Recent days have seen yet more attacks by politicians and the media on the evil bankers.
What a surprise!
Who have been the most vilified pariah groups in the UK over the last year? Yes, you've got it. Despite competitive bids by others such as fat and happy trade union leaders, the three really in the stocks have been greedy allowance abusing politicians, eavesdropping and people-harassing journalists and the source of all financial evil,- the bankers. It is they who can pay for everything and probably single handedly eliminate Britain's defecit.
So what do groups under attack do? Those with access to platforms form an unholy alliance against those without. That's what has happened, pure and simple.
The politicians in particular are playing a dangerous and irresponsible game, many equating bankers with "the rich" . Populist attacks on the rich have come even from people who should be mature and know better. Step forward Nick Clegg this week. George Osborne also looks like giving the bankers another gratuitous kick in his autumn statement (mini budget) this week.
The UK needs both the bankers and the rich. The former for their vast contribution to the national economy despite their disastrous failure to understand the damage that a seriously out of control bonus culture is doing to their own status and to the national psyche and their complicity in the fiasco of ( politician-fuelled) massive and risky lending since 2000 when Brown abandoned "prudence" and thought he had discovered an evergreen money tree. The portrayal of the rich as being somehow undeserving parasites unless they have got there by being a footballer, celeb or X-Factor survivor is very corrosive. The effects of this flow swiftly through all age groups and most disastrously of all down into classrooms, where already too many potential high performers ruin their futures by bending to peer pressure,-often bullying,-and abandoning their books.
The message therefore to the political and media bullyboys is, whether they like it or not, to lay off a group of people who Britain probably needs more than it does them. Didn't their mothers tell them not to play with fire? Is that the sound of flights departing to Hong Kong and Switzerland we hear?
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Saturday, 26 November 2011
The Pensions Strikes- Runners and Riders
The various parties seem to be limbering up enthusistically ahead of the 30th November day of inaction ordained on behalf of public sector workers by some unions ,- the usual suspects including Unison,Unite, NUT enthusiastically to the fore.
"We just want the government to negotiate" is a frequent cry from the leaders (who will not themselevs be on strike so will not be forfeiting a day's pay) and from some of the less well informed people with the placards. The fact is folks,- they have. They've also made a pretty good offer which still leaves the public sector way ahead of their private sector,- who they are asking to help pay for it) colleagues. Times have changed. People, are living longer and generally in much better health. That means that the old actuarial tables on the cost of pensions have gone out of the window. The maths no longer hold good and something has to give. The amount is much the same by whichever combination of gives is selected. They can be extensions of the retirement age, lower inflation proofing,use of career average rather than (sometimes manipulated) final salary, higher contributions. What the government is proposing is a palatable cocktail of all of these so that none is too painful. Some scope for rejigging could remain but the underlying maths will be the same.It's just a matter of in what configuration people would like the changes served. There are also safeguards for those close to retirement and substantial ring fencing of benefits earned to date to date.
Despite their current head shakings, the previous Labour government recognised the problem and started off to deal with it and all looked set for a resolution until Alan Johnson,- who now supports the strikes,- suddenly got cold feet and backed off at the eleventh hour. That meant that the problem remained and had to be tackled with even more urgency when Labour left office in May 2010 saying famously, even if in jest, "Sorry, there's no money left".
The coalition has therefore had to do the simple maths and come up with the least painful recipe they can find to deliver the figures. the lomnger the procrastination in dealing with the problem the harder the solution becomes. They have taken the bull by the horns and produced a good solution, even if it comes out more expensive to its beneficiaries than the current largely unfunded arrangements. The unions, rather than engage in useful discussions about the future, have as usual simply dug in to defend the past , thereby confirming their general irrelevance in attempts to constructively reshape anything. They don't want to help the coalition to a success . That's not surprising as their party,-the one in whose funding they have an 86% share- is the other one , namely New old Labour. The coalition can never have expected their gratitude and cooperation so will not be surprised by this recalcitrance. The unions are not about the interests of their members per se. They are about their own power, and along the way their ability to control at least the working lives of their members. The strikes will hugely inconvenience and annoy the large number of their members who work in the private sector and see no reason why they should subsidise public service pensions.
Historically a disparity in pension arrangements was accepted as a fair tradeoff as public sector pay was, from top to bottom, generally well below private sector levels. That though has changed radically in recent years. The public sector is now better paid than the private. At the middle and top end one very generously so including now bonuses for just broadly just doing one's job well. As result a new divide is fast opening up between the two sectors. This threatens to distort the future labour market just supersalaries and astronomical bonuses have drawn talent disproportionately to the banking sector and away from other productive businesses and industry.
Who then are the big contestants in all this and where do they stand right now and how are they doing in the public relations and hearts and minds stakes?
First there are the unions. They are the most established long term players and wizzened, battle hardened veterans of years of confrontations, many of which they have manufactured. They have a long history of destroying many of the industries and businesses they have claimed to protect by immersing heads in the sand and putting rear ends in the air and saying "No changes to terms and conditions" and "over our dead body". They have not been greatly helpful in times of national crisis , including two world wars. Althought there are signs that Brendan Barber in particular sees a need to change to working more with than against managements, the embedded DNA with its love of "action" and glorification of battles past is still strong in the union psyche. Politicians come and go but union leaders and their pyramids of people from shop floor representatives upwards tend to stay in position for a lot longer so become much more skilful players in the industrial relations game. They know how to handle new politicians and managements, many of whom at least initiallly tend to approach them almost in a sense of trembling and anxiety. The unions also know the time honoured emotive phrases to trot out. For years we used to hear "It's taking the bread and butter out of our mouths and updated versions of that still appear. Then there wonderful accusations of management bullying which is rich from organisations many of whose represnetatives are highly adept at advising waverers that going along with a strike vote might be in the best interests of their health. They are also masters of misrepresentation and the messages around this dispute show plenty of that. Many members have little clue about the pros and cons of the governement proposals and just accept the union line and convert it into "We've been robbed" sorts of emotion.
Amongst the public sector workers the unions are winning the game. A minority even bothered to vote. Those who did not or voted "No" are subject to the usual pressures, inuendo about being thrown out of the union so that their insurances are no longer valid and so on. They also fear subsequent years of angry silences between stikers and non strikers, so rather than risk their working lives turning sour feel they have no option but to go out on 30th November whether they like it or not.
Amongst private sector workers the unions are being less successful and the question is whether, having tasted the inconvenience of the strikes, private sector workers will become angry with and dismissive of them or whether they will wearily say the government should give up the battle and let them have whatever they want regardless of the cost. That is the battle to come over the next few days, weeks and probably months. Again, their years of battle experience give the unions a good chaNCE of winning that hearts and minds tussle.
And what about The Labour Party? Despite their own previous recognition of the pension problem and the need to tackle it, there is no doubt which side they stand emotionally or opportunistically. Conscious of the risk of a public relations backlash ,their real problem is how not to make this too conspicuous. Some, like Alan Johnson have already broken cover but Ed will continue to wring his hands, feel everybody's pain ,tut tut a lot and try to gain some benefit from whatever the eventual outcome is. On the way, he has already said on Channel 4 News this week "I don't believe we did spend too much". No wonder he is still walking and talking increasingly tediously in the wilderness.
Lastly there is the coalition, trying hard to tack down one piece of the public overspending jelly. Logically, with their leader's history one would have expected them to be doing a first rate job in selling all "the cuts" as essential actions all part of a coherent political philosophy which the electorate can understand, embrace and follow enthusiastically. One fundamental problem is of course that , being a coalition, they can not enunciate a single philosophy. What they have is a sort of mish mash of at least two. The Conservatives are also unsure of what theirs really is anyway. Notwithstanding this and despite all the advice and expertise to hand, the coalition seems to have an almost total lack of understanding of political PR. As result they have dangerously totally to get across a simple message that all their moves are part of this total package designed to take the UK to a financially sustainable future.
Pensions reform means savings now and for evermore. This bridging of all timescales makes its economic resolution even more essential. It should be a very easy-to-communicate message. Instead the government is making a meal of it-and failing. They are babes in the wood compared to the hoary old union veterans. Hence they are making heavy weather of shouting the simple sums across across the heads of the unions and direct to the people involved in a form they can understand. A byproduct of that is more people than one would expect also mouthing words such as "They will be putting in more than they get out" and similar misconceptions. Again whether support for the government will increase or decrease once people feel the pain of being messed about by strikes and even having to give up a day's pay themselves to look after children is unclear, but being saddled with an image of being gung ho for "cuts" for tehir own sake isn't hoing to help Messrs Cameron and Clegg.
For all three contestants in this beauty contest, the challenge for however long the dispute and disruption lasts is knowing when to speak and at what volume and in what tone and when to shut up and let the street fighters run past. Here depth of wisdom and understanding of mass psychology is required. It isn't the territory for emotionally unintelligent people. On the basis of their past experience in these public relations battles the unions should do best. New Old Labour riding on their more savvy and streetwise paymasters' coat tails should come in next and Dave & Co last but not understanding quite why. The positions in the battle itself though could be entirely the reverse. The victory is the coalitions's to lose. If Cameron can keep his nerve (record so far unconvincing) and LibDem and any wavering Tory knees kept from knocking or opportunistic anti- leadership frolics of their own, the pensions deal should be done and dusted, by imposition if necessary, by next Spring. Closing the debate and saying "That's it" is the government's ultimate weapon. They should not fear to use it at the right moment. Howls of protest and further "action" would follow but they would fade as the message inevitably sunk in:"Game's over".
"Dave's got Balls" should be the postscript the Conservatives at least are looking for. It could win him 2015. If he fails............
"We just want the government to negotiate" is a frequent cry from the leaders (who will not themselevs be on strike so will not be forfeiting a day's pay) and from some of the less well informed people with the placards. The fact is folks,- they have. They've also made a pretty good offer which still leaves the public sector way ahead of their private sector,- who they are asking to help pay for it) colleagues. Times have changed. People, are living longer and generally in much better health. That means that the old actuarial tables on the cost of pensions have gone out of the window. The maths no longer hold good and something has to give. The amount is much the same by whichever combination of gives is selected. They can be extensions of the retirement age, lower inflation proofing,use of career average rather than (sometimes manipulated) final salary, higher contributions. What the government is proposing is a palatable cocktail of all of these so that none is too painful. Some scope for rejigging could remain but the underlying maths will be the same.It's just a matter of in what configuration people would like the changes served. There are also safeguards for those close to retirement and substantial ring fencing of benefits earned to date to date.
Despite their current head shakings, the previous Labour government recognised the problem and started off to deal with it and all looked set for a resolution until Alan Johnson,- who now supports the strikes,- suddenly got cold feet and backed off at the eleventh hour. That meant that the problem remained and had to be tackled with even more urgency when Labour left office in May 2010 saying famously, even if in jest, "Sorry, there's no money left".
The coalition has therefore had to do the simple maths and come up with the least painful recipe they can find to deliver the figures. the lomnger the procrastination in dealing with the problem the harder the solution becomes. They have taken the bull by the horns and produced a good solution, even if it comes out more expensive to its beneficiaries than the current largely unfunded arrangements. The unions, rather than engage in useful discussions about the future, have as usual simply dug in to defend the past , thereby confirming their general irrelevance in attempts to constructively reshape anything. They don't want to help the coalition to a success . That's not surprising as their party,-the one in whose funding they have an 86% share- is the other one , namely New old Labour. The coalition can never have expected their gratitude and cooperation so will not be surprised by this recalcitrance. The unions are not about the interests of their members per se. They are about their own power, and along the way their ability to control at least the working lives of their members. The strikes will hugely inconvenience and annoy the large number of their members who work in the private sector and see no reason why they should subsidise public service pensions.
Historically a disparity in pension arrangements was accepted as a fair tradeoff as public sector pay was, from top to bottom, generally well below private sector levels. That though has changed radically in recent years. The public sector is now better paid than the private. At the middle and top end one very generously so including now bonuses for just broadly just doing one's job well. As result a new divide is fast opening up between the two sectors. This threatens to distort the future labour market just supersalaries and astronomical bonuses have drawn talent disproportionately to the banking sector and away from other productive businesses and industry.
Who then are the big contestants in all this and where do they stand right now and how are they doing in the public relations and hearts and minds stakes?
First there are the unions. They are the most established long term players and wizzened, battle hardened veterans of years of confrontations, many of which they have manufactured. They have a long history of destroying many of the industries and businesses they have claimed to protect by immersing heads in the sand and putting rear ends in the air and saying "No changes to terms and conditions" and "over our dead body". They have not been greatly helpful in times of national crisis , including two world wars. Althought there are signs that Brendan Barber in particular sees a need to change to working more with than against managements, the embedded DNA with its love of "action" and glorification of battles past is still strong in the union psyche. Politicians come and go but union leaders and their pyramids of people from shop floor representatives upwards tend to stay in position for a lot longer so become much more skilful players in the industrial relations game. They know how to handle new politicians and managements, many of whom at least initiallly tend to approach them almost in a sense of trembling and anxiety. The unions also know the time honoured emotive phrases to trot out. For years we used to hear "It's taking the bread and butter out of our mouths and updated versions of that still appear. Then there wonderful accusations of management bullying which is rich from organisations many of whose represnetatives are highly adept at advising waverers that going along with a strike vote might be in the best interests of their health. They are also masters of misrepresentation and the messages around this dispute show plenty of that. Many members have little clue about the pros and cons of the governement proposals and just accept the union line and convert it into "We've been robbed" sorts of emotion.
Amongst the public sector workers the unions are winning the game. A minority even bothered to vote. Those who did not or voted "No" are subject to the usual pressures, inuendo about being thrown out of the union so that their insurances are no longer valid and so on. They also fear subsequent years of angry silences between stikers and non strikers, so rather than risk their working lives turning sour feel they have no option but to go out on 30th November whether they like it or not.
Amongst private sector workers the unions are being less successful and the question is whether, having tasted the inconvenience of the strikes, private sector workers will become angry with and dismissive of them or whether they will wearily say the government should give up the battle and let them have whatever they want regardless of the cost. That is the battle to come over the next few days, weeks and probably months. Again, their years of battle experience give the unions a good chaNCE of winning that hearts and minds tussle.
And what about The Labour Party? Despite their own previous recognition of the pension problem and the need to tackle it, there is no doubt which side they stand emotionally or opportunistically. Conscious of the risk of a public relations backlash ,their real problem is how not to make this too conspicuous. Some, like Alan Johnson have already broken cover but Ed will continue to wring his hands, feel everybody's pain ,tut tut a lot and try to gain some benefit from whatever the eventual outcome is. On the way, he has already said on Channel 4 News this week "I don't believe we did spend too much". No wonder he is still walking and talking increasingly tediously in the wilderness.
Lastly there is the coalition, trying hard to tack down one piece of the public overspending jelly. Logically, with their leader's history one would have expected them to be doing a first rate job in selling all "the cuts" as essential actions all part of a coherent political philosophy which the electorate can understand, embrace and follow enthusiastically. One fundamental problem is of course that , being a coalition, they can not enunciate a single philosophy. What they have is a sort of mish mash of at least two. The Conservatives are also unsure of what theirs really is anyway. Notwithstanding this and despite all the advice and expertise to hand, the coalition seems to have an almost total lack of understanding of political PR. As result they have dangerously totally to get across a simple message that all their moves are part of this total package designed to take the UK to a financially sustainable future.
Pensions reform means savings now and for evermore. This bridging of all timescales makes its economic resolution even more essential. It should be a very easy-to-communicate message. Instead the government is making a meal of it-and failing. They are babes in the wood compared to the hoary old union veterans. Hence they are making heavy weather of shouting the simple sums across across the heads of the unions and direct to the people involved in a form they can understand. A byproduct of that is more people than one would expect also mouthing words such as "They will be putting in more than they get out" and similar misconceptions. Again whether support for the government will increase or decrease once people feel the pain of being messed about by strikes and even having to give up a day's pay themselves to look after children is unclear, but being saddled with an image of being gung ho for "cuts" for tehir own sake isn't hoing to help Messrs Cameron and Clegg.
For all three contestants in this beauty contest, the challenge for however long the dispute and disruption lasts is knowing when to speak and at what volume and in what tone and when to shut up and let the street fighters run past. Here depth of wisdom and understanding of mass psychology is required. It isn't the territory for emotionally unintelligent people. On the basis of their past experience in these public relations battles the unions should do best. New Old Labour riding on their more savvy and streetwise paymasters' coat tails should come in next and Dave & Co last but not understanding quite why. The positions in the battle itself though could be entirely the reverse. The victory is the coalitions's to lose. If Cameron can keep his nerve (record so far unconvincing) and LibDem and any wavering Tory knees kept from knocking or opportunistic anti- leadership frolics of their own, the pensions deal should be done and dusted, by imposition if necessary, by next Spring. Closing the debate and saying "That's it" is the government's ultimate weapon. They should not fear to use it at the right moment. Howls of protest and further "action" would follow but they would fade as the message inevitably sunk in:"Game's over".
"Dave's got Balls" should be the postscript the Conservatives at least are looking for. It could win him 2015. If he fails............
Monday, 21 November 2011
This and That-Monday 21st November
Firstly let's talk about increasingly dreary Dave who is not responding well to a growing national feeling that after 18 months in power it's time to stop talking, sounding bullish, and then backing off. Instead it's time for him to square his jaw, stand firm and GET THINGS DONE...........
-£400 million boost to housing today. If you're going to do something, do it big. £400million doesn't look big.
-Meanwhile over in Europe it appears that Dave may have done a deal for the UK to duck out of the very restrictive working hours directive so that he can claim he has successfully repatriated some powers from Brusells in return for agreeing to support more centralisation (ie German/French)of power to dictate Eurozone members financial policies. This looks a poor deal in view of the relative long term significance of the 2 issues to both the UK and EU. Merkels has gained another step towards political as well as financial Eurozone and ultimately EU integration in exchange for a relatively minor face saving concession to the UK. Cameron does not look like a good or sufficiently tough negotiator. Add to that his lack of a driving political philosophy and vision and the feeling of lack of impetus becomes real and worrying.
- Our roads are clogging up as well as breaking up. Despite us being an ever more populated country with 4 million more cars forecast to flood onto the roads , we have no national plan to substantially increase capacity, take out bottlenecks or build new motorways. We had more vision on that in the 1940s/50s and 60s. National schlerosis is the only plan we have. There has been talk of putting what money we have into infrastructure development, both because it's needed and for the jobs it can create in the recession. Talk, but little sign of action. Time for something tangible
Elsewhere......
-Boris Island for new Heathrow. Airport in the sky. In UK timescales at least 30/40 years would be needed even if planning, enquiries, reviews, appeals went without a hitch to plan. Add to that slow building (8-5, 5 days a week if the same as T5)= high costs of plant hire and labour and the £50bn easily doubles. Another mind boggling cost would be the devastating effect on the West London economy and the M4 corridor which as far as Wales. Much of this areas success, especialy in attrcating new high-tech businesses is Heathrow related.
On the pros and cons arguments, we are beginning to see an HS 2 pattern of terminological inexactitudes (lies, distortions, misrepresentations to the less genteel) spoken. Much of the stuff about the comparative number of destinations served from London and the major European airports is spurious. Heathrow still serves most of the big business routes considerably better , more often and with more competing airlines than any of its competitors .Its home carrier, IAG's BA has the flexibility to reallocate its slots and do more although it is hamstrung at the moment by the lack of the A380( 2 years away) and 787 (3 years?). Don't forget that BA's focus on First and Business traffic over the past 12+ years has meant small Economy Class cabins and the deliberate offloading of much low yield but high volume leisure business and this has meant that Heathrow's overall passengers numbers have been less than they would have been.
- Saif-al-Islam. His arrest in Libya raises the question of whether he will be tried in the country or handed over to the ICJ at the Hague. If he has a Libyan trial, a guilty verdict looks highly likely and that would almost certainly end with a death sentence. Giving a potential threat a chance to eventually make a comeback is likely to be seen as unwise. There is only one way to remove that possibility for all time and there is no doubt that most Libyans would like that to happen .His chances look better with the ICJ where he would presumably argue that he successfuly mitigated the worst of his father's excesses, built the mutually advantageous bridges between the West and Libya and that everyone was much better off for his efforts. At the very least there would be no noose or bullet and prison life in the Netherlands would be a big improvement on its Libyan equivalent.
- Egypt. After the first peace, now the realities of the new power struggle. Extremists remain on the sidelines, knowing that to pick a fight with the military is unwise. They will let the independent young,- also their target,- do that and take the pain. Like military organisations around the world , their fingers itch for control and they have a fundamental dislike for real democracy and the loss of control over the right to literally call the military shots. Past portents are not good.
-UK. You thought that their voices had faded into the past. You are right,- they should have. Every now and then though the media chuck these ghosts of the past a few quid and give them a platform to regurgitate all the old muddled thinking nonsense. Yes,-we are talking about those masters of Euro-naivity, Messrs Hesseltine and Ashdown, masters of denial . They are again going on about on about how the UK should be in the Euro, how much better off it would be, and now amazingly how it wouldn't have the current level of national debt if it had been in it and subject to Eurocrat regulation. Hmm. Aren't Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the rest also well into the government overspending/debt trough and now facing austerity programmes at least as serious as ours,- but in most cases only implimented much later? Never mind, most people have stopped listening to them quite a while ago so they aren't likely to gain more of a hearing now. It's just an annoying repetitive drone.
That's it for now. Have a good afternoon and evening.
-£400 million boost to housing today. If you're going to do something, do it big. £400million doesn't look big.
-Meanwhile over in Europe it appears that Dave may have done a deal for the UK to duck out of the very restrictive working hours directive so that he can claim he has successfully repatriated some powers from Brusells in return for agreeing to support more centralisation (ie German/French)of power to dictate Eurozone members financial policies. This looks a poor deal in view of the relative long term significance of the 2 issues to both the UK and EU. Merkels has gained another step towards political as well as financial Eurozone and ultimately EU integration in exchange for a relatively minor face saving concession to the UK. Cameron does not look like a good or sufficiently tough negotiator. Add to that his lack of a driving political philosophy and vision and the feeling of lack of impetus becomes real and worrying.
- Our roads are clogging up as well as breaking up. Despite us being an ever more populated country with 4 million more cars forecast to flood onto the roads , we have no national plan to substantially increase capacity, take out bottlenecks or build new motorways. We had more vision on that in the 1940s/50s and 60s. National schlerosis is the only plan we have. There has been talk of putting what money we have into infrastructure development, both because it's needed and for the jobs it can create in the recession. Talk, but little sign of action. Time for something tangible
Elsewhere......
-Boris Island for new Heathrow. Airport in the sky. In UK timescales at least 30/40 years would be needed even if planning, enquiries, reviews, appeals went without a hitch to plan. Add to that slow building (8-5, 5 days a week if the same as T5)= high costs of plant hire and labour and the £50bn easily doubles. Another mind boggling cost would be the devastating effect on the West London economy and the M4 corridor which as far as Wales. Much of this areas success, especialy in attrcating new high-tech businesses is Heathrow related.
On the pros and cons arguments, we are beginning to see an HS 2 pattern of terminological inexactitudes (lies, distortions, misrepresentations to the less genteel) spoken. Much of the stuff about the comparative number of destinations served from London and the major European airports is spurious. Heathrow still serves most of the big business routes considerably better , more often and with more competing airlines than any of its competitors .Its home carrier, IAG's BA has the flexibility to reallocate its slots and do more although it is hamstrung at the moment by the lack of the A380( 2 years away) and 787 (3 years?). Don't forget that BA's focus on First and Business traffic over the past 12+ years has meant small Economy Class cabins and the deliberate offloading of much low yield but high volume leisure business and this has meant that Heathrow's overall passengers numbers have been less than they would have been.
- Saif-al-Islam. His arrest in Libya raises the question of whether he will be tried in the country or handed over to the ICJ at the Hague. If he has a Libyan trial, a guilty verdict looks highly likely and that would almost certainly end with a death sentence. Giving a potential threat a chance to eventually make a comeback is likely to be seen as unwise. There is only one way to remove that possibility for all time and there is no doubt that most Libyans would like that to happen .His chances look better with the ICJ where he would presumably argue that he successfuly mitigated the worst of his father's excesses, built the mutually advantageous bridges between the West and Libya and that everyone was much better off for his efforts. At the very least there would be no noose or bullet and prison life in the Netherlands would be a big improvement on its Libyan equivalent.
- Egypt. After the first peace, now the realities of the new power struggle. Extremists remain on the sidelines, knowing that to pick a fight with the military is unwise. They will let the independent young,- also their target,- do that and take the pain. Like military organisations around the world , their fingers itch for control and they have a fundamental dislike for real democracy and the loss of control over the right to literally call the military shots. Past portents are not good.
-UK. You thought that their voices had faded into the past. You are right,- they should have. Every now and then though the media chuck these ghosts of the past a few quid and give them a platform to regurgitate all the old muddled thinking nonsense. Yes,-we are talking about those masters of Euro-naivity, Messrs Hesseltine and Ashdown, masters of denial . They are again going on about on about how the UK should be in the Euro, how much better off it would be, and now amazingly how it wouldn't have the current level of national debt if it had been in it and subject to Eurocrat regulation. Hmm. Aren't Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the rest also well into the government overspending/debt trough and now facing austerity programmes at least as serious as ours,- but in most cases only implimented much later? Never mind, most people have stopped listening to them quite a while ago so they aren't likely to gain more of a hearing now. It's just an annoying repetitive drone.
That's it for now. Have a good afternoon and evening.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
The world rocks- so what does BBC morning news lead with?
The EEC and Euro under threat. Pirates continue to stalk the Indian Ocean. Obama's ratings improve, Asia what did this morning's BBC morning radio news lead with? Spot on,- you've (never) guessed it,-a proposal to ban all smoking in private cars.
Clearly there was a lapse of the imagination here. Maybe a heavy night last night? Could we suggest a quick formula to help duty news editors ? Just consider what a foreign visitor newly arrived in their hotel room and looking for clues about Britain and its engagement with the big, serious issues at home and abroad will think when they turn the telly or radio on and find that this is the biggest issue for Britons today. Will they be impressed or hold their heads in blank amazement? If the latter, find another headline.
Clearly there was a lapse of the imagination here. Maybe a heavy night last night? Could we suggest a quick formula to help duty news editors ? Just consider what a foreign visitor newly arrived in their hotel room and looking for clues about Britain and its engagement with the big, serious issues at home and abroad will think when they turn the telly or radio on and find that this is the biggest issue for Britons today. Will they be impressed or hold their heads in blank amazement? If the latter, find another headline.
Monday, 7 November 2011
St Pauls campers,- What would Giles say?
Looking out of their St Pauls windows at the happy band of campers below, the hapless theologians who run the place will have read the banners "What would Jesus say?" spread out below.
As these senior members of the church establishment have in over a week now have obtained no clarity from above in response to this question, despite the fact that Jesus was on occasion unfashionably blunt and to the point on behavioural matters, could we suggest that they switch to another source of possible inspiration and guidance, the brilliant cartoonist the late (Carl)Giles? His observations and commentary on life from World War 2 through to 1991 were stunning and his occasional cartoons of the clergy at work were some of the best.
Close your eyes and a drawing comes into the mind of a senior churchman standing in the doorway of the cathedral addressing a callow youth of indeterminate species . The reverend gentleman is saying slowly and clearly "Verily I say unto thee that if thou relievest thyself on my steps or carpets I shall truly smite thee"
Problem solved.
As these senior members of the church establishment have in over a week now have obtained no clarity from above in response to this question, despite the fact that Jesus was on occasion unfashionably blunt and to the point on behavioural matters, could we suggest that they switch to another source of possible inspiration and guidance, the brilliant cartoonist the late (Carl)Giles? His observations and commentary on life from World War 2 through to 1991 were stunning and his occasional cartoons of the clergy at work were some of the best.
Close your eyes and a drawing comes into the mind of a senior churchman standing in the doorway of the cathedral addressing a callow youth of indeterminate species . The reverend gentleman is saying slowly and clearly "Verily I say unto thee that if thou relievest thyself on my steps or carpets I shall truly smite thee"
Problem solved.
Saturday, 5 November 2011
Obama Flies home from his European Awayaday.
As Barak Obama and Mrs settled into 1 A and 1K on Air Force One last night, flicked through the inflight magazine AF One 4 U, chose the Burger, Double Fries and Coke light option instead of all that indigestible European stuff, recycled offal, snails,forcefed goose fat and the like, they will have slowly read through the entertainment guide looking for something more stimulating and intellectually demanding than the soap opera they had been watching for the past 36 hours. Something to ease them back into the real world.
They will have learned a lot on their trip and be shaking their heads at the makebelieve world of a would-be United States of Europe headed by at least 2 leaders, a short French bloke and a matronly German lady plus at least three rival Presidents, a Belgian nonentity, a strutting Portugese and another on a six month rotating work experience scheme, none speaking the same language and each representing vastly different states with totally different cultures, economics, societies and needs. There are states large and small. Some are sort of significant in an old fashioned way and some nobody's ever heard of,-especially in Iowa. Many have a long history of loathing and invading each other or at least passing through to invade someone else. They don't intend to drop the resultant feelings now. Bit of a dejeuner du chien really. In moments of boredom when the Europeans totally hijacked the gathering and its intended resolution of the world's problems to messily concentrate on their own, the Obamas will have fiddled with the EU auditorium audio system and found that it's very clever. It can translate any one of 27 languages, some spoken by almost nobody, into 27 others listened to or understood by almost nobody. Hours of endless fun when nothing much is happening except repeats of a Greek bloke promising to do something, then saying he won't and then he might.
The President will be bemused but glad that he's come away with at least one useful decision:"The Chinese are right,- don't touch loans to these people with a bargepole""
Ah, at last, the inflight entertainment programme has come up with something a bit more stretching. Here it is. "An Hour with Mr Bean".
Goodnight Europe.
They will have learned a lot on their trip and be shaking their heads at the makebelieve world of a would-be United States of Europe headed by at least 2 leaders, a short French bloke and a matronly German lady plus at least three rival Presidents, a Belgian nonentity, a strutting Portugese and another on a six month rotating work experience scheme, none speaking the same language and each representing vastly different states with totally different cultures, economics, societies and needs. There are states large and small. Some are sort of significant in an old fashioned way and some nobody's ever heard of,-especially in Iowa. Many have a long history of loathing and invading each other or at least passing through to invade someone else. They don't intend to drop the resultant feelings now. Bit of a dejeuner du chien really. In moments of boredom when the Europeans totally hijacked the gathering and its intended resolution of the world's problems to messily concentrate on their own, the Obamas will have fiddled with the EU auditorium audio system and found that it's very clever. It can translate any one of 27 languages, some spoken by almost nobody, into 27 others listened to or understood by almost nobody. Hours of endless fun when nothing much is happening except repeats of a Greek bloke promising to do something, then saying he won't and then he might.
The President will be bemused but glad that he's come away with at least one useful decision:"The Chinese are right,- don't touch loans to these people with a bargepole""
Ah, at last, the inflight entertainment programme has come up with something a bit more stretching. Here it is. "An Hour with Mr Bean".
Goodnight Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)