The shock figures today, I'm pretty damn sure are incorrect. One has only to detect the mood of the country, although subdued we are growing.
The employment figures are going up, the unemployment figures are going down, inflation is falling. The individual growth surveys are showing a country in growth not contraction.
The GDP figures will be revised as always, but having an initial figure so out of whack with the end figure is extremely unhelpful to a real growth strategy. The GDP figures can become a self fulfilling prophecy. Remember in the latter half of 2009 the initial figure was -0.4% but was revised to +0.4%!
The scandal of this is that we cannot trust these figures and yet they set the mood of the nation. There should be an urgent review.
Squiffy.
Wednesday 25 July 2012
Sunday 22 July 2012
Travails of a commuter: Olympic special
I have previously ranted about the awfulness of mindless tube announcements destroying my morning commute. It got worse on Friday.
Dear Transport for London,
I have to take the Jubilee line to work, and unfortunately it is the key line for the Olympics. I knew that it would become busier, and at the beginning of last week I started to notice it a bit. I expect the next few weeks to be more difficult and crowded, and I accepted it as part of the downside to having this spectacular event.
What I didn't counter was that every journey was going to be intolerably punctuated and interrupted by infernal announcements telling me to find a different route. After every third station the tube driver came on the tannoy to tell me to avoid Baker Street, Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge, Canary Wharf and Stratford. The announcement went on for two minutes. I live on the line and work at one of the stations to avoid, but I don't have much choice.
I'm a commuter, which is why I travel at 7.30 am and 6 pm along with 98% of others travelling at that time. We are adults with enough intelligence to keep down jobs. We know the Olympics are around the corner, we know the trains will be busier, we will find easier ways to get to work if necessary. It's what we do day in day out.
It's going to be difficult enough, please don't make the minutes on the tube reading the newspaper even more awful by talking our internal voices - let us live in peace. Only tell us when it's up the spout again.
Yours with hands over my ears,
Squiffy.
Dear Transport for London,
I have to take the Jubilee line to work, and unfortunately it is the key line for the Olympics. I knew that it would become busier, and at the beginning of last week I started to notice it a bit. I expect the next few weeks to be more difficult and crowded, and I accepted it as part of the downside to having this spectacular event.
What I didn't counter was that every journey was going to be intolerably punctuated and interrupted by infernal announcements telling me to find a different route. After every third station the tube driver came on the tannoy to tell me to avoid Baker Street, Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge, Canary Wharf and Stratford. The announcement went on for two minutes. I live on the line and work at one of the stations to avoid, but I don't have much choice.
I'm a commuter, which is why I travel at 7.30 am and 6 pm along with 98% of others travelling at that time. We are adults with enough intelligence to keep down jobs. We know the Olympics are around the corner, we know the trains will be busier, we will find easier ways to get to work if necessary. It's what we do day in day out.
It's going to be difficult enough, please don't make the minutes on the tube reading the newspaper even more awful by talking our internal voices - let us live in peace. Only tell us when it's up the spout again.
Yours with hands over my ears,
Squiffy.
Tuesday 10 July 2012
Lords Reform: Ditch the bill
Tonight there will be a vote on the programme motion for reform of the House of Lords. This is in effect a vote on whether to bring in a guillotine on the debate, in this case for 10 days. There are many Tory rebels, and Labour are voting against.
If I were an MP, I'd be voting against too. On principle, such a large constitutional change should have significant debate as this is the largest change since joining the EEC.
Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems and pro-reform Tories are doing themselves a disservice with their arguments. Firstly they say that it was in all the party's manifestos. True, they all mentioned reform but not these details (450 Senators, 15 year terms, PR). Secondly they say that it was in the coalition agreement, but the agreement only stated that they would bring forward proposals to seek consensus. That doesn't mean legislation if there isn't consensus - the fact that whipping is needed shows there is no consensus. Thirdly, they argue tit for tat with the proposal to equalise constituency boundaries, no no no, the quid pro quo was the AV referendum and you've used that.
I completely disagree with election terms being 15 years. That's nearly half someone's working life! Terms should never be that long, what if you get a dud? We still haven't got powers of recall for dodgy MPs so I don't think measures for Senators would be handled well either.
The relative powers of the Commons and new Senate has not been settled with the Commons as primus. Flash forward 15 years and it is easy to imagine Lib Dem Senators talking about them having more electoral validity due to PR being their election method (even if that is wrong).
I also disagree with party lists driven by party leaders, we'll just get second rate MP wannabees. What about the expertise we have gathered in the upper house, the beauty of the current system is that the combined wisdom of many appointed Lords helps bring knowledge to our Parliament which is sadly lost from the Commons.
So please vote this down.
My revised solution is as follows. Each group within the Lords; Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Crossbenchers have internal elections before a General Election of existing members and prospective new members. These elections give rise to a preferential list of candidates for each group.
At the General Election, the groups are awarded Lordships based on the proportion of votes cast for each party. The Crossbenchers are allocated from the percentage of electorate who did not vote at the General Election.
I think this solution enables an element of proportionality to make sure no one has a majority. It enables Crossbenchers to have a good sizeable representation. The internal election makes sure that it is not in the hands of the party leaders, enabling experts to remain on the list if they are effective in the House. Also, being based on the General Election results but not directly elected should put the Lordships in their place when it comes to primacy.
Hey presto, keeping all the elements that are good and stopping the patronage nonsense. If only anyone would listen. David, are you there?
Squiffy.
If I were an MP, I'd be voting against too. On principle, such a large constitutional change should have significant debate as this is the largest change since joining the EEC.
Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems and pro-reform Tories are doing themselves a disservice with their arguments. Firstly they say that it was in all the party's manifestos. True, they all mentioned reform but not these details (450 Senators, 15 year terms, PR). Secondly they say that it was in the coalition agreement, but the agreement only stated that they would bring forward proposals to seek consensus. That doesn't mean legislation if there isn't consensus - the fact that whipping is needed shows there is no consensus. Thirdly, they argue tit for tat with the proposal to equalise constituency boundaries, no no no, the quid pro quo was the AV referendum and you've used that.
I completely disagree with election terms being 15 years. That's nearly half someone's working life! Terms should never be that long, what if you get a dud? We still haven't got powers of recall for dodgy MPs so I don't think measures for Senators would be handled well either.
The relative powers of the Commons and new Senate has not been settled with the Commons as primus. Flash forward 15 years and it is easy to imagine Lib Dem Senators talking about them having more electoral validity due to PR being their election method (even if that is wrong).
I also disagree with party lists driven by party leaders, we'll just get second rate MP wannabees. What about the expertise we have gathered in the upper house, the beauty of the current system is that the combined wisdom of many appointed Lords helps bring knowledge to our Parliament which is sadly lost from the Commons.
So please vote this down.
My revised solution is as follows. Each group within the Lords; Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Crossbenchers have internal elections before a General Election of existing members and prospective new members. These elections give rise to a preferential list of candidates for each group.
At the General Election, the groups are awarded Lordships based on the proportion of votes cast for each party. The Crossbenchers are allocated from the percentage of electorate who did not vote at the General Election.
I think this solution enables an element of proportionality to make sure no one has a majority. It enables Crossbenchers to have a good sizeable representation. The internal election makes sure that it is not in the hands of the party leaders, enabling experts to remain on the list if they are effective in the House. Also, being based on the General Election results but not directly elected should put the Lordships in their place when it comes to primacy.
Hey presto, keeping all the elements that are good and stopping the patronage nonsense. If only anyone would listen. David, are you there?
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
