something tells me he would not be any good for the job with management skills like that!
So far I have not seen any information from the candidates about why we should vote for them, sure it is available on the website but for those who don't have access or don't go looking then they are being asked to vote in an election they know nothing about. Perhaps I will now be deluged with leaflets, who knows, but the election is approaching in just over two weeks.
We all know however that pre-election manifestos are all about telling the public what they want to hear. As soon as elected the personal agendas of the PCCs will come in to play and may well reflect their party political views despite their oath of impartiality. We see this all the time in government and opposition.
So why vote? I am not sure I will. Normally I am not part of the apathy section of voters but in this case I am struggling. I am not prepared to select a candidate based on political alignment and cannot select a candidate given the limited information I have seen so far from them.
I think I will make my stand for the environment and not travel to the polling station (OK, so I would have walked but that is not the point!)
This is yet another instance of the state pretending that the public actually have any say in how things are run and I for one am getting fed up.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Prince Charles and the Black Spider letters
Here in the UK there is much fuss about the letters that Prince Charles has written to the government expressing his views on a number of matters. These are known as the 'black spider' letters due to the appearance of his handwriting.
Whilst the content of many of them is known about, a number have been kept secret on the premise that the content may harm Charles' position when he becomes King.
This is presently being fought over with a judicial decision that they should be published being overturned by the government. Clearly they contain something significant that would be embarrassing or at least highly controversial.
Personally I believe these letters should be published in the public domain. After all it cannot be a surprise to Charles that he is first in line to the throne and therefore should have himself moderated his actions so that there would be no possibility of anything that threatened his position.
There is no problem with him holding political views and although the monarchy is supposedly independent of party politics I don't think we should deny him the right to express his views. The problem arises because what he writes is being kept secret.
Like many people the world over I express my views via social media, and directly to MPs by means of letter. The content of my letters and my social media posts however isn't secret, and often I precis my letters and the responses to them in my blogposts.
Prince Charles and indeed other members of the Royal Family should work within the same constraints and their letters be made available for scrutiny upon request.
This is yet another case where the Freedom of Information legislation is being abused. FoI is fully supported by the government of the day, regardless of their political persuasion, as long as it doesn't contain that which they wish to censor for their own reasons.
Freedom - what Freedom?
Whilst the content of many of them is known about, a number have been kept secret on the premise that the content may harm Charles' position when he becomes King.
This is presently being fought over with a judicial decision that they should be published being overturned by the government. Clearly they contain something significant that would be embarrassing or at least highly controversial.
Personally I believe these letters should be published in the public domain. After all it cannot be a surprise to Charles that he is first in line to the throne and therefore should have himself moderated his actions so that there would be no possibility of anything that threatened his position.
There is no problem with him holding political views and although the monarchy is supposedly independent of party politics I don't think we should deny him the right to express his views. The problem arises because what he writes is being kept secret.
Like many people the world over I express my views via social media, and directly to MPs by means of letter. The content of my letters and my social media posts however isn't secret, and often I precis my letters and the responses to them in my blogposts.
Prince Charles and indeed other members of the Royal Family should work within the same constraints and their letters be made available for scrutiny upon request.
This is yet another case where the Freedom of Information legislation is being abused. FoI is fully supported by the government of the day, regardless of their political persuasion, as long as it doesn't contain that which they wish to censor for their own reasons.
Freedom - what Freedom?
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Hollow political words
I read in the press that Ed Miliband proposes to split up the largest banks if Labour comes to power.
Apparently he feels that the present proposals by the government to ring fence the traditional retail banking operations from the risk of the investment banking element do not go far enough.
I have to agree that what little money I have in the bank should not be exposed to the actions of gung-ho investment bankers who have demonstrated in the past they can make poor decisions and welcome any protection that can be put in place.
My question is, as the banking crisis started under the last government, why did he not say or do anything then?
It is fine for him to say that the coalition is not doing enough in his opinion, but doing something is far better than doing nothing as his government did.
Finally, how far do we trust politicians of any political belief. I am certain that if Labour win the next election this promise will be quietly sidelined and forgotten.
Apparently he feels that the present proposals by the government to ring fence the traditional retail banking operations from the risk of the investment banking element do not go far enough.
I have to agree that what little money I have in the bank should not be exposed to the actions of gung-ho investment bankers who have demonstrated in the past they can make poor decisions and welcome any protection that can be put in place.
My question is, as the banking crisis started under the last government, why did he not say or do anything then?
It is fine for him to say that the coalition is not doing enough in his opinion, but doing something is far better than doing nothing as his government did.
Finally, how far do we trust politicians of any political belief. I am certain that if Labour win the next election this promise will be quietly sidelined and forgotten.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Environmentalists Are Running The Asylum
It seems more and more that our politicians are bowing down to the environmentalists. It is bad enough when politicians try and run the country themselves, but when they start listening to environmentalists the whole situation gets much worse.
In making these claims I must point out that I am accusing all the political parties, so this covers the present government and it's predecessors.
At various climate summits our politicians have signed us up to reductions in CO2 emissions which are not achievable. This is just like a salesman saying his product will do things it clearly does not. Before agreeing these reductions perhaps our representatives should have taken expert advice on what can and cannot be done!
The same climate summits see other countries agreeing to far less severe reductions in CO2, with some such as China even suggesting they cannot reduce CO2 but are likely to increase.
This leads to unsustainable plans for wind farms, solar farms and so on to produce a fraction of the reduction we are committed to.
So the government attack the issue in different ways by trying to force us out of our cars and make us install ever greater levels of insulation in our homes.
The latest scheme however has to take the biscuit, whereby if you wish to carry out certain changes to your home you will be inspected and presented with a list of other work to be carried out - at your own expense - if you wish to go ahead. Don't worry though as they will offer you a loan so that any possible savings will be lost when you repay this.
Two examples quoted so far have been boiler replacement and building a conservatory (and perhaps any type of extension).
The first will affect me, and many others. as boilers have a finite life. My house was built in accordance with the building regulations and insulation standards of the time, but would now fall short and I have no doubt I would be expected to top up the loft insulation at the very least. My loft insulation is the depth of the joists so in some areas I have boarded the loft for storage space. This will presumably have to be taken up and more insulation added such that I can no longer use the loft for storage unless I raise the floor in some areas.
Perhaps I should just leave my old boiler in place longer, OK it is less efficient than a more modern boiler but the savings from the boiler are already hard to justify against the cost of installing it, let alone when it comes to the additional expense.
Madness!
What about people in older properties, particularly those with solid walls? Their insulation factors may well be low. Do they get forced to insulate the inside of the walls and make the rooms smaller and lose the character of the building, or perhaps insulate the outside, again losing the character.
The lunatics really are taking over the asylum.
In making these claims I must point out that I am accusing all the political parties, so this covers the present government and it's predecessors.
At various climate summits our politicians have signed us up to reductions in CO2 emissions which are not achievable. This is just like a salesman saying his product will do things it clearly does not. Before agreeing these reductions perhaps our representatives should have taken expert advice on what can and cannot be done!
The same climate summits see other countries agreeing to far less severe reductions in CO2, with some such as China even suggesting they cannot reduce CO2 but are likely to increase.
This leads to unsustainable plans for wind farms, solar farms and so on to produce a fraction of the reduction we are committed to.
So the government attack the issue in different ways by trying to force us out of our cars and make us install ever greater levels of insulation in our homes.
The latest scheme however has to take the biscuit, whereby if you wish to carry out certain changes to your home you will be inspected and presented with a list of other work to be carried out - at your own expense - if you wish to go ahead. Don't worry though as they will offer you a loan so that any possible savings will be lost when you repay this.
Two examples quoted so far have been boiler replacement and building a conservatory (and perhaps any type of extension).
The first will affect me, and many others. as boilers have a finite life. My house was built in accordance with the building regulations and insulation standards of the time, but would now fall short and I have no doubt I would be expected to top up the loft insulation at the very least. My loft insulation is the depth of the joists so in some areas I have boarded the loft for storage space. This will presumably have to be taken up and more insulation added such that I can no longer use the loft for storage unless I raise the floor in some areas.
Perhaps I should just leave my old boiler in place longer, OK it is less efficient than a more modern boiler but the savings from the boiler are already hard to justify against the cost of installing it, let alone when it comes to the additional expense.
Madness!
What about people in older properties, particularly those with solid walls? Their insulation factors may well be low. Do they get forced to insulate the inside of the walls and make the rooms smaller and lose the character of the building, or perhaps insulate the outside, again losing the character.
The lunatics really are taking over the asylum.
The Church, Listed Buildings and VAT
I read in the news today that the Church of England fears renovation projects could be scrapped because of planned changes to VAT in the budget.
This will mean that VAT will be charged on approved alterations to listed buildings, previously exempt.
There are a number of issues to be dealt with here I think.
The first of these is that it is not targeted on churches but will affect ALL owners of listed buildings. This will impact upon private individuals and also the likes of the National Trust and English Heritage who between them must have a large number of properties that fall into this category and will also suffer.
Secondly the wording is that it is for alterations. Repairs of the fabric of the buildings to allow them to continue to be used should not be affected. Additions of new shops and cafes will be. That is different from the needs of simply keeping these buildings open as a place of worship.
Finally, the church is not a poor organisation. A quick glance at the accounts will show that is asset rich and has many commercial investments. As such it should be prepared to bite the bullet and contribute to the nations coffers with everyone else. Claims of lack of funds are not acceptable. If it were essential repairs that were being taxed then maybe they have a point, but it is in fact improvements.
What really annoys me however is the fact that the Treasury has reported that church projects will not be cancelled as there will be provision from the Listed Places of Worship Scheme whereby we the taxpayer will seemingly make up any extra costs! I have said before and will say again, Church and State should be separate. What the Church wants, it should fund from it's own significant income.
This will mean that VAT will be charged on approved alterations to listed buildings, previously exempt.
There are a number of issues to be dealt with here I think.
The first of these is that it is not targeted on churches but will affect ALL owners of listed buildings. This will impact upon private individuals and also the likes of the National Trust and English Heritage who between them must have a large number of properties that fall into this category and will also suffer.
Secondly the wording is that it is for alterations. Repairs of the fabric of the buildings to allow them to continue to be used should not be affected. Additions of new shops and cafes will be. That is different from the needs of simply keeping these buildings open as a place of worship.
Finally, the church is not a poor organisation. A quick glance at the accounts will show that is asset rich and has many commercial investments. As such it should be prepared to bite the bullet and contribute to the nations coffers with everyone else. Claims of lack of funds are not acceptable. If it were essential repairs that were being taxed then maybe they have a point, but it is in fact improvements.
What really annoys me however is the fact that the Treasury has reported that church projects will not be cancelled as there will be provision from the Listed Places of Worship Scheme whereby we the taxpayer will seemingly make up any extra costs! I have said before and will say again, Church and State should be separate. What the Church wants, it should fund from it's own significant income.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Religion and the State
Here in the UK our Prime Minister, David Cameron, held a meeting before Easter with church leaders during which he made a number of rather worrying comments.
As surveys and doubtless the 2011 census are showing, the number of people who feel they have a religion is falling. As an element of this so is the number of those who claim to be Christians. A recent survey commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science showed that of those who identified themselves as Christians many just did so because it was their parents religion. Interestingly, amongst the Christians many feel as I do that the Church and State should be separate.
Having read the reports of this meeting, it seems that not only is Mr Cameron unaware of this, but that he is actively trying to fight against it (democracy?).
I felt driven to write to him about my concerns with his viewpoints and will update this post if I hear back, either from him or from one of his staff.
In essence he made a number of points as follows:
He believes that Christian values would create a happier and better society for everyone. I will look at some of these below but for now I need to point out that Christians do not have exclusivity on morals and ethics and indeed these existed before Christianity. Atheists also have morals and ethics and whilst any group will have 'bad apples' there is no reason to put Christians on a pedestal for their values.
He then went on to discuss the values of the Bible - this includes the Christian values he chooses to omit such as violence, explicit sexual references, child abuse, objectivisation and dehumanisation of women, aggressively genocidal racism, explicit animal cruelty and incitement to commit murder and hate crimes (my thanks to Rosa Rubicondior at http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-warning-would-you-put-in-gideon.html for the succinct list).
Many of these so called 'values' are clearly unacceptable in a civilised society, so perhaps Christians need to bring the Bible up to date.
Mr Cameron is also very keen to promote the teaching of religion within schools. If this were objective then perhaps we should not worry because pupils would be taught about the various religions, the fact that many are atheists and agnostics, and then encouraged to think for themselves about what they believe. This is not the case however, schools teach their own doctrine thus a Church of England school teaches their own brand of Christianity with little or no reference to the alternatives. I have seen examples of this with my own nephew and niece - though they stood up and thought for themselves. Read more at http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/religious-indoctrination.html
Finally, he talks of suppression of Christian rights. The issue that annoys me most here is prayers as part of council meetings. These were recently declared illegal, however the PM has decided to change the law so they can be made legal again. We have a very varied society and many council members will not be of the Christian faith, yet Christian prayers are to be imposed upon them. This is unacceptable. What is wrong with allowing a period before the meeting and separate from it in which those who wish to do so may pray or have a time of personal reflection - this should be acceptable to all as those who do not wish to partake simply arrive later for the actual meeting which constitutes the business of the council.
I feel that Christianity is being forced upon the country, whether we like it or not. I doubt my letter to David Cameron will have any effect, but by that means and through this blog I am trying to show that we do not all agree with Christianity, or in my case any religion.
As surveys and doubtless the 2011 census are showing, the number of people who feel they have a religion is falling. As an element of this so is the number of those who claim to be Christians. A recent survey commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science showed that of those who identified themselves as Christians many just did so because it was their parents religion. Interestingly, amongst the Christians many feel as I do that the Church and State should be separate.
Having read the reports of this meeting, it seems that not only is Mr Cameron unaware of this, but that he is actively trying to fight against it (democracy?).
I felt driven to write to him about my concerns with his viewpoints and will update this post if I hear back, either from him or from one of his staff.
In essence he made a number of points as follows:
He believes that Christian values would create a happier and better society for everyone. I will look at some of these below but for now I need to point out that Christians do not have exclusivity on morals and ethics and indeed these existed before Christianity. Atheists also have morals and ethics and whilst any group will have 'bad apples' there is no reason to put Christians on a pedestal for their values.
He then went on to discuss the values of the Bible - this includes the Christian values he chooses to omit such as violence, explicit sexual references, child abuse, objectivisation and dehumanisation of women, aggressively genocidal racism, explicit animal cruelty and incitement to commit murder and hate crimes (my thanks to Rosa Rubicondior at http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-warning-would-you-put-in-gideon.html for the succinct list).
Many of these so called 'values' are clearly unacceptable in a civilised society, so perhaps Christians need to bring the Bible up to date.
Mr Cameron is also very keen to promote the teaching of religion within schools. If this were objective then perhaps we should not worry because pupils would be taught about the various religions, the fact that many are atheists and agnostics, and then encouraged to think for themselves about what they believe. This is not the case however, schools teach their own doctrine thus a Church of England school teaches their own brand of Christianity with little or no reference to the alternatives. I have seen examples of this with my own nephew and niece - though they stood up and thought for themselves. Read more at http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/religious-indoctrination.html
Finally, he talks of suppression of Christian rights. The issue that annoys me most here is prayers as part of council meetings. These were recently declared illegal, however the PM has decided to change the law so they can be made legal again. We have a very varied society and many council members will not be of the Christian faith, yet Christian prayers are to be imposed upon them. This is unacceptable. What is wrong with allowing a period before the meeting and separate from it in which those who wish to do so may pray or have a time of personal reflection - this should be acceptable to all as those who do not wish to partake simply arrive later for the actual meeting which constitutes the business of the council.
I feel that Christianity is being forced upon the country, whether we like it or not. I doubt my letter to David Cameron will have any effect, but by that means and through this blog I am trying to show that we do not all agree with Christianity, or in my case any religion.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Dual Standards on Alcohol by the UK Government
We are hearing that David Cameron and his government are looking to impose minimum pricing for alcoholic drinks to address problems with alcoholism and drink fueled social issues.
At the same time, the Palace of Westminster where the government resides has a subsidised bar, paid for by the taxpayer, to ensure MPs and other staff can enjoy cheap drink.
If this is not dual standards then I don't know what is. Apparently there is already a history of drink fueled problems within this bar.
At the very least, the subsidies in the bar should be removed so that drinkers there pay the same prices as anyone else in pubs in that part of London does. I think however it should be taken further perhaps and closed completely. MPs are already capable of making daft decisions on their own without adding beer goggles to their armoury of decision making tools.
How many private sector employers actively encourage drinking during the working day by providing a bar AND subsidising the drink costs. In many of the workplaces I have encountered drinking is frowned upon during the working day and some go as far as to have a condition of employment that you may be required to take a breathalyser test (certainly in my last employment where you could be asked to go home if the test was positive as safety standards could be breached)
I would also point out to the government that many alcohol fueled problems are caused by drinkers in night clubs and bars where prices are already exorbitant. A minimum price will have most impact upon the moderate social drinker and not address the problem at all.
At the same time, the Palace of Westminster where the government resides has a subsidised bar, paid for by the taxpayer, to ensure MPs and other staff can enjoy cheap drink.
If this is not dual standards then I don't know what is. Apparently there is already a history of drink fueled problems within this bar.
At the very least, the subsidies in the bar should be removed so that drinkers there pay the same prices as anyone else in pubs in that part of London does. I think however it should be taken further perhaps and closed completely. MPs are already capable of making daft decisions on their own without adding beer goggles to their armoury of decision making tools.
How many private sector employers actively encourage drinking during the working day by providing a bar AND subsidising the drink costs. In many of the workplaces I have encountered drinking is frowned upon during the working day and some go as far as to have a condition of employment that you may be required to take a breathalyser test (certainly in my last employment where you could be asked to go home if the test was positive as safety standards could be breached)
I would also point out to the government that many alcohol fueled problems are caused by drinkers in night clubs and bars where prices are already exorbitant. A minimum price will have most impact upon the moderate social drinker and not address the problem at all.
Friday, November 25, 2011
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The world is getting weirder by the day - I am beginning to wonder when listening to the news or reading the paper (any paper) whether everyday is now April the 1st.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Two recent news items only serve to help in this perception.
The first is a government minister who claims that despite continually rising energy prices, fed in part by taxes for renewable energy, our bills will be smaller in 2020. Who are they kidding?
This year alone most energy suppliers have had a series of price hikes, with the latest round being in the range of 10 to 20 percent. The minister supported the claim by suggesting our use of energy will fall more than enough to compensate for the increased unit costs.
Personally I cannot see how I can save 10 percent of my present energy use. I already have a well insulated home, switch electrical equipment off when not in use, have low energy light bulbs and even switch those off.
A wind turbine on the roof will be pointless and will likely never recoup it's purchase and installation costs, likewise the calculations I have done (and had from Solar Energy suppliers) indicate that that too will always run at a loss.
We need to see a return on our renewables tax in the form of cheaper, more effective renewable energy supplies otherwise there really is no point.
The second news item is even more unbelievable - the Isle of Wight is to become a self sufficient island and eco friendly.
This will be achieved by installing an army of wind turbines, acres of solar panels, geothermal energy plants. To supplement this there will be recycling on a massive scale, fleets of electric cars and doubtless houses will be insulated to the point where the inside space shrinks to nothing!
I have just looked at their brochure - it talks of plans for the period 2008 to 2010, so we should already have the EcoIsland we are promised, but somehow I doubt it.
If I were to visit the island again (having not been for over 15 years now) I suspect I would not notice any of the eco improvements - perhaps someone can prove me wrong. I believe that even the wind turbine factory has closed down, so any turbines would have to be manufactured elsewhere and imported with all the associated carbon footprint.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Strike Ballots
As we approach the 30th of November when a number of unions in the UK have planned to strike to make their point to the government about pensions I felt it was time to look at the ballots they hold.
A fine example of this is the Unison ballot.
As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union. I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.
The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot. If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.
We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both). Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.
One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike. Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.
Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.
I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.
A fine example of this is the Unison ballot.
As a percentage of those voting it seemed that there was a reasonable number of their members who supported the strike action propose by the union. I believe the figure was in the region of 78% of those who voted.
The problem however lies in the very low turnout for the ballot. If you take the number of yes votes as a percentage of the total balloted membership then the number voting for action falls to less than 23%.
We have on of two problems here (or perhaps both). Either members think that by not voting they will be counted as a no, or there is apathy about the result.
One way or another I think it needs to be changed to ensure that a strike cannot be called unless a majority of the total membership express a desire to strike. Whether this is achieved by making voting mandatory, or setting targets that ensure a higher percentage is required to call a strike if there is a lower turnout.
Neither are likely to be particularly well received, and certainly the latter would have been a problem in the recent ballot as the turnout was in the region of one third of those entitled to vote.
I do believe these people have the right to express their grievances, but it should be decided by a majority and not by a few hardened activists.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Tobin Tax
The news today reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs the introduction of the so called Tobin Tax on financial transactions.
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Archbishop of Canterbury - Capitalist?
In the news we read that the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out about the so called invasion of St Paul's. Apparently he backs the protesters.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Bombardier - Round Two
I was in Derby at the weekend and came across a number of people under the 'Socialist Worker' banner.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
They were trying to address the Bombardier situation in a couple of ways. (For history, please see http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/bombardier-saga.html)
The first was to ask people to sign a petition to the government to save the jobs at Bombardier.
I have no idea why they feel another petition will achieve any more than those that have gone before but if they wish to spend their time this way that is their choice. Furthermore we have seen from petitions to both the present govenrment and previous governments that they are frequently ignored. I remember signing the online 'e-petition' for a number of causes, some of which I had replies to telling me I was wrong and the government was right, others have simply been ignored. That is democracy for you.
The second approach was to demand that the government nationalise Bombardier.
Bombardier in the UK is ultimately a division of a Canadian group of companies.
Therefore if we wished to nationalise it we would first of all have to buy the company from it's parent company. I have no idea how much this would cost but given that our government has a massive debt to address I very much doubt that buying the UK arm of Bombardier would be viable.
Let us assume that the UK does buy Bombardier and nationalise it - then what? We will own a company that still doesn't have the ThamesLink contract and therefore we could still not save the jobs that at present are to be lost. All we have gained is more debt, more risk. Look at the banks that we the taxpayer own - not a pretty sight.
I suspect that 'Socialist Worker' are then proposing that all contracts for rail are awarded in future to National Bombardier or whatever they call them. This would be in breach of so many rules that I believe it could not be done.
This approach could be adopted by other countries, so all those that buy from UK companies are instructed to buy from their own national companies - so Rolls Royce as a local example would lose a lot of work as theur aero engines are supplied to many airlines across the world, including a number of countries which do produce their own engines. BAE systems is another one, they supply many international markets and if they lost that work then they too would be at risk of even greater job losses.
Apparently Bombardier have already been invited to tender for the upgrade of Cross Country Trains rolling stock but they don't believe they can do the work in Derby, or possibly the UK at all, as they don't have the necessary machinery or expertise. So just giving the company contracts may still not achieve anything.
I feel for those at Bombardier that are to lose their jobs but unfortunately it seems that many people are proposing solutions which are not fully thought out and are clearly flawed.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Big Brother and 1984
Yesterday we had a protest on the M1 in the area by motorcyclists against proposed new legislation from the EU. This took the form of a peaceful go slow.
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
They were taking issue with proposed new legislation for motorbikes from the EU. Some of the new legislation makes sense but much of it is a combination of Nanny State and Big Brother. It may also be a sign of things to come.
One element that I think has a grounding in common sense is a proposed requirement for motorcyclists to wear high visibility clothing - something which a reasonable number already do as it helps protect them from other road users who don't see them (it can do nothing for those who don't look unfortunately)
Then it starts getting more controlling - severe restrictions on what changes may be made to the motorbike from it's factory specification. I know bikers like to customise their bikes and I am sure most do so in a perfectly safe and sensible manner - after all they are more at risk than car drivers if something does go wrong. We also have the MOT test to oversee vehicle safety.
The most worring element as far as I am concerned is the planned requirement for all new bikes to be fitted with a GPS tracker to record the details of all the bikes journeys. I don't recall whether the plans were for this requirement to be retrofitted to existing bikes but if not now, then I am sure it will be.
This would then open the way for the legislators to expand the scope to cover all motor vehicles.
Once this has been done, what would the data be used for. If only to provide an impartial witness in the event of an accident by recording what happened in the run up to the accident then that seems fine. But in reality we know that the information will be used for more than that. What is more with a number of high profile data losses by public bodies, you can never be sure who will get hold of the data. Or in times of financial hardship, who the data will be sold to!
Even for accident analysis I would be concerned. Without expensive additional components (and services that as yet may not be available everywhere) a GPS derived position is not accurate enough to determine whether a biker was on the correct side of the road for example. Use in Germany of GPS for road tolls has resulted in errors whereby drivers have been charged for being on a toll road when in fact they were on an adjacent local road.
Where will this end? Maybe we should all have RFID tracking chips fitted now and the government can be sure where we all are at all times, even when we are not using our vehicles!
Industry managed by the Church?
Last week the Archbishop of Canterbury visited Derbyshire. As part of his visit he came to Derby.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
During the visit to Derby he once more crossed the line and gave evidence of the Church meddling outside it's remit. He chose to stir up the Bombardier issue yet again.
We have had the initial outcry when Bombardier learned they had lost the Thameslink contract, this was perfectly understandable given the impact it would have on the area and the country.
I don't believe any of us know the full details of why the contract was not awarded locally so cannot speculate further on this.
Since then we have had the unions demanding that the tender process effectively be rerun, local councillors making the same demands (using our money to support the unions as well) and now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his oar in.
I am an atheist and some of you will think that this is my only reason for being annoyed at this. However I believe that many religious believers will also see that it is wrong for the Church to get involved in matters of industry and politics.
There is no reason to believe that the Archbishop has any more understanding than anyone else of why the contract was awarded to Siemens and I doubt that his god instructed him to campaign on the matter.
Many atheists and religious people alike believe as I do that Church and State should be separate. It will allow each to do what they are best at unhindered by outside interference. I was unable to attend the recent march for a Secular Europe but I fully support the ideal.
Where would this intereference end, would the Chruch become like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and issue rulings on any business deals they were unhappy with? Maybe they would call for pubs to be closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath (and Saturday to respect those of other faiths).
It must stop and it must stop NOW.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The Nanny State
It appears that once again our government are meddling where they aren't needed and won't have any beneficial effect.
This time it is an attempt to reduce the salt in our diets.
Some time ago we read of a council which tried to reduce salt consumption by insisting that takeaway food shops, primarily fish and chips, only had salt cellars with a reduced number of holes as opposed to those with many holes commonly used.
I doubt that had any effect, people would just shake longer to get the amount of salt they wanted, and very much doubt anyone from the council measured whether there was any benefit.
This time it is being tackled at government level with instructions to manufacturers to reduce salt levels in food stuffs, bacon being a prime example. Not only is salt a flavouring it is also a preservative. We therefore risk having products that neither taste as good or last as long!
This has already been demonstrated with HP Sauce. This already had a lower salt version available for those who choose to reduce their salt intake, but the government insisted the salt level in the standard version was reduced - to the disgust of lovers of the sauce. It is not as if the changed level will have a significant effect anyway - a reduction of a fraction of a gram in one hundred grams of product translates into a minuscule amount when you consider how little sauce is consumed in any one meal.
What is happening here is that the public are not being given the choice of taking the existing low salt version if they wish, but being forced to have a low salt version.
What next? Perhaps we will be told that plain crisps should be just that, no salt at all. Then we can extend it across the rest of the crisp range - for example it will perhaps just be vinegar crisps!
Salt sales in shops will also have to be banned - or maybe put on ration coupons to prevent individuals getting too much.
The reality is that if people want salt with their food they will have salt with their food, whether this be as a constituent or an addition they make at home.
Some of my examples above are extreme and ridiculous - or are they?
This time it is an attempt to reduce the salt in our diets.
Some time ago we read of a council which tried to reduce salt consumption by insisting that takeaway food shops, primarily fish and chips, only had salt cellars with a reduced number of holes as opposed to those with many holes commonly used.
I doubt that had any effect, people would just shake longer to get the amount of salt they wanted, and very much doubt anyone from the council measured whether there was any benefit.
This time it is being tackled at government level with instructions to manufacturers to reduce salt levels in food stuffs, bacon being a prime example. Not only is salt a flavouring it is also a preservative. We therefore risk having products that neither taste as good or last as long!
This has already been demonstrated with HP Sauce. This already had a lower salt version available for those who choose to reduce their salt intake, but the government insisted the salt level in the standard version was reduced - to the disgust of lovers of the sauce. It is not as if the changed level will have a significant effect anyway - a reduction of a fraction of a gram in one hundred grams of product translates into a minuscule amount when you consider how little sauce is consumed in any one meal.
What is happening here is that the public are not being given the choice of taking the existing low salt version if they wish, but being forced to have a low salt version.
What next? Perhaps we will be told that plain crisps should be just that, no salt at all. Then we can extend it across the rest of the crisp range - for example it will perhaps just be vinegar crisps!
Salt sales in shops will also have to be banned - or maybe put on ration coupons to prevent individuals getting too much.
The reality is that if people want salt with their food they will have salt with their food, whether this be as a constituent or an addition they make at home.
Some of my examples above are extreme and ridiculous - or are they?
Monday, August 22, 2011
The Tobin Tax
There are reports in the news that the EU wants to introduce a so called 'Tobin Tax', named after the economist who originally proposed it. Some also label it the Robin Hood tax in that in theory it takes from the rich and gives to the poor.
Sweden tried a version of this in 1984 but dropped it in 1991 as a disasterous experiment. It reduced share prices when implemented and decimated trading. After it's abolition, the trading market recovered.
So why do the EU want to implement it now? Simple, seventy percent of the financial services transactions in Europe take place in London which would therefore bear the brunt of the tax. The proposal comes not from the UK but from Germany and France. It would have far less effect in their countries and rather than going to help the poor and needy as the Robin Hood name would suggest the monies will go into a EU fund to support the Euro (of which the UK is not a part).
If the tax is not implemented across all the major world markets, traders will move to the markets which are not taxed. This would mean a massive exodus from London to other centres such as Hong Kong and New York. The major financial institutions are already global so it would be relatively painless for them to move, indeed I believe HSBC had already threatened to do so before the tax was proposed in the EU.
This country is not in the Euro, at present would not stand to benefit from being so, and is not responsible for the financial struggles of those that are. We have already bailed out Euro Zone countries with money we don't have and it is time we vetoed any further attacks on UK finances.
Sweden tried a version of this in 1984 but dropped it in 1991 as a disasterous experiment. It reduced share prices when implemented and decimated trading. After it's abolition, the trading market recovered.
So why do the EU want to implement it now? Simple, seventy percent of the financial services transactions in Europe take place in London which would therefore bear the brunt of the tax. The proposal comes not from the UK but from Germany and France. It would have far less effect in their countries and rather than going to help the poor and needy as the Robin Hood name would suggest the monies will go into a EU fund to support the Euro (of which the UK is not a part).
If the tax is not implemented across all the major world markets, traders will move to the markets which are not taxed. This would mean a massive exodus from London to other centres such as Hong Kong and New York. The major financial institutions are already global so it would be relatively painless for them to move, indeed I believe HSBC had already threatened to do so before the tax was proposed in the EU.
This country is not in the Euro, at present would not stand to benefit from being so, and is not responsible for the financial struggles of those that are. We have already bailed out Euro Zone countries with money we don't have and it is time we vetoed any further attacks on UK finances.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Brussels Bureaucracy
From reading an article in the paper yesterday I get the feeling we are likely to be put under the Brussels thumb again. There are two caveats of course - first that you should never believe all you read in the paper, and secondly that this is currently not enacted in law.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Death Penalty
Recent proposals have me somewhat concerned. This is the concept that the House of Commons could be asked to debate the reinstatement of the death penalty. I think this is wrong on a number of counts:
Given the number of miscarriages of justice, corruption in the police and other involved parties I could never be confident that the right person was being put to death. Evidence of crimes may also be inconclusive or misleading.
Violence never solved anything, and this could not be considered to be acting in defence of the victim(s) of the crime. If indeed the crime was murder, no punishment will bring the victim back.
A life sentence gives more time, if less focus, for the perpetrator to consider the wrong they committed. However I am very much of the view that for the more serious crimes then life should mean just that. In prison until their natural end of life.
Some religious texts however do seem to suggest the concept of an eye for an eye.
As far as I am aware, Jesus went back on the word of God in that the Old Testament promotes this punishment in Leviticus but the Sermon on the Mount later on waters it down to turn the other cheek.
What are we as a country to do? I can see that the death penalty may be a deterrent to some but, as the recent riots have demonstrated, there are those who seem to have no concern for any of the consequences of their actions or compassion for their victims.
I think that until we can address these issues, and I doubt we ever will, we cannot bring back the death penalty. I wholeheartedly believe however that life sentences should be issued for murder and should mean life.
Given the number of miscarriages of justice, corruption in the police and other involved parties I could never be confident that the right person was being put to death. Evidence of crimes may also be inconclusive or misleading.
Violence never solved anything, and this could not be considered to be acting in defence of the victim(s) of the crime. If indeed the crime was murder, no punishment will bring the victim back.
A life sentence gives more time, if less focus, for the perpetrator to consider the wrong they committed. However I am very much of the view that for the more serious crimes then life should mean just that. In prison until their natural end of life.
Some religious texts however do seem to suggest the concept of an eye for an eye.
As far as I am aware, Jesus went back on the word of God in that the Old Testament promotes this punishment in Leviticus but the Sermon on the Mount later on waters it down to turn the other cheek.
What are we as a country to do? I can see that the death penalty may be a deterrent to some but, as the recent riots have demonstrated, there are those who seem to have no concern for any of the consequences of their actions or compassion for their victims.
I think that until we can address these issues, and I doubt we ever will, we cannot bring back the death penalty. I wholeheartedly believe however that life sentences should be issued for murder and should mean life.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Government Petitions
Has anyone noticed that the present government is following in the footsteps of their predecessors with the idea of e-petitions on the internet.
Anyone can propose a petition and if it is accepted by the moderator (first opportunity to ignore the public) it is published and members of the public can sign the petition.
If a government set target of number of signatures is received (second opportunity to ignore us) then the petition is moved forward for consideration by a committee.
If approved by the committee (third opportunity - is a pattern emerging here) then it is given time in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons can then discuss the proposed issue and have the final opportunity to reject it.
How much influence therefore do we really have?
I signed a number of e-petitions under the previous government. Only one reached its close date before the scheme was quietly dropped. From the one that did survive I received an email from the Prime Minister's office effectively saying 'thank you for your interest but you are wrong and we are right' No further debate or action was implemented. Doubtless my name was added to a list of troublemakers somewhere!
I think the other issue is one of representation - unless you keep an eye on all the e-petitions presented, and I am sure there are many, a petition may go through, say supported by 150,000 people. This is a small proportion of the voting adults in this country. If there is a strong feeling against the petition the only way to express this is to launch a counter petition at about the same time so that when both close it is possible for the powers that be to balance both sides of the equation.
Perhaps a better idea would be an e-referendum whereby anyone can sign for OR against the topic proposed.
All in all I think this is flawed and does not allow the public to properly make their feelings known to the government of the day. It is just another crumb to make us think that we are being listened to.
Anyone can propose a petition and if it is accepted by the moderator (first opportunity to ignore the public) it is published and members of the public can sign the petition.
If a government set target of number of signatures is received (second opportunity to ignore us) then the petition is moved forward for consideration by a committee.
If approved by the committee (third opportunity - is a pattern emerging here) then it is given time in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons can then discuss the proposed issue and have the final opportunity to reject it.
How much influence therefore do we really have?
I signed a number of e-petitions under the previous government. Only one reached its close date before the scheme was quietly dropped. From the one that did survive I received an email from the Prime Minister's office effectively saying 'thank you for your interest but you are wrong and we are right' No further debate or action was implemented. Doubtless my name was added to a list of troublemakers somewhere!
I think the other issue is one of representation - unless you keep an eye on all the e-petitions presented, and I am sure there are many, a petition may go through, say supported by 150,000 people. This is a small proportion of the voting adults in this country. If there is a strong feeling against the petition the only way to express this is to launch a counter petition at about the same time so that when both close it is possible for the powers that be to balance both sides of the equation.
Perhaps a better idea would be an e-referendum whereby anyone can sign for OR against the topic proposed.
All in all I think this is flawed and does not allow the public to properly make their feelings known to the government of the day. It is just another crumb to make us think that we are being listened to.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Integrated Public Transport
One of my problems with public transport is the method of payment. It is inconvenient to carry around large amounts of change and assorted bank notes just to cover the various fares we have to pay.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)