UK Financial Recovery and Election

Well the general election is this week, and its decision time about who to vote for....

As I have the right to vote I really strongly believe in using it. But I even more strongly cannot back any of the parties.

Rightly the economy is the biggest factor for the electorate at present. So where is that up to? My facebook friends will have seen my various tweets about this, that I ought to expand upon here.

I have my eyes and ears on one man for my economic advice. His name is David Blanchflower CBE who is a Professor of Economics. When I mention David below I mean Mr Blanchflower, not the tory leader. The reason I listen to him is he is the one voice that knew this recession was coming. He has a regular weekly column in New Statesman which I await each week with bated breath. He is also an economic adviser to the government, and sat on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee for a brief period, who he recently wrote have 'lost the plot'.

The recession and the UK economic recovery

So the UK is now out of the worst recession in decades by the skin of its teeth. A recession is commonly defined as a period of negative GDP growth for two consecutive quarters. GDP is the economic output of the country. Growth for the quarter just gone was provisionally 0.2%, and 0.4% the previous quarter. All the signs, such as consumer confidence, private business spending, money supply, the housing market and unemployment are all still unfavourable. For instance unemployment statistics show that the period each claimant is unemployed for is increasingly larger. Money supply to businesses and property buyers is still next to non-existent. The cheap 95% LTV (Ie 5% deposit) mortgage is consigned to the history books. A standard Buy-to-Let mortgage now requires a 40% deposit.

We are recovering from the recession, but this recovery is still at a clearly fragile stage. Any mistakes in economic policy today could end that recovery, and cause a double-dip recession. Avoiding a return to a recession should be of utmost priority. The only priority.

UK Government borrowing

Secondary to the above, but also important is the country's borrowing. UK borrowing is now approximately £167bn. This is a lot of money. An eye-watering amount. This will have to be brought under control and repaid. The Bank of England governor was recently quoted as saying in private that whoever has to make the cuts to repay it risk being out of power for a generation. Really tough cuts are coming and are unavoidable regardless who wins. Expect more stikes and large public unrest. The cuts needed have been summarised as equivalent to a 6p rise in income tax.

Any government has a tough balancing act between spending to prop up the economic growth and money supply, or making cuts to address the borrowing. As has been seen in Greece lately, unaffordable borrowing can be disastrous. If experts and investors feel a government cannot afford its level of borrowing, a country's official credit rating can be reduced. Greece was downgraded to junk status a couple of weeks ago.

So what if UK's rating is downgraded? We are currently enjoying the best possible credit rating. A downgrade would not be good. To consider the effects of a downgrade, my expert quotes yields on government bonds. UK bonds are currently trading about the same price as Italy. He notes that Italy's official credit rating is four 'notches' below ours. This he says is evidence that the bond markets have already priced a downgrading into their prices. So if a downgrade were to actually happen it would have a moderate effect on us. In summary, a return to recession should be a much larger concern than having our credit rating reduced by a notch or two.

The other effect of a country's finances being out of control is the sterling exchange rate. At the start of the storm about Greece a few months back, Sterling was still loosing ground against the Euro, which I saw as a very bad sign for Sterling. This again suggests that the level of our borrowing has already been priced into the markets, and a downgrade to our rating would not have a major effect. A weak sterling could even help stimulate demand for UK exports which become cheaper in real terms.

It is for these reasons David argues that securing growth is more important than repaying our debt at the present point in time.

Inflation and Deflation

The next issue is inflation. UK inflation has officially been 3% in February and 3.4% in March, well above the official target of 2%. However David believes these are a temporary blip due to energy prices, and the end to the 15% VAT holiday, and that inflation will drop back down to around zero very soon. The worst thing that could occur is know as deflation - negative inflation. This is bad because everyone will stop spending as officially goods will be cheaper in real terms if one delays spending. To try to avoid deflation UK interest rates are at a record low of 0.5%, and predictions say they will stay low for a while to come. Low interest rates help stimulate inflation, and vice-versa. Also a medium-term rise in inflation would not be a totally bad thing as it would make repaying the government borrowing easier, as the real cost of the debt would drop. As such, when inflation returns the government could allow it and increase their official target. I need to add that steady, and relatively low inflation is the ideal, and it was a real problem years back when it was 15%.

Again, securing growth will help raise inflation over the long term, and hopefully completely avoid deflation. Cuts too early will stifle demand, and consequently lower inflation.

So to summarise the above, the government borrowing is not an issue. Yes it will have to be paid for and reduced over the next five years. Yes we should have been saving money during the good times. But escaping the recession, getting the economy working properly again and protecting jobs should be the priority.

To summarise my summary, I support Labour's policy on handling the economic recovery. The tories plan of making cuts immediately with an emergency budget are very dangerous. Looking back through history, one will note that the great depression of the 1930's was caused by inappropriate government austerity measures during a fragile recovery. They caused a far worse recession.

Rise in National Insurance for businesses and employees, or rise in VAT

Labour are planning to raise £6bn by an increase in National Insurance. Tories have promised to scrap the increase. This money has to come from somewhere. Labour is already trying to raise billions by 'efficiency savings' and trying to find another £6bn is not realistic. This money will have to come from a rise in VAT instead. Or to put it another way if the money is not raised from businesses it will all be raised from you and I. On this subject I note many prominent economists (over 100) support the labour view, and many non-FTSE100 businesses (Ie no economic experts at all) support the tory policy.

Also at a time when government finances are this tight, I cannot see justification for such a huge increase in the inheritance tax threshold which Mr Cameron is proposing. Currently the limit is £325k and the tories want to triple this to £1,000k.

There can be absolutely no justification for such expensive tax cuts at the present time. Especially when arguing in the same breath for immediate and very serious spending cuts elsewhere based on the argument that it is a priority to pay back the borrowing today.

Other issues

Another issue for me is air travel. I'm not refering to the recent volcano in Iceland. Although this will possibly have an impact on our economy, I am refering to availability of flight slots. I am referring specifically to the extra runway at Heathrow, which Cameron opposes. We need more flights from more airports. International companies rely on them when choosing where to base their international offices, and when choosing where to host business meetings and conferences.

At present London is a very attractive proposal internationally, and we need to keep it that way! Please don't let all the environmentalists destroy this, on the basis of an unproven theory about climate change. No-one knows if it will happen, or what the effects of it would be with any certainty.

So three main reasons I can't vote tory:

1. Handling of the present economic recovery.
2. Scraping raise in National Insurance, and most likely having to raise VAT.
3. Anti air travel policy.

However, there are a few strong reasons I could not vote Labour. I did say I agreed with their handling of the present economic recovery, and I also have to agree Gordon Brown did keep inflation under control as chancellor. But as any reader of some of my previous posts will know, I strongly dislike Gordon Brown. He has the worst record for raising back-door taxation. He can also be blamed for poorly preparing our finances for the recession. All world leaders seem to hate him, damaging the standing of our country with other world powers.

So for all that I strongly believe as I have the right to vote that I should use it, I even more strongly believe that I cannot vote for anybody.

Chris

I wasn't racist, but I am now....

I consider myself to be a fair person, and am against discrimination of all sorts. My dictionary defines this as 'to single out for special favour or disfavour; to distinguish between'.

Our government has made great strides into promoting equal opportunities for all.

The problem is that some people or groups will take advantage of what they can gain from a situation. It is next to impossible to make a case that this is happening, and to change policy to stop it.

For example, if I receive poor service from a black employee of a company I feel reluctant to complain or make a fuss about this person for fear it will construed racist. I am not. I just expect to be able to contact a company providing services in the UK, be able to talk them in my normal language, and be understood and provided with a good standard of service. When a customer service employee is trying to sell me something I don't need, and is unable to speak good enough english to explain the difference to me of two products I, like most people, may get annoyed.

Consider the very public case in the London Metropolitan Police Service where a senior commander Mr Ghaffur made allegations against Sir Ian Blair that he was passed over for promotion because of his ethnicity. It was obvious why he was not promoted from the way he conducted himself in public. Another example, I went into my local Spar and asked the muslim cashier if they had bacon because I could not find it. He took offence!

This sets a precedent. Foreign people with poor english, or that are not suitable for a job are promoted for two reasons. One so the interviewer is not accused of racism, and two so a company can brag about being an equal opportunity employer.

Why am I not able to ask a company to speak to an english representative? Our public services go to great expense translating all their information packs to every language. Why are foreigners allowed to request that they are seen by helpers of a similar religion or origin, but I am racist for asking to speak to someone who properly speaks the language of my home country at home?

You try doing this - and you will be the one on the end of the discrimination! This is so ridiculous and is enough to turn anyone racist and make you feel like discriminating against foreigners in the future! It is intolerable to be forced to accept substandard service in my own country in the name of racial equality!

These people have chosen to live in our country, there should be an implicit expectation on them to work to fit in, and to make an extra effort to get on with the 'locals'. To be honest I believe most do. The ones that make no effort and expect us to accommodate them DO need someone to complain about them. Not for their skin colour but for being unable to do their job.

BTW: I have some good friends from various ethnic backgrounds, and am more than happy to accept services from anyone that can do their job to the standard I expect.

Chris

There is a reason pubs serve alcohol...

I have been considering a post about this subject for some time, and have been prompted to write it today as Scotland have now announced plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol to outlaw 2-4-1 drinks promotions.

Over the last year or so I have seen politicians, scientists and doctors voicing various opinions about the extent of alcohol related crime and health problems. The majority of comments have singled out supermarkets and pubs that sell alcohol on promotion. Recently a club in Newport was criticised for selling unlimited drinks to customers - even though the event was run responsibly and there was no trouble on the night.

I have attended events similar to this in Manchester before. The detail is that you are given a wristband and a ticket when you go in. Swap the ticket for your first drink. Once empty return to the bar to swap it for a full one. Each time your wristband is ticked. The barmen know how much you have drunk from your band, and are able to refuse to replace your empty once you are too drunk or if you are consuming too many.

To start, it is my opinion that pricing of drink has no bearing on the amount of consumption. To refer to the principle of elasticity of demand, people will always want nights out with friends socialising and drinking. They will do this regardless the cost. Most people who drink would just pay the extra if the price went up. Note the treasury presently levy a high tax on alcohol - whenever they raise this tax, customers continue to buy the same quantity of alcohol and just stump up the extra few pounds. Historically raising the price of alcohol via taxation to reduce drinking has had minimal effect.

If on the other hand, someone is struggling financially, they may look to cut the amount they spend on alcohol. I deliberately worded that sentence to say that they do not cut the amount of alcohol they consume! When times are stressful an evening drunk becomes more important to someone. Occasionally being drunk has many positive benefits - such as helping you escape your worries, relax, socialise and enjoy yourself!

Remember the old christmas booze cruise to France? This is no longer necessary because supermarkets have cut their prices. Were laws brought in to raise the price it would only inconvenience people as they would just buy it from somewhere cheaper. I have had some reports that beer should be priced around £10 a pint. This would definitely effect demand!

So, similar to my last post, lets look at the bigger picture. The real question is do we want:

1. everyone to have fun a few times a month out with friends in the pub? or
2. people to be stressed financially from going out once a month, and importing large amounts of alcohol and staying at home drinking? or
3. Let's even assume the politicians are successful and no-one ever drinks anymore?

Could you imagine how much fun a pub would be if everyone was sober? We have all been the sober one in a group of friends who are drinking! People would spend less time in face to face contact with friends and communicate using other means such as the internet or telephone.

Taking this question one step further .... do we want a nation of hermits with no social skills? I refer you to recent statements that lack of face to face social contact with other humans is bad for someone's health, and impedes proper development. See Online networking 'harms health' and 'Mental risk' of Facebook teens .

My argument is that there is a very good reason why pubs serve alcohol! Pubs were invented as a place people could go to socialise. The benefit of alcohol is that it is a social lubricant. Once people are drunk they have reduced inhibitions and are less worried about approaching new people, or saying something that may make them look stupid. Without alcohol in everyone's life people would most likely have less casual friends, and share less experiences with other humans. I argue that a world without alcohol would be a worse place to be!

On the subject of anti social behaviour there are always going to be some idiots who cause issues (when they are drunk or sober) - lets deal with this minority and not let them spoil things for the properly behaved majority. People do need to be allowed to take responsibility for their alcohol consumption and behaviour, such as was allowed when later bar licensing was introduced.

Finally I think Tony Blair has done a lot to prepare pubs for the future. Introducing flexible later licensing and making pubs a smoke free environment were bold policies and I personally enjoy the benefits of both. Things are changing rapidly in the industry anyway. Due to the global recession, like everyone these businesses are facing a hard time. For the consumer price competition is good. Don't go stopping this at such a difficult time.

I will be off out for a drink because these proposals are not for England where I live !!

Chris

Update: Will be quicker getting that celebratory drink next time.  Not had it yet and now another headline Governments top medical advisor has drawn up some daft plans -Cries-

More 'World is flat' moments.

Anyone who has read any of my previous posts will be aware that I do not believe in all the hype about human emissions causing global warning, or that there is anything we can do to prevent a 'climate' from changing, as it will by definition.

I have also had a rant in the past about bio fuels - the government's hot potato for a couple of months.  What no-one considered was that forests would be destroyed in order to farm crop for bio fuel as they earned the land owner more money.  People are starving becuase the price of food has soared - farmers are selling grain for fuel and making more money than selling it to feed people.  The net result is that bio fuel farming is causing more damage to the environment when the bigger picture is considered.  

This is the purpose of this post - people are making conclusions within their own scientific fields, politicians are believing them and throwing money at the causes these scientists have created - the net result being these scientists are kept in work.

Some 'experts' have decided they can predict the world's weather in a timescale of 100-500 years.  Should we believe them when they cannot predict the weather over the next 24 hours with any reliability?  I don't.

Where I am heading with this is that current knowledge cannot predict or understand today's weather patterns.  This is why extra hypothesis are being tabled blaming things like carbon dioxide (hypothesis = unproved).  When making the bio-fuel argument, no-one thought of the bigger picture about the possible consequences.

So how would I explain our inability to understand the earth's weather systems?

Please think back 100 years.  There was no electricity.  There was no television.  No telephones.  No microwave cookers.  Our world is an order of magnitude different because of scientific inventions and discoveries that they did not have.

So why does no scientist, politician or journalist ever think that in another 100 years man will be looking back on today in disbelief about what the world was like without all the then current technology?  Hence the title of my post - I will guarantee we are gonna have more 'World is flat' moments.  Things we look back on and laugh about once we have more understanding.

My final point is about attempts to understand the working of an animal's brain.  Nothing we know about chemistry or electronics can explain or come close to emulating the processing and storage power of our brains.  Things we remember are stored somehow in our brains.  It must therefore be possible to remove the brain from a dead person and read some of this information.  But if someone asked you to do it where would you start?

As I have shown about predicting weather, and our knowledge of the workings of an animals brain there are plenty more forces at play in our universe that we have yet to discover.  Maybe someone should suggest these as an explaination to some of the political hot potatos!!

Chris

Manchester says no to the con charge.

Enter Davina McCall:

The votes have been counted, verified and indepedently checked and I can reveal the next person to leave is.....

(Stupidly long pause)

The congestion charge!

To explain the formal process... the way the voting worked is that Manchester was split into 10 districts.  The result for each district was announced.  For the TIF proposal to carry, 7 of the 10 districts had to return a yes vote.  A yes vote would mean the proposal would be sent to the government for their consideration.  As was made clear at the Labour conference, even if it was submitted there was no guarantee it would actually happen.

EVERY SINGLE district returned a No.  And not just any no, but by a massive majority of approximately 20% for and 80% against in every district.

This referendum was being watched the world over as it is the first time this kind of proposal had been put to a public vote in the world.  A few reporters even dared declare the concept of congestion charging dead in the water.

So what are the implications?

1) Businesses can continue to locate themselves in central manchester and be able to attract the best talent.  With the charge these people would have moved offices, or got jobs away from the city centre.  I think it makes the city centre far more attractive.

2) Our leaders will have to look somewhere else to pay for the maintenance of our transport system, a large amount of which is essential and must be completed.  How they can charge such high fares for our trains and trams and not be self financing is beyond me?

3) My favourite politician - Gordon Brown - now has a bloody nose.  Westminster now know that they cannot blackmail local authorities into congestion charging in return for essential public transport funding.

4) As for congestion, the charge was only designed to change the time people travelled, not to reduce traffic in the city centre - as such pollution would not have changed if the charge was introduced, and will not change now it has been axed.

I will be raising a glass to our councillors for giving us the chance to have our say!  And Gordon no trying anything devious to sneak this in through a back door like you usually do - just give us the cash for our transport!

Chris

Europe - the Irish have saved the day!

Today the results of a referendum on the EU 'treaty' in Ireland have been announced. The 'treaty' must be ratified by all 27 member states to succeed. In 2005 the French and Dutch voted the 'constitution' down. It has since been reformated and called a treaty. Every review body (including the government's own) who has studied the treaty has concluded it is the same as the constitution, but renamed and reformated to be un-intelligible. The 'constitution' would have thrown away the existing European constitution and replaced it with a brand new constitution. The 'treaty' achieves the same end by taking the existing constitution and amending any lines that are different between the old and new constitution. All governments have tried to force it through without a vote, except for the Irish.

There was a very high turnout and the result was a very strong 'No'. Respect to the Irish!!

One: to the government for fulfulling their promise to hold a referendum before handing over control of the country to Brussels.

And two: for the electrorate "not following the wishes of their leaders" as the Financial Times put it.

Maybe I misunderstand the world, but I always thought in a democracy the leaders ask the electorate and follow their collective instruction. If the leaders issue orders and force the population to follow them regardless of their opinion I would call it a dictatorship.

Can someone please explain this to Gordon Brown, or his successor who takes over in a couple of months!

Labour were elected on the basis of a referendum. Apparently 80% of the population wants a referendum, but we are not given one because the government expects it is unlikely to win. That is a very seriously worrying reason for refusing a vote in a democratic country.

To make my position clear on Europe I do not believe a one-size-fits-all European government would benefit our country. We are one of the most technologically advanced nations in Europe which requires a very different way of government to a developing country like most of the rest of Europe. Financially we are already getting a bad deal from Europe. (See my blog post from November 2007 for more)

At past summits the demands of our country have been badly received by a lot of our peers. Our demands have appeared as a nuisance and not been given proper consideration.

I was reading the sport supplement of the Times a couple of weeks ago. There was an article about Britain's bid to host the 2018 football world cup. A senior international figure Jack Warner is quoted as saying "Nobody in Europe likes England.", "For Europe, England is an irritant"

Then take a look at the results from the 2008 Eurovision song contest where voting was clearly political and nothing to do with the actual songs and we received zero votes.

These may be about football and the Eurovision, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss the comments completely.

I am seriously concerned that without a veto we will get a seriously bad deal by joining Europe. We will also loose our seat on the UN Security Council. If we cannot get a majority vote in the proposed new Europe we will have absolutely no say in domestic or international matters any more. The red lines we apparently had put in to safeguard our national interests can legally be overruled at a later date on the whim of Brussels due to a 'ratchet clause'. Additionally our government who we elected will be stripped of all powers to govern our country. Instead we will be at the mercy of European MPs over whom we have no electoral power.

I will be raising a glass in thanks to the Irish for halting the devious and underhand attempts of European leaders to force the abandoned constitution through the back door! That's shut too now guys!

Chris

Global warming???? Yes please!

It is the first week in April and the UK is experiencing sub-zero temperatures and snow. Over the last 12 months we have had more serious floods than I can remember in the last 30 years.

I have worked out why. Because everyone is driving round in puny 'green' modern cars that have low carbon emissions. Everyone has got to do their bit to prevent global warming! Jeremy Clarkson sums the problem up well in his latest video 'Super car showdown' where he races the environmentally friendly G-whiz against a table. And the table wins :)!! He concludes the reason the weather in the UK is so bad is because people are buying these unsafe and slow vehicles.

I don't buy this latest political crap about preventing carbon emissions for 3 reasons:

1. Every living creature on the planet turns Oxygen into Carbon Dioxide. I am waiting for a rationing system where we are all told which day(s) of the week we are permitted to breathe! Soon it will be politically incorrect to have children because they breathe and the whole human race will die anyway!

2. All the hippies are wanting us to stop using oil and switch to biofuels. I have just read an interesting article in Time about how much DAMAGE biofuel farming causes to the climate.
Have you noticed how food prices have risen lately? This is because farmers can make more money selling crop for biofuel production than food. This in turns means more people will die of hunger. "The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year". The Amazon is being cleared to make way for growing grain for biofuels. These forests would have removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There was a flaw in the science reports about how green biofuels were - "It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots". It is actually now believed it is greener to leave the forests and burn oil rather than biofuel.

3. Looking back through history at recent climate change reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but unexpectedly dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically.

I think all these climate change advocates should learn about the 'Muller' principle! So much pleasure where is the pain? All the inventions in the last few years that will save the world turn out to cause more problems when you look into their complete lifecycle. For example how much energy is needed to make these low energy bulbs that contain a significant amount of poisonous mercury?

The climate will change anyway and there is nothing we can do to control nature. Leave me alone to light my flat and drive my car! I had a good drive this weekend so if the weather warms up and we have lots of sun - please blame me.

Chris

Update: One more point - the UK is a very small country. Our contribution to world carbon levels is negligible at present. Even if our country emitted no carbon at all this would have no effect on the global carbon levels.

MP pay and expenses

This post has been inspired by the latest newspaper reports that MPs are demanding their salary increase from £61k to £100k instead of generous expense allowances which are currently in the spotlight. Part of this increase is justified by them because they will loose £15k of that increase in tax.

I'm not saying the job of an MP is an easy one - regular travel between their constituency and parliament is a long journey for some MPs. However when you look at the qualifications, experience and knowledge required to be an MP I feel they are presently overpaid. The sole skillset of the job is being able to speak in parliament to represent the views of their constituents in parliament. This is supposedly how a democracy works. If I have an opinion I tell my MP. If a large number of people have the same opinion that is the opinion my MP must speak for in London.

In practice this does not actually happen. I am strongly against our country being governed by Brussels. Most of the population have spoken to demand the referendum on the European treaty. Our government and MPs have failed to respect the wishes of the population. The votes in parliament on this issue were a farce - with the lib dems asking for a different referendum and then ensuring that the vote for a referendum was lost. I feel let down by the whole system.

There are so many really daft laws passed by parliament. I use the law about using a mobile phone while driving as an example.

Using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is now illegal. If I am driving 100% safely what is the problem? Let's break this down. It is OK to talk to passengers. So the concentrating on a conversation not driving argument is false. It is OK to smoke. So the one hand on the wheel argument is false. I know what I would rather drop in an emergency out of a cigarette or a phone! It is OK to take your eyes off the road to dial and text if the phone is in a holder, so the dialing or typing on keypad argument is false. What really takes the mick is that if you are stationary at lights or in a traffic jam it is illegal to hold your phone, maybe to check for a missed call or send a quick text. If a vehicle is stationary that is the most safe state it could possible be in.

Were all our highly paid and extremely important MPs asleep the day this law was scrutinised?

Anyway now Brussels has control of our statute books, we can lay off our 646 MPs as soon they will be left without any power over our country. And then the money can go to more deserving causes like medical staff and police pay.

Chris

Update: The other thing I meant to say about the daft mobile phone law is the unintended consequences. 1: If I need to use my phone when driving I will now hold it on my lap and have to take my eyes off the road. As things were I always held the phone up high so it was easier to look at the phone and watch the road. 2: If I am driving and witness an accident or a crime there is no way I will go to the trouble of reporting it. The reason is because I could predict if I did I would be prosecuted for using the phone regardless that making that call could save someone's life or catch a criminal.

Privacy vs Safety on the Internet

I am sick of reading about all the different organisations complaining about our lack of privacy in the 21st century. Apparently our human right to a private life is being eroded.

And why? Because the authorities want organisations to keep a log of what each computer does on their Internet sites or services.

I wish to draw an analogy to the real world. Every day you walk along the streets. You pass other people, some on foot, some in cars and some in offices or shops. They have eyes and a memory. They can easily see what you look like. They might remember what you look like, where you were and at what time. Is this an assault to your privacy? Is this infringing your human rights? No.

In Britain's cities there are more and more video cameras being installed. I love this. If I were robbed or assaulted there would be indisputable video evidence that could be used to bring the offender to justice. I cannot understand why anyone has a problem with video cameras unless they are up to no good?

If I were to walk down the street wearing a padded jacket and a balaclava so my face and body shape were disguised what would the reaction be? I would have 5 police officers pointing a gun at my head. Do you think the argument you were entitled to privacy would cut any mustard?

Assuming I was dressed normally, and I snatch an old lady's handbag she would shout and people would look round. They would witness the event and the police would have descriptions from numerous people as to who attacked the old lady and how.

Returning to the subject of the Internet there are no witnesses, and no faces to recognise. When I visit a website I have no idea who else is on the site at the same time. The owner of the website has no information about people who visit the site. In terms of privacy this is far more private than even the scenrio with the balaclava. This is a criminal's dream come true.

Say this old lady who had her handbag stolen went to report the crime and the police refused to record details of the offender because it infringed his right to a private life. Can you imagine the public outcry?

Now that I have won that argument, let us ramp up security on the Internet. When I send and receive information on the Internet, the only way I can be identified is by the unique number my computer uses to enable replies to be received from other computers. This is my IP address. Technically with my IP address, date and time this can be traced to my internet line - usually a telephone number and address. In practice this is nearly impossible. Even if this is accomplished there is no way to prove who was using the computer. There is no physical description of the person. By the time the address is located the computer could be removed or destroyed.

My point is I want more logging of activities on the Internet. I want more technology to link Internet activities to a real person. Without it cyber-crime will continue to soar. I don't see how having all my activities on the Internet logged is an issue - so long as I am not doing anything illegal.

The worst aspect of all this logging is that the logs are sometimes used to directly target marketing to certain demographics. If the logs record you accessing BBC News online this could be of interest to a Financial Times salesman. The salesman would be happy to pay good money for this information.

To the people who have a concern about this:
1. We are permanently bombarded with advertising every day of our lives. It doesn't stop us watching television for example. We are all capable of simply ignoring it.
2. We get so many valuable services on the Internet for free. If users of the service do not pay at point of use the providers need to obtain an income to support the service somewhere. As the consumer has come to expect so much for nothing on the Internet this is a situation of our own making - and to be honest - I would rather read an advert than part with hard-earned cash!

To conclude - we need to markedly increase security on the Internet for the protection of the community. I don't believe it is any less private than walking down the street. If I am abiding by the law I don't see what the problem is with my activities being recorded.

Chris

Reforming Europe

Mr Brown is still resisting calls for a referendum on the latest EU Constitution - oops I meant minor reform treaty!

I really thought when he came to power he was refusing so he could eventually make a U-turn and call the referundum telling everyone he had listened to them and subsequently improving his popularity. We were promised a referendum, and his case against one is extremely thin. I can't see any harm by calling one. And by the electorate saying no.

I feel a couple of everyday analogies will best illustrate my opinion about the governance of the EU.

First I will use Object Oriented Programming. The programmer is given a complete set of standard libraries to perform operations such as creating windows and making them function. Say for example in one application you need to change the appearance of your window by putting the popup menu on the bottom instead of the top. You can then write your own routines for displaying the popup menu. There are now two procedures for the same operation - the one that came with the computer by Microsoft and the custom one you wrote for your own application. It is my application and I am responsible for writing it so my own version will override the Microsoft one. But the parts of the default Window library that I am happy with and have not overridden will still apply. I only have to re-write the parts I wish to customise.

As a second example I refer to the structure of any company. The top boss and the board of directors will determine general company policy - for example the normal working day is 9AM to 5PM. However the IT department may have 24 hour operators so the standard working day for this team is different from the rest of the company. There is a specific policy for one department because the standard policy would not be suitable. That department manager has authority to deviate from the company standard when appropriate, and I don't know of many CEOs that would object to this scenario.

What our government is going to do within Europe is the opposite of the above. I approve of the single market so our companies can easily trade with customers in Europe. The argument for Europe having a single larger voice in international affairs is great. Having a united front is fine if it is united. Unfortunately discussions at every European summit come across as anything but united. What benefit to us is a larger voice if it doesn't say what our electorate thinks it should? But common sense has gone out the window in allowing Brussels the last say on British policies and laws.

What I strongly disagree with is our country being governed in the same way as all the other countries in Europe. The UK is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. The majority of members in Europe are developing countries. France is a socialist state. Governing a third world country or a socialist country is very different to governing an advanced capitalist country. One size fits all never works. Did we not learn anything from the collapse of the ERM in 1992? I also note even with Maggie's rebate that financially we gain nothing as we are one of the main net contributors to EU finances. It is daft that 40% of the EU money is wasted subsidising French farmers.

Lastly the government in Brussels is not elected by or accountable to the UK electorate in any way. They know very little about the operation of our country. Some European figureheads have even specifically been rejected (Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, William Hague). The UK government that is elected and that understands the operation of the UK will become completely powerless. This is dangerous.

At present we have plenty of EU laws imposed on us. I question the benefit of many of these. After this treaty things will be much worse.

As this current treaty stands we would be better staying away and forming similar agreements with the Europe that is created as benefits us. I would rather be a United State of America with whom we have far more in common. There have been too many times over the last few years where Tony Blair has taken a different stance internationally to Europe and I have agreed with him on most of them.

I have written to my MP for an explanation exactly what the benefits are of being in Europe and adding my voice to the calling for the referendum. Will post here when/if I get a comprehensive reply.

Chris

UK economic problems.

In the last week there has been a severe failure by our government and regulatory bodies to calm jitters in the UK economy.

I saw the treasury select committee MPs grilling the head of the Bank of England, but can't help but feel they missed the point.

Northern Rock is in serious difficulty. Their balance sheet is comprised mostly of mortgage lending with a small proportion of deposits. Because of the fallout from the recent US sub-prime mortgage lending crisis the cost of inter-bank lending (which NR was more reliant on than was prudent) has risen sharply, with banks much more reluctant to lend one-another money for fear that the securities offered for the loan may be overvalued.

The select committee seemed to focus entirely on the Northern Rock situation which I see as the symptom, not the actual problem.

Northern Rock had been looking for a solution for its problems for about a month before the issues bit. The problems were directly caused by fallout from the economic problems in US. These pleas had fallen on deaf ears and the problems left to grow.

In my opinion this is what went wrong:

1) The Bank of England took an extremely hard line. They were aware of the situation with the interbank lending. Banks were keeping all their cash in case they hit problems in the near future. The Federal Reserve in America noticed a similar problem and they took action. They injected cash into the system promptly, offered banks a reduced borrowing rate and have since dropped the main interest rate by two 'notches'. Our bank sat there and did nothing. Had they improved access to short term funds I feel none of the current problems with Northern Rock and the banking sector in general would have happened.

2) Northern Rock asked the Bank for a 'lender of last resort' loan. This request was immediately made public. Mr King informed the Treasury Committee he would have rather used 'covert' lending so the bank could sort its problems without causing the large public panic causing queues of savers withdrawing their savings. Covert lending was made illegal by the EU Market Abuse Directive. I wait for the day I hear of an EU directive that is in our best interests.

3) Approximately a week before the crunch hit, Lloyds TSB wanted to buy Northern Rock. From what I have read they pulled out becuase the Bank of England refused to extend the terms of loans to Northern Rock to a buyer.

Today it looks like the Rock is struggling to find a buyer at any price! It is looking increasing likely the government will have to support it over the longer term.

Fortunately last week the B of E woke up and intervened by guaranteeing no depositors of NR would lose any savings and to offer £10 billion funds to lubricate the markets. Such a U-turn was well overdue. The Bank of England definitely neglected one of their core duties to ensure market stability. The MP committee forgot to ask them why.

Chris

Politics of a terror flop.

No doubt you will be aware of the big news from last week. I don't mean the launch of the Apple iPhone (Had to mention that on here somehow!). I am refering to the car bombs that didn't go off in London and the Jeep that was driven into an entrance at Glasgow airport.

Obviously had these been properly undertaken they could have caused serious injuries and would not be a joking matter. As it is the only injury was to one of the perpetrators.

Patient: "Doctor, doctor it feels like my ar*e is on fire"
Iraqi Doctor: "Shut up and drive the Jeep."

My writing on this subject has been inspired by this two-page article in The Register by an ex-police army bomb disposal officer 2001-2004 (Honestly. The Register is reputable). He analyses how incompetent and insignificant these incidents actually were. His article concludes if this is the worst that Al-Quaeda can do we are winning the war on terror.

As part of the following precautions to protect the public Liverpool's John Lennon airport was closed due to discovery of a suspicious vehicle. Let me guess - it was taxed, insured and still had the radio in the dashboard!

Next it is announced that our wonderful new Prime Minister declares he will be spending his summer holidaying in the UK. And his reason is because any traitorous English people trying to holiday in a foreign country will be seriously inconvenienced by security arrangements at UK airports. He even says in the article that 'I'll make sure it's difficult for people'! As chancellor he did his best with all the supposed 'green taxes' on airlines. Now he has even more powers.......

You really think by now airport operators would have upscaled security facilities - alas no - travellers have to get to the airports even earlier and have more time to kill in on-site shops. After all, passenger convenience has no commercial benefit to them.

So my friend Gordon Brown, who I have already criticised very heavily on here a few times took up the office of prime minister on 27th June. Three days later on 1st July the 'threat level' to the UK was upgraded from severe to the highest possible level of critical. Are we sure the factors determining the increase in threat to the UK are just the bungled bomb attempts that couldn't have detonated under any circumstances? I reckon MI5 did it to warn us about Gordon Brown!

I can't believe this man can stand up in the commons and make a speech about restoring british trust in politicians. He was the worst for deceiving the public during his 10+ years as chancellor. I mean he described his last budget as 'a tax cutting budget'. How stupid does he think we are? He cut the basic (middle) rate of tax, but at the same time abolished the 10p rate (lowest) that helped the lowest paid. What's more most of the increases he made took effect immediately yet the cuts did not take effect until 2008 or 2009. If this isn't bare faced deceit, what is? All the experts that analysed everything concluded eventually it will be a neutral budget.

Since taking power lets have a look at what has changed?

1. A whole cabinet of newbies, doing away with the vast experience of the ministers that were in the posts and replacing them with completely inexperienced alternatives.

2. Every promise from his cabinet has been to 'try' and achieve a target, or to do his 'utmost'. How's that for a non-commitment? At least when they fail they can't be accused of failing to keep a promise.

I'm sorry but we voted Tony into office, for his policies etc. Now he has gone what gives Gordon any right or mandate to roll through any changes and reforms?

Chris

Controlling climate change

Everyone is making impending climate change something big that we must all worry about, and must change our lives to prevent global warming. The argument to my understanding is that should the climate of our planet warm, more of the arctic ice sheets will melt causing sea level to rise. This will submerge some coastal land and also disrupt marine life.

It is the latest political band wagon that everyone is jumping on. The politicians love it because they can raise taxes, make more money for the treasury and still score a positive image with most voters - except me!

Can we just use what is described as 'the helicopter trait' and take a look at the slightly bigger picture here?

1. Every single definition of a climate, or discussion of different climates ALWAYS states that a climate is always changing. It is one of the most certain things in nature.

2. Nature is phenomenally powerful. I learnt this when canoeing on moving water. My strength was nothing compared to that of water. The art of canoeing is about embracing the power of the water, not trying to fight it. Nothing we humans try can prevent or control nature. Think of a lava flow from a volcano. No one has ever managed to stop it in its natural flow.

3. How can Carbon Dioxide be the problem? The planet could not survive without Carbon Dioxide. All plants and trees need it to photo-synthesize (live). Every human being breaths in Oxygen and breaths out Carbon Dioxide as part of our respiratory process.

A recent Time magazine had a list of things we could do to save the planet. One was to turn vegetarian. Apparently there is a regular rise in meat farming meaning more cattle emitting methane. If we stopped eating meat there would be less cattle and less methane 'damaging' the environment. This is when you know things have gone way too far.

I have already commented on the green tax on airlines elsewhere - who is going to bat an eyelid at an extra £5 on a £400 holiday? People like holidays and should not be discouraged from enjoying free time somewhere nice with their friends and familys. The climate will change regardless of our Carbon Dioxide emissions. Some statistics I have seen state Carbon Dioxide increases lag climate changes by about 800 years. How can it be blamed?

The recent IPCC report was not endorsed by all the scientists who participated in it, and a large part of the contributions to it were not by scientists but politicians and other 'interested' parties.

To the people who really want to save the planet I suggest they only breath one day a week so they emit less Carbon Dioxide :) - only joking cos you might die if you try it.

Chris

Update: Check this out on the Channel 4 website for more details of the arguments.

Creating a two-tier society.

I have previously posted articles about road congestion and Gordon Brown's attitude to taxing everything. The main example of the latter is the new 'green tax' charged to all air travellers. This post is a follow-up on both and also the latest ideas about road charging.

Why does the treasury think the way to reduce congestion and tackle climate change is by charging people to do what they need to do. This will have a small effect on both but in the wrong manner.

There will be the less well off, students and pensioners that change their habits and bear the huge inconvenience of using the poor quality alternatives like buses and trains in order to save a few pounds each month. There will be the other group that can afford to pay the extra charges without any problem.

All these taxes do is create a two-tier society. The poor people are the ones who are effected as they can't afford the extra few pounds.

Is this actually what the government wants to achieve?

Someone posted this to another forum, and I felt it worth stealing! "Say there are 33 million vehicles on the road. If they do an average 7500 miles per annum each and we are charged 1p per mile the treasury will reap 2.5 billion pounds. The annual mileage quoted is minimal,as is 1p per mile. At 10p per mile and say 22500 miles per annum the take would be 75 BILLION PNDS per annum for "Greedy Gordon" - it's irresistable." Credits to Edward Corbett, Bridgend.

Incidently if you wish to add your name to a petition against road charging on the Downing Street website, follow this link: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/. There are already over 1 million signatures.

Chris

Gordon Brown part 2

Someone please fire this prat now.

Education is his number one focus for the future of the country. Why has he just introduced policies to charge students for their own higher education??

This is a great new 'Green tax' on any airline ticket, regardless of whether the plane churns out loads of harmful gases or are run on pedal power. And his justification for the tax? So he can re-invest the money in public transport. Errrr are aeroplanes not public transport??

Another one of his goals is to make everyone richer. He ain't got a good track record on this one. According to a new report from the Office of National Statistics, the cost of living is at an all-time high.

Chris

Gordon Brown.

Tony Blair is due to resign soon. This means the country has to have a new Prime Minister. I am really worried that will be Mr Brown.

At the next General Election, who my local politician is and how good or bad a track record they have is pretty irrelevant. We are voting for who gets to live in No 10 and run the country.

To state my stance on this politically, I used to support the Conservatives. However there was no way I would elect William Hague or Michael Howard to office. I have voted Labour a couple of times and must say I have been relatively impressed with Tony Blair.

Internationally he is someone I am almost proud to have representing the country. He has a personality and charisma about him. He has built a lot of bridges and has been the face of reason. How he managed not to enter a slanging match when the French wanted to abolish our European rebate is a mircale. While he does not yet carry much weight in America I agree with his policy of supporting the Americans over the EU.

On the subject of the EU I shudder at half the legislation we get pushed upon us by being within the EU. For example some criminals who are proved guilty beyond any doubt but get released due to a lack of common sense being applied in courts in respect of EU laws etc. We are one of the most advanced and developed countries in the EU. Most of the countries in the EU are governed so differently to us (Ie Socialism vs Capitalism) I believe being in the EU is damaging us and we should consider pulling out of membership completely. We seem to benefit little from it financially or otherwise, and I see no reason why we couldn't form a free trade agreement with Europe should we withdraw from it. Our MPs should debate all legislation and implement only that which is in our best interests.

Back at home, the guy brought in all hours drinking. I've raised a few glasses to that one. He has also fought for equality for all which I support. I recall the Conservatives opposed both of these.

So what has he failed on?

Pensions? This is because a certain chancellor started taxing pension funds. Wonder why there is no money left in them?

Council Tax? Rises have been well above inflation yet services have remained pretty static.

Railways? Ticket prices are ridiculous and the service is not improving to meet demand.

NHS? Most trusts are in debt and cuts are being made.

Admitted to date inflation has been low, but all the above are to do with failings to finance and manage departments financially. Isn't the Chancellor of the Exchequer to blame for that? Thanks Gordon.

Do we really want this guy to screw up everything else? I think he is a has-been. Everytime he speaks in public he comes across as Moses - this is my decision, it's set in stone and all shall follow. He admits openly he will do things differently to Tony. God help us if he gets the job of Prime Minister.

Tony - will you stay in office for a couple more years?? Please? Failing that I will think seriously about Mr Cameron.

Chris

Delaying gridlock on our road networks.

The government seems to think the latest answer to the problem is to force people to stop using cars.

In my opinion there are 4 ways we can delay the on-set of this gridlock:

1. Build more roads.
2. Build more lanes on existing roads.
3. Increase throughput on existing road-space.
4. Invent a new mode of transport (a Tardis or Disposable Private Space Ships).

Building more roads and/or widening existing roads is expensive and will take time. It is important and needs to be part of a strategic plan.

I wish to discuss throughput on existing road space, because this is where government policy has gone wrong.

I understand the government focused on reducing harmful emissions, and improving road safety which is measured by number of casualties.So for reasons of safety, they lowered some speed limits and increased enforcement in all areas (a current government initiative).

For arguments sake, let's change the law so no car can legally travel over 40mph at any time of day? Brilliant. We now have complete gridlock. So gridlock means less car miles, which means less emissions, cos everyone is parked on the M6 with the engine off and the radio on. Gridlock also means pedestrians, rabbits and foxes can stroll across the M6 in complete safety. Everyone's happy at Greenpeace.

These policies ARE significantly decreasing throughput on the roads and increasing congestion. If traffic is permitted to travel at twice the speed down a stretch of road, this will enable far more cars to pass along that stretch. This won't be exactly twice as many because on a full road the extra stopping distance for each car would become a factor.

Additionally, a car's emissions are at their worst when accelerating. When at a steady speed, 40 or 80 emissions are similar. Except if I'm doing 80 I'm covering twice the distance for the same emissions. Speed cameras and speed bumps are being built everywhere. These make people brake and accelerate - more noise pollution and emissions than travelling at a steady speed. (As an aside what are these mini speed bumps called traffic islands for? Most cars can travel straight over them at 60 no problems - one wheel either side and the bottom of the car clears the island. Sports car get damaged travelling over them at 5mph. They clearly do not work, so why are they being installed everywhere?)

There is a really tough decision to be made here. Obviously reducing speed gives drivers longer to react in an emergency. Anyone can see this will reduce the risk to all road users. But is it worth the cost of increased congestion and delayed journeys for all motorists? While I'm not saying road safety isn't a big issue, we have to accept a certain level of casualties are unavoidable. With the current blame culture I can understand those who are responsible for speed limits taking the safe option to avoid being prosecuted over a single death that is deemed to be caused by increasing a speed limit.

I have dug out the Transport Statistic of Great Britain 2006, page 138, section 8.1 "Road accidents and casualties 1950-2005'. I have chosen to look at 3 points in time. 1993 was when comparable figures started. I am taking 1998 to be about when policy was examined, speed limits were more strictly enforced, reducing road casualties became a priority and all road building was halted. The third time point is the newest possible, 2005. This is heavily biased in favour of the current figures because the first change colum covers the 5 years of 1993-1998. The other change colum covers 7 years of 1998-2005. Click on the table below to zoom in.

For further information, you may wish to see this article of January 1998 when John Prescott promises to tackle the issue of congestion :) . There is also a very good timeline of Labour's transport policy 1997-2002 in The Guardian

On the positive side, this shows that the trend of the casualty rate, number of accidents and total casualties has significantly changed for the better. Interestingly the growth in total kms travelled has slowed considerably. But, examining the trend in number of fatal casualties - though the figures have reduced in real terms - the rate of this reduction is worse in the last 7 years than it was in the preceding 5 years. It is clear the trend in the reduction of deaths on the road has not improved in the last 7 years.

I have to question whether the actual reductions seen, and the positive trends are due to central government transport policy, or due to advances in car design and safety.

Where I am going with all this is that I support an increase in speed limits. Cars are now faster. They have better brakes with ABS as standard. There are numerous modern driver aids like traction control. They all have countless safety features, airbags, crumplezones etc. But speed limits have not increased to take these advances into account. In actual terms speed limits have decreased due to the advent of speed cameras everywhere making people more careful about rigidly observing speed limits. I recall back in 1990 when I learnt to drive no police patrol unit would bat an eyelid at anyone travelling at 85mph on the motorway. If you were doing 70mph on the motorway you were causing an obstruction. On a dry clear day it is seldom unsafe to travel 90 in the middle lane of a motorway.

To finally relate this back to the issue of road congestion, higher speed limits means more throughput.

You may have noticed I do not include forcing people to stop travelling by car in my list of options at the top of the article? I did seriously consider this, but decided it is not viable because there really is no alternative. Whenever you want to go somewhere, you can walk out the house, get into the car on your drive and travel immediately and directly to your destination with security and comfort.

The final point I will make is about variable road charging. I strongly disagree with this concept, which is already used on all train services. Do we really want to get to a point where our lives are ruled by charging time zones? "I won't go and see Mum now, I will wait until after midnight to travel because it is cheaper/free".

The reason this is proposed for cars is to re-enforce the argument for doing it on the train system. The train service is in demand at specific times of day. What do the train operators do? Put on more trains with more seats to serve the demand? Don't be daft, let's ramp up the ticket price to reduce demand to match the available service. I mean £202 standard peak-time fare from Manchester to London by train is taking the piss. I can fly RyanAir from Blackpool to London for £58.64 return including all taxes. By car its a 400 miles return journey, about 14 gallons of petrol, £5 a gallon, £70 plus parking to travel by car. I don't need to say anything more about that! Stephen Ladyman, Minister of Roads stephen.ladyman@dft.gsi.gov.uk replied that charging more on peak times was necessary to reduce the subsidy of the rail network!!! How can you not make a profit with a monopoly and a starting £200 ticket rate for a 400 mile journey??????

My fourth tongue-in-cheek option may not be completely unrealistic! Maybe the answer to this is to switch the railway off, and give everyone a Tardis! How about stealing the idea of the start sequence for Futurama when everyone travels round town in a private space ship. This is about as realistic a plan for transport in 2015 as a recent report that concludes 'motorist should pay for roads'. Of course, we get them free now - the 75% tax on Petrol and road duty is just to pay for Prescott's mansion.

Readers: Please click Comments under any of my posts and leave me your input/support/criticism.

I need to try harder at keeping these things short! Signing off - Chris

Update: Above train journey is now £219 return thanks to new year ticket price rises. Also the government is slagging off Ryanair.