It's been an interesting and also sobering time in F1.
The injury to Jules Bianchi overshadows everything. I read that he hit his head with a force of 92G, it is a wonder that he's still alive. I hope that he manages to make a recovery and can make it back into a car, as he has shown such promise.
The season has been fascinating. For a while it looked like the bad luck would completely destroy Hamilton's campaign, but since Rosberg's error in Spa the momentum has all been with the Brit. In fact the latter half of the season has shown Rosberg is prone to errors under pressure and so far he has yet to better Hamilton in a straight fight.
We're entering the end of the season and mileages on the engines are going to get critical. Is it a possibility that for the last double point race Mercedes decides to have penalties and replace the both engines? Maybe, just in case there is a danger than one of the cars might not finish.
The big news on driver moves is that Sebastien Vettel is leaving Red Bull. He's been out of sorts all year, and when he learnt that Alonso had exercised his get out of Ferrari clause, he leapt upon it. So Vettel to Ferrari. Or is it? The likelihood is yes, but it's weird that Ferrari haven't announced it. Why wouldn't they?
An off the wall thought. It looks like Alonso is heading to McLaren, but they're just trying to tie down the contract. Maybe McLaren have signed Vettel too! It would explain why Ferrari haven't announced Vettel.
Probably not, but you never know! Maybe Ferrari are looking at a way of getting rid of Raikkonen who has been a disappointment this year. Maybe Alonso will take a sabbatical with the aim of getting his backside into a Mercedes in 2016 (in which case I think he may be disappointed).
Looking forward to the last three races, but I don't want double points or reliability problems to settle this championship. If Rosberg wins at the last race with Hamilton out, the win tally could be 11-5 to Hamilton. It would be a travesty.
#ForzaJules
Squiffy
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Saturday, 11 October 2014
Could Douglas Carswell's election as UKIP MP be bad for them?
I quite like Douglas Carswell. He believes in democracy and better structures to support democracy. He is very independently minded. In fact, he could put the Independence into UKIP.
He's now a big fish in a small pond, rather than a small fish in a big pond. He will be on our TV screens a lot more as a spokesman for UKIP.
I think though that we'll be seeing some obvious differences of opinion with the leadership of Nigel Farage. He's already been highlighting a different opinion on immigration to the leadership, as he pointedly mentioned it in his victory speech in Clacton.
For now, though, he is the only UKIP MP and although not the leader he is now the most senior elected representative of the party. A full on general election campaign, this time round, will be looking for major differences of opinion between the leader and its first MP. Expect there to be more controversies.
I think it's likely Carswell will win re-election in 2015, but what happens if La Farage does not become MP? The differences could get more extreme. I foresee fireworks! In fact I can imagine a leadership challenge which Carswell might win. Afterwards, though, if Farage is not leader he would be very grumbly and UKIP could lose it's best electoral asset, as Carswell doesn't have the common touch of the current leader.
We might just be in the phase of peak UKIP, it might be downhill from here. It's possible we've just witnessed a new Kilroy-Silk moment.
Squiffy.
He's now a big fish in a small pond, rather than a small fish in a big pond. He will be on our TV screens a lot more as a spokesman for UKIP.
I think though that we'll be seeing some obvious differences of opinion with the leadership of Nigel Farage. He's already been highlighting a different opinion on immigration to the leadership, as he pointedly mentioned it in his victory speech in Clacton.
For now, though, he is the only UKIP MP and although not the leader he is now the most senior elected representative of the party. A full on general election campaign, this time round, will be looking for major differences of opinion between the leader and its first MP. Expect there to be more controversies.
I think it's likely Carswell will win re-election in 2015, but what happens if La Farage does not become MP? The differences could get more extreme. I foresee fireworks! In fact I can imagine a leadership challenge which Carswell might win. Afterwards, though, if Farage is not leader he would be very grumbly and UKIP could lose it's best electoral asset, as Carswell doesn't have the common touch of the current leader.
We might just be in the phase of peak UKIP, it might be downhill from here. It's possible we've just witnessed a new Kilroy-Silk moment.
Squiffy.
Nick Clegg's Speech: Verdict
A bit dull as he was only talking to his own base.
He did the usual 'plague on both your houses' section which is now getting so old it needs a pension. Lambasting Labour for breaking the economy and Tories for being mean. Only the Lib Dems can save us! In which case Lord help us.
The big offer was some improvements on mental health. Whilst worthy, it doesn't exactly set the pulse racing.
He was trying to gee up his own base for the election next year rather than talking to the electorate. As I say, rather dull.
The Lib Dems, although in Government, increasingly seem like an irrelevance.
Squiffy.
He did the usual 'plague on both your houses' section which is now getting so old it needs a pension. Lambasting Labour for breaking the economy and Tories for being mean. Only the Lib Dems can save us! In which case Lord help us.
The big offer was some improvements on mental health. Whilst worthy, it doesn't exactly set the pulse racing.
He was trying to gee up his own base for the election next year rather than talking to the electorate. As I say, rather dull.
The Lib Dems, although in Government, increasingly seem like an irrelevance.
Squiffy.
Thursday, 2 October 2014
UKIP want Labour to win
Most commentators think that UKIP would prefer there to be a Tory Prime Minister and a European referendum campaign rather than a Labour PM. Not true.
The nightmare scenario for UKIP is that the Tories win, David Cameron wins some marginal powers back and manages to sell it to the country in the referendum.
In much the same way that the Scottish referendum was David Cameron's gamble in that would take independence off the table for a generation, UKIP think the same is possibly true about the EU.
Any way in which Labour win and deny us another referendum will further the calls for us to be out.
It's possible, though, that they could get us out of the EU sooner rather than later. Though, it would be a pretty big gamble on their part. In this scenario, they'd need David Cameron to win and hold the referendum. After a period of stability, we may be about to see a bigger Euro problem than we had two years ago.
EU interest rates are at rock bottom and it looks like there may be a period of deflation. At the moment inflation is 0.3% and looking to go lower. Growth is anaemic. Germany is faltering. France and Italy are sick. The ECB would have no options, it would be up to EU Governments to save their economies - difficult given their levels of debt!
Given this back drop we may actually see more convulsions than we did in sovereign debt crisis. If Britain can keep growing while the EU, including Germany, starts to really have difficulties then maybe the whole Euro and even the EU could be on the table. Maybe then we'd want to be out.
As I say, a lot of things have to happen for this scenario to occur. But you never know.
Squiffy.
The nightmare scenario for UKIP is that the Tories win, David Cameron wins some marginal powers back and manages to sell it to the country in the referendum.
In much the same way that the Scottish referendum was David Cameron's gamble in that would take independence off the table for a generation, UKIP think the same is possibly true about the EU.
Any way in which Labour win and deny us another referendum will further the calls for us to be out.
It's possible, though, that they could get us out of the EU sooner rather than later. Though, it would be a pretty big gamble on their part. In this scenario, they'd need David Cameron to win and hold the referendum. After a period of stability, we may be about to see a bigger Euro problem than we had two years ago.
EU interest rates are at rock bottom and it looks like there may be a period of deflation. At the moment inflation is 0.3% and looking to go lower. Growth is anaemic. Germany is faltering. France and Italy are sick. The ECB would have no options, it would be up to EU Governments to save their economies - difficult given their levels of debt!
Given this back drop we may actually see more convulsions than we did in sovereign debt crisis. If Britain can keep growing while the EU, including Germany, starts to really have difficulties then maybe the whole Euro and even the EU could be on the table. Maybe then we'd want to be out.
As I say, a lot of things have to happen for this scenario to occur. But you never know.
Squiffy.
Cameron Speech: Verdict
What a difference a week makes! Last week we had Ed Miliband's forget-athon, a real lesson in why he should not be Prime Minister. This week David Cameron made the best conference speech of his premiership.
When the PM's back is against the wall he really can turn it on, and he did. He's shown that he can do the no notes speaking before - in fact it was he who started the trend - but he has eschewed this tactic to be more prime ministerial. And it works.
The speech was serious when it needed to be. He mentioned Patrick Churchill, a D-day veteran. In this year of remembrance it was a fitting tribute. He did not go on about all the people he met whilst walking around the leafy suburbs of Hampstead Heath who managed to speak Ed Miliband-ese.
The PM did not revert to the Tory comfort zone either. He was visibly moved to tears when mentioned the anger he feels when being accused of not caring about the NHS. He also said he would banish exclusive zero hour contracts and modern day slavery.
The PM obviously got into his stride when talking about raising the personal allowances at the 20% and 40% bands. I would have wished he'd raised the level at which National Insurance starts being paid, rather than the personal allowance. This would really help the lower paid being taken out of income taxes altogether. Its about time NI was rolled into income tax completely by the way!
He was good on Europe, but I want him to kill off a line of attack by saying that he would be prepared to recommend leaving if he cannot get what he wants. Maybe he can't make himself a hostage to fortune as then he'd need to outline his exact dividing lines.
He laid into the hypocracy of Labour's education policies, though it hasn't changed them in 40 years - it's not about to start doing so now. I wish he'd really go for them on the brass neck they have about English Votes for English Laws.
It was a great speech, whether it translates into a change in the polls is difficult to say. But it should. Anyone with an iota of common sense can see that there can only be one realistic candidate for PM after the next election. Ed Miliband is a walking disaster, and he'd turn this country into one.
Squiffy.
When the PM's back is against the wall he really can turn it on, and he did. He's shown that he can do the no notes speaking before - in fact it was he who started the trend - but he has eschewed this tactic to be more prime ministerial. And it works.
The speech was serious when it needed to be. He mentioned Patrick Churchill, a D-day veteran. In this year of remembrance it was a fitting tribute. He did not go on about all the people he met whilst walking around the leafy suburbs of Hampstead Heath who managed to speak Ed Miliband-ese.
The PM did not revert to the Tory comfort zone either. He was visibly moved to tears when mentioned the anger he feels when being accused of not caring about the NHS. He also said he would banish exclusive zero hour contracts and modern day slavery.
The PM obviously got into his stride when talking about raising the personal allowances at the 20% and 40% bands. I would have wished he'd raised the level at which National Insurance starts being paid, rather than the personal allowance. This would really help the lower paid being taken out of income taxes altogether. Its about time NI was rolled into income tax completely by the way!
He was good on Europe, but I want him to kill off a line of attack by saying that he would be prepared to recommend leaving if he cannot get what he wants. Maybe he can't make himself a hostage to fortune as then he'd need to outline his exact dividing lines.
He laid into the hypocracy of Labour's education policies, though it hasn't changed them in 40 years - it's not about to start doing so now. I wish he'd really go for them on the brass neck they have about English Votes for English Laws.
It was a great speech, whether it translates into a change in the polls is difficult to say. But it should. Anyone with an iota of common sense can see that there can only be one realistic candidate for PM after the next election. Ed Miliband is a walking disaster, and he'd turn this country into one.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Ed Miliband Conference Speech: Verdict
What a long, turgid, affair. Oh dear me. By far his worst conference speech.
It was long on anecdotes with Gareth, Elizabeth and all, but it didn't add up to much. For policies, we had some extra money for the NHS, voting for 16 and 17 year olds, a mansion tax and extra taxes on tobacco companies.
You can tell when Labour are operating the core vote strategy, they focus on the NHS. I remember a tweet from Dan Hodges, commentator, and son of Glenda Jackson MP, who said when they start banging on about NHS you know that they know they'll lose. I'm not so sure but I'm not plugged into the party like Dan was. They'll reverse the NHS changes made by the coalition. Does that ring a bell? Yes, when Labour came into power in 1997 they reversed the previous Tory hospital organisation and then 5 years later started to bring it back. Will they ever learn?
Themansion 4 bedroom semi tax has been spent twice now, to bring the deficit down and fund the NHS. A new tax. There's also a new tax on tobacco companies, as if they don't pay a lot anyway with duties. There will no doubt be more bank taxes too.
Whatever the problem, the answer is always the same. A new or increased tax to provide increased Government spending. If not, use borrowing for increased spending.
What was striking was that there was no mention of the deficit. We now know that he meant to mention it, but forgot. It's so easy to forget the most pressing issue affecting the country today. Immigrations was forgotten too. Another doorstep high priority.
Talking of a current issue which Labour has no answer to, the impact of devolution and English votes for English laws, Mr Miliband said David Cameron was trying to divide the nation.
Since the referendum I have felt more and more incensed by repeated claims that we shouldn't rush the answer, and have some constitutional convention. Who rushed into lots of devolution as soon as they were elected last time? Labour. They created this monster of an issue and did not bother to seek out answers to the unbalanced state they created in 13 years of power. It's because it suited them to brush it under the carpet. It's extremely rich for them now to accuse the Tories of trying to solve this problem to their advantage!
Anyway, back to the speech. Oh must I? If this man is Prime Minister next May I may have to go on Prozac. He's the least impressive leader since Iain Duncan-Smith.
Squiffy.
By the way, funny that Rachel Reeves, shadow pension secretary didn't know what the standard state pension was - she thought it was just below £100. I fact it's £113. You'd think she'd know. Yesterday she seemed to not quite know the difference between capital and current spending. This lady is supposed to be in the next group to be leader. Give me strength.
It was long on anecdotes with Gareth, Elizabeth and all, but it didn't add up to much. For policies, we had some extra money for the NHS, voting for 16 and 17 year olds, a mansion tax and extra taxes on tobacco companies.
You can tell when Labour are operating the core vote strategy, they focus on the NHS. I remember a tweet from Dan Hodges, commentator, and son of Glenda Jackson MP, who said when they start banging on about NHS you know that they know they'll lose. I'm not so sure but I'm not plugged into the party like Dan was. They'll reverse the NHS changes made by the coalition. Does that ring a bell? Yes, when Labour came into power in 1997 they reversed the previous Tory hospital organisation and then 5 years later started to bring it back. Will they ever learn?
The
Whatever the problem, the answer is always the same. A new or increased tax to provide increased Government spending. If not, use borrowing for increased spending.
What was striking was that there was no mention of the deficit. We now know that he meant to mention it, but forgot. It's so easy to forget the most pressing issue affecting the country today. Immigrations was forgotten too. Another doorstep high priority.
Talking of a current issue which Labour has no answer to, the impact of devolution and English votes for English laws, Mr Miliband said David Cameron was trying to divide the nation.
Since the referendum I have felt more and more incensed by repeated claims that we shouldn't rush the answer, and have some constitutional convention. Who rushed into lots of devolution as soon as they were elected last time? Labour. They created this monster of an issue and did not bother to seek out answers to the unbalanced state they created in 13 years of power. It's because it suited them to brush it under the carpet. It's extremely rich for them now to accuse the Tories of trying to solve this problem to their advantage!
Anyway, back to the speech. Oh must I? If this man is Prime Minister next May I may have to go on Prozac. He's the least impressive leader since Iain Duncan-Smith.
Squiffy.
By the way, funny that Rachel Reeves, shadow pension secretary didn't know what the standard state pension was - she thought it was just below £100. I fact it's £113. You'd think she'd know. Yesterday she seemed to not quite know the difference between capital and current spending. This lady is supposed to be in the next group to be leader. Give me strength.
Thursday, 18 September 2014
Indyref: The time is nearly upon us
We don't have many referendums in the UK but usually they are for big questions. The referendum today is the biggest I've experienced.
I'm still convinced that it will be a No vote, but maybe closer than my prediction of 60/40, maybe even 55/45. We shall soon see.
The mammoth TV coverage will soon start, and I'm a sucker for it!
Bring it on MrDimbleby Edwards.
Squiffy.
I'm still convinced that it will be a No vote, but maybe closer than my prediction of 60/40, maybe even 55/45. We shall soon see.
The mammoth TV coverage will soon start, and I'm a sucker for it!
Bring it on Mr
Squiffy.
Sunday, 14 September 2014
Scottish Independence: One week to go.
We're into the last few days of the Scottish Independence referendum and I thought I'd write some of my thoughts down.
Firstly, about the question. I heard some people asking why 'Devo-Max' is not on the ballot paper. Imagine a not too unlikely scenario where Independence gets 45%, 'Devo-Max' gets 40% and no change gets 15%. What should happen then? It would be wrong to go to Independence as it would not have a majority (on something so crucial). 'Devo-Max' would have come second so it would be weird for it to be enacted, and so the most likely thing to happen would be no change, when it came third! That's why it had to be a straightforward yes/no question.
I personally don't want Scotland to leave the Union, I have many Scottish friends who would then be foreigners. It's difficult to imagine the end of Britain as we know it. I do believe that we are better together.
Looking at the arguments, it appears that the Yes camp have been a bit disingenuous with some of the figures regarding oil revenues, NHS spending etc. and tax figures. The No camp has been more negative, which I suppose was always likely given the nature of the question and risks involved. The better arguments for Yes are through self-determination which appeals to the heart.
The No camp has focused on the question of the currency, which is important - especially as the Yes campaign has stated they intend to use the Pound in a currency union with residual UK (rUK). The UK party leaders have said they won't allow it, but the SNP keep pushing that it will happen anyway. This is especially disingenuous as the rUK would not enter a currency union with a foreign nation, as we have shied away from joining the Euro area. The SNP should have had the nerve to go with a new currency as a backup option.
The implications on the military are immense and not thought through well enough.
Alec Salmond has also repeatedly talked about policies implemented by London by the Tories such as the 'Bedroom Tax' as reasons for independence but that is very short term. Some people think that Scotland would be a socialist haven if independence occurred, but I can see that Scottish politics would eventually move rightwards, as socialist policies increasingly failed and taxing and spending went out of fashion. For the rest of the UK, we may have more Tory Governments initially but the present equilibrium would eventually reassert itself.
Do I think there will be a Yes vote? No, I think the fear of the unknown is a major driver, also I believe that there are quite a lot of people who say they'll vote Yes but will actually vote No - due to the perceived disloyalty of voting 'against Scotland'.
That does not mean that the status quo will remain. If we do get 'Devo-Max' as promised by the UK party leaders there will have to be wider constitutional change for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Wales will certainly demand more powers, and how can England continue to be Governed by Scots and Welsh MPs in such circumstances? There's no way it could continue without the so-called West Lothian question being answered. There would have to be an English Parliament over English only issues.
The days of the existing Union is over, we need to fully think out the future of a more federal UK and this must be put to the people. It cannot be knocked up by the party leaders in a hasty fashion to scare off the Yes voters!
RIP GB 1707-2014.
Squiffy.
Firstly, about the question. I heard some people asking why 'Devo-Max' is not on the ballot paper. Imagine a not too unlikely scenario where Independence gets 45%, 'Devo-Max' gets 40% and no change gets 15%. What should happen then? It would be wrong to go to Independence as it would not have a majority (on something so crucial). 'Devo-Max' would have come second so it would be weird for it to be enacted, and so the most likely thing to happen would be no change, when it came third! That's why it had to be a straightforward yes/no question.
I personally don't want Scotland to leave the Union, I have many Scottish friends who would then be foreigners. It's difficult to imagine the end of Britain as we know it. I do believe that we are better together.
Looking at the arguments, it appears that the Yes camp have been a bit disingenuous with some of the figures regarding oil revenues, NHS spending etc. and tax figures. The No camp has been more negative, which I suppose was always likely given the nature of the question and risks involved. The better arguments for Yes are through self-determination which appeals to the heart.
The No camp has focused on the question of the currency, which is important - especially as the Yes campaign has stated they intend to use the Pound in a currency union with residual UK (rUK). The UK party leaders have said they won't allow it, but the SNP keep pushing that it will happen anyway. This is especially disingenuous as the rUK would not enter a currency union with a foreign nation, as we have shied away from joining the Euro area. The SNP should have had the nerve to go with a new currency as a backup option.
The implications on the military are immense and not thought through well enough.
Alec Salmond has also repeatedly talked about policies implemented by London by the Tories such as the 'Bedroom Tax' as reasons for independence but that is very short term. Some people think that Scotland would be a socialist haven if independence occurred, but I can see that Scottish politics would eventually move rightwards, as socialist policies increasingly failed and taxing and spending went out of fashion. For the rest of the UK, we may have more Tory Governments initially but the present equilibrium would eventually reassert itself.
Do I think there will be a Yes vote? No, I think the fear of the unknown is a major driver, also I believe that there are quite a lot of people who say they'll vote Yes but will actually vote No - due to the perceived disloyalty of voting 'against Scotland'.
That does not mean that the status quo will remain. If we do get 'Devo-Max' as promised by the UK party leaders there will have to be wider constitutional change for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Wales will certainly demand more powers, and how can England continue to be Governed by Scots and Welsh MPs in such circumstances? There's no way it could continue without the so-called West Lothian question being answered. There would have to be an English Parliament over English only issues.
The days of the existing Union is over, we need to fully think out the future of a more federal UK and this must be put to the people. It cannot be knocked up by the party leaders in a hasty fashion to scare off the Yes voters!
RIP GB 1707-2014.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
Rosberg vs Hamilton: It's war
It's been brewing for a while, but the race at Spa was the end of the cold war. We're now at Defcon 4 in the Formula 1 season.
The incidents that have brought us here are: Hamilton defending aggressively at Bahrain and using the extra-special powerful setting, Rosberg using the extra-special powerful setting in Spain, Rosberg having his 'off' at Monaco ruining Hamilton's lap and finally Hamilton refusing team-orders at Hungary.
You could say it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Indeed, my own interpretation was that it was all pretty fair and evened up - although the Monaco incident did look suspect but I gave Rosberg the benefit of the doubt.
The race at Spa looked like it was going to be a great ding-dong battle until Rosberg clipped Hamilton's rear left tyre on lap two going into Les Combes. It was a clumsy attempt at a pass by Rosberg but looked like a cack-handed misjudgement.
That was until Lewis Hamilton appeared after the debrief in front of the press, reportedly nearly tearful, and said that Rosberg had done it on 'purpose' to 'make a point'. Maybe fanciful, and Toto Wolff denied that it had been on purpose, but agreed that Rosberg had said he'd wanted to 'make a point'. To me this infers that Rosberg had not deliberately decided to crash into Hamilton at the beginning of the race, but would - if the moment arose - not back out of possible contact in wheel to wheel combat.
Looking at the video footage Rosberg decides he's not going to be able to pass Hamilton and turn's left to avoid contact - and then changes his mind and turns right again leaving Hamilton to drive into him while following the racing line. Given that Hamilton was well ahead and could not have seen exactly where Rosberg was at that time, he had no option and Rosberg cannot complain about not being given enough room.
Rosberg chose to collide with Hamilton in that split moment. He had the lead in the championship, so if both went out so be it. He made his point. Hamilton said that he did not know how to race Rosberg any more, now that Rosberg has shown an unpredictability, nearly worthy of Pastor Maldonado!
Where to go from here? Niki Lauda squarely blamed Rosberg and Toto Wolff was incandescent with rage. They said there would be consequences but it's difficult to see what. We don't know the mind of Paddy Lowe, but obviously he's been with Lewis Hamilton ever since McLaren so knows him well.
If they make some changes to team orders, it will probably favour Rosberg even if that is not the intention. In which case Rosberggets what he wants. They could fire Rosberg but that's inconceivable. They can't dock points from him, as that is up to the FIA.
I think the only way to punish Rosberg, lay down the law, and make sure this does not happen in the future is to bench Rosberg. Bring in Antony Davidson or Heikki Kovalainen for one race, someone who will still get points for Mercedes but leave Rosberg on the sidelines as he watches his 29 point lead get reduced.
It would obviously enrage Rosberg but would be payback and let him know that the team calls the shots.
Do I think they'll do it. No. I expect there will be some changes to team orders and I think F1 will be the poorer. Unfortunately.
Squiffy.
The incidents that have brought us here are: Hamilton defending aggressively at Bahrain and using the extra-special powerful setting, Rosberg using the extra-special powerful setting in Spain, Rosberg having his 'off' at Monaco ruining Hamilton's lap and finally Hamilton refusing team-orders at Hungary.
You could say it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Indeed, my own interpretation was that it was all pretty fair and evened up - although the Monaco incident did look suspect but I gave Rosberg the benefit of the doubt.
The race at Spa looked like it was going to be a great ding-dong battle until Rosberg clipped Hamilton's rear left tyre on lap two going into Les Combes. It was a clumsy attempt at a pass by Rosberg but looked like a cack-handed misjudgement.
That was until Lewis Hamilton appeared after the debrief in front of the press, reportedly nearly tearful, and said that Rosberg had done it on 'purpose' to 'make a point'. Maybe fanciful, and Toto Wolff denied that it had been on purpose, but agreed that Rosberg had said he'd wanted to 'make a point'. To me this infers that Rosberg had not deliberately decided to crash into Hamilton at the beginning of the race, but would - if the moment arose - not back out of possible contact in wheel to wheel combat.
Looking at the video footage Rosberg decides he's not going to be able to pass Hamilton and turn's left to avoid contact - and then changes his mind and turns right again leaving Hamilton to drive into him while following the racing line. Given that Hamilton was well ahead and could not have seen exactly where Rosberg was at that time, he had no option and Rosberg cannot complain about not being given enough room.
Rosberg chose to collide with Hamilton in that split moment. He had the lead in the championship, so if both went out so be it. He made his point. Hamilton said that he did not know how to race Rosberg any more, now that Rosberg has shown an unpredictability, nearly worthy of Pastor Maldonado!
Where to go from here? Niki Lauda squarely blamed Rosberg and Toto Wolff was incandescent with rage. They said there would be consequences but it's difficult to see what. We don't know the mind of Paddy Lowe, but obviously he's been with Lewis Hamilton ever since McLaren so knows him well.
If they make some changes to team orders, it will probably favour Rosberg even if that is not the intention. In which case Rosberggets what he wants. They could fire Rosberg but that's inconceivable. They can't dock points from him, as that is up to the FIA.
I think the only way to punish Rosberg, lay down the law, and make sure this does not happen in the future is to bench Rosberg. Bring in Antony Davidson or Heikki Kovalainen for one race, someone who will still get points for Mercedes but leave Rosberg on the sidelines as he watches his 29 point lead get reduced.
It would obviously enrage Rosberg but would be payback and let him know that the team calls the shots.
Do I think they'll do it. No. I expect there will be some changes to team orders and I think F1 will be the poorer. Unfortunately.
Squiffy.
Saturday, 19 July 2014
No return to tax and spend for Labour: Pull the other one
Today there was a Labour conference in Milton Keynes for their policy forum. Ed Miliband has announced that the next Labour Government would not return to 'Tax and Spend'.
I have a feeling of deja vu about this. Wasn't this the same mantra from New Labour in 1997? I remember National Insurance tax rises, fuel duty and alcohol escalators and and this was before the crash in 2008. In that time spending went from £352Bn to £527Bn - yes more tax and spend. And where taxes didn't go up, borowing took over. In 2007 after 10 years of growth, Labour were borrowing £30Bn (it has since been revised up by the treasury to £70Bn structural deficit).
So, it's pretty hard to believe Ed Miliband. It might be that it really is his intention, especially in straightened times - but after a while - when some policies fail to live up to expectations the inbuilt Labour DNA takes over and the spending tap is turned on again.
It's why the welfare system got so out of kilter. Initially Tony Blair asked Frand Field to think the unthinkable, and when Mr Field came back with radical proposals to tackle real welfare dependency he was sacked. The Government then spent lots of money on benefits, vastly widening the base for people taking the state's shilling. The Government reverted to type. As always.
Mr Miliband again re-iterated that they would run a surplus on current spending - with the caveat that they would continue to borrow to 'invest'. Hello, we've been here before. Again, the last Government. Gordon Brown just kept redefining what was investment, and changing the definition of the economic cycles to fulfil his own golden rules. Basically, there is so much wriggle room that the promise is not worth the airtime devoted to it.
Take the largest pinch of salt when considering these promises, or at least cross your fingers when putting your tick in their box.
Squiffy.
I have a feeling of deja vu about this. Wasn't this the same mantra from New Labour in 1997? I remember National Insurance tax rises, fuel duty and alcohol escalators and and this was before the crash in 2008. In that time spending went from £352Bn to £527Bn - yes more tax and spend. And where taxes didn't go up, borowing took over. In 2007 after 10 years of growth, Labour were borrowing £30Bn (it has since been revised up by the treasury to £70Bn structural deficit).
So, it's pretty hard to believe Ed Miliband. It might be that it really is his intention, especially in straightened times - but after a while - when some policies fail to live up to expectations the inbuilt Labour DNA takes over and the spending tap is turned on again.
It's why the welfare system got so out of kilter. Initially Tony Blair asked Frand Field to think the unthinkable, and when Mr Field came back with radical proposals to tackle real welfare dependency he was sacked. The Government then spent lots of money on benefits, vastly widening the base for people taking the state's shilling. The Government reverted to type. As always.
Mr Miliband again re-iterated that they would run a surplus on current spending - with the caveat that they would continue to borrow to 'invest'. Hello, we've been here before. Again, the last Government. Gordon Brown just kept redefining what was investment, and changing the definition of the economic cycles to fulfil his own golden rules. Basically, there is so much wriggle room that the promise is not worth the airtime devoted to it.
Take the largest pinch of salt when considering these promises, or at least cross your fingers when putting your tick in their box.
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 16 July 2014
Reshuffle: Clarke/Gove
The reshuffle happened yesterday. It was quite big, bigger than recent reshuffles. Here's some thoughts.
Ken Clarke leaving is a conflict for me. He's knocking on a bit, at odds with me on Europe, but is a big beast, affable and is able to get on with most voters. I like him, he was a great Chancellor and really talks human. If he'd been Eurosceptic, he'd have been leader in 1997, or 2001 . It's possible he would have been Prime Minister in 2005, but his undying love for the EU is his undoing. But at least he stuck to his guns and will go down fighting. I admire him for that. And I saw him on the tube twice, very unassuming!
Michael Gove moving on is a great shame. I honestly don't care whether the teachers don't like him. His reforms have been the most significant aspect of this Government. The education of this country has needed the shake up that Michael Gove has brought. Since the abolition of the grammar schools, this country's education system has been an excuse for mediocrity in which you really have to shine to get on. I've seen my schoolmates, who had no encouragement, languish. There's no aspiration. Gove's mission was to change the whole direction of schooling, and he's done more than anyone else that than anyone else. In years to come, we will realise that he was the most inspiration Education Secretary since the war. I'd keep him in post for 10 years!
William Hague leaving is not much of a surprise, he as no ambition to lead the party or the country. He's been there done that. Unlike Iain Duncan-Smith who's also led the party, he doesn't have any great mission and so was there to provide a common touch and gravitas to the Government. He's done a reasonable job as Foreign Secretary, but it's the kind of job which will never let his natural talents shine. He would have been a great Home Secretary, not that Theresa May hasn't!
On other points, I don't mind Philip Hammond being Foreign Secretary - he's Eurosceptic and will not drop the ball - so that's fine. I'd liked to have seen Liz Truss as Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan as Defra Secretary, Anna Soubry as Defence Secretary as improvements on their new jobs. I'm glad the other guys are still in place, but Teresa Villiers could have done with the boot. I'd have liked to see Liam Fox taking her place.
And the new Welsh Secretary is a bit dishy - where did he come from?!
Anyway, not bad but could have been slightly better.
Squiffy.
Ken Clarke leaving is a conflict for me. He's knocking on a bit, at odds with me on Europe, but is a big beast, affable and is able to get on with most voters. I like him, he was a great Chancellor and really talks human. If he'd been Eurosceptic, he'd have been leader in 1997, or 2001 . It's possible he would have been Prime Minister in 2005, but his undying love for the EU is his undoing. But at least he stuck to his guns and will go down fighting. I admire him for that. And I saw him on the tube twice, very unassuming!
Michael Gove moving on is a great shame. I honestly don't care whether the teachers don't like him. His reforms have been the most significant aspect of this Government. The education of this country has needed the shake up that Michael Gove has brought. Since the abolition of the grammar schools, this country's education system has been an excuse for mediocrity in which you really have to shine to get on. I've seen my schoolmates, who had no encouragement, languish. There's no aspiration. Gove's mission was to change the whole direction of schooling, and he's done more than anyone else that than anyone else. In years to come, we will realise that he was the most inspiration Education Secretary since the war. I'd keep him in post for 10 years!
William Hague leaving is not much of a surprise, he as no ambition to lead the party or the country. He's been there done that. Unlike Iain Duncan-Smith who's also led the party, he doesn't have any great mission and so was there to provide a common touch and gravitas to the Government. He's done a reasonable job as Foreign Secretary, but it's the kind of job which will never let his natural talents shine. He would have been a great Home Secretary, not that Theresa May hasn't!
On other points, I don't mind Philip Hammond being Foreign Secretary - he's Eurosceptic and will not drop the ball - so that's fine. I'd liked to have seen Liz Truss as Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan as Defra Secretary, Anna Soubry as Defence Secretary as improvements on their new jobs. I'm glad the other guys are still in place, but Teresa Villiers could have done with the boot. I'd have liked to see Liam Fox taking her place.
And the new Welsh Secretary is a bit dishy - where did he come from?!
Anyway, not bad but could have been slightly better.
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
Passport received
This is just a post as a testament (or otherwise) to the reported delays to the passport renewal process. My last post on 14 June said that I had sent my renewal passport application two days before and had received a text saying it was being processed that day.
Two days ago I received a text to say the new passport was being printed and would be sent shortly. Today it arrived. If we look at the number of days, it is 18 days in total, or 20 including the days between sending the application and receiving the initial text.
So, slightly less than 21 days or three weeks. In my mind that is great response from a Government bureaucracy, and from one supposedly in deep chaos - a marvel!
Crisis? What crisis?
Squiffy.
Two days ago I received a text to say the new passport was being printed and would be sent shortly. Today it arrived. If we look at the number of days, it is 18 days in total, or 20 including the days between sending the application and receiving the initial text.
So, slightly less than 21 days or three weeks. In my mind that is great response from a Government bureaucracy, and from one supposedly in deep chaos - a marvel!
Crisis? What crisis?
Squiffy.
Saturday, 14 June 2014
Passport to chaos
There have been conflicting stories about the passport office. In the media this week we had many reported problems about delays. The Government has stated that they are taking action due to an unusually high demand.
I added to the demand this week. I sent the renewal application to the passport office on Monday, received a text to say they had received it on Wednesday and that it should take three weeks to process. Hopefully, as I have a foreign holiday booked in September!
Let's watch this space to see whether the media or Government are correct in their statements.
Squiffy.
I added to the demand this week. I sent the renewal application to the passport office on Monday, received a text to say they had received it on Wednesday and that it should take three weeks to process. Hopefully, as I have a foreign holiday booked in September!
Let's watch this space to see whether the media or Government are correct in their statements.
Squiffy.
David Cameron is wrong about the AfD
The Prime Minister has been trying to get the Conservatives group within the European Parliament to not admit the new German party, Alternative für Deutschland. Unfortunately, it's hypocritical to do this.
David Cameron on being elected as leader took the Conservatives out of its traditional centre-right home of the European People's Party, because the EPP was overwhelmingly federalist. When he did this, he angered Angela Merkel, but he was correct to set-up a new group of centre-right anti-federalists, the European Conservatives and Reformists.
He now cannot try to put pressure on the members of the ECR group to not admit the AfD because it would anger Angela Merkel and support a rival to the traditional sister party of CDU/CSU! Although the AfD is not completely centre-right, on the European issues they line up most closely with the Tories - so it makes sense to have them in the group.
Also, it looks like the Prime Minister has mishandled the proposal of Jean-Claude Juncker for head of the European Commission. By being so vocal he's managed to box Angela Merkel in support of Juncker. I'm afraid we're now going to get the arch-federalist and not learnt the lessons of the European elections. Mr Cameron was right to try, but he should have done so in private.
Squiffy.
David Cameron on being elected as leader took the Conservatives out of its traditional centre-right home of the European People's Party, because the EPP was overwhelmingly federalist. When he did this, he angered Angela Merkel, but he was correct to set-up a new group of centre-right anti-federalists, the European Conservatives and Reformists.
He now cannot try to put pressure on the members of the ECR group to not admit the AfD because it would anger Angela Merkel and support a rival to the traditional sister party of CDU/CSU! Although the AfD is not completely centre-right, on the European issues they line up most closely with the Tories - so it makes sense to have them in the group.
Also, it looks like the Prime Minister has mishandled the proposal of Jean-Claude Juncker for head of the European Commission. By being so vocal he's managed to box Angela Merkel in support of Juncker. I'm afraid we're now going to get the arch-federalist and not learnt the lessons of the European elections. Mr Cameron was right to try, but he should have done so in private.
Squiffy.
Thursday, 1 May 2014
Ed Miliband: Meet me in Venezuela
Today's announcement that a future Labour Government would introduce rent controls for private landlords by limiting rent increases is another reminder that Ed Miliband would be a dangerous man to be elected as Prime Minister. They say you could put 10 economists in room and get 15 opinions. 95% of economists think rent controls are a disaster, leading to worse housing stock and fewer rental properties.
On top of energy price freezes and bans on zero hour contracts we are beginning to see the patterns of a very interventionist Government putting its fingers into all sorts of pies. It all sounds a bit tame at the moment, but where does it end? Into how many further businesses and areas would the command economy mechanisms intrude? The 'Cost of living crisis', created by the Labour recession, is a great cover for old fashioned socialism.
It must be stopped. This is where we were in the 70's. It's where Venezuela is now, starting with control of oil it now has controlled shops with rationed buying and shortages of toilet paper.
We learnt via Mrs Thatcher that the 70's command economy could not be successful. Let us not fall into it again.
Squiffy.
On top of energy price freezes and bans on zero hour contracts we are beginning to see the patterns of a very interventionist Government putting its fingers into all sorts of pies. It all sounds a bit tame at the moment, but where does it end? Into how many further businesses and areas would the command economy mechanisms intrude? The 'Cost of living crisis', created by the Labour recession, is a great cover for old fashioned socialism.
It must be stopped. This is where we were in the 70's. It's where Venezuela is now, starting with control of oil it now has controlled shops with rationed buying and shortages of toilet paper.
We learnt via Mrs Thatcher that the 70's command economy could not be successful. Let us not fall into it again.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Ayrton Senna: 20 years on
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.
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.
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.
Friday, 14 March 2014
Tony Benn: RIP
Today it was announced that Tony Benn had died at the age of 88. Sad, but he had a good long life even if the last year or so was a bit sickly. As someone who I would always disagree with politically, he was someone you could respect because he was articulate, thoughtful, unbending and not driven by the latest fads or opinions.
The two ends of political ideology start from two points of human outlook. Some people think that things could be done a lot better, have a vision of a kind of utopia and then try to fashion laws and movements to try to change people to create the new ideal. Other people also think that things could be done a lot better, but don't think that it's possible to change human nature. These people will try to use human nature to nudge society in the right direction.
If you can read between the lines, the utopians sit on the left of the political spectrum, while the human natur-ists (no, not the nudes) sit on the right. Which is why communists and socialists, like Tony Benn, believe in nationalisation, command economies, incomes and prices policies and believe it can be achieved. Even when the whole weight of the evidence shows that it does not work. As a current example, take a look at Venezuela, after years of socialism and a command economy, people living in a country with a quarter of the world's oil cannot buy toilet paper.
People on the right believe that competition and human instincts aren't wrong and can be used to drive society forward. Though there must be regulations, and safety nets for the poor.
The majority of the world has come to the capitalist view, even after the financial crash, but there's still a lot of people around who believe in the utopian view, like Tony Benn and the young Owen Jones. They're just plain wrong, the evidence shows it doesn't work. Just like with creationists, you'll have fun arguing until you have to bang your head against a brick wall. They'll say that it's not been tried in its pure forms, the media or outside factors destroyed the experiment - but that's just human nature!
That's also why people on the right respect the ones on the left - we understand what they want to achieve - we just don't believe it can ever work. I suppose it explains the visceral hatred of those on the left for those on the right, because they see us as trying to dismantle and destroy the utopian ideal.
Anyway, back to Tony Benn. A great orator, and a great democrat (he wasn't a communist). He renounced his peerage so that he could be elected to parliament. And being a great democrat he saw the EU for what it is, a huge anti-democratic bureaucracy run by an elite. That is the one thing I really agree with him on.
So, Rest In Piece Comrade,
Squiffy.
The two ends of political ideology start from two points of human outlook. Some people think that things could be done a lot better, have a vision of a kind of utopia and then try to fashion laws and movements to try to change people to create the new ideal. Other people also think that things could be done a lot better, but don't think that it's possible to change human nature. These people will try to use human nature to nudge society in the right direction.
If you can read between the lines, the utopians sit on the left of the political spectrum, while the human natur-ists (no, not the nudes) sit on the right. Which is why communists and socialists, like Tony Benn, believe in nationalisation, command economies, incomes and prices policies and believe it can be achieved. Even when the whole weight of the evidence shows that it does not work. As a current example, take a look at Venezuela, after years of socialism and a command economy, people living in a country with a quarter of the world's oil cannot buy toilet paper.
People on the right believe that competition and human instincts aren't wrong and can be used to drive society forward. Though there must be regulations, and safety nets for the poor.
The majority of the world has come to the capitalist view, even after the financial crash, but there's still a lot of people around who believe in the utopian view, like Tony Benn and the young Owen Jones. They're just plain wrong, the evidence shows it doesn't work. Just like with creationists, you'll have fun arguing until you have to bang your head against a brick wall. They'll say that it's not been tried in its pure forms, the media or outside factors destroyed the experiment - but that's just human nature!
That's also why people on the right respect the ones on the left - we understand what they want to achieve - we just don't believe it can ever work. I suppose it explains the visceral hatred of those on the left for those on the right, because they see us as trying to dismantle and destroy the utopian ideal.
Anyway, back to Tony Benn. A great orator, and a great democrat (he wasn't a communist). He renounced his peerage so that he could be elected to parliament. And being a great democrat he saw the EU for what it is, a huge anti-democratic bureaucracy run by an elite. That is the one thing I really agree with him on.
So, Rest In Piece Comrade,
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
