I'm writing this whilst watching the Portuguese Grand Prix of 1985, Ayrton Senna's first race victory. On Thursday it will be 20 years since that fateful day in May when Senna lost his life, so I thought I'd give you my thoughts.
I first started watching Formula 1 when I woke up early to find my Dad watching TV on a Sunday morning in 1986. It was unusual as my Dad used to enjoy his lie-in. He was watching F1; it happened to be the Australian Grand Prix. I'd never watched it before but a British man was about to win and then bang his tyre blew up. That scene has been replayed many times when Nigel Mansell lost the World Championship slithering down the slip road at 200 mph. I was hooked and gutted, it may have been patriotism or just the excitement of this high speed incident but I've been hooked ever since and not missed a race.
That race gave me my first hero. Mansell was just so exciting to watch. Wherever he was, something was about to happen or just had. I had to wait a few years for him to win the World Championship, and his big rivals each won their own Championships in between. Alain Prost in 1986 and 1989, Nelson Piquet in 1987 and Ayrton Senna in 1988, 1990 and 1991.
Piquet didn't seem that fast to me, Prost was too calculating to be exciting, but in my eyes as a partisan fan, Ayrton Senna was the enemy. To me, he was the only equal of my hero. Super fast, super committed and super ruthless. In truth I knew he had the edge.
Of course the rest of the F1 community was consumed with the rivalry of Senna and Prost. Maybe because Prost had reached his peak in 1985 and 86 and Senna was just reaching his, I thought that Senna was much faster and way better in rain. And just to prove it, on my TV screen Prost has just slithered off the race track into the wall. The only man to beat Senna, in my eyes, was Mansell- if only he had reliable cars!
The races which stick out were the Hungarian GP of 1989 and Spanish GP of 1991. In both cases Mansell pulled off spectacular overtaking moves on Senna. It's a measure of my underlying respect for Senna that it was that beating him meant more than beating Piquet at Silverstone in 1987 and Prost in Magny Cours in 1991.
Even when Mansell had the best car in 1992, it was Senna who deprived him of sure race wins in Canada and Spa, and spectacularly so at Monaco when Mansell was 2 seconds per lap faster.
Looking on after all these years, I appreciate that Senna was by far the best at the time. So quick. So precise. Watching the Marlboro McLaren dance around the streets of Monaco in 1988 qualifying is sheer mesmeric. The fact that he won so many pole positions when the car had no right to be there is testament to his speed.
The man oozed charisma, interviews left you hanging on every word. The most interesting of all was after he won the World Championship in 1991. He opened up about the fact that he had deliberately taken Prost out the year before, which takes me to his ruthlessness. For all his brilliance, he did start the trend for none sporting behaviour which has been the hallmark of Schumacher and Vettel, which is not to be welcomed.
I remember the race in which he died in 1994. The weekend was awful. Rubens Barrichello's accident on Saturday, Roland Ratzenberger's horrible fatal accident on the Saturday and the start line horror for JJ Lehto were all signs that this weekend should not have happened. When the Williams shot off on lap 7 at Tamburello it didn't look too bad, but there was no sign of movement from Senna. Me and my F1 friends in Portsmouth sat on the sofa, fearing the worst. We watched as Schumacher won again, but we all felt that a light had gone out. Indeed it had. Senna had died. We all realised what we had lost. A great talent, and what what would have been a fantastic season between the best in the World and the Young Pretender. We were robbed that day.
But on that note, on my TV, Senna has just crossed the finish line in horrible wet conditions to take his first win. Let's remember that sublime talent and thank our lucky stars that this man found a way to demonstrate it so emphatically.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Saturday, 12 April 2014
Jeremy Browne: The curious case of the MP who doesn't know what party he is in
This week we've heard a lot from Jeremy Browne, the ex-Lib Dem Foreign and Home Office minister, who now has a new book out. I like Mr Browne, he's one of the more sensible Lib Dems in parliament but he's confusing me with some of the things he's saying.
His book and statements are a brilliant vision of a Liberal Britain, and if there was a party which represented this view I think I would be one to sign up. He seems to think he is in the Liberal Party, the continuity Whigs. Unfortunately, that party disappeared in name in 1988 and had disappeared in liberal ideas many years before that. I don't think Mr Browne has mentally adjusted to it.
The 70's Liberal party was a centrist party between old Labour and old Tories, wedded to the post-war consensus. When the radical Tories of the 80's came in and Labour sped to the left, the Liberals seemed closer to the moderate Labourites and the newly formed SDP. That's why the Liberal-SDP alliance was such an easy match.
The true Liberals had no home but the Liberal party, but maybe had not recognized that the Liberal party was not truly a Liberal party any more. They went along with the merger forming the Lib Dems.
People like Jeremy Browne and the Orange booker's tried to bring back truly Liberal ideas to the party, but the vast majority of members are more centrist or lean to the left. The Dem part of the party is much larger than the Lib part. I've talked before of the identity crisis at the heart of the Lib Dems - which drives it to the centre. Mr Browne is not reconciled to that, and so will continue to smash his head into a brick wall.
If he really wants a Liberal future there is no alternative but to form a new party: the 'True Liberals'. I'd be tempted to join. Liberal economically and socially.
Squiffy.
His book and statements are a brilliant vision of a Liberal Britain, and if there was a party which represented this view I think I would be one to sign up. He seems to think he is in the Liberal Party, the continuity Whigs. Unfortunately, that party disappeared in name in 1988 and had disappeared in liberal ideas many years before that. I don't think Mr Browne has mentally adjusted to it.
The 70's Liberal party was a centrist party between old Labour and old Tories, wedded to the post-war consensus. When the radical Tories of the 80's came in and Labour sped to the left, the Liberals seemed closer to the moderate Labourites and the newly formed SDP. That's why the Liberal-SDP alliance was such an easy match.
The true Liberals had no home but the Liberal party, but maybe had not recognized that the Liberal party was not truly a Liberal party any more. They went along with the merger forming the Lib Dems.
People like Jeremy Browne and the Orange booker's tried to bring back truly Liberal ideas to the party, but the vast majority of members are more centrist or lean to the left. The Dem part of the party is much larger than the Lib part. I've talked before of the identity crisis at the heart of the Lib Dems - which drives it to the centre. Mr Browne is not reconciled to that, and so will continue to smash his head into a brick wall.
If he really wants a Liberal future there is no alternative but to form a new party: the 'True Liberals'. I'd be tempted to join. Liberal economically and socially.
Squiffy.
Saturday, 5 April 2014
The Laffer Curve: Proven twice this week
The Laffer curve is named after Arthur Laffer and is a curve describing tax rates versus tax take. Here is an example.
The principle is as follows: If you tax at 0% there will be no tax taken. If you tax at 100% nobody will bother to work, and so no tax will be taken here too. In between these two points there will be tax taken for certain tax rates, but the key is to find the rate which generates enough revenue without destroying the inspiration to work.
One of the underlying essences of this curve is that tax will change people's behaviour, so any calculations made when deciding to increase or decrease a rate of tax need to take changes of behaviour into account. The bigger the change in tax, the bigger the effect, and the greater likelihood of calculations being wrong.
The Labour Party has pledged to bring back the 50% tax rate, after the coalition reduced it to 45%. There were disagreements on the projected effect of the reduction in the tax rate. The Tories said it would likely have no effect or as maybe reduce revenue by as little as £100 million. The Labour Party said it would cost £9 Billion. We now have the figures. For 2012-13 £40Bn was taken from the top rate. For 2013-14, when the rate was reduced to 45%, the tax take was £49Bn. A whopping £9 Bn increase.
It's counter-intuitive, but remember the effects of behavioural change.
A similar change has happened to Capital Gains Tax. It was 18%, but the coalition has increased this to 28%. In 2011-12 the tax take was £4.3 Bn, it has now dropped to £3.9 Bn or a 10% fall. Again, it is shown that a higher rate of tax of tax doesn't necessarily bring in more money. For something like CGT it is very easy to change behaviour, you merely hold on to your assets for longer!
Looking at the economics, it's pretty clear that 45% is better than 50% for income tax, maybe 40% is even better. For CGT, it's clear that 18% is better than 28%. Sometimes lower rates bring in more money.
If the economics are clear, then we must look to the politics. Why would a party want higher rates if it brings in less money? Symbolism is the only answer, it's a statement of what is acceptable and what isn't. To me, that's the same old ideology of old socialism, I'm much more interested in what works!
So bring on the tax cuts (as long as they raise money).
Squiffy.
The principle is as follows: If you tax at 0% there will be no tax taken. If you tax at 100% nobody will bother to work, and so no tax will be taken here too. In between these two points there will be tax taken for certain tax rates, but the key is to find the rate which generates enough revenue without destroying the inspiration to work.
One of the underlying essences of this curve is that tax will change people's behaviour, so any calculations made when deciding to increase or decrease a rate of tax need to take changes of behaviour into account. The bigger the change in tax, the bigger the effect, and the greater likelihood of calculations being wrong.
The Labour Party has pledged to bring back the 50% tax rate, after the coalition reduced it to 45%. There were disagreements on the projected effect of the reduction in the tax rate. The Tories said it would likely have no effect or as maybe reduce revenue by as little as £100 million. The Labour Party said it would cost £9 Billion. We now have the figures. For 2012-13 £40Bn was taken from the top rate. For 2013-14, when the rate was reduced to 45%, the tax take was £49Bn. A whopping £9 Bn increase.
It's counter-intuitive, but remember the effects of behavioural change.
A similar change has happened to Capital Gains Tax. It was 18%, but the coalition has increased this to 28%. In 2011-12 the tax take was £4.3 Bn, it has now dropped to £3.9 Bn or a 10% fall. Again, it is shown that a higher rate of tax of tax doesn't necessarily bring in more money. For something like CGT it is very easy to change behaviour, you merely hold on to your assets for longer!
Looking at the economics, it's pretty clear that 45% is better than 50% for income tax, maybe 40% is even better. For CGT, it's clear that 18% is better than 28%. Sometimes lower rates bring in more money.
If the economics are clear, then we must look to the politics. Why would a party want higher rates if it brings in less money? Symbolism is the only answer, it's a statement of what is acceptable and what isn't. To me, that's the same old ideology of old socialism, I'm much more interested in what works!
So bring on the tax cuts (as long as they raise money).
Squiffy.
F1: Talking points
We've had two Grand Prix and are in the middle of the Bahrain G.P. Yesterday in one of the press conferences, Adrian Newey (Red Bull) laid into the new regulations. He said that fuel saving was for sports car racing, and that in F1 drivers should be flat out full time. Bernie Ecclestone and Luca Di Montezemolo (Ferrari) have also had a go, saying it's the wrong direction for F1.
I completely disagree. If F1 is anything it's a showcase for the latest in automotive technology as well as the best drivers. Engine development had become stagnant, frozen spec V8's providing roughly the same power each year. This put the emphasis on aero-dynamics, hence keeping Adrian Mewey happy. To be relevant in the modern age there needs to be ways to reduce fuel usage, but we had got to ridiculous state that extra fuel was being used during braking to send exhaust gases through the diffuser to generate extra downforce. How is that relevant?
Bernie Ecclestone is unhappy because it's not loud enough, apparently, though there are rumours that by driving down the price of F1 he could buy it back from CVC. It certainly isn't as loud, but I think it's great to be able to hear the tyres squeal. From Melbourne we could actually hear when Bottas hit the wall and the subsequent deflation of his tyre. Fascinating. Maybe a little louder, but we'll get used to it.
Luca Di Montezemolo is unhappy because....his cars still aren't winning, and their engines aren't particularly fuel efficient. Alonso's getting restless.
Let's just tackle the argument about fuel saving having too much effect on racing. I've not noticed it too much so far, maybe tomorrow it will have a bigger effect but we have had this for years anyway. Teams would always under-fuel the cars in order to save weight and the fuel save to make it to the end, so nothing new there. The Bahrain 2010 GP is on TV at the moment, Martin Brundle just mentioned that some teams will have to use lean settings for fuel usage while Renault is the most efficient. As I say, it hasn't changed!
It's quite apparent that the Mercedes team have stolen a march on the other teams and have done a great job, and it may be a walk over. That is pretty much always the way at the beginning of a new era, see 2009, 1998, 1989 for previous rule change seasons. That's the real reason that all these people are complaining, they've not done a good enough job, their advantages have been removed.
The new regulations should be shouted from the roof tops. The new cars are achieving pretty much the same speeds and lap times, but on a third less fuel, and with heavier cars. Pretty amazing. Let the F1 geniuses do their work and the cars will get lighter, the capacity of batteries will increase, the recovery systems will improve. In a few years we can reduce the fuel usage even further, imagine what this technology could do for everyday cars. I know that hybrid systems have been around for a while, but F1 really puts a turbo under it so to speak!
That's why it was completely the right decision to move to these regulations, and next year will be tighter than this, and we'll get used to the sound.
I'm loving it.
Squiffy.
I completely disagree. If F1 is anything it's a showcase for the latest in automotive technology as well as the best drivers. Engine development had become stagnant, frozen spec V8's providing roughly the same power each year. This put the emphasis on aero-dynamics, hence keeping Adrian Mewey happy. To be relevant in the modern age there needs to be ways to reduce fuel usage, but we had got to ridiculous state that extra fuel was being used during braking to send exhaust gases through the diffuser to generate extra downforce. How is that relevant?
Bernie Ecclestone is unhappy because it's not loud enough, apparently, though there are rumours that by driving down the price of F1 he could buy it back from CVC. It certainly isn't as loud, but I think it's great to be able to hear the tyres squeal. From Melbourne we could actually hear when Bottas hit the wall and the subsequent deflation of his tyre. Fascinating. Maybe a little louder, but we'll get used to it.
Luca Di Montezemolo is unhappy because....his cars still aren't winning, and their engines aren't particularly fuel efficient. Alonso's getting restless.
Let's just tackle the argument about fuel saving having too much effect on racing. I've not noticed it too much so far, maybe tomorrow it will have a bigger effect but we have had this for years anyway. Teams would always under-fuel the cars in order to save weight and the fuel save to make it to the end, so nothing new there. The Bahrain 2010 GP is on TV at the moment, Martin Brundle just mentioned that some teams will have to use lean settings for fuel usage while Renault is the most efficient. As I say, it hasn't changed!
It's quite apparent that the Mercedes team have stolen a march on the other teams and have done a great job, and it may be a walk over. That is pretty much always the way at the beginning of a new era, see 2009, 1998, 1989 for previous rule change seasons. That's the real reason that all these people are complaining, they've not done a good enough job, their advantages have been removed.
The new regulations should be shouted from the roof tops. The new cars are achieving pretty much the same speeds and lap times, but on a third less fuel, and with heavier cars. Pretty amazing. Let the F1 geniuses do their work and the cars will get lighter, the capacity of batteries will increase, the recovery systems will improve. In a few years we can reduce the fuel usage even further, imagine what this technology could do for everyday cars. I know that hybrid systems have been around for a while, but F1 really puts a turbo under it so to speak!
That's why it was completely the right decision to move to these regulations, and next year will be tighter than this, and we'll get used to the sound.
I'm loving it.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
