| Where the frak did that year go!? |
[01 Jan 2012|04:29pm] |
Bloody hell it's another year already!
If I don't see you much, then have a happy one, hope this year works out better than all of your previous years. If I do see you much but haven't said this then the same!
For two weeks or so now, I have avoided the news and this has made me feel a lot happier and more rested. I've been sleeping until 10am on some days - which makes a change from waking up at 6.30am at weekends. I did (irritatingly) catch some news whilst on the way back from the pub earlier, which was EU leaders starting the new year on a gloomy downer, but I'm going to bloody ignore them.
The festive period was mostly fab, except for Em having a cold for most of it. Saw my parents, saw friends, ate far too much... all good stuff!
|
|
| Pensions, protests and strikes |
[01 Jul 2011|05:48pm] |
A bunch of my friends were on strike the other day; a bunch of other friends were gnashing teeth at them.
I think what's sad is that a real "us" vs "them" scenario is emerging, with private sector folk being whipped up against public sector folk. It's not helped by union bosses in 1997 welcoming the Gord's raid of private sector pensions through the removal of dividend tax relief; nor is it by legions of private sector professionals noting that if the council went on strike for a month, they'd miss their local outreach worker not one bit.
I think that there is a serious debate to be had here, away from the saber rattling of the unions, press and spin doctors. I think a lot of the old positions (Public Sector get paid orders of magnitude less, made up for in perks and pensions; Private sector get paid orders of magnitude more, but work in sweat shops etc) need to be examined in the cold light of reality. I don't think the comparison is as easy as people tend to want to make out - and its all so politicised that getting accurate data is impossible.
My own view is that the country can only afford what it can afford - I'd sooner pay for pensions for teachers than for trident and foreign wars - but there's a big media message for people like me to be hopping mad at teachers because their pay and conditions are far superior to my own AND they are all bitching because they're about to be a bit worse BUT still MUCH better than anything I can get. I don't want to be mad at teachers because I think they do an incredibly important job. I wouldn't be where I am today without some great teachers when I was growing up. That media message is so seductive - look at the ever rising council tax bill and the number of holes in the road and you'll get what I mean.
I don't think it makes sense to pay people's retirement out of general taxation, especially whilst lifespan is an unknown variable. Neither do I think it makes much sense to lock people's retirement prospects into stock market returns, when agents are creaming 1% off the top.
From next year all employers become obliged to put staff into schemes which are stock market linked; the only real winners being the financial firms that operate the pensions.
(how small businesses are going to find the money to pay for that is an interesting issue for next year but I digress)
It isn't right for one side in a contract to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions, but sadly it is a reality faced by many small suppliers of goods and services without so much as a whimper in the press. That's not a defence of the government, simply an observation that two wrongs don't make a right.
Sadly I don't think this will get resolved in a rational way, because no one seems to want to be rational about it. Ideology is stamped all over this. I find it particularly galling that the MPs are exempting themselves from the changes; they should at least have the decency to lie in the bed that they've made.
The only solutions I can think of are either get all employees regardless of where they work to be tied into a national scheme, or for all employers not to provide pensions and leave it up to the employee to fend for themselves. Neither of these feel like particularly satisfactory solutions. But then, none of the people making the debate are really affected. MPs and senior civil servants make a packet; union leaders make more. Why do I feel that if we're going to make it into "private" vs "public", we should get an everyman from both "sides" to work it out. Maybe a teacher sitting down with a small shopkeeper; let the discussion be had by the people most affected by the changes, rather than overpaid representatives with nothing to lose? (Yes, I am that naive).
Answers on a post card...
|
|
| it's been a while, but today's comedy tender is.... |
[10 Aug 2010|10:58am] |
|
The awarding authority is looking to appoint a company to provide the Engineering and Testing Development of the Olympic Torch and its associated relay artefacts ... to create a truly memorable, positive and seamless Torch Relay experience.
|
|
| That 4th of July Speech in Full |
[25 Jun 2010|10:46am] |
Thanks all for a great 4th of July celebration. As a patriotic Brit it was great to remember the day when we finally got shut of the country that would give us George W Bush.
I include the speech from the celebration for the benefit of those not able to be there.
Matthew Robertson (for it was he):
Are they the lucky ones? That's what you're thinking, isn't it? We're a long way from home. We've jumped way beyond the Red Line, into uncharted space. Limited supplies, limited fuel. No allies, and now, no hope? Maybe it would have been better for us to have died quickly, back on the Colonies with our families, instead of dying out here slowly, in the emptiness of dark space. Where shall we go? What shall we do? Life here began out there. Those are the first words of the sacred scrolls, and they were told to us by the Lords of Kobol, many countless centuries ago. And they made it perfectly clear that we are not alone in this universe. Elosha, there's a 13th colony of humankind, is there not?
TImothy Ralphs:
Yes. The scrolls tell us a 13th tribe left Kobol in the early days. They travelled far and made their home upon a planet called Earth, which circled a distant and unknown star.
Matthew Robertson:
It's not unknown. I know where it is! Earth. The most guarded secret we have. The location was only known by the senior commanders of the fleet, and we dare not share it with the public. Not while there was a Cylon threat upon us. For now we have a refuge to go to. A refuge the Cylons know nothing about. It won't be an easy journey. It'll be long, and arduous. But I promise you one thing: on the memory of those lying here before you, we shall find it, and Earth shall become our new home. So say we all!
SO SAY WE ALL
|
|
| Tuition Fees |
[10 Jun 2010|01:31pm] |
I heard on Radio 4 today that the Coalition (still sounding like a heel wrestling stable), was considering taking the cap of undergraduate tuition fees. Further, the spokesman said that "Students should think of this as higher income tax, not as a big debt".
The irony of that latter comment was not lost on me. The Coalition is not regarding the ginormous national debt "as higher tax", and to do so to me sounds like Brownian Economics. But that's an aside.
For the record, I am against tuition fees for undergraduates and student loans. I think, very strongly, that the government should fund undergraduate teaching, and the maintenance costs incurred by undergraduates. In short a return to student grants.
Why do I think this? It comes down to my working class roots. I think, I may even go as far to say believe, that Education is the great enabler. I think it changes lives, and I think that change crosses generations. Therfore I think it's so important that all of society should be asked to invest in it.
Debt, as a good working class lad, I tend to avoid. I know that if I was 18again and looking to be a student, my parents wouldn't be too impressed. Not at having to borrow the order of 20-30K; and certainly not given the current levels of graduate unemployment. So, chances are, if I was 18 today, I wouldn't be uni bound.
For the record, I did take out a CDL for my MSc - 6K, a one year course - with an industrial placement part. It worked out ok for me - although it was a gamble.
I contend that asking people to take out bigger and bigger loans is a disincentive; university will become a place where only the rich or the TRULY BRILLIANT (read: future Nobel prize winners) will be able to go.
So far, I expect that most of the people that I know will be with me.
Here's the rub. I don't think Higher Education is for everyone. I don't think it's for anyone. I think it's for the very best academically. So, under my plans, fewer people would go to university. People would get in based on academic ability. Further, I'd revoke a lot of courses. (and yes, I'd close a few institutions down too).
What happens to the people that I've just left behind? Apprenticeships, and learning a trade. Potentially bringing back the Polytechnic - but only teaching those skills that are best not learned from scratch on the job.
|
|
| False Choices |
[11 May 2010|10:33am] |
|
What is the point of this hung parliament / coalition do-hickey if it means we can only have Liberal-Labour coalitions?
|
|
| Democratic Duty Discharged |
[06 May 2010|09:32am] |
That's that done. No more power until the next election. In the next QT credits the panelists will mostly have "MP" after their name.
In the end, my local election conundrum was solved. One of the councillors that didn't write back to me on the permit scheme was standing for re-election; I didn't vote for them.
|
|
| It was the day before christmas |
[05 May 2010|10:32am] |
Apparently, this is the last day before the elections. I've got my bets placed for the General Election, and I know who I am voting for (which puts me in the 6 out of 10 faction). Apparently the two headline issues are "the economy" - on which the politicos are telling us nothing - and "immigration" - on which the politicos are trying to say anything they can without being racist. In the end it's all irrelevant anyway, as the civil service party will just decide what we get.
There's also a local election, and for this, I have to admit, it's actually quite tricky. Where I live the local issues are:
* Hillsborough High Street slowly closing down.
* A Parking scheme which I don't want
* Football fans filling up the pub on sunday mornings curtailing my breakfast eating; and then rioting in the afternoon.
* (oh, and the usual - potholes in the roads, posters proclaiming what the council "has done" etc).
But....
* The council are giving us free insulation. (allegedly)
All of which means I am confused on how to vote. I want to vote for the 'more free stuff*' from the council faction, and not for the 'parking schemes' faction. Is the council election where you get to choose 3 people? If so I can mostly vote Lib Dem but not totally. If I have to pick one I'm bamboozled!!!
--
*Note: yes, I know it's not free; I know that it's funded by council tax payers (of which I am one), and also from the central government grant (which I also get to pay into). But dammit, it's money *I* can get.
|
|
| HOW MUCH ?!?! |
[30 Apr 2010|02:30am] |
|
Watched Question time after the debate, and Janet Street Porter knocked out some stats that she said she'd pulled from Radio 4 on the "true size of the deficit".
iplayer link (starts at about 51.00, gets interesting at 54.00).
One of the things that many private eye readers will know about is "Private Finance Initiative" or "PFI" deals. This is where the Gov gets a company to build a school or hospital. The Gov then promises to pay the private company for the use of the building. PFI deals don't feature on the balance sheet, as it's money that the Gov has promised to pay, but not actually borrowed.
The chap on the radio also went on to address the pensions of public sector workers. He said that, again, the pensions were part of an agreement that the Gov had made with their staff, and would be money that they pay them in the future. Again, the Gov hasn't paid that money yet, or borrowed it, so it too doesn't appear on the balance sheet.
The numbers were:
776 billion is national debt
150 billion for PFI deals (off balance sheet debt)
770 billion for public sector pensions (also off balance sheet "debt")
(This all worked out at 90K per household once the debt interest went on)
Of course, no one is suggesting that we have to pay all that money tomorrow; the PFI and pension deals will be rolled out over the next x years.
So, why I am going on about this?
Well, there was a woman on Question Time that got right uppity about politicians "treating us all like we're stupid" (might have been "like children"), and (my old fave), "not answering our questions" and generally being dishonest (or being like politicians).
If you didn't watch Question Time, or didn't have radio 4 on at ten to six, then you wouldn't have heard these numbers. And I think they're important, so I am posting both the numbers and the source interview.
I agree with the woman on QT; they're taking us for idiots. The lot of us.
|
|
| Debatery |
[16 Apr 2010|09:43am] |
I watced the full ninety minutes and came away feeling more than a bit "meh" about the whole thing. I think it went on for too long - after a hour I was ready for the end. The lack of audience reaction didn't work well for me either.
I thought Cameron had the best opening and closing, and that Clegg was the best at answering the questions. But the whole thing wasn't electrifying in the slightest. We really need someone with Charisma, Vision, Skill and Intelligence to lead us out of the mire that Labour has lead us into. I didn't see that person last night on the telly.
I don't really think it changed anything for me. Gordon needs to go, and nothing he said made me think that I want to keep him around any longer. Sadly, I think that the debating performance of Cameron means that Gordon is probably more likely to stay. As I live in a very safe Labour seat, my vote is largely irrelevant as my MP is Blunkett, ID cards champion and but barring the second coming I'm voting for Scriven (not much of a choice is it - Scriven or the man that likes putting the national back into socialist).
Given my somewhat meh mood about politics, I've decided to take out some insurance. I'm gonna bet on Labour to win. And if the online bookie gives me a matching free bet, that's going on Gordon being the next PM.
|
|
| That National Insurance Debate |
[04 Apr 2010|09:24am] |
There's been a bit of a hoohah recently about the planned increase in NI that the chancellor mentioned in the budget (Don't think it was this year's budget, might have been a PBR, but I forget). The shadow chancellor has said that he won't increase it; some business groups have endorsed him, and the governement has been having a big row with the opposition about it.
For the average working man, it means an extra pound at of your pocket for every hundred pounds you make, give or take (I think you get to keep the first 5K or so due to allowances). Employers are similarly affected - so it will cost us more to employ people.
One thing about all of this that is slightly confusing, to me anyway, is that the NI rise hasn't happened yet, so when people call the idea of not increasing it a "tax cut", I'm not sure I agree. To me a "tax cut" is when I end up with more money in my pocket, not keeping the same amount (fiscal drag not withstanding) as I already had.
Well, unsurprisingly, I'd sooner not have the tax rise. I'd sooner spend my own money. With my employer hat on, the tax rise equates to less investment in the business, or a number of conferences that I can't go to. Conferences are a place where we can get business - which if we get enough of it means we can employ more people. I argue that my letting us chase more business, and thus having to employ more people, that we start hacking huge chunks out of the deficit.
(Does it have any effect on the deficit? The country owes 170 billion - not sure 7 billion makes much of a dent).
|
|
| Holidays |
[03 Apr 2010|11:28am] |
|
It was pointed out to me that in that this tax year I have two weeks off. This consisted of a week off in July to go to New York, and a few days over christmas which comboed up with the bank holidays. Fortunately I've worked several weekends (heh - like when putting the phone system in), so I reckon the two weeks is less than two weeks(!)
In previous years, I've tended to have less time off than this, but with travel I've managed to see the world. This last tax year has been awful for work related travel, mostly due to the recession.
So I've decided to push the boat out and book 2 days off over easter. However, one of these days is tuesday the 6th, which will falls into next tax year...
|
|
| Star Wars in Concert |
[11 Mar 2010|09:49am] |
Last night I went to see the Star Wars Concert at the Arena. I saw this the first time on Good Friday last year, at the Millenium Dome, on a day with lots of tube closures. http://vampyrefate.livejournal.com/112398.html.
This time, it was a straighforward drive there, no boats involved. Many of my conclusions from last time remain unchanged - John Williams can do no wrong, the Orchestra were amazing, George Lucas can do wrong, and whilst Hayden Christiansen really looks the part (especially with his sith eyes), he really can't perform the part.
Last night was great, with lots of goosebump moments, but was a bit spoiled by some sloppy technical stuff (speakers crackling etc). The O2 did it flawlessly. That said, we did get an encore last night - the Imperial March - which meant I was able to be more forgiving than Darth.
Now, if only they'd do a Lord of the Rings in concert...
|
|
| No, I just don't get it. |
[05 Mar 2010|05:47pm] |
Once upon a time I described myself as an Agnostic. I don't really get God and Angels and all that stuff, but if I came across a burning bush I'd be quick to sign on for the next crusade. Then, I read that Dawkins book and Agnosticism went and I signed up for the Atheist party. For the most part, I really, really, really don't care about what other people choose to believe about their place in the universe. For the most part I dislike Proselytism - each to their own, and I don't think I try to convince people that their view of their place in the universe is wrong, and that they should instead have my view of such matters.
Well anyway. I've got my alarm set to wake me up in time for the review of the papers on the today programme on Radio 4. They follow this with Thought for the Day, which is often a varying collection of thoughts by some wise, and not so wise people. But hey, I don't mind TFTD.
What I do object to is some of the stuff that gets spouted by some of the people that they get to speak on it. Not necessarily on TFTD itself, but often on the news at 8am. For example, one TFTD was that we spend too much time gathering baubles and wealth, that it doesn't make us happy, and we should go do spritual stuff instead. Fine, no problem, except that it's a bloody bishop with a GOLDEN STICK telling me. You want me to stop buying DVDs - don't lecture me from a cathedral built on oppression; don't poke me with a glove born from the wealth of ages.
Same wine, different vintage when it comes to female priests, gay marriages, faith schools and catholic adoptions. People want to live their life certain ways, fine. But why on earth is it ok for me to discriminate just because I have a certain view of my place in the universe? Why is it ok for me to have one set of rules for me when there is another set of rules for someone else, purely because I am in a certain club with certain rules. Maybe, just maybe I could turn a blind eye to what such organisations do behind closed doors; but these organisations leave the door open and have people with flyers standing in the streets shouting, "Come and look at us!".
I don't get it. I really, really, really don't get it. Maybe I need to see the burning bush, and then maybe I'll get why faith schools want to stop kids that think like I do from having a good education, maybe I'll get why homosexuality is bad, or why females can't read stories from a book, sing songs and acquire wisdom.
Sod it, I don't think I want to see the burning bush.
|
|
| That Bloody Woolas F***wit again!!! |
[25 Feb 2010|01:34pm] |
There was a programme on telly last night about migrant workers, unemployed british people and the correlation between the two. I found the show quite fascinating, as in my simple mind, it didn't try to make any big arguments. Rather, they found some unemployed people that were willing to do the jobs of some migrants for a few days, and documented what happened.
Okay - perhaps it wasn't quite that scientific - they did seem to match some people to some jobs pretty badly - and when they did match well (e.g. the chippie that was hired to plasterboard a house), then one's racial stock had no bearing on the job.
There were one or two people in the show I wanted to slap, most notably the lad that had never worked, lived with his mum, owned more DVDs than me and was forever playing on his computer - and when given a job, never showed up...
... but the one person I really wanted to slap wasn't even on the show. He was on newsnight afterwards, where he, some tory, one of the unemployed people, and a businessman from the show met to discuss the issues the show raised.
Yes, it was my main man, Woolas, and without Joanna Lumley there to keep in his place was doing his usual smug-git-eye-rolling-don't care-just here for the money- act. At one point he mentioned the new deal; at which point the unemployed man announced that he'd been out of work for over a year and nothing -no help, no new deal, nothing. Woolas rolls his eyes, becomes more smug than ever and dribbles some nonsense back at him. Even the tory bloke seemed to show more interest(!)
So, again, I ask, please can that bloody awful man be banned from our television. Heck, just MY television would be enough. Would a petition on the downing street website work?
P.S. As for the show itself, I think it was called, "the day the immigrants left", and I thought it was fascinating viewing.
|
|
|
[14 Dec 2009|10:38am] |
Don't forget, the public meeting on the parking scheme is being held on Wednesday 16th December at 6pm, at the Hillsborough Sports Arena.
I would urge anyone with an interest in the parking permit scheme to come along and make their voice heard.
I'm against any sort of scheme like this at all - but if you're in favour, you need to make sure that the council answer your questions and take account of your requirements - for example confirming that only people that live on your street will be able to park on it. It would be bad for everyone if something was imposed on us that didn't meet our needs.
In any event, this parking permit scheme is contentious - so please try to attend.
|
|
| todays comedy tender |
[02 Dec 2009|12:12pm] |
PQQ: pqq_28031 - Provision of Professional Role Play Services
(ministy of justice. Guess thye need to know how many hit points a terrorist has)
|
|
| Do not let that Woolas man speak unless Joanna Lumley is present |
[20 Nov 2009|09:29am] |
I watched Question Time last night (I love politcal debatery shows - not everyone's cup of tea I know..), and some bumbling nitwit governmental suit was on. He spent most of the night contradicting himself, talking in a quiet monotone over the other speakers and at one point denied a direct quote that he made. There are few people in the world that I want to slap, but he's now well on the list!
Then I realised that I'd seen him before. He was the chap that Joanna Lumley was talking down to over the Gurkhas; the same chap that was stood like a schoolboy waiting for his turn to speak... the same one that looked very sheepish as he was told what he had to do by an actress.
Rest of the show was about standard. Ming looked like he'd put polyfilla over the lines on his head - makeup was just a bit too smooth. The non political bloke was kinda fun, but seemed to get a bit squirmy when someone in the audience asked an "immigrants coming here taking our jobs" kind of question.
But please, please, please - don't let that god awful Woolas man anywhere near my telly again, unless he's the contender in "The Running Man".
|
|
