First of all a very Merry Christ-mas to you all!
There is so much to write about at the moment I don't know where to begin.
Maybe I'll split it into two?
First stop, Gordon Brown has decided to cut funding to Universities. This is highly amusing and yet altogether quite annoying. It is amusing because it shows just what a load of idiots run Labour. Even if your a labour supporter I'll explain why. If you support Labour you probably do so because you are a 'working man' or consider yourself 'working class'. Amusingly though Labours ruining... er I mean running of the Universities has done everything it can to screw the working man. It has made class mobility more difficult.
Lets consider a simple example to show this. You are 'Dave Smith' your mother is a hairdresser and your father works in a factory, there you go, that is working class (if a bit stereotypical, but that doesn't matter). I've worked in a factory and I know the wages are between about 6k (part time) and 14k per year generally. So lets say Dave's father earns 12k (full time). Dave's mother earns 6k because she doesn't have the time to do anymore (this is well below the quoted average on mysalary.co.uk.) So together they earn 18k. I could say they earn more but that would just make this even easier.
You Dave, are a genius, I mean you are amazing. You are so good that given the chance you would cure cancer, stop the destruction of the rain forest and cause crops to grow in the Sahara ending world hunger. But first you need to get to University.
Under the Tories you would have got a grant gone on to University got a good degree from a good University and then probably got a job and saved the world.
Under Labour, you don't get a grant you get tuition fees, big ones. Much more that a low income family could afford to pay. Even if you could afford it (or didn't mind risking everything on your debt) when you finished Uni (probably a lower Uni since the higher ones can often be more expensive) thanks to labour everyone has a degree, and so you're less distinguished and less likely to get a job. Presumably when everyone has good CVs you have to revert to good old nepotism to cut the pack. Which doesn't favour old 'Davey boy' now does it?
Essentially what Labour has done is tried to get 50% of the population in University, not think about whether it will actually help them, the economy or whether they are actually up to it.
You're not meant to say it (I'm told) but how do you know that 50% of the population is up to going to University? If they are surely they will manage on their own and if they are not surely they will just end up doing pointless degrees that are too easy, have no application, devalue degrees generally and worst of all waste 3 years and several thousand pounds when they could have been doing something useful?
And don't think I'm down on people who aren't 'academics'. As far as I'm concerned having a degree doesn't make you a better person. It is no mark of superiority over someone who just an academic type. After all thanks to this wonderful policy the UK is having to import all their plumbers because we don't have any of our own. No we don't Gordon, because all the people who would make excellent plumbers are doing a film studies degree!
But now the government has decided to cut the Universities budget. Which is great, I believe the phrase needed here regards a rug being swept from beneath ones feet?
Meanwhile the Universities are told not to let this effect their teaching. Presumably they should also try pulling rabbits out of hats and if that works working on a source of perpetual energy! Everyone knows that academics aren't that well paid in Universities anyway. They are there for a labour of love not because they want to hit 80k per year as soon as possible. Where is the space for cuts?
Still at least in all this we can be happy that the working man has benefited from it all... oh now wait, I've already covered that.
Maybe Labours next slogan should be "Labour; keeping our foot on the working class"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of facts about Universities
- Fees are set to rise... again
- Household income required to be gov' funded through University <£16,00
- Minimum wage of a house with two full time adult parents £22,000
(so the only people realistically who will get funded have unemployed parents)
- Minimum wage before you have to pay back your loans £15,000
(this is at any point in your life, so if you're 55 and you start earning £16,000
for the first time in your life you will have your loans and a life time of interest
to pay off).
Saturday, 26 December 2009
Monday, 21 December 2009
Copenhagen is falling apart, oh dear...
Copenhagen is falling/has fallen apart apparently.
Gutted.
I really thought that for a moment the world would be united in its fight against a common enemy and they humanity would reach out and join together to take a sweeping blow against this powerful foe.
Actually that is codswallop. I didn't think that at all.
But let me explain why:
Lets be honest, climate change is an interesting problem. Most interesting of course because in reality we have no idea whether is anything to do with us and arguably whether it is even happening at all.
No I know that this is heresy to most people and as a result I should be burned at the stake, ok not burned that would release more CO2, they think I'd need to be topped using organically grown cyanide. But let me explain how someone who has done little to no research can be pretty sure we have no idea:
how long have we had the ability to record the temperature of the world accurately? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? It is undoubtedly under 50 years because the first man made satellite was in space in 1957, and that wasn't checking temperatures, it was doing nothing but sending out a ping every now and again to say it had made it.
That means we have a tiny amount of time where we are actually aware of what changes are being made. This means that we have no idea what is going on at all. Imagine measuring my height changes between the ages of 15 and 18. That is three years out of a probable 75. This is more of my age than 40 years is of the earths age. But imagine the conclusions you would have if you made assumptions based on those 3 years of my life. It would mean I'd be 70ft tall by the time I'm 75, it would mean that would expect to be shaving the palms of my hands by 25.
Having a tiny amount of information about the worlds temperatures and drawing conclusions from it is tantamount to making a guess.
That is not to say that I think it isn't happening. I would be a fool to explain that we don't know anything and then draw from that that everything is fine. It just means we don't have the slightest clue.
Next is the small detail that people don't like, the worlds temperature has been falling for the last ten years. Is this conclusive? No, of course not, haven't you been listening to what I just said about short periods of time? What does it mean? Once again, we have no idea what is going on.
Then we get on to what we do know. What we do know is that every human being is liable to use what they know to help their own ends. I'm not saying everyone does do this, but this should always be taken as a possibility.
So why would the world politicians jump on to this? Well everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. It is a drug that gets you addicted and them kills you. However when this was discovered, it had already taken off and everyone was already smoking. This gave the government something wonderful. A cash cow. Every year for years more tax has been added to the cost of tobacco, and alcohol. The government doesn't even need to both justifying itself anymore. It say does it. The fact is smoking is evil and therefore should be taxed to 'help people give up'. Except the government doesn't really care if you give up, on the one hand you'll cost them more via the NHS but in the short term (which is all a present government will care about) it gives you lots of revenue.
But we in the UK have 'big government' which is a nice way of saying the government loves spending our money and thinks it does a better job of it than we do. Which is why it gives money to companies to teach 14 year old joy riders how to drive so that when they steal cars they drive them safely (I kid you not) and they offer Iraqi families £150,000 to go home because it is cheaper than them staying here and being entitled to all the benefits. Neither of these examples come from any paper I've read, they have come from people who were involved or close to those involved.
This means a couple of pence on fags (that is cigarettes not the pejorative term for homosexuals for any Americans out there) and booze just isn't going to pay the bills. Then the knight in shining armour arrives! CLIMATE CHANGE!
Hurrrrah! Now everything is evil and so everything can be taxed until we're penniless!
Everyone who does anything ever, anyone who is useful to society in anyway needs a car (unless you live in London where you can survive without one). If you leave your house anywhere outside the M25 London ring road you are going to need four wheels to get about. The government now has a licence to tax this as much as it wants.
Petrol? Tax it
Roads? Tax them
Cars? Tax them too
Cooking oil (which is carbon neutral when used in a diesel engine) Tax that too!
If people moan because you are taking away what they have worked hard to obtain, just tell them that it is for their own good! You have an excuse now. When they say they need their cars to work, tell them that they need to use more public transport. Public transport isn't a viable alternative (you know that, MP's work in London, the one place they could actually use public transport and they of course have several driven cars to take them around to where they need to go) but who cares about the fact it doesn't work, but it sounds like you have an answer and a 'good' reason for taking people's money off them.
But why stop at cars? Tax flights too! Pretty much anything you like really because at some stage everything has to be transported by something with an engine.
Am I just being cynical though? Well lets think about what actually causes global warming. Releasing CO2. Now just lowering the amount of CO2 we make surely won't make much of a difference because the same effect will be achieved just over a longer period of time. Unless all the trees absorb the lower amount of CO2 being produced... which leads me on to my point. If the gov really give a crap about it why aren't they planting trees?
This is cheap (I bet you could even rope some people into doing it for free if they really care about this stuff) and it would have much greater impact over the years because it would suck in all the CO2 which is being made, taking it straight out of the atmosphere. It would be really pretty too! There are many areas of the UK (and I'm sure every other nation) that cannot be farmed because they are inaccessible or the soil isn't of the right quality. Most of these places used to have trees on them until our ancestors cut them down for various reasons. In fact North Africa was wooded until the Romans arrived. Now if the government really cared about these sorts of things they could easily start afforesting the moors and other grounds.
It would probably increase the tourism in the area and for years to come it would act to absorb tons of CO2 every month. When successful this could be implemented over all of Europe and most of the world.
Of course the government isn't going to do this. You see, you can't tax trees. You can't fly to Denmark drink some good wine argue 'for your cause' and then come home and make money taxing businesses by planting trees and actually helping the environment. All you do is... well help the environment; and what government cares about that?
Gutted.
I really thought that for a moment the world would be united in its fight against a common enemy and they humanity would reach out and join together to take a sweeping blow against this powerful foe.
Actually that is codswallop. I didn't think that at all.
But let me explain why:
Lets be honest, climate change is an interesting problem. Most interesting of course because in reality we have no idea whether is anything to do with us and arguably whether it is even happening at all.
No I know that this is heresy to most people and as a result I should be burned at the stake, ok not burned that would release more CO2, they think I'd need to be topped using organically grown cyanide. But let me explain how someone who has done little to no research can be pretty sure we have no idea:
how long have we had the ability to record the temperature of the world accurately? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? It is undoubtedly under 50 years because the first man made satellite was in space in 1957, and that wasn't checking temperatures, it was doing nothing but sending out a ping every now and again to say it had made it.
That means we have a tiny amount of time where we are actually aware of what changes are being made. This means that we have no idea what is going on at all. Imagine measuring my height changes between the ages of 15 and 18. That is three years out of a probable 75. This is more of my age than 40 years is of the earths age. But imagine the conclusions you would have if you made assumptions based on those 3 years of my life. It would mean I'd be 70ft tall by the time I'm 75, it would mean that would expect to be shaving the palms of my hands by 25.
Having a tiny amount of information about the worlds temperatures and drawing conclusions from it is tantamount to making a guess.
That is not to say that I think it isn't happening. I would be a fool to explain that we don't know anything and then draw from that that everything is fine. It just means we don't have the slightest clue.
Next is the small detail that people don't like, the worlds temperature has been falling for the last ten years. Is this conclusive? No, of course not, haven't you been listening to what I just said about short periods of time? What does it mean? Once again, we have no idea what is going on.
Then we get on to what we do know. What we do know is that every human being is liable to use what they know to help their own ends. I'm not saying everyone does do this, but this should always be taken as a possibility.
So why would the world politicians jump on to this? Well everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. It is a drug that gets you addicted and them kills you. However when this was discovered, it had already taken off and everyone was already smoking. This gave the government something wonderful. A cash cow. Every year for years more tax has been added to the cost of tobacco, and alcohol. The government doesn't even need to both justifying itself anymore. It say does it. The fact is smoking is evil and therefore should be taxed to 'help people give up'. Except the government doesn't really care if you give up, on the one hand you'll cost them more via the NHS but in the short term (which is all a present government will care about) it gives you lots of revenue.
But we in the UK have 'big government' which is a nice way of saying the government loves spending our money and thinks it does a better job of it than we do. Which is why it gives money to companies to teach 14 year old joy riders how to drive so that when they steal cars they drive them safely (I kid you not) and they offer Iraqi families £150,000 to go home because it is cheaper than them staying here and being entitled to all the benefits. Neither of these examples come from any paper I've read, they have come from people who were involved or close to those involved.
This means a couple of pence on fags (that is cigarettes not the pejorative term for homosexuals for any Americans out there) and booze just isn't going to pay the bills. Then the knight in shining armour arrives! CLIMATE CHANGE!
Hurrrrah! Now everything is evil and so everything can be taxed until we're penniless!
Everyone who does anything ever, anyone who is useful to society in anyway needs a car (unless you live in London where you can survive without one). If you leave your house anywhere outside the M25 London ring road you are going to need four wheels to get about. The government now has a licence to tax this as much as it wants.
Petrol? Tax it
Roads? Tax them
Cars? Tax them too
Cooking oil (which is carbon neutral when used in a diesel engine) Tax that too!
If people moan because you are taking away what they have worked hard to obtain, just tell them that it is for their own good! You have an excuse now. When they say they need their cars to work, tell them that they need to use more public transport. Public transport isn't a viable alternative (you know that, MP's work in London, the one place they could actually use public transport and they of course have several driven cars to take them around to where they need to go) but who cares about the fact it doesn't work, but it sounds like you have an answer and a 'good' reason for taking people's money off them.
But why stop at cars? Tax flights too! Pretty much anything you like really because at some stage everything has to be transported by something with an engine.
Am I just being cynical though? Well lets think about what actually causes global warming. Releasing CO2. Now just lowering the amount of CO2 we make surely won't make much of a difference because the same effect will be achieved just over a longer period of time. Unless all the trees absorb the lower amount of CO2 being produced... which leads me on to my point. If the gov really give a crap about it why aren't they planting trees?
This is cheap (I bet you could even rope some people into doing it for free if they really care about this stuff) and it would have much greater impact over the years because it would suck in all the CO2 which is being made, taking it straight out of the atmosphere. It would be really pretty too! There are many areas of the UK (and I'm sure every other nation) that cannot be farmed because they are inaccessible or the soil isn't of the right quality. Most of these places used to have trees on them until our ancestors cut them down for various reasons. In fact North Africa was wooded until the Romans arrived. Now if the government really cared about these sorts of things they could easily start afforesting the moors and other grounds.
It would probably increase the tourism in the area and for years to come it would act to absorb tons of CO2 every month. When successful this could be implemented over all of Europe and most of the world.
Of course the government isn't going to do this. You see, you can't tax trees. You can't fly to Denmark drink some good wine argue 'for your cause' and then come home and make money taxing businesses by planting trees and actually helping the environment. All you do is... well help the environment; and what government cares about that?
Monday, 14 December 2009
eBay: One Madrid Sewer system; unused
Just got back from Madrid, Spain, lovely place, beautiful architechture. It has great tasting food and the people are quite charming.
I few observations however:
1. Everyone smokes.
Really now, I think if Spain wanted to cut its carbon foot print just stop people smoking. The inner city is easy to get around and there isn't much congestion so they won't have much of a carbon foot print through cars. Smoking however must constitute most of their emissions! Whatever it is they smoke also smells about ten times as strong as what they have in the UK, it smells like pipe tobacco. Lovely... I also think maybe this ties in with number 2 which is:
2. Everyone is about 6" shorter than me.
Is this to do with genetics or smoking or something else? I don't know. What I do know is that wondering around I was about 6" taller than the average male. Back in the UK I'm about 2/3" taller but over there I was a giant.
3. The Madrid sewer system is presumably superfluous.
I don't know how any Spaniard has ever passed a single stool. For breakfast they have coffee. For lunch they have great tasting food, but none of it, really contains any fibre! The ratio of bread, rice etc to meat and cheese was about 60/40 meat. The result; great tasting food, and presumably a completely unused sewer system.
4. Very few people actually speak English... or should I say hable inglés.
This isn't a criticism, it is just an observation. I am sure that many have gone to Barcelona and found that everyone speaks English and expects Madrid to be the same. It isn't. Not even slightly. However, I actually prefer this to an extent. It forces me to get off my lazy English speaking back end and learn some of the lingo. It also means I know the magic of instantly, without thought, rememebering; 'one minute, please' when the cleaner starts walking into your room while you're still naked.
5. La Finca de Susana, if you're in Madrid and you can get to it, go.
Restaurant opening time 8:30, time I arrived 8:32... just managed to catch the last tables before it was full. Passing the next day twenty minutes before the place opened, there was a quene stretching down the street. This queue was there for good reason. When you can eat a stunning veal steak for under €10 and a bottle of wine costs the same as a glass over here in the UK you can hardly believe you're eyes. All this in a capital city. Can you imagine having a bill for two people come to about £35 in London? A bill for one maybe... Oh and it tasted ambrosial, just in case you were wondering.
6. Freemarket capitalists, they are not.
I was on my way to park Retiro when I couldn't cross a road. Unfortunately 200,000 people had turned out to support the workers Union the OOCC. At first this was all very interesting and a bit like a festival. There were lots of people drums and banners. Things seemed less friendly with the helicopters flying over head all the time and someone setting off fireworks that sounded like bombs going off. While I took the opportunity to pick up a leaflet and read about the protection of public jobs and so on, strangely I didn't take the time to explain to the crowd the benefits of free market capitalism. Strangely I didn't think it was the ideal time, unless I was in the mood for taking on 200,000 Spaniards in a Matrix revolutions tyle fight. Although one does see a strong correlationg between countries with economies that could do with a bit of a kick and a strong socialist contingent. I mean even before the recession Spain had 10% enemployment and so it isn't a surprise that people aren't happy about it. Although I am not sure what they think socialism is going to do for them.
7. The weather man was wrong.
One day of sunshine and the rest cloudy... that is what you think Mr Weatherman...
I few observations however:
1. Everyone smokes.
Really now, I think if Spain wanted to cut its carbon foot print just stop people smoking. The inner city is easy to get around and there isn't much congestion so they won't have much of a carbon foot print through cars. Smoking however must constitute most of their emissions! Whatever it is they smoke also smells about ten times as strong as what they have in the UK, it smells like pipe tobacco. Lovely... I also think maybe this ties in with number 2 which is:
2. Everyone is about 6" shorter than me.
Is this to do with genetics or smoking or something else? I don't know. What I do know is that wondering around I was about 6" taller than the average male. Back in the UK I'm about 2/3" taller but over there I was a giant.
3. The Madrid sewer system is presumably superfluous.
I don't know how any Spaniard has ever passed a single stool. For breakfast they have coffee. For lunch they have great tasting food, but none of it, really contains any fibre! The ratio of bread, rice etc to meat and cheese was about 60/40 meat. The result; great tasting food, and presumably a completely unused sewer system.
4. Very few people actually speak English... or should I say hable inglés.
This isn't a criticism, it is just an observation. I am sure that many have gone to Barcelona and found that everyone speaks English and expects Madrid to be the same. It isn't. Not even slightly. However, I actually prefer this to an extent. It forces me to get off my lazy English speaking back end and learn some of the lingo. It also means I know the magic of instantly, without thought, rememebering; 'one minute, please' when the cleaner starts walking into your room while you're still naked.
5. La Finca de Susana, if you're in Madrid and you can get to it, go.
Restaurant opening time 8:30, time I arrived 8:32... just managed to catch the last tables before it was full. Passing the next day twenty minutes before the place opened, there was a quene stretching down the street. This queue was there for good reason. When you can eat a stunning veal steak for under €10 and a bottle of wine costs the same as a glass over here in the UK you can hardly believe you're eyes. All this in a capital city. Can you imagine having a bill for two people come to about £35 in London? A bill for one maybe... Oh and it tasted ambrosial, just in case you were wondering.
6. Freemarket capitalists, they are not.
I was on my way to park Retiro when I couldn't cross a road. Unfortunately 200,000 people had turned out to support the workers Union the OOCC. At first this was all very interesting and a bit like a festival. There were lots of people drums and banners. Things seemed less friendly with the helicopters flying over head all the time and someone setting off fireworks that sounded like bombs going off. While I took the opportunity to pick up a leaflet and read about the protection of public jobs and so on, strangely I didn't take the time to explain to the crowd the benefits of free market capitalism. Strangely I didn't think it was the ideal time, unless I was in the mood for taking on 200,000 Spaniards in a Matrix revolutions tyle fight. Although one does see a strong correlationg between countries with economies that could do with a bit of a kick and a strong socialist contingent. I mean even before the recession Spain had 10% enemployment and so it isn't a surprise that people aren't happy about it. Although I am not sure what they think socialism is going to do for them.
7. The weather man was wrong.
One day of sunshine and the rest cloudy... that is what you think Mr Weatherman...
Thursday, 3 December 2009
New York, New York!
I am thinking I should fly to New York with British Airways. After all they are the best airline in the world, and since they are losing money I may not get too many chances to use them again. First class maybe? It would be a nice way to arrive at the beginning of a new chapter living on the other side of the pond.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
A vote for Scotland, a vote for insignificance.
The SNP (Scottish National Party) has decided that Scotland need to think about full Independence from the UK. (The UK being England N.Ireland Wales and Scotland). Hurray for devolution! How wonderful, if you're into that stuff.
I however am not. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone who thinks devolution is a good idea has probably let their 'red mist' hatred for the English cloud their judgement to such an extent that it can no longer really be called Judgement... idiocy maybe, but not judgement.
But let me put this in perspective. I have been born in a Celtic country. I am not now, nor will I ever be English. I like all my Celtic countrymen love ribbing the English for not being as good as the Celtic nations.
In addition I love that high power Civil service jobs are being exported out of the South East (mainly London) and being put in the areas they serve, thus allowing people who have an IQ over 15 who want a good job to remain in their local area.
But do I want the Celtic nations to be independent? No, of course not. No more than I want to declare my house to be independent of my street and demand my own post code and street sign.
The most amusing part of this of course is that the Scots cite one of their reasons for considering this as 'influence'. Presumably they mean that with a sense of irony? There is very little that would kill Scottish influence in the world stage quicker than leaving the UK. To have influence you need two things generally:
1. a strong well trained army;
2. a strong economy with a huge GDP.
Lets think this through, army? No, GDP? Not even close!
At this point some who know my views on Europe (the EU) could be so bold as to call me a hypocrite. I don't want the UK in the EU because influence in the EU is nothing to do with UK influence. Also I am I calling the Scots mad for wanting Independence while fighting for my own (as a UK citizen), but let me distinguish these points.
The UK has (like it or not) culturally assimilated. Morality is generally the same in Scotland as it is in Yorkshire which is roughly the same as in Cornwall. There will be some slight disparity between the city and country but that is found anywhere. We speak the same language (regardless of what Welsh nationalists may tell you). Our law is essentially the same. Any problems with the amalgamation of the two were dealt with hundreds of years ago and thus one cannot go back to how it was previously.
Also the UK has influence, it is one of the largest economies in the world, it has big friends and and a heritage that lends itself to good diplomatic links. It may not be an 'empire' as it once was, but it is still a country that you don't want to piddle off, ever.
Scotland does not have one of the largest economies in the world. It doesn't have diplomatic links it doesn't have nuclear weapons, it doesn't have a seat on the UN security council, it has a peat bog on some, admittedly beautiful, mountains. It also has a good name in producing Whiskey.
So surely what they mean when they ask the Scottish public if they want to be independent is: "do you want to so wholly ruin your international influence that you might as well be taken off the map?"
Sounds harsh but lets face it, it is true. I just don't see what possible benefit that they hope to gain from leaving the Union. Less money, greater over heads, less influence.
There is that awesome argument of democratic accountability and the desire for decisions to be made as close to the people whom is will actually effect.
Right, sounds good but lets face it, in practical terms, it is a load of rubbish. For a start look at the US. People in California have decisions made about them in Washington DC, on the other side of an entire continent. Scotland on the other hand is a days journey from London. Second, look at local government, they make decisions for your area and does that mean that you get what you want? Judging my the pointless speed bumps outside my house and the multiplicity of pointless signs that go up at the end of each financial year, it certainly doesn't where I live.
Next problem when you live so close to another country how different can you really make the laws? If you wanted to do something great, for example banning abortions, on a practical level it wouldn't have much effect because people would simply pop across the border and have them done in England (although maybe that would be better?). Any real disparity in the law would just mean that people go else where to do business or else.
What it could do however is increase the number of contentions, squabbles and conflicts and allow local governments to do what they do best; argue about pointless minutia. Lets face it, all they allow is for opinionated and argumentative egotists to indulge themselves by giving them a platform to hear their own voice... on second thoughts, SNP, where do I apply?
I however am not. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone who thinks devolution is a good idea has probably let their 'red mist' hatred for the English cloud their judgement to such an extent that it can no longer really be called Judgement... idiocy maybe, but not judgement.
But let me put this in perspective. I have been born in a Celtic country. I am not now, nor will I ever be English. I like all my Celtic countrymen love ribbing the English for not being as good as the Celtic nations.
In addition I love that high power Civil service jobs are being exported out of the South East (mainly London) and being put in the areas they serve, thus allowing people who have an IQ over 15 who want a good job to remain in their local area.
But do I want the Celtic nations to be independent? No, of course not. No more than I want to declare my house to be independent of my street and demand my own post code and street sign.
The most amusing part of this of course is that the Scots cite one of their reasons for considering this as 'influence'. Presumably they mean that with a sense of irony? There is very little that would kill Scottish influence in the world stage quicker than leaving the UK. To have influence you need two things generally:
1. a strong well trained army;
2. a strong economy with a huge GDP.
Lets think this through, army? No, GDP? Not even close!
At this point some who know my views on Europe (the EU) could be so bold as to call me a hypocrite. I don't want the UK in the EU because influence in the EU is nothing to do with UK influence. Also I am I calling the Scots mad for wanting Independence while fighting for my own (as a UK citizen), but let me distinguish these points.
The UK has (like it or not) culturally assimilated. Morality is generally the same in Scotland as it is in Yorkshire which is roughly the same as in Cornwall. There will be some slight disparity between the city and country but that is found anywhere. We speak the same language (regardless of what Welsh nationalists may tell you). Our law is essentially the same. Any problems with the amalgamation of the two were dealt with hundreds of years ago and thus one cannot go back to how it was previously.
Also the UK has influence, it is one of the largest economies in the world, it has big friends and and a heritage that lends itself to good diplomatic links. It may not be an 'empire' as it once was, but it is still a country that you don't want to piddle off, ever.
Scotland does not have one of the largest economies in the world. It doesn't have diplomatic links it doesn't have nuclear weapons, it doesn't have a seat on the UN security council, it has a peat bog on some, admittedly beautiful, mountains. It also has a good name in producing Whiskey.
So surely what they mean when they ask the Scottish public if they want to be independent is: "do you want to so wholly ruin your international influence that you might as well be taken off the map?"
Sounds harsh but lets face it, it is true. I just don't see what possible benefit that they hope to gain from leaving the Union. Less money, greater over heads, less influence.
There is that awesome argument of democratic accountability and the desire for decisions to be made as close to the people whom is will actually effect.
Right, sounds good but lets face it, in practical terms, it is a load of rubbish. For a start look at the US. People in California have decisions made about them in Washington DC, on the other side of an entire continent. Scotland on the other hand is a days journey from London. Second, look at local government, they make decisions for your area and does that mean that you get what you want? Judging my the pointless speed bumps outside my house and the multiplicity of pointless signs that go up at the end of each financial year, it certainly doesn't where I live.
Next problem when you live so close to another country how different can you really make the laws? If you wanted to do something great, for example banning abortions, on a practical level it wouldn't have much effect because people would simply pop across the border and have them done in England (although maybe that would be better?). Any real disparity in the law would just mean that people go else where to do business or else.
What it could do however is increase the number of contentions, squabbles and conflicts and allow local governments to do what they do best; argue about pointless minutia. Lets face it, all they allow is for opinionated and argumentative egotists to indulge themselves by giving them a platform to hear their own voice... on second thoughts, SNP, where do I apply?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
