My original blog on HS2 here, lamented the paucity of our ambition. How we're paying enough for our new high speed rail line to be a game-changer, a world leading, envelope-pushing, technology-driven wonder that reduces journey times between say Glasgow and London to about half an hour. When what we're actually getting is something that the French (TGV) have been doing since the early 1980s. We're paying enough to lead the world but we're just catching up with 40-year-old technology.
(There's a link in that original piece about an amazing new concept being proposed in California which is exactly the sort of thing we should be looking at).
I stand completely behind what I originally said, but there's another major issue that no-one seems to be talking about: Punctuality.
You see the main thing is not about getting somewhere a few minutes earlier than you can now, it's getting there on time. Getting there when the timetable says you will so that you can plan your day accurately. If you need to get there earlier, you take an earlier train. It's not as if one cannot work, communicate etc., in relative comfort, on the train.
A few minutes' journey time is neither here nor there, as long as you arrive at your destination when the timetable says you will, so you can meet with the people you need to meet with at the time agreed and are not left wasting your time and theirs because you've been let down by the service for which you've paid a hell of a lot of money.
On some high speed lines in Spain, for example, if the train is more than 5 minutes late all passengers are entitled to a full refund. (Sevilla is 5 minutes; it's 15 minutes on Barcelona lines). In the UK they can cancel services and face no penalty.
When one plans a rail journey one is not particularly concerned about the speed at which one will be traveling. One is concerned about the time that one will arrive. It's not the speed of the journey but the arrival time that affects one's planned day.
And we cannot even come close to achieving that guarantee at the moment. Maybe we should learn to walk before we can run? It'll be the same idiots running HS2 as are currently providing such a poor service on our existing tracks. Maybe we should sort that out before we give them £80 billion for a new train set?
Thanks for Reading, Slough and connections westward.
Monday 31 March 2014
Sunday 30 March 2014
Supermarkets
I did a thing on here some time ago about feeding a family for £53 a week when all that stuff was knocking about. The opinion at the time was that £53 a week (to live on) was an insult to people in our modern society. And that was £53 a week for an individual. Here, with recipes and everything!
That was after housing, heating council tax etc. It was £53 a week for food. I can feed three people healthily and well for that. Which means that two of the three have £53 a week to spend on other stuff. That's generous. It is not remotely breadline.
It is not poverty. Get over it.
But here's my question for now: where do you shop, for groceries? Sainsburys? Asda? Tesco? Morrisons? If you do you're mad. And you deserve to struggle.
I shop for groceries at Aldi and Lidl. I actually prefer Lidl as a shop - where I am (Market Harborough) they have better bread, tomatoes, cheese, but it's marginal. Aldi has a better overall offer but again it's marginal. They both have nice staff, they ask how you are meet your eyes and say 'see you soon' when the transaction is complete. And unlike the Macdonalds 'have a nice day' crap they seem to mean it. I know it's training but it feels real. They are never idle. If they're busy they open another till. If not they close a till and the operator begins stacking shelves. Quickly. It's as if it's their money at stake.
It's as if they are there to help you get your shopping done quickly. What a concept! They don't chat to colleagues when they're serving you, they have much longer conveyor belt tills so that more people can get their stuff onto them and they don't suggest you bag everything up at the till, but that you put it all straight - and quickly - into the trolly and then bag it somewhere else so that they can get on with serving the next customer. It's like the machinery in a Mercedes engine. It works.
But that would not be enough if what one was buying (quickly and efficiently) was cheap crap. It's not. The quality of produce - salad stuff, fresh veg, meat etc is at least as good as that sold by Sainsbury's, Tesco, ASDA and Morrisons. I actually and genuinely think it's better. And the key thing is, that it's at least 30% cheaper. The only place you'll get measurably better fresh stuff is Waitrose - and that is 50% more expensive.
So why anyone would shop in Sainsbury's, Tesco, ASDA or Morrisons is beyond me. If I was a millionaire, I'd shop in Lidl and Aldi and I'd maybe buy my meat and stuff they don't stock like fresh ginger and big bags of coriander, in Waitrose. Veggie stuff, some whole-foods, capers butter beans, but not much else. I'd never go near Sainsbury's, and would not buy anything, ever from Tesco where nothing is cheap unless you buy two of them. Tesco is not cheap at all, it is only competitive if you buy two-for-one - an arrangement in which they are essentially deciding what you buy, and having their 'stock' residing at your house rather than theirs. You buy 'two' when you only wanted 'one' because it was on offer. You're mad if you do that.
The Sainsbury's chief exec blamed the weather and the lateness of Easter recently for a fall in profits. That's bullshit, possibly 'essential' bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless. The Morrisons guy said there'll be a new pricing war when his lamentably underperforming outfit made a loss. The fact is that Aldi and Lidl have got it right - good food, motivated well-paid, well trained 'nice' staff and massively cheaper.
I was in ASDA in Kettering today, buying toilet rolls and kitchen rolls and dog food (they're OK for that 'once-a-month' stuff) and found myself saying (aloud) to the lethargic, chatting-to-collegues check out girl:' can we please get on? I'm in a hurry." 'Oh sorry' she said. 'You will be' I thought.
Give them a try, Aldi & Lidl. And tell me they were poorer quality and more expensive than where you currently shop.
I'm confident that you won't. And I have absolutely no financial connection to either company, just if you were wondering.
Thanks for reading
That was after housing, heating council tax etc. It was £53 a week for food. I can feed three people healthily and well for that. Which means that two of the three have £53 a week to spend on other stuff. That's generous. It is not remotely breadline.
It is not poverty. Get over it.
But here's my question for now: where do you shop, for groceries? Sainsburys? Asda? Tesco? Morrisons? If you do you're mad. And you deserve to struggle.
I shop for groceries at Aldi and Lidl. I actually prefer Lidl as a shop - where I am (Market Harborough) they have better bread, tomatoes, cheese, but it's marginal. Aldi has a better overall offer but again it's marginal. They both have nice staff, they ask how you are meet your eyes and say 'see you soon' when the transaction is complete. And unlike the Macdonalds 'have a nice day' crap they seem to mean it. I know it's training but it feels real. They are never idle. If they're busy they open another till. If not they close a till and the operator begins stacking shelves. Quickly. It's as if it's their money at stake.
It's as if they are there to help you get your shopping done quickly. What a concept! They don't chat to colleagues when they're serving you, they have much longer conveyor belt tills so that more people can get their stuff onto them and they don't suggest you bag everything up at the till, but that you put it all straight - and quickly - into the trolly and then bag it somewhere else so that they can get on with serving the next customer. It's like the machinery in a Mercedes engine. It works.
But that would not be enough if what one was buying (quickly and efficiently) was cheap crap. It's not. The quality of produce - salad stuff, fresh veg, meat etc is at least as good as that sold by Sainsbury's, Tesco, ASDA and Morrisons. I actually and genuinely think it's better. And the key thing is, that it's at least 30% cheaper. The only place you'll get measurably better fresh stuff is Waitrose - and that is 50% more expensive.
So why anyone would shop in Sainsbury's, Tesco, ASDA or Morrisons is beyond me. If I was a millionaire, I'd shop in Lidl and Aldi and I'd maybe buy my meat and stuff they don't stock like fresh ginger and big bags of coriander, in Waitrose. Veggie stuff, some whole-foods, capers butter beans, but not much else. I'd never go near Sainsbury's, and would not buy anything, ever from Tesco where nothing is cheap unless you buy two of them. Tesco is not cheap at all, it is only competitive if you buy two-for-one - an arrangement in which they are essentially deciding what you buy, and having their 'stock' residing at your house rather than theirs. You buy 'two' when you only wanted 'one' because it was on offer. You're mad if you do that.
The Sainsbury's chief exec blamed the weather and the lateness of Easter recently for a fall in profits. That's bullshit, possibly 'essential' bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless. The Morrisons guy said there'll be a new pricing war when his lamentably underperforming outfit made a loss. The fact is that Aldi and Lidl have got it right - good food, motivated well-paid, well trained 'nice' staff and massively cheaper.
I was in ASDA in Kettering today, buying toilet rolls and kitchen rolls and dog food (they're OK for that 'once-a-month' stuff) and found myself saying (aloud) to the lethargic, chatting-to-collegues check out girl:' can we please get on? I'm in a hurry." 'Oh sorry' she said. 'You will be' I thought.
Give them a try, Aldi & Lidl. And tell me they were poorer quality and more expensive than where you currently shop.
I'm confident that you won't. And I have absolutely no financial connection to either company, just if you were wondering.
Thanks for reading
Tuesday 25 March 2014
The case for staying in the EU - a response
I have, honestly, been trying to find a cogent argument for our staying in the EU, just to provide some balance to my argument that we should leave. This article today, in the independent is perhaps the best that I have come across, so it's worthy of consideration in my opinion. It's not just the usual 'because we say so' bullshit and is considered and well put together. I'm not dismissing it, but my response is as follows: (btw you probably need to read it alongside my comments for this to make sense - in as much as anything I write makes sense to anyone!)
Par one: Our prospects are really quite good compared to Spain or Italy, France or Greece. This is not just about the UK but how the EU is benefitting the rest of Europe in my opinion. Reforming the EU is futile? I think it is. Their stated end game is a federal republic of Europe. With combined European solutions in terms of military, foreign policy, tax and pensions arrangements, labour laws etc. They are simply not going to row back from that. The prospects outside are not 'golden' but they are at least 'free' - we would be able to make our own trading deals with other countries, including places where we have long-standing connections like the Commonwealth, the US, Canada, India, Australia. I think our existing membership is a drain on our reesources and limiting factor in our being able to stand on our own two feet.
Par two: There is no credible evidence that our economy would suffer. We have a £46billion trade deficit with Europe, we buy more of their stuff than they do ours, to the tune of £46billion. They cannot afford not to trade with us. We are in a position of strength here. Europe's global influence is not derived from Italy or France or Portugal or Moldova, but from Germany and the UK. We'd still be the UK outside of the EU. We are effectively weaker on a world stage when we're tied to the smaller EU countries than we would be as the UK. We don't operate as a coherent trading bloc in any way.
Par three: We are the biggest financial services, investment and financing country in the world. We're not some little 'tin pot' outfit as this par seems to suggest. Disregard it. We dictate many industries worldwide, this is simply nonesense. 'Going it alone' means working in our own interests not those of other EU countries. Why should we pay for corruption in marginal EU member countries?
Par four: 47% of the EU budget is spent on the CAP. Keeping subsistence French farmers solvent. Or making UK and German 'agribusiness' massively profitable in a way that we all pay for every day. 47%. Think about that. The rest of that par is just identifying palpable bollocks that the EU is responsible for - probably deliberately to bore us all into ignoring the meaningful EU policies when they come along.
Par five: Given our trade deficit of £46billion the EU would be simply mad not to want to continue to trade with the UK. This 'access' argument is fundamentally flawed. They cannot afford not to trade with us. They cannot afford not to give us access to their markets. If we were members of EFTA we'd have exactly the same trading rights as we do now without any need to be 'ruled by' the EU machinery. Our access to the European market is just not an issue unless they want to go into a recession that would make the last one seem like a small dip in demand.
Par six: EU membership costs us £53 million a day. The 'net figure quoted in the article is £8.3 billion. It's about 12% of what we spend on defense of the realm. About 8% of what we spend on the NHS. About 8% of what we spend on education. It's not 'doesn't cost us much either'. It's significant. And for what?
Par seven: Foreign investment. Would foreign investors want to put their money into the UK if it was a member of the EU or a country that had exactly the same access to the EU as it currently does but with the added value of being a strong trader with the US, Canada, India, Australia, Africa and the Commonwealth? Some might not but they'd be muppets. The CBI is a busted flush that does not recognise reality. Former head Digby Jones is in favour of our exiting the EU because he sees the global opportunities we'd have on the outside (but still being 'in' in terms of trade with the EU).
Par eight: Washington Beiijing etc have to take the EU seriously? So they wouldn't take the UK seriously as the major financial and investment player in the world? Perhaps they think that Moldova or Portugal or Cyprus or Italy or France is the key player to include? Europe is powerful because it includes the UK and Germany. Italy is corrupt and bust, France is bust, Holland is teetering on the egde of being bust. Spain is a basket case. And they're the bigger economies of the EU.
Par 9. The Chinese think that the UK is 'the big country'. This point is simply wrong and laughable. Why do they want to come here to be educated in their millions?
Par ten: It's not about standards. There are international standards, we all comply with them. Opening ourselves to international markets? Means enabling us, on our own behalf, to access those markets. On our terms. Trading with others as the UK not in a subservient way via the EU.
Par eleven: Free movement, we have it. We don't need the EU to legislate on it. But we do need to have some control of our borders - that's one of the first principles of government.
Par twelve: It's not about 'foreigners'. It's abut control of our borders. Why use such an emotive term - 'foreigners'? We've always welcomed immigration and we should still do so.
Par thirteen: We're not going to kick anyone out and nor is the EU. The figures are therefore meaningless. We're civilized people. What you suggest is just scaremongering. It will never happen EU or not. This is Europe not an EU state.
Par fourteen, fifteen and sixteen - sorry but I'm losing the will to live here. We welcome incomers if they contribute. They have always come here to better themselves and good for them. It is simply not an EU issue.
Par seventeen: The future: We have no chance of reforming the EU. It is set on its course of a federal Europe. That will not change. The question is whether we want to control our own destiny or not. Whether we want to vote for people who work for us, have our interests at heart or not. Stats about Britains living abroad have no impact on this fundamental issue.
Par eighteen. Just read it. That's the first piece of reality in the article.
Par nineteen: 'Probably'? You mean you don't know? The argument falls apart spectacularly at this point. The rest may have been considered, good in places even, but it falls into palpable nonesense at this point. Shame really. The stated aim of the EU is political and (therefore) financial union. You simply cannot have a single state without monetary union. That means the pound will have to go. It doesn't mean the pound might have to be considered at sometime in the future maybe or perhaps. It will have to go if we are to remain part of the EU. Political union 'unnecessary'? It's the fundamental key point of the EU vision. None of your benefits above about powerful trading block and global influence even begin to arise without that political union. You cannot have it both ways.
Par twenty: Peripheral countries have to solve their own problems? Except they can't. They cannot devalue their currencies so whilst Germany enjoys a 33% exchange rate advantage, an economic boom and strong levels of employment; everyone else is essentially (technical economic term) fucked. What is the EU for if not to solve the problems of its members? Economic, international, employment, laws etc? They have to solve their own problems but also be subservient to Brussels? Disallowed from making changes that would help their economies? Madness. 'Cutting red tape.' The EU? Did you write that with a straight face?
Par twenty-one: What if? Opportunity for Britain? Shouldn't it be opportunity for all members? You seem to be suggesting that the EU will only be good for Germany and the UK? Isn't that fundamentally at variance from what the EU is telling us? What it is 'selling' to all its new members? Wasn't it designed to equalise, to broaden opportunities for all. To eliminate the strength of some over others? That's not what you are saying here.
Oh go on then. Par twenty two Merkel: Germany is laughing all the way to the bank at the benefits the EU is delivering for her. a 33% exchange rate benefit. German companies are buying up Spanish companies at an unprecedented rate because of this. Britain is not 'an important ally'; it's the second biggest net contributor to this scam. If we leave it fails. Spectacularly and quickly. France is bust, Italy and Spain are basket cases, Holland is teetering on the brink. Who else is going to fund this undemocratic sham? Moldova? Ukraine (who we are supposedly bailing out already to the tune of £2billion even though they're not even members?)
Par twenty two. 'None of the varieties (of being out) would be attractive'. You mean like being able to control our own destiny? Giving UK voters some influence over politicians who live locally and understand our local needs, views and concerns? An ability to vote out people who do not do what we want them to do - they work for us remember, not the other way around.
Par twenty three (I wish I'd used numbers from the start ;) ) We could rejoin EFTA (European Free Trade Association) and rid ourselves of the need to aquiess to Brussels. Yes we'd have to obey their trading rules but as one of the biggest customers in Europe do you think we wouldn't have a say in terms of tariffs? Remember we buy more goods from the EU than they do from us. To the tune of £46 billion. The customer is always right. You think they'd impose sanctions on us? If you do you're entirely mad. Norway is prospering massively from being outside the EU. And so is Switzerland. They can't influence what the EU decides but they can also ignore it. And they are doing. In their own interests. We should too.
Par twenty four: Subservient to Brussels? If we left? I don't think so. Blow to our sovereignty? Giving away our ability to control ourselves, to have UK voters' views count would be a blow to our sovereignty? What part of cloud cuckoo land are you living in? Is it nice there? Give me one example recently of where EU rules have been written with our (UK) interests at heart? Just one. Too much to ask? Eurocrats sneer at the UK. Hold us in contempt. And yet we pay for their existence.
Par twenty-five: If you think the EU would impose a 10% tariff on UK-built cars sold into Europe you have lost touch with reality. When we buy £46 billion more EU goods than they do ours? Unlikely. Like the sun not coming up tomorrow is 'unlikely'.
Par twenty-six: If we left the EU we would still be one of the biggest consumers of EU products. They simply cannot afford for us not to be a customer. Our ability to trade with the Eurozone would not diminish at all since it would be massively against their interests. And so there would be absolutely no detrimental impact on our status as a European trading nation. On the contrary, our ability to trade with the EU as well as our enhanced ability to trade, on our own behalf rather than through the laborious, un-agile and red-tape mired EU, with the US, Canada, China, Australia, many parts of Africa, India and the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world as Britain not the EU, would be significantly enhanced. Inward investors would welcome that massively.
Par twenty-seven. We have no chance whatsoever of reforming the EU. France will veto anything we try to reform. You know that. I know that. Dave knows that. The only way is out and your arguments, while being well argued and well-written, are simply not substantial enough to convince anyone with a brain.
As a final point, on this subject, please don't mistake me for a 'Little Englander'. I love Europe. Have friends in many European countries. I love the distinctiveness of its people, culture, food and traditions. But I loathe the EU which is destroying all that. My challenge to the EU is not made solely on the basis of wanting what's best for the UK, but also what's best for the citizens and young people of Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland and indeed everyone who is now being controlled disadvantageously by Brussels and Germany. It's time we stopped this unaccountable bullshit.
Thanks for reading.
Par one: Our prospects are really quite good compared to Spain or Italy, France or Greece. This is not just about the UK but how the EU is benefitting the rest of Europe in my opinion. Reforming the EU is futile? I think it is. Their stated end game is a federal republic of Europe. With combined European solutions in terms of military, foreign policy, tax and pensions arrangements, labour laws etc. They are simply not going to row back from that. The prospects outside are not 'golden' but they are at least 'free' - we would be able to make our own trading deals with other countries, including places where we have long-standing connections like the Commonwealth, the US, Canada, India, Australia. I think our existing membership is a drain on our reesources and limiting factor in our being able to stand on our own two feet.
Par two: There is no credible evidence that our economy would suffer. We have a £46billion trade deficit with Europe, we buy more of their stuff than they do ours, to the tune of £46billion. They cannot afford not to trade with us. We are in a position of strength here. Europe's global influence is not derived from Italy or France or Portugal or Moldova, but from Germany and the UK. We'd still be the UK outside of the EU. We are effectively weaker on a world stage when we're tied to the smaller EU countries than we would be as the UK. We don't operate as a coherent trading bloc in any way.
Par three: We are the biggest financial services, investment and financing country in the world. We're not some little 'tin pot' outfit as this par seems to suggest. Disregard it. We dictate many industries worldwide, this is simply nonesense. 'Going it alone' means working in our own interests not those of other EU countries. Why should we pay for corruption in marginal EU member countries?
Par four: 47% of the EU budget is spent on the CAP. Keeping subsistence French farmers solvent. Or making UK and German 'agribusiness' massively profitable in a way that we all pay for every day. 47%. Think about that. The rest of that par is just identifying palpable bollocks that the EU is responsible for - probably deliberately to bore us all into ignoring the meaningful EU policies when they come along.
Par five: Given our trade deficit of £46billion the EU would be simply mad not to want to continue to trade with the UK. This 'access' argument is fundamentally flawed. They cannot afford not to trade with us. They cannot afford not to give us access to their markets. If we were members of EFTA we'd have exactly the same trading rights as we do now without any need to be 'ruled by' the EU machinery. Our access to the European market is just not an issue unless they want to go into a recession that would make the last one seem like a small dip in demand.
Par six: EU membership costs us £53 million a day. The 'net figure quoted in the article is £8.3 billion. It's about 12% of what we spend on defense of the realm. About 8% of what we spend on the NHS. About 8% of what we spend on education. It's not 'doesn't cost us much either'. It's significant. And for what?
Par seven: Foreign investment. Would foreign investors want to put their money into the UK if it was a member of the EU or a country that had exactly the same access to the EU as it currently does but with the added value of being a strong trader with the US, Canada, India, Australia, Africa and the Commonwealth? Some might not but they'd be muppets. The CBI is a busted flush that does not recognise reality. Former head Digby Jones is in favour of our exiting the EU because he sees the global opportunities we'd have on the outside (but still being 'in' in terms of trade with the EU).
Par eight: Washington Beiijing etc have to take the EU seriously? So they wouldn't take the UK seriously as the major financial and investment player in the world? Perhaps they think that Moldova or Portugal or Cyprus or Italy or France is the key player to include? Europe is powerful because it includes the UK and Germany. Italy is corrupt and bust, France is bust, Holland is teetering on the egde of being bust. Spain is a basket case. And they're the bigger economies of the EU.
Par 9. The Chinese think that the UK is 'the big country'. This point is simply wrong and laughable. Why do they want to come here to be educated in their millions?
Par ten: It's not about standards. There are international standards, we all comply with them. Opening ourselves to international markets? Means enabling us, on our own behalf, to access those markets. On our terms. Trading with others as the UK not in a subservient way via the EU.
Par eleven: Free movement, we have it. We don't need the EU to legislate on it. But we do need to have some control of our borders - that's one of the first principles of government.
Par twelve: It's not about 'foreigners'. It's abut control of our borders. Why use such an emotive term - 'foreigners'? We've always welcomed immigration and we should still do so.
Par thirteen: We're not going to kick anyone out and nor is the EU. The figures are therefore meaningless. We're civilized people. What you suggest is just scaremongering. It will never happen EU or not. This is Europe not an EU state.
Par fourteen, fifteen and sixteen - sorry but I'm losing the will to live here. We welcome incomers if they contribute. They have always come here to better themselves and good for them. It is simply not an EU issue.
Par seventeen: The future: We have no chance of reforming the EU. It is set on its course of a federal Europe. That will not change. The question is whether we want to control our own destiny or not. Whether we want to vote for people who work for us, have our interests at heart or not. Stats about Britains living abroad have no impact on this fundamental issue.
Par eighteen. Just read it. That's the first piece of reality in the article.
Par nineteen: 'Probably'? You mean you don't know? The argument falls apart spectacularly at this point. The rest may have been considered, good in places even, but it falls into palpable nonesense at this point. Shame really. The stated aim of the EU is political and (therefore) financial union. You simply cannot have a single state without monetary union. That means the pound will have to go. It doesn't mean the pound might have to be considered at sometime in the future maybe or perhaps. It will have to go if we are to remain part of the EU. Political union 'unnecessary'? It's the fundamental key point of the EU vision. None of your benefits above about powerful trading block and global influence even begin to arise without that political union. You cannot have it both ways.
Par twenty: Peripheral countries have to solve their own problems? Except they can't. They cannot devalue their currencies so whilst Germany enjoys a 33% exchange rate advantage, an economic boom and strong levels of employment; everyone else is essentially (technical economic term) fucked. What is the EU for if not to solve the problems of its members? Economic, international, employment, laws etc? They have to solve their own problems but also be subservient to Brussels? Disallowed from making changes that would help their economies? Madness. 'Cutting red tape.' The EU? Did you write that with a straight face?
Par twenty-one: What if? Opportunity for Britain? Shouldn't it be opportunity for all members? You seem to be suggesting that the EU will only be good for Germany and the UK? Isn't that fundamentally at variance from what the EU is telling us? What it is 'selling' to all its new members? Wasn't it designed to equalise, to broaden opportunities for all. To eliminate the strength of some over others? That's not what you are saying here.
Oh go on then. Par twenty two Merkel: Germany is laughing all the way to the bank at the benefits the EU is delivering for her. a 33% exchange rate benefit. German companies are buying up Spanish companies at an unprecedented rate because of this. Britain is not 'an important ally'; it's the second biggest net contributor to this scam. If we leave it fails. Spectacularly and quickly. France is bust, Italy and Spain are basket cases, Holland is teetering on the brink. Who else is going to fund this undemocratic sham? Moldova? Ukraine (who we are supposedly bailing out already to the tune of £2billion even though they're not even members?)
Par twenty two. 'None of the varieties (of being out) would be attractive'. You mean like being able to control our own destiny? Giving UK voters some influence over politicians who live locally and understand our local needs, views and concerns? An ability to vote out people who do not do what we want them to do - they work for us remember, not the other way around.
Par twenty three (I wish I'd used numbers from the start ;) ) We could rejoin EFTA (European Free Trade Association) and rid ourselves of the need to aquiess to Brussels. Yes we'd have to obey their trading rules but as one of the biggest customers in Europe do you think we wouldn't have a say in terms of tariffs? Remember we buy more goods from the EU than they do from us. To the tune of £46 billion. The customer is always right. You think they'd impose sanctions on us? If you do you're entirely mad. Norway is prospering massively from being outside the EU. And so is Switzerland. They can't influence what the EU decides but they can also ignore it. And they are doing. In their own interests. We should too.
Par twenty four: Subservient to Brussels? If we left? I don't think so. Blow to our sovereignty? Giving away our ability to control ourselves, to have UK voters' views count would be a blow to our sovereignty? What part of cloud cuckoo land are you living in? Is it nice there? Give me one example recently of where EU rules have been written with our (UK) interests at heart? Just one. Too much to ask? Eurocrats sneer at the UK. Hold us in contempt. And yet we pay for their existence.
Par twenty-five: If you think the EU would impose a 10% tariff on UK-built cars sold into Europe you have lost touch with reality. When we buy £46 billion more EU goods than they do ours? Unlikely. Like the sun not coming up tomorrow is 'unlikely'.
Par twenty-six: If we left the EU we would still be one of the biggest consumers of EU products. They simply cannot afford for us not to be a customer. Our ability to trade with the Eurozone would not diminish at all since it would be massively against their interests. And so there would be absolutely no detrimental impact on our status as a European trading nation. On the contrary, our ability to trade with the EU as well as our enhanced ability to trade, on our own behalf rather than through the laborious, un-agile and red-tape mired EU, with the US, Canada, China, Australia, many parts of Africa, India and the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world as Britain not the EU, would be significantly enhanced. Inward investors would welcome that massively.
Par twenty-seven. We have no chance whatsoever of reforming the EU. France will veto anything we try to reform. You know that. I know that. Dave knows that. The only way is out and your arguments, while being well argued and well-written, are simply not substantial enough to convince anyone with a brain.
As a final point, on this subject, please don't mistake me for a 'Little Englander'. I love Europe. Have friends in many European countries. I love the distinctiveness of its people, culture, food and traditions. But I loathe the EU which is destroying all that. My challenge to the EU is not made solely on the basis of wanting what's best for the UK, but also what's best for the citizens and young people of Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland and indeed everyone who is now being controlled disadvantageously by Brussels and Germany. It's time we stopped this unaccountable bullshit.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday 20 March 2014
Wardrobe completed!
The story so far... here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Ten minutes of your life you'll never get back, but which might amuse and inform?
I've spared you the intimate detail of the painting you'll be happy to know.
The knobs arrived today and were a bit disappointing if I'm honest. I think she thought they'd be a bit bigger. She wanted 'interesting' knobs but I think she'd have preferred bigger ones. Just a hunch.
Anyway I painted the gloss and the varnish and the magnolia bits and there will be a ceremony tomorrow with the mayor (it's quite quiet round here in the sticks at times) to make the official opening. Dignitaries will be coming from far and wide to witness this prestigious event. Jeeves the dog will be gnawing through the ribbon and almost certainly pissing against the side of the thing to declare it open for business.
In the meantime I have 'populated' the new wardrobe with 'she who must be obeyed's clothes. Two apostrophies? I dunno. It's late.
I put the shoes in first. There's three metres of space with two 'rails' for the heels and a back row too. I could fit my entire shoe collection (four pairs) into half of one rail in the cupboard side, this will be easy.
When I say 'easy' I may have exaggerated a bit. If I do eventually give in and do the family tree, I am confident I will discover that my wife is closely related to Imelda Marcos. I don't think she wears any pair more than twice. Lovely wonderful, dare I say 'sexy' shoes? Courts, sling-backs, serious heels, sandals, pumps, kitten heels, wedges (I loathe wedges), elegant classic shoes. Trainers, 'fit' flops, slippers, boots (don't get me started on boots), thigh high leather.. I may have made that last one up.
More's the pity.
Anyway shoes. They went in. No room at all now for clothes, but they went in.
Actually there was room for clothes too - it's like an aircraft hangar inside - and no I didn't find flight MH370, though I looked.
Just the carpet to go now and she'll have a whole new room. My guess is that the wardrobe will soon have clothes hanging off it rather than in it (which was the starting point of the project) but there you go.
I'm thinking of building a 'dog house' in the spare room next. Just for me.
Thanks for reading.
I've spared you the intimate detail of the painting you'll be happy to know.
The knobs arrived today and were a bit disappointing if I'm honest. I think she thought they'd be a bit bigger. She wanted 'interesting' knobs but I think she'd have preferred bigger ones. Just a hunch.
Anyway I painted the gloss and the varnish and the magnolia bits and there will be a ceremony tomorrow with the mayor (it's quite quiet round here in the sticks at times) to make the official opening. Dignitaries will be coming from far and wide to witness this prestigious event. Jeeves the dog will be gnawing through the ribbon and almost certainly pissing against the side of the thing to declare it open for business.In the meantime I have 'populated' the new wardrobe with 'she who must be obeyed's clothes. Two apostrophies? I dunno. It's late.
I put the shoes in first. There's three metres of space with two 'rails' for the heels and a back row too. I could fit my entire shoe collection (four pairs) into half of one rail in the cupboard side, this will be easy.
When I say 'easy' I may have exaggerated a bit. If I do eventually give in and do the family tree, I am confident I will discover that my wife is closely related to Imelda Marcos. I don't think she wears any pair more than twice. Lovely wonderful, dare I say 'sexy' shoes? Courts, sling-backs, serious heels, sandals, pumps, kitten heels, wedges (I loathe wedges), elegant classic shoes. Trainers, 'fit' flops, slippers, boots (don't get me started on boots), thigh high leather.. I may have made that last one up.
More's the pity.
Anyway shoes. They went in. No room at all now for clothes, but they went in.
Actually there was room for clothes too - it's like an aircraft hangar inside - and no I didn't find flight MH370, though I looked.
Just the carpet to go now and she'll have a whole new room. My guess is that the wardrobe will soon have clothes hanging off it rather than in it (which was the starting point of the project) but there you go.
I'm thinking of building a 'dog house' in the spare room next. Just for me.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday 16 March 2014
Is twitter actually stifling proper debate?
I love twitter in many ways. The stories, images etc that one simply wouldn't see anywhere else is truly life-enhancing.
And unlike facebook where one talks (or not) with one's friends and family about banalities (lunch nom nom), twitter is the whole world. It has breaking news long before the BBC gets it; images from real people 'on the ground' as it were, views and comment from a miriad of people and perspectives that would simply not (currently) be aired - or more importantly received and considered - in any other way. Yes sometimes these 'reports' are bogus 'propaganda' and one has to have some circumspection about what one believes (and maybe retweets), (and always look at the date on the story being run, he says ruefully), but generally it's a fantastic news source.
It has its downsides too I guess: the keyboard warriors who cannot conduct a civilized debate without being personally insulting if one doesn't share their views. People blatantly selling stuff.
But generally speaking I have found it to be a wonderful source of information, views, unusual images and news. I have also enjoyed some intense and intelligent debates on issues of the day. These debates don't often change people's minds but, in my case anyway they do give pause for thought sometimes and allow one to experience a different perspective. This I think is particularly valuable in our current society where one's views are shaped largely by the main stream media (MSM) especially the BBC, where a political slant is put on most news items.
So whilst one might not buy the Mirror or the Grauniad for the sake of one's blood pressure and those on the other side of the divide might eschew the Telegraph or the Mail, on twitter you get it all, in one place. And that IMO is a good thing.
Or at least you did, and it was.
Obviously the people who shout the loudest and swear the most will claim to have won the argument (whatever it is), whether that is true or not. But that's OK. I have found that many people simply disappear if the cogency of the argument put forward threatens their view of the world. And that's OK. I can live with that.
I tend not to engage or get into a debate if I'm not pretty sure of the facts supporting my views. That does not mean that I am right all the time, but it does at least leave me 'armed' in any battle of wits on an issue. Many people seem to me to go into 'battle' completely unarmed - or at least with a level of knowledge and comprehension of an issue that might be several miles wide, but is less than an inch deep.
And that's OK too, since they quickly shut up and go (run?) away.
But the thing is, over time, what happens is that one migrates towards people who share the same views, one unfollows or is not followed or is blocked by people who don't. Over time, therefore, one finds oneself in a 'cyber' room, with people who share one's views. Who have the same values and beliefs about politics, the EU, climate change, sport, whatever.
And whilst it might be nice for a while to be in this 'club' where your views are welcomed and shared; where people retweet your stuff because they agree with it, it does start to get a bit smug after a while.
It starts, dare I say it, to get a bit samey. I'm not saying that I have deliberately rebelled against this phenomenon. Quite the opposite. I have found myself in a twitter position (not sure if that's a recognised social phenomenon yet) in which I am surrounded by lovely people (followers and people I follow); many of whom I'd be delighted to have a beer with, but my time-line is becoming full of the same stuff.
People who (as one would expect given what I've said above) retweet the same stuff. Are outraged by the same (usually leftie in my twitter world) nonesense.
But the thing is (have I said that already?) this is largely preaching to the already converted. It's 'what have the Romans ever done for us' in reverse. We all agree. And it is a natural aspect of the twitter format.
But it seems to me that this means increasingly, that there is less original content on my time-line. That is not a criticism of current 'friends and followers' but I'm just pointing out that it is not necessarily healthy for the twitter platform.
I don't know what the answer is, but the fact is that I'm becoming a bit bored by twitter. I see the same content retweeted endlessly by different people on my timeline (and am undoubtedly guilty of this myself), but it's all getting just a it boring.
Thanks for reading.
And unlike facebook where one talks (or not) with one's friends and family about banalities (lunch nom nom), twitter is the whole world. It has breaking news long before the BBC gets it; images from real people 'on the ground' as it were, views and comment from a miriad of people and perspectives that would simply not (currently) be aired - or more importantly received and considered - in any other way. Yes sometimes these 'reports' are bogus 'propaganda' and one has to have some circumspection about what one believes (and maybe retweets), (and always look at the date on the story being run, he says ruefully), but generally it's a fantastic news source.
It has its downsides too I guess: the keyboard warriors who cannot conduct a civilized debate without being personally insulting if one doesn't share their views. People blatantly selling stuff.
But generally speaking I have found it to be a wonderful source of information, views, unusual images and news. I have also enjoyed some intense and intelligent debates on issues of the day. These debates don't often change people's minds but, in my case anyway they do give pause for thought sometimes and allow one to experience a different perspective. This I think is particularly valuable in our current society where one's views are shaped largely by the main stream media (MSM) especially the BBC, where a political slant is put on most news items.
So whilst one might not buy the Mirror or the Grauniad for the sake of one's blood pressure and those on the other side of the divide might eschew the Telegraph or the Mail, on twitter you get it all, in one place. And that IMO is a good thing.
Or at least you did, and it was.
Obviously the people who shout the loudest and swear the most will claim to have won the argument (whatever it is), whether that is true or not. But that's OK. I have found that many people simply disappear if the cogency of the argument put forward threatens their view of the world. And that's OK. I can live with that.
I tend not to engage or get into a debate if I'm not pretty sure of the facts supporting my views. That does not mean that I am right all the time, but it does at least leave me 'armed' in any battle of wits on an issue. Many people seem to me to go into 'battle' completely unarmed - or at least with a level of knowledge and comprehension of an issue that might be several miles wide, but is less than an inch deep.
And that's OK too, since they quickly shut up and go (run?) away.
But the thing is, over time, what happens is that one migrates towards people who share the same views, one unfollows or is not followed or is blocked by people who don't. Over time, therefore, one finds oneself in a 'cyber' room, with people who share one's views. Who have the same values and beliefs about politics, the EU, climate change, sport, whatever.
And whilst it might be nice for a while to be in this 'club' where your views are welcomed and shared; where people retweet your stuff because they agree with it, it does start to get a bit smug after a while.
It starts, dare I say it, to get a bit samey. I'm not saying that I have deliberately rebelled against this phenomenon. Quite the opposite. I have found myself in a twitter position (not sure if that's a recognised social phenomenon yet) in which I am surrounded by lovely people (followers and people I follow); many of whom I'd be delighted to have a beer with, but my time-line is becoming full of the same stuff.
People who (as one would expect given what I've said above) retweet the same stuff. Are outraged by the same (usually leftie in my twitter world) nonesense.
But the thing is (have I said that already?) this is largely preaching to the already converted. It's 'what have the Romans ever done for us' in reverse. We all agree. And it is a natural aspect of the twitter format.
But it seems to me that this means increasingly, that there is less original content on my time-line. That is not a criticism of current 'friends and followers' but I'm just pointing out that it is not necessarily healthy for the twitter platform.
I don't know what the answer is, but the fact is that I'm becoming a bit bored by twitter. I see the same content retweeted endlessly by different people on my timeline (and am undoubtedly guilty of this myself), but it's all getting just a it boring.
Thanks for reading.
She wants an interesting knob.. Wardrobe day 6.
The story so far: one, two, three, four, five, and six. Keep up!
I realise that I'm in danger of blowing away my original headline of 'building a wardrobe' in terms of sensational headlines here, but bear with me. My original headline was 'Door closers' but that was vetoed as being too explicit for a sensitive audience.
Door one (left) tends to want to open itself and drift outwards. Door 2 (middle) is perfect. Door three (right) also wants to open itself at the slightest opportunity. But they all fit OK. Just won't behave as I'd like.
The answer is 'door closers'. If I can just get these unruly doors to 'click' into place I'm home and dried. So I bought some 'click in' catches from Wickes. They have their name on it after all. I needed four, but to buy ten was cheaper than buying four individual ones. Buying a million would have been cheaper still and would have had the same effect. Nothing. They're complete and utter crap. Never buy clip in door closers. They couldn't hold a 2-0 lead in a North London Derby.
And, I'm now starting to realise, the (right) door will soon have a full-length mirror mounted on its inside making it heavier and more likely to want to open.
Anyway the answer is ping things. I have no idea what they're called but they look like this, you have to drill them into the frame and fit a plate on the door but they have a major advantage over the click in catches. They work.
So I've now finished the architrave and the thing is almost complete. I've put a metal curtain rail into the hanging area as it was much stronger than the flimsy 'poles' sold by Wickes and B&Q etc., (for about the same price), put 'rails' in the bottom of both areas of the thing for shoes, installed door jams inside each door-frame to stop the doors going further in - it's almost complete.
Just the painting now - oh and the knobs. We discussed knobs in some depth today: She who must be obeyed said, 'I want an interesting knob'.
'Well,' I said, 'I thought you'd never ask....'
You know that look don't you?
From the start of the project the knob has been her job. Choosing and buying. But I now need the knobs to open the bloody doors because the 'ping things' close them very well indeed. So she went on the internet. I suggested that she might be a bit careful with her 'googling' of knobs but she didn't seem to listen.
Anyway she came down stairs six or seven hours later, looking a little flushed I thought, and told me she'd ordered the knobs, having investigated thoroughly.
Amazon will be delivering them, probably on Monday - they usually deliver before you've actually chosen the product in my experience - how good are they? ;)
And then it will be finished - she's decided to keep the pine doors just varnished, with the rest of the thing painted: I think the doors will be white gloss before long but the thing is, I've built a wardrobe!
Piece of piss. Obviously, for your entertainment, I'll be describing the painting process in some depth next. Not.
I'll be cutting the grass next, bet you can't wait.
Thanks for reading. ;)
I realise that I'm in danger of blowing away my original headline of 'building a wardrobe' in terms of sensational headlines here, but bear with me. My original headline was 'Door closers' but that was vetoed as being too explicit for a sensitive audience.
Door one (left) tends to want to open itself and drift outwards. Door 2 (middle) is perfect. Door three (right) also wants to open itself at the slightest opportunity. But they all fit OK. Just won't behave as I'd like.
And, I'm now starting to realise, the (right) door will soon have a full-length mirror mounted on its inside making it heavier and more likely to want to open.
Anyway the answer is ping things. I have no idea what they're called but they look like this, you have to drill them into the frame and fit a plate on the door but they have a major advantage over the click in catches. They work.
So I've now finished the architrave and the thing is almost complete. I've put a metal curtain rail into the hanging area as it was much stronger than the flimsy 'poles' sold by Wickes and B&Q etc., (for about the same price), put 'rails' in the bottom of both areas of the thing for shoes, installed door jams inside each door-frame to stop the doors going further in - it's almost complete.
'Well,' I said, 'I thought you'd never ask....'
You know that look don't you?
From the start of the project the knob has been her job. Choosing and buying. But I now need the knobs to open the bloody doors because the 'ping things' close them very well indeed. So she went on the internet. I suggested that she might be a bit careful with her 'googling' of knobs but she didn't seem to listen.
Anyway she came down stairs six or seven hours later, looking a little flushed I thought, and told me she'd ordered the knobs, having investigated thoroughly.
Amazon will be delivering them, probably on Monday - they usually deliver before you've actually chosen the product in my experience - how good are they? ;)
And then it will be finished - she's decided to keep the pine doors just varnished, with the rest of the thing painted: I think the doors will be white gloss before long but the thing is, I've built a wardrobe!
Piece of piss. Obviously, for your entertainment, I'll be describing the painting process in some depth next. Not.
I'll be cutting the grass next, bet you can't wait.
Thanks for reading. ;)
Saturday 15 March 2014
Plaster Bored?
What an amazing thing plaster board is. It's like a wall held together by paper. The thin, sort of edible paper you get in church once a year, or which held in place a very small bit of sherbert in the shape of a 'flying saucer' when you were a kid, only thinner. And it holds this whole wall together. Amazing.
It's not advisable, therefore, to peel off the paper like the wrapper you thought it was because that doesn't then leave you with a pristine 'naked' wall. Oh no. What it leaves you with is dust. Quite a lot of dust and the solid (ish) wall you were hoping to find under the wrapper seems to have disappeared and reverted to its natural state. Dust. White German dust.
It was like a Nigella tea party only in the bedroom. The Dyson choked several times. By the way, have you ever - being slightly unfamiliar with the concept of vacuuming - dismantled the thing to remove blockages and then wondered what that little red button did? Pressed it to find out and depositied all the crap you'd just hoovered up all over the bloody floor?
No? Me neither.
I didn't really 'peel' the plasterboard . That would have been stupid. Instead I measured it and marked it and scored it down one side and then it snapped, perfectly along the line I'd cut in the paper. It is simply, brilliant stuff. You just cut through the paper on the other side and you have a perfectly straight line to offer up to your sadly un-straight wall and wardrobe frame. Even I could do this. I even decided to eschew the hardboard I had left over to 'box in' the drawers from the hanging space and use plasterboard instead.
I know you're awaiting a calamity at this point, but there simply wasn't one. Sorry about that.
I shaved one of the double doors, well, marked it and started to shave it and then thought, 'why am I doing this?' I'm going to shave to the line I'd marked, why not just get the electric saw and cut to the same line? Which I did, and the off-cut (which amazingly came off in a single piece) has since been used to fill out the frame of the slightly too big gap in the drawer door (still with me?).
Make sure (serious point) that the floor you're cutting the plaster-board on is flat and doesn't have the debris of previous cuts underneath. It's delicate, works perfectly if you are tidy.
And you can then just screw through the plasterboard, no pre drilling required, and attach it to your frame.
Seven hours it took me to accomplish this, including shaving the door, but it was worth it. Instead of a rustic frame and some shelves, she now had a fully boxed-in wardrobe, work still to be done of course, but it was a transformation. And the double doors now fitted perfectly.
Instead of going upstairs with her when she got home from work to show her the progress I'd made, I simply sat downstairs and awaited the accolades.
Twenty minutes later she came down for supper; I sat expectantly, half smiling in anticipation of her amazement at the professionalism of my construction work.
'So, what have you been up to today?' she asked.
It was quite cold in the spare room last night, but I'm getting used to it.
To be continued..
It's not advisable, therefore, to peel off the paper like the wrapper you thought it was because that doesn't then leave you with a pristine 'naked' wall. Oh no. What it leaves you with is dust. Quite a lot of dust and the solid (ish) wall you were hoping to find under the wrapper seems to have disappeared and reverted to its natural state. Dust. White German dust.
It was like a Nigella tea party only in the bedroom. The Dyson choked several times. By the way, have you ever - being slightly unfamiliar with the concept of vacuuming - dismantled the thing to remove blockages and then wondered what that little red button did? Pressed it to find out and depositied all the crap you'd just hoovered up all over the bloody floor?
No? Me neither.
I didn't really 'peel' the plasterboard . That would have been stupid. Instead I measured it and marked it and scored it down one side and then it snapped, perfectly along the line I'd cut in the paper. It is simply, brilliant stuff. You just cut through the paper on the other side and you have a perfectly straight line to offer up to your sadly un-straight wall and wardrobe frame. Even I could do this. I even decided to eschew the hardboard I had left over to 'box in' the drawers from the hanging space and use plasterboard instead.
I know you're awaiting a calamity at this point, but there simply wasn't one. Sorry about that.
I shaved one of the double doors, well, marked it and started to shave it and then thought, 'why am I doing this?' I'm going to shave to the line I'd marked, why not just get the electric saw and cut to the same line? Which I did, and the off-cut (which amazingly came off in a single piece) has since been used to fill out the frame of the slightly too big gap in the drawer door (still with me?).
Make sure (serious point) that the floor you're cutting the plaster-board on is flat and doesn't have the debris of previous cuts underneath. It's delicate, works perfectly if you are tidy.
And you can then just screw through the plasterboard, no pre drilling required, and attach it to your frame.
Seven hours it took me to accomplish this, including shaving the door, but it was worth it. Instead of a rustic frame and some shelves, she now had a fully boxed-in wardrobe, work still to be done of course, but it was a transformation. And the double doors now fitted perfectly.
Instead of going upstairs with her when she got home from work to show her the progress I'd made, I simply sat downstairs and awaited the accolades.
Twenty minutes later she came down for supper; I sat expectantly, half smiling in anticipation of her amazement at the professionalism of my construction work.
'So, what have you been up to today?' she asked.
It was quite cold in the spare room last night, but I'm getting used to it.
To be continued..
Wednesday 12 March 2014
How many 'top' BBC employees are on PAYE? It's public money after all.
You'd have thought - at least I would - that people working for our national broadcaster, an organisation that is funded largely, but not exclusively, by what is essentially a poll tax on television ownership and is therefore a publicly funded body (to the tune of £3Billion a year), would only employ people on the basis that they were on a PAYE (Pay As You Earn) tax basis?
So that employees of this public body would be subject to paying the same levels of taxation that most of the rest of us are subjected to? It is, after all, our money in the form of a 'no choice' tax that pays these people's often mega salaries. It is surely right that people who are effectively employed by this public corporation should play by the same rules as we do? After all you wouldn't expect pubic employees to be able to avoid tax when they are effectively paid by tax revenue. That would be madness, wouldn't it?
I don't mean sometime contractors, who are engaged on an 'as and when' basis and who have independent companies to run in a highly competitive marketplace and who may, therefore, enjoy some of the entrepreneurial tax breaks that encourage businesses in this country (and quite right too).
I'm talking about people like Jeremy Paxman, Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, David Dimblebee, Fiona Bruce, Chris Evans, Terry Wigon, Richard Twat-Bacon?
Who do they work for? The BBC? Well no actually, they all work for their own companies which charge the BBC for their services and, as a result, they pay around 22% income tax rather than the PAYE level of 40% or 45% - and most of them would be on 45% given their level of income. Dimbledore gets £15k a show (BBCQT) and Alan Hansen is paid £1.4 million a year for an hour's work a week on MoTD.
None of them is on PAYE. All of them are avoiding tax and yet Messrs Paxman, Bacon, Bruce and others regularly cover stories, expressing outrage at tax avoidance by corporations.
They're taking the piss out of all of us.
Enough.
Thanks for reading.
So that employees of this public body would be subject to paying the same levels of taxation that most of the rest of us are subjected to? It is, after all, our money in the form of a 'no choice' tax that pays these people's often mega salaries. It is surely right that people who are effectively employed by this public corporation should play by the same rules as we do? After all you wouldn't expect pubic employees to be able to avoid tax when they are effectively paid by tax revenue. That would be madness, wouldn't it?
I don't mean sometime contractors, who are engaged on an 'as and when' basis and who have independent companies to run in a highly competitive marketplace and who may, therefore, enjoy some of the entrepreneurial tax breaks that encourage businesses in this country (and quite right too).
I'm talking about people like Jeremy Paxman, Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, David Dimblebee, Fiona Bruce, Chris Evans, Terry Wigon, Richard Twat-Bacon?
Who do they work for? The BBC? Well no actually, they all work for their own companies which charge the BBC for their services and, as a result, they pay around 22% income tax rather than the PAYE level of 40% or 45% - and most of them would be on 45% given their level of income. Dimbledore gets £15k a show (BBCQT) and Alan Hansen is paid £1.4 million a year for an hour's work a week on MoTD.
None of them is on PAYE. All of them are avoiding tax and yet Messrs Paxman, Bacon, Bruce and others regularly cover stories, expressing outrage at tax avoidance by corporations.
They're taking the piss out of all of us.
Enough.
Thanks for reading.
You're only s'posed to put the bloody doors on. Wardrobe - day five
Frame completed, shelves made time to see if the doors fit their made-to-measure frames. And flushed with my success with the bedroom door - and given the fact that the frame is now more solidly in place and un-adjustable than a bridge over the M1 - I confidently unwrap the first door and 'offer it up' (professional carpentry term) to the 'gap' (unprofessional layman's term) I've sweated for days, to create for it.
And it fits in perfectly.
When I say 'perfectly' what I really mean is 'easily'. Too easily. The f*cking hole is too big. By about an inch, and since I've been measuring everything in centimetres, that can't be right. The bloody French. It's all their fault.
Still, it's better than being too small a frame, and with the judicious use of architrave and some more wood - if only I had some spare wood, oh yes actually I have about a ton or tonne (Frogs again) of spare wood. Not a problem then.
It's just a case of hanging the door now, hinges and that stuff, what could possibly go wrong?
Have you ever tried to hang a door? I don't mean take it off and then put it back where it was using the same screw holes, I mean hanging a door, from scratch?
Let's just say it's not easy. Like flying out of one's bedroom window unassisted is not easy. Or like eating a combined harvester is not easy.
You see, when the door is perfectly in place and at just the right height that it doesn't 'hit the top or bottom frames, you can't get at the hinges because they're trapped between the door and the frame. And when you open the door so you can screw in the hinges, the door tends to lean a little bit. Not much because you've cleverly put wedges and an old screwdriver and some coins underneath it becuse you're clever like that; but just enough so that when the hinges are aligned just right (and you've found another bloody screwdriver because the one you wanted is now holding up the bloody door), and have been screwed into place on the door and the frame, the door won't shut.
And you've now ruined the wood on the frame and the door where you'd sited your hinges and so the process begins again.
It only took four attempts and I closed the bedroom window so that the kids coming home from school wouldn't learn some new words.
Anyway it worked in the end. Next the two facing doors at the other end of the wardrobe. The first one went in first time, hinges perfect and the door closing and opening as if it had been designed by God Himself. The second door wasn't quite so perfect but I managed to get the hinges in place and had to 'shave' the door a little bit so that it would close properly without jamming on the top or bottom of the frame.
Shaving a door is not what I'd call fun. It involves a shaving thing (I think it's called a surform - which, again, inexplicably I had) and shaving a millimetre off the door for about ten minutes' vigorous and hard work, then 'offering it up' to the frame and finding out that you'd actually shaved the wrong bit.
Anyway eventually the second door fitted the frame; closed quite snugly but closed nonetheless. Cigar time I thought. But first I thought I'd enjoy the majesty of the two perfectly hinged facing doors closing together, meeting in the middle so to speak. Like a butler opening the double doors for you at a posh 'do' only in reverse.
I'd like to say at this point, that they went in, fitted perfectly together like a newly-wed couple.
But the fact is that they didn't. They overlapped. By about an inch.
Underterred, I smiled warmly, and went for a swim. I might or might not have said 'fuck-it' at some point; I can't now be sure.
I'm getting to like the spare room though. The squeaking from next door is a bit of a pain (I can now spell 'squeaking' you'll be relieved to know). I have suggested oil but she just looked at me suspiciously and said 'not until you've finished the bloody wardrobe'. Ho hum. ;)
To be continued...
I've always liked that phrase. It's a bit like 'follow that cab'. Just me? OK then.
And it fits in perfectly.
When I say 'perfectly' what I really mean is 'easily'. Too easily. The f*cking hole is too big. By about an inch, and since I've been measuring everything in centimetres, that can't be right. The bloody French. It's all their fault.
Still, it's better than being too small a frame, and with the judicious use of architrave and some more wood - if only I had some spare wood, oh yes actually I have about a ton or tonne (Frogs again) of spare wood. Not a problem then.
It's just a case of hanging the door now, hinges and that stuff, what could possibly go wrong?
Have you ever tried to hang a door? I don't mean take it off and then put it back where it was using the same screw holes, I mean hanging a door, from scratch?
Let's just say it's not easy. Like flying out of one's bedroom window unassisted is not easy. Or like eating a combined harvester is not easy.
You see, when the door is perfectly in place and at just the right height that it doesn't 'hit the top or bottom frames, you can't get at the hinges because they're trapped between the door and the frame. And when you open the door so you can screw in the hinges, the door tends to lean a little bit. Not much because you've cleverly put wedges and an old screwdriver and some coins underneath it becuse you're clever like that; but just enough so that when the hinges are aligned just right (and you've found another bloody screwdriver because the one you wanted is now holding up the bloody door), and have been screwed into place on the door and the frame, the door won't shut.
And you've now ruined the wood on the frame and the door where you'd sited your hinges and so the process begins again.
It only took four attempts and I closed the bedroom window so that the kids coming home from school wouldn't learn some new words.
Anyway it worked in the end. Next the two facing doors at the other end of the wardrobe. The first one went in first time, hinges perfect and the door closing and opening as if it had been designed by God Himself. The second door wasn't quite so perfect but I managed to get the hinges in place and had to 'shave' the door a little bit so that it would close properly without jamming on the top or bottom of the frame.
Shaving a door is not what I'd call fun. It involves a shaving thing (I think it's called a surform - which, again, inexplicably I had) and shaving a millimetre off the door for about ten minutes' vigorous and hard work, then 'offering it up' to the frame and finding out that you'd actually shaved the wrong bit.
Anyway eventually the second door fitted the frame; closed quite snugly but closed nonetheless. Cigar time I thought. But first I thought I'd enjoy the majesty of the two perfectly hinged facing doors closing together, meeting in the middle so to speak. Like a butler opening the double doors for you at a posh 'do' only in reverse.
I'd like to say at this point, that they went in, fitted perfectly together like a newly-wed couple.
But the fact is that they didn't. They overlapped. By about an inch.
Underterred, I smiled warmly, and went for a swim. I might or might not have said 'fuck-it' at some point; I can't now be sure.
I'm getting to like the spare room though. The squeaking from next door is a bit of a pain (I can now spell 'squeaking' you'll be relieved to know). I have suggested oil but she just looked at me suspiciously and said 'not until you've finished the bloody wardrobe'. Ho hum. ;)
To be continued...
I've always liked that phrase. It's a bit like 'follow that cab'. Just me? OK then.
Day four of the two-day wardrobe construction job
If you've missed the story so far (where have you been?), here, here and here.
I've noticed something about this constructing a simple wardrobe lark. You need a good spirit level. Or, to put it another, perhaps more accurate way, you need very good levels of spirits in the drinks cabinet. Everything looks straighter and more level after a few gins. 'A large gin please.' 'Tonic?' 'If there's room in the glass'. ;)
Jeeves, the cutest most loving dog in the world, pissed over my carpet/bed in the spare room yesterday so I was back on the floorboards. Mind you my back and shoulders were now beyond repair so it made little difference. I did have a feeling of nostalgia listening to she who must be obeyed squeeaking along in her bed as she slept. The sound traveling easily through the un-shutable door.
'Establish where the ceiling joists or beams are (they said on the internet) so that you can screw your frame into the ceiling and make it more solid.' Sound advice.
My only, slight, quibble with it is how, exactly, does one do that? When one has 150 years' of papered ceiling which all sounds either solid wood beam, or empty space? Well I climbed up into the loft of course, established that the beams ran at 90 degrees to the direction of the frame and that I would therefore have to use the joists to secure my frame.
Difficult, perhaps, to identify exactly where the joists were in relation to the bedroom and the emerging frame from in the loft. Were they near the Scalextric set, the model railway box, the stair guard, the pram, the skis, the world's largest collection of knackered lampshades, or the box containing bank statements from 1979?
But I'm not stupid. I took some small nails and my trusty hammer and knocked them discretely through the ceiling either side of the joists, thus identifying the location of the joists in the room below. Taps forehead. Smart huh?
The only thing is that the room below was in fact the office and not the bedroom (geography has never been my strongest suit, especially in the dark).
I've heard that before somewhere too.
Never again will I mock or sneer at flat-pack furniture. My flat-pack came on a truck without instructions, measurements or fixings. Without pre-drilled holes, without the right tools or screws or brackets. Without hinges or rawl plugs. It's the blind leading the deaf.
But despite my many failings, I have now just about completed the frame and it is solid as a rock. It would be easier to dismantle the house than the wardrobe!
Tomorrow the delights of trying to work out how plasterboard works. Wish me luck and stay tuned.
Some pics of the project so far:
Where to start?
Tuesday 11 March 2014
The wardrobe takes shape. But not necessarily the shape of a wardrobe
If you missed parts 1 and 2 (and let's face it most people did), you can avail yourselves of this professional, step-by-step guide to building a wardrobe here and here. You might want to catch up with the story before reading on. Then again, you'd find yourself in a minority.
Anyway, it didn't take that long to put the bed back together. Compared to HS2 say, or a cricket test match. Four hours tops. I was safely ensconced in the spare room well before 1am.
However I seem to have now installed a slight squeak in the bed frame somewhere. A squeak that I would have been proud to discover in previous years, but now it seems to occur when one is simply breathing rather than breathless.
Anyway the door went back on just fine with some fresh screws. It is true that it doesn't quite close any more, but that's a mere detail....
The next day I was up bright and early. Sleeping on the floor in the spare room can have that effect.
And with renewed determination and the use of a hammer, I got the bloody two-part 'frame' into place against the wall. Thereby breaking the back of the whole project in a single move.
The trouble was that without anything to support the other end of the horizontal 'beam' (even though it was screwed to the vertical one very tightly) it tended to sag a little at the other end.
I may be exaggerating when I say 'a little'. It actually sagged quite a lot. It's a 3 metre long bit of 'four be two' and quite heavy so it was bound to sag I suppose. However it stopped sagging almost entirely when it hit the (fucking) floor. Apologies for the Anglo Saxon vernacular but no other word quite sufficed, either now or at the time.
So instead of a nice tight inverted 'L' shape, I now had a rather slovenly inverted 'V' shape of 3 metres by 2.4 metres. I was tempted to ask if she'd prefer a unique, artistic, unsymmetrical wig-wam shaped wardrobe instead of the boring rectangular one she'd specified, but wisely thought better of it. The spare room is not luxurious, but it is markedly more so than the shed.
Anyway I then had the brainwave of building the other vertical post, at the other end of the wall (not quite the end because that's where the [broken] door is and whilst it won't quite close any more, it's still better than if it didn't open at all for the reason of being behind the wardrobe, in my humble opinion).
So I measured and drilled and screwed, and then came back home to work on the wardrobe. (That's just a joke Dear). And in a matter of moments (that felt like hours - and in fact were hours) I had the second of my 'goalposts' up and securely fastened to the wall.
So now it was just a simple matter of single-handedly lifting up my 'crossbar' and attaching it securely at both ends. Simple.
Again, I may have to admit to a slight exaggeration here. You see you'd have to be Atlas to be able to lift a 3 metre plank (let's call it what it is) of 'four be two' from one end and keep it upright (horizontal) while you attach the screws and brackets to keep it in place, then hold it up and 'walk' along the length of it, at a height of 2.4 metres and then address the other end. Especially when, standing on the step-ladder, trying to keep the thing straight, and with nothing to hold it in place but your screaming arm and shoulder muscles, you find that the drill, cordless bloody screwdriver, brackets and screws are actually 2.4 metres below you, in plain view, neatly arranged, but so far out of your reach that they might as well be in Alaska.
I put some new carpet down on the floor in the spare room that second night. It was much more comfortable.
To be continued...
Unlike Dallas I don't somehow think this is a dream.
Anyway, it didn't take that long to put the bed back together. Compared to HS2 say, or a cricket test match. Four hours tops. I was safely ensconced in the spare room well before 1am.
However I seem to have now installed a slight squeak in the bed frame somewhere. A squeak that I would have been proud to discover in previous years, but now it seems to occur when one is simply breathing rather than breathless.
Anyway the door went back on just fine with some fresh screws. It is true that it doesn't quite close any more, but that's a mere detail....
The next day I was up bright and early. Sleeping on the floor in the spare room can have that effect.
And with renewed determination and the use of a hammer, I got the bloody two-part 'frame' into place against the wall. Thereby breaking the back of the whole project in a single move.
The trouble was that without anything to support the other end of the horizontal 'beam' (even though it was screwed to the vertical one very tightly) it tended to sag a little at the other end.
I may be exaggerating when I say 'a little'. It actually sagged quite a lot. It's a 3 metre long bit of 'four be two' and quite heavy so it was bound to sag I suppose. However it stopped sagging almost entirely when it hit the (fucking) floor. Apologies for the Anglo Saxon vernacular but no other word quite sufficed, either now or at the time.
So instead of a nice tight inverted 'L' shape, I now had a rather slovenly inverted 'V' shape of 3 metres by 2.4 metres. I was tempted to ask if she'd prefer a unique, artistic, unsymmetrical wig-wam shaped wardrobe instead of the boring rectangular one she'd specified, but wisely thought better of it. The spare room is not luxurious, but it is markedly more so than the shed.
Anyway I then had the brainwave of building the other vertical post, at the other end of the wall (not quite the end because that's where the [broken] door is and whilst it won't quite close any more, it's still better than if it didn't open at all for the reason of being behind the wardrobe, in my humble opinion).
So I measured and drilled and screwed, and then came back home to work on the wardrobe. (That's just a joke Dear). And in a matter of moments (that felt like hours - and in fact were hours) I had the second of my 'goalposts' up and securely fastened to the wall.
So now it was just a simple matter of single-handedly lifting up my 'crossbar' and attaching it securely at both ends. Simple.
Again, I may have to admit to a slight exaggeration here. You see you'd have to be Atlas to be able to lift a 3 metre plank (let's call it what it is) of 'four be two' from one end and keep it upright (horizontal) while you attach the screws and brackets to keep it in place, then hold it up and 'walk' along the length of it, at a height of 2.4 metres and then address the other end. Especially when, standing on the step-ladder, trying to keep the thing straight, and with nothing to hold it in place but your screaming arm and shoulder muscles, you find that the drill, cordless bloody screwdriver, brackets and screws are actually 2.4 metres below you, in plain view, neatly arranged, but so far out of your reach that they might as well be in Alaska.
I put some new carpet down on the floor in the spare room that second night. It was much more comfortable.
To be continued...
Unlike Dallas I don't somehow think this is a dream.
Building a bloody wardrobe
If you missed part 1 of this enthralling adventure you can avail yourself of it here.
'Four be two' wood is a bit of an issue for me. You see I have screws that are perfect for the 'two' bit of the equation. But the four bit, is a bit of a mystery. You don't seem to be able to buy screws that are long enough to go through the 'four' side of the piece of wood. Who knew that giving one's wife one (a wardrobe) would be so difficult? I just don't seem to have the length (of screw) required.
I've heard that before somewhere.
Anyway, the wardrobe. I started in the corner and screwed a floor-to-ceiling bit of four be two to the wall. Drilled holes, inserted rawl plugs and everything. And then stood back to admire my work. It was a start. Next the horizontal 'beam' and it was almost built. Trouble was I couldn't screw the horizontal beam to the wall post because it was erm attached to the wall. So it had to come down again and be laid out on the floor so that i could screw the horizontal beam to the vertical one. Because of limited space the horizontal beam had to go under the bed so that I could screw it to the shorter vertical one.
And then when it was soundly and firmly attached, 'solid as a rock' I couldn't actually get the horizontal beam out from under the bed to put it up against the wall.
So I partly dismantled the brass-and-steel bed but I had then to take the bedroom door off to get it out of the room. But that bedroom door has not been off since 1863 when the house was built so it had 150 years' of gloss paint to get through before I could get to the hinge screws which were rusted to fuck (technical carpentry term) and wouldn't come out.
So I drilled them out which took forever, and then took the door off, took the bed out and freed the horizontal beam. I then lifted up my inverted 'L' shaped structure of four be two, snapped it cleanly into place and screwed the horizontal beam into place in my pre-drilled holes.
Or at least I would have done if I could have got the thing to stand up vertically under my bowed ceiling. It would have fitted snugly but easily into place on the wall, but it would not fit under the ceiling between where I was now sweatily standing, and that snug fit against the wall.
And that, friends, is where she found me a few hours later, quietly weeping amidst my screws and saws and endless lengths of four be two. In a bedroom with no door and no bed.
And no wardrobe.
To be continued...
This is like Dallas ain't it?
'Four be two' wood is a bit of an issue for me. You see I have screws that are perfect for the 'two' bit of the equation. But the four bit, is a bit of a mystery. You don't seem to be able to buy screws that are long enough to go through the 'four' side of the piece of wood. Who knew that giving one's wife one (a wardrobe) would be so difficult? I just don't seem to have the length (of screw) required.
I've heard that before somewhere.
Anyway, the wardrobe. I started in the corner and screwed a floor-to-ceiling bit of four be two to the wall. Drilled holes, inserted rawl plugs and everything. And then stood back to admire my work. It was a start. Next the horizontal 'beam' and it was almost built. Trouble was I couldn't screw the horizontal beam to the wall post because it was erm attached to the wall. So it had to come down again and be laid out on the floor so that i could screw the horizontal beam to the vertical one. Because of limited space the horizontal beam had to go under the bed so that I could screw it to the shorter vertical one.
And then when it was soundly and firmly attached, 'solid as a rock' I couldn't actually get the horizontal beam out from under the bed to put it up against the wall.
So I partly dismantled the brass-and-steel bed but I had then to take the bedroom door off to get it out of the room. But that bedroom door has not been off since 1863 when the house was built so it had 150 years' of gloss paint to get through before I could get to the hinge screws which were rusted to fuck (technical carpentry term) and wouldn't come out.
So I drilled them out which took forever, and then took the door off, took the bed out and freed the horizontal beam. I then lifted up my inverted 'L' shaped structure of four be two, snapped it cleanly into place and screwed the horizontal beam into place in my pre-drilled holes.
Or at least I would have done if I could have got the thing to stand up vertically under my bowed ceiling. It would have fitted snugly but easily into place on the wall, but it would not fit under the ceiling between where I was now sweatily standing, and that snug fit against the wall.
And that, friends, is where she found me a few hours later, quietly weeping amidst my screws and saws and endless lengths of four be two. In a bedroom with no door and no bed.
And no wardrobe.
To be continued...
This is like Dallas ain't it?
Monday 10 March 2014
Building a wardrobe
If any headline I've ever written was guaranteed to bring people in to reading the blog, surely this was it? How can you possibly resist?
I toyed with 'screwing in the bedroom'; 'drilling (for) the missus' in the bedroom' and 'doing it on the floor in the bedroom', but 'Building a wardrobe' was a cut above I think.
When she who must be obeyed opined that she'd like a built-in wardrobe, I suggested that I should give her one. She said she'd rather have a local tradesman give her one instead and that I should get quotes from local tradesmen willing to undertake the task.
Which I did; 'who will give my wife one?' I asked. And sure enough several local men with wood came along and offered their services. Some of them were even carpenters.
In the end, however, she reluctantly agreed that I should take on the task on the basis that they were all quite expensive, and didn't find any who she wanted involved in her drawers.
I got the job. Call it nepotism, having an inside track, being cheap, whatever. I'd been appointed to the task of giving my wife one in the bedroom.
Well as they say a change is a good as a rest, so I set to the task with Gusto. A local Italian lad who seemed to be already at home in her bedroom.
Anyway, I bought some wood. 'four be two' I think it's called. I hadn't seen any 'naked' wood since I was at school and rubbed it down for about two years into a smooth thing that had no discernable use.
Oh and I did drill something to make holes in it so that it could house pencils. I know not why.
Strangely I had an electric saw (I have no idea why I had bought such a thing); a cordless drill (same) and obviously my trusty hammer with which I fix almost everything around the house. I also possess the ability to swear profusely at inanimate objects all the time. I am, although I didn't know it, practically a master carpenter already.
Anyway the delivery guy deposited the lengths of wood on my front doorstep four at a time ('sign here please') and I then struggled to pick up one piece of wood and carry it up the stairs into the bedroom. Of course I didn't struggle to bash each piece against the bannisters or gloss around the doors that I'd recently painted, leaving much evidence of my travails.
Build a frame they said (on the internet). Then simply slide it into place, apply some screws and Bob's your dad's brother. Yeah right. The frame might fit the wall to which one is applying it but standing the thing up in a room with bowed ceilings, is never going to work. Even with my hammer.
To be continued.... I bet you can hardly wait?
I toyed with 'screwing in the bedroom'; 'drilling (for) the missus' in the bedroom' and 'doing it on the floor in the bedroom', but 'Building a wardrobe' was a cut above I think.
When she who must be obeyed opined that she'd like a built-in wardrobe, I suggested that I should give her one. She said she'd rather have a local tradesman give her one instead and that I should get quotes from local tradesmen willing to undertake the task.
Which I did; 'who will give my wife one?' I asked. And sure enough several local men with wood came along and offered their services. Some of them were even carpenters.
In the end, however, she reluctantly agreed that I should take on the task on the basis that they were all quite expensive, and didn't find any who she wanted involved in her drawers.
I got the job. Call it nepotism, having an inside track, being cheap, whatever. I'd been appointed to the task of giving my wife one in the bedroom.
Well as they say a change is a good as a rest, so I set to the task with Gusto. A local Italian lad who seemed to be already at home in her bedroom.
Anyway, I bought some wood. 'four be two' I think it's called. I hadn't seen any 'naked' wood since I was at school and rubbed it down for about two years into a smooth thing that had no discernable use.
Oh and I did drill something to make holes in it so that it could house pencils. I know not why.
Strangely I had an electric saw (I have no idea why I had bought such a thing); a cordless drill (same) and obviously my trusty hammer with which I fix almost everything around the house. I also possess the ability to swear profusely at inanimate objects all the time. I am, although I didn't know it, practically a master carpenter already.
Anyway the delivery guy deposited the lengths of wood on my front doorstep four at a time ('sign here please') and I then struggled to pick up one piece of wood and carry it up the stairs into the bedroom. Of course I didn't struggle to bash each piece against the bannisters or gloss around the doors that I'd recently painted, leaving much evidence of my travails.
Build a frame they said (on the internet). Then simply slide it into place, apply some screws and Bob's your dad's brother. Yeah right. The frame might fit the wall to which one is applying it but standing the thing up in a room with bowed ceilings, is never going to work. Even with my hammer.
To be continued.... I bet you can hardly wait?
Who do you vote for when they're all the same?
I've done a short piece on the Lib Dems from my point of view here.
Short because I believe they're toast and rightly so.
Labour is likely to form the next government in the UK, so I felt that I should do something on them too, perhaps in more depth. I'm a Tory by instinct but not by any kind of tribalist belief; this is intended to be objective, but obviously I am somewhat biased. Let's see...
It was of course so much easier to define ones options on politics during the 70s and 80s. The Tories were essentially about business, wealth creation, low taxes, small government, police and defense, enabling the 'haves' to drag up the 'have nots' through prosperity, achievement and sustainable employment.
Labour was essentially about the 'workers', socialism, the welfare state, the NHS, wealth redistribution, taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots'.
Then came Maggie who, faced with a basket case economy, ditched many of the union-run inefficient, insolvent industries and, whatever you might think of her personally, delivered an upturn in our economy that was as essential as it was breathtaking. She might have sacked your grandad, but she re-established Britain on the word stage as a competitive economy. That simply would not have happened under a Labour government with its short termist union-driven policies at the time.
And then came Mr Tony, who was Machiavellian in his thirst for power. Without whom Labour would probably have disappeared as a credible alternative government in the UK. He embraced business, broke many of the cast iron Union dominations (Clause 4) of the past because he knew that they were an anachronism. An approach that was well past its sell-by date.
New Labour was essentially standing on the same middle ground as the Tories on almost every issue that faced the country and because every government runs out of steam eventually, he got the Tory voter to tick his box on the ballot paper, not just because it was 'time for a change' but because he represented the bright new future for the country, just as Maggie had done before.
He built upon her legacy, repealed almost none of her far-reaching legislation and continued the drive for the UK to be a business-led player on an increasingly global economic stage. There were of course tinkerings to pacify the 'traditional' left but essentially Mr Blair was the son of Thatcher. Not easy reading for Labour supporters I concede, but true nonetheless.
The trouble was that he cared more about looking good (spin and statistics) than actually solving problems and raising standards. He was not prepared to tackle unpopular issues (defense equipment, the NHS failings, educational standards) but preferred to spin his way out of problems, meaning that they would eventually come home to roost. And how.
Then we had Mr Brown. A man less equipped for high, public facing office, more lacking in charisma, less personable, less likeable as a fellow human being, is difficult to envisage. A blip really in our history. It is perhaps a small comfort to think that the British people never actually voted him in as Prime Minister.
I'm not going to Labour the point ;) about his 'achievements'. There's no need. You might feel that you didn't want to read any further if I were to do so. You know what he was (in your heart of hearts). An unmitigated disaster for the UK and (I would argue) the globe. He abolished boom and bust - and as even Peter Mandelson has said, he was half right.
So where are we now? It's difficult really, isn't it?
Because Labour has moved so far to the right and the Tories have moved so far to the left, that they're almost indistinguishable from each other. It's deeply unsatisfying for the principled voter (whoever he is - I'm not sure he exists - or can exist - any more). 'Yes, we are all individuals'...... 'Im not'.
However, even if you're firmly on the centre ground now (whilst sticking to your grandad's Thatcher bashing and 'Nasty Party' nonesense down the pub), there are a couple of things that you should (but probably won't) factor in to your decision-making processes when next you have that pencil and ballot paper in your hand:
And, just to tease you with another caveat before I deliver the 'beans', much of this depends upon how you look at the world and the UK's place in it. Actually that's not quite true. Much of it depends upon whether you consider those issues at all, or not. It really depends upon whether you take the broader view about the country being successful, competitive, prosperous, or the short-term 'what's in it for me now and next week' view. The former approach is Maggie and to a lesser extent Tony, the latter is the Unions of the 1970s.
The problem is (swear word approaching) that many, if not most people, take the ungenerous latter view. Which is just fucking selfish and stupid in the extreme and makes me incandescent with rage and despair for our country. Long term prosperity and success for us and our kids is so much more valuable than having a couple of quid more next week to (let's just say) waste. But many people simply cannot see that and it's a crying shame.
So, the 'beans'. And taking account of my longer-term 'country-before-self' view (which means sustainable prosperity not short term selfish 'tokens') I'd ask you to consider this:
Because this is truly the difference between the Tories and Labour now. It's not ideology or their left-or-right stance on the political spectrum. The differences are no longer fundamental. It's not about where the front benches went to school - Labour's front bench has as many privately educated 'toffs' as the Tories' so off you fuck with that argument. They're all non-real-job-non-real-world-experience people now. Career politicians who all think they can ride rough-shod over voter's views.
The difference is, purely and simply, 'competence'.
Ask yourself this: Which party of the centre ground (Labour or Tory - they're indistinguishable after all) will face up to the problems we face? Which party will recognise the problems, admit to them and address them? Which party will try to solve the problems we face as a nation and as individuals, will try to address the bigger issues instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will risk unpopularity for the greater good of the nation? Which party will address the unsustainable welfare state (for example), try to address the Welfare trap that so many of our young people find themselves in, and which one will, having recognised the undoubted problem (Frank Field reported as much to Mr Tony in 2004), then try to spin and hide it?
Which party will not accept the reality of our internationally falling standards of education and try to do something about it (against the 'lowest common denominator' approach of our powerful teaching unions) rather than lower standards so it looks good?
Which party will address the failings of our 'envy of the world' NHS instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will send our brave young people into (a questionable at best) conflict with woefully inadequate equipment? And which will address the massive black hole of MoD finances? And invest, urgently in new, 'fit-for-purpose' kit?
In short, which party will grasp the nettle and which party will try to deny that the nettle exists?
We know, don't we, that Labour is completely incompetent when it comes to our economy and finances, but they're so much more than that.
So is it grandad down the pub and next week's welfare cheque that drives you and your vote, or is it the future of this country and our kids? It really is up to you.
What a frightening thought.
I'll add one more thought here if I may. This has been a blog about who one might vote for next time and I haven't mentioned the EU once. However the fact is that if we don't have a referendum and then don't exit the shambolic EU, none of this will really matter. We'll have ceased to be a nation state at which point, quite frankly, you could vote for a prominent local tree and it would have as much meaningful power to deliver the UK's influence on the world and to reflect your local, national and international issues.
It's the biggest issue we currently face in the world and we're sleepwalking into losing our ability to govern ourselves. More here and here. That should also be a factor in your choice about who you vote for next time. After the European elections on May 28th, I expect all major parties to commit to a referendum (not the Lib Dems of course but I did say 'major parties'). At which point it will come down, once again, to competence.
Sleep well.
And thanks for reading.
Short because I believe they're toast and rightly so.
Labour is likely to form the next government in the UK, so I felt that I should do something on them too, perhaps in more depth. I'm a Tory by instinct but not by any kind of tribalist belief; this is intended to be objective, but obviously I am somewhat biased. Let's see...
It was of course so much easier to define ones options on politics during the 70s and 80s. The Tories were essentially about business, wealth creation, low taxes, small government, police and defense, enabling the 'haves' to drag up the 'have nots' through prosperity, achievement and sustainable employment.
Labour was essentially about the 'workers', socialism, the welfare state, the NHS, wealth redistribution, taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots'.
Then came Maggie who, faced with a basket case economy, ditched many of the union-run inefficient, insolvent industries and, whatever you might think of her personally, delivered an upturn in our economy that was as essential as it was breathtaking. She might have sacked your grandad, but she re-established Britain on the word stage as a competitive economy. That simply would not have happened under a Labour government with its short termist union-driven policies at the time.
And then came Mr Tony, who was Machiavellian in his thirst for power. Without whom Labour would probably have disappeared as a credible alternative government in the UK. He embraced business, broke many of the cast iron Union dominations (Clause 4) of the past because he knew that they were an anachronism. An approach that was well past its sell-by date.
New Labour was essentially standing on the same middle ground as the Tories on almost every issue that faced the country and because every government runs out of steam eventually, he got the Tory voter to tick his box on the ballot paper, not just because it was 'time for a change' but because he represented the bright new future for the country, just as Maggie had done before.
He built upon her legacy, repealed almost none of her far-reaching legislation and continued the drive for the UK to be a business-led player on an increasingly global economic stage. There were of course tinkerings to pacify the 'traditional' left but essentially Mr Blair was the son of Thatcher. Not easy reading for Labour supporters I concede, but true nonetheless.
The trouble was that he cared more about looking good (spin and statistics) than actually solving problems and raising standards. He was not prepared to tackle unpopular issues (defense equipment, the NHS failings, educational standards) but preferred to spin his way out of problems, meaning that they would eventually come home to roost. And how.
Then we had Mr Brown. A man less equipped for high, public facing office, more lacking in charisma, less personable, less likeable as a fellow human being, is difficult to envisage. A blip really in our history. It is perhaps a small comfort to think that the British people never actually voted him in as Prime Minister.
I'm not going to Labour the point ;) about his 'achievements'. There's no need. You might feel that you didn't want to read any further if I were to do so. You know what he was (in your heart of hearts). An unmitigated disaster for the UK and (I would argue) the globe. He abolished boom and bust - and as even Peter Mandelson has said, he was half right.
So where are we now? It's difficult really, isn't it?
Because Labour has moved so far to the right and the Tories have moved so far to the left, that they're almost indistinguishable from each other. It's deeply unsatisfying for the principled voter (whoever he is - I'm not sure he exists - or can exist - any more). 'Yes, we are all individuals'...... 'Im not'.
However, even if you're firmly on the centre ground now (whilst sticking to your grandad's Thatcher bashing and 'Nasty Party' nonesense down the pub), there are a couple of things that you should (but probably won't) factor in to your decision-making processes when next you have that pencil and ballot paper in your hand:
And, just to tease you with another caveat before I deliver the 'beans', much of this depends upon how you look at the world and the UK's place in it. Actually that's not quite true. Much of it depends upon whether you consider those issues at all, or not. It really depends upon whether you take the broader view about the country being successful, competitive, prosperous, or the short-term 'what's in it for me now and next week' view. The former approach is Maggie and to a lesser extent Tony, the latter is the Unions of the 1970s.
The problem is (swear word approaching) that many, if not most people, take the ungenerous latter view. Which is just fucking selfish and stupid in the extreme and makes me incandescent with rage and despair for our country. Long term prosperity and success for us and our kids is so much more valuable than having a couple of quid more next week to (let's just say) waste. But many people simply cannot see that and it's a crying shame.
So, the 'beans'. And taking account of my longer-term 'country-before-self' view (which means sustainable prosperity not short term selfish 'tokens') I'd ask you to consider this:
Because this is truly the difference between the Tories and Labour now. It's not ideology or their left-or-right stance on the political spectrum. The differences are no longer fundamental. It's not about where the front benches went to school - Labour's front bench has as many privately educated 'toffs' as the Tories' so off you fuck with that argument. They're all non-real-job-non-real-world-experience people now. Career politicians who all think they can ride rough-shod over voter's views.
The difference is, purely and simply, 'competence'.
Ask yourself this: Which party of the centre ground (Labour or Tory - they're indistinguishable after all) will face up to the problems we face? Which party will recognise the problems, admit to them and address them? Which party will try to solve the problems we face as a nation and as individuals, will try to address the bigger issues instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will risk unpopularity for the greater good of the nation? Which party will address the unsustainable welfare state (for example), try to address the Welfare trap that so many of our young people find themselves in, and which one will, having recognised the undoubted problem (Frank Field reported as much to Mr Tony in 2004), then try to spin and hide it?
Which party will not accept the reality of our internationally falling standards of education and try to do something about it (against the 'lowest common denominator' approach of our powerful teaching unions) rather than lower standards so it looks good?
Which party will address the failings of our 'envy of the world' NHS instead of trying to hide them?
Which party will send our brave young people into (a questionable at best) conflict with woefully inadequate equipment? And which will address the massive black hole of MoD finances? And invest, urgently in new, 'fit-for-purpose' kit?
In short, which party will grasp the nettle and which party will try to deny that the nettle exists?
We know, don't we, that Labour is completely incompetent when it comes to our economy and finances, but they're so much more than that.
So is it grandad down the pub and next week's welfare cheque that drives you and your vote, or is it the future of this country and our kids? It really is up to you.
What a frightening thought.
I'll add one more thought here if I may. This has been a blog about who one might vote for next time and I haven't mentioned the EU once. However the fact is that if we don't have a referendum and then don't exit the shambolic EU, none of this will really matter. We'll have ceased to be a nation state at which point, quite frankly, you could vote for a prominent local tree and it would have as much meaningful power to deliver the UK's influence on the world and to reflect your local, national and international issues.
It's the biggest issue we currently face in the world and we're sleepwalking into losing our ability to govern ourselves. More here and here. That should also be a factor in your choice about who you vote for next time. After the European elections on May 28th, I expect all major parties to commit to a referendum (not the Lib Dems of course but I did say 'major parties'). At which point it will come down, once again, to competence.
Sleep well.
And thanks for reading.
Sunday 2 March 2014
A UK 'yes' vote on the EU would mean ditching the pound (and so would no referendum)
The EU's stated aim is to establish a 'United States of Europe'. Run from Brussels/Strasbourg, with a European army replacing national arrangements and a universal approach to movement of people, access to benefits, healthcare, the law, taxation and government.
It would be like the USA where there is a national government making most of the laws but where individual states have the ability to make some limited laws of their own. But where 'local laws' are subservient to the national 'voice'.
You may have views on this scenario, positive or negative. You might think that an overall, Europe-wide controlling government and defense force would be a good thing. You might, like me, feel that being governed from further away, by people you don't know and who, crucially, know nothing of your local issues would be a negative step in terms of democracy and influence.
You might think that bringing some corrupt regimes and relatively poor people into a bigger 'club' will have a positive effect on prosperity in those countries over time. Alternatively you might think that aligning a 'first world' economy with others in which corruption is a way of life, will have a detrimental effect upon our own hard won (relative) prosperity, laws and freedoms.
As we have seen, harnessing unequal partners into a single currency has been disastrous for some participants. Even relatively prosperous first world countries like Italy, Spain and France have and are suffering massively by being tied in to the Euro (effectively to Germany) to the extent that they cannot devalue their relatively inefficient economies (currencies) in order to remain competitive on a world stage.
But Germany is prospering from the Euro because it now enjoys currency exchange rates that are at least 30% lower than would have been the case with the Deutschmark, because the Euro is 'valued' internationally in a way which includes the economies of Spain, France, Italy, Eire, Holland (which is currently teetering on the brink of collapse) and many other economies that are a mere shadow of these formerly successful economies. Like Albana, Greece Romania and Bulgaria.
The EU was established to protect smaller countries from domination by the bigger ones after the last unpleasantness (WW2). It was originally designed (so they tell us) to prevent any more European wars, to protect the weaker nation states and to promote the European diversity that I think we all value. I love Spain because it's Spain. Italy because etc. If I want Germany, I'll go to Germany. The richness of culture, music, food; the differences we find when we visit European countries is what makes them special and valuable in my opinion. The EU is a massive threat to this - it wants to homogenise the continent. To iron out any quirks, any foibles. Any health and safety differences, working hours, retirement policies, taxation systems.
It (the EU) seems to me to want everywhere to be Germany. Efficient. Productive. Soulless. Boring. I'm not saying Germany is boring by the way: It has wonderful culture and great people, music, arts places, history. What I am saying is that it is not Italy or France or Spain - they and others - have their own specialness. Their own value and culture and the EU seems to me to be wanting to subvert those qualities in a way which will make them disappear.
Anyway, here's the rub. Apologies for the wistful rambling!
If the UK stays in the EU we will ultimately have to give up the pound. You simply cannot have a single European state, with universal tax and benefits laws without a single universal currency. There is no model anywhere on earth, in which a single body/government has (or could) operate successfully without having a single currency. if it wants (as the EU does) to homogenise tax raising powers and governance. Some people might point to Canada which has its own currency and is closely linked economically with the US. But it is not governed by the US. The EU model sees us being governed (as we increasingly are) from Brussels.
So just as in 1971 when we signed up to the beneficial 'common market' (which has since developed without our approval into the less-about-trade-and-more-abut-control European Economic Community and now the fully fledged EU), a vote to stay in the EU - or having no opportunity to vote in a referendum - will see us ultimately having to join the Eurozone and give up the pound.
There is no other alternative. But that emotive issue will not be on the ballot paper.
It will simply be the next 'it's not really very important' issue after we either vote to stay in or are denied that vote as this 'death by a thousand cuts' process rumbles on.
As I say you might be entirely cool about this whole thing.
You might well take a 'yeah whatever' approach. That approach has been promoted by the way by the endless joke EU directives on straight bananas, olives etc, to the extent where most people switch off when another EU story breaks. So that when a real biggie comes along, (like retaining one's nation state) people are not interested.
But make no mistake, if we vote to stay in - or, more likely we are denied a vote - we will be giving up not only the pound but our ability to control our own destiny as a nation. And our foreign policy (for example) will be decided by 27 other countries' views rather than our own. I'm not sure if I'd be happy about that if I lived in Gibraltar or the Falklands.
The funny thing (to me) is, that if we left the EU, it would almost certainly fail. We're the second biggest net contributor after Germany. If it failed almost all of southern Europe would be better off. And yet we are ridiculed by EU MPs who show their disdain for the UK endlessly from their ivory towers.
Dave holds many aces in his renegotiation stance but sadly I think he's struggling with the game of 'snap' let alone serious poker.
But then he's a Europhile anyway. What hope is there for us? Farage?
Yikes.
Thanks for reading.
It would be like the USA where there is a national government making most of the laws but where individual states have the ability to make some limited laws of their own. But where 'local laws' are subservient to the national 'voice'.
You may have views on this scenario, positive or negative. You might think that an overall, Europe-wide controlling government and defense force would be a good thing. You might, like me, feel that being governed from further away, by people you don't know and who, crucially, know nothing of your local issues would be a negative step in terms of democracy and influence.
You might think that bringing some corrupt regimes and relatively poor people into a bigger 'club' will have a positive effect on prosperity in those countries over time. Alternatively you might think that aligning a 'first world' economy with others in which corruption is a way of life, will have a detrimental effect upon our own hard won (relative) prosperity, laws and freedoms.
As we have seen, harnessing unequal partners into a single currency has been disastrous for some participants. Even relatively prosperous first world countries like Italy, Spain and France have and are suffering massively by being tied in to the Euro (effectively to Germany) to the extent that they cannot devalue their relatively inefficient economies (currencies) in order to remain competitive on a world stage.
But Germany is prospering from the Euro because it now enjoys currency exchange rates that are at least 30% lower than would have been the case with the Deutschmark, because the Euro is 'valued' internationally in a way which includes the economies of Spain, France, Italy, Eire, Holland (which is currently teetering on the brink of collapse) and many other economies that are a mere shadow of these formerly successful economies. Like Albana, Greece Romania and Bulgaria.
The EU was established to protect smaller countries from domination by the bigger ones after the last unpleasantness (WW2). It was originally designed (so they tell us) to prevent any more European wars, to protect the weaker nation states and to promote the European diversity that I think we all value. I love Spain because it's Spain. Italy because etc. If I want Germany, I'll go to Germany. The richness of culture, music, food; the differences we find when we visit European countries is what makes them special and valuable in my opinion. The EU is a massive threat to this - it wants to homogenise the continent. To iron out any quirks, any foibles. Any health and safety differences, working hours, retirement policies, taxation systems.
It (the EU) seems to me to want everywhere to be Germany. Efficient. Productive. Soulless. Boring. I'm not saying Germany is boring by the way: It has wonderful culture and great people, music, arts places, history. What I am saying is that it is not Italy or France or Spain - they and others - have their own specialness. Their own value and culture and the EU seems to me to be wanting to subvert those qualities in a way which will make them disappear.
Anyway, here's the rub. Apologies for the wistful rambling!
If the UK stays in the EU we will ultimately have to give up the pound. You simply cannot have a single European state, with universal tax and benefits laws without a single universal currency. There is no model anywhere on earth, in which a single body/government has (or could) operate successfully without having a single currency. if it wants (as the EU does) to homogenise tax raising powers and governance. Some people might point to Canada which has its own currency and is closely linked economically with the US. But it is not governed by the US. The EU model sees us being governed (as we increasingly are) from Brussels.
So just as in 1971 when we signed up to the beneficial 'common market' (which has since developed without our approval into the less-about-trade-and-more-abut-control European Economic Community and now the fully fledged EU), a vote to stay in the EU - or having no opportunity to vote in a referendum - will see us ultimately having to join the Eurozone and give up the pound.
There is no other alternative. But that emotive issue will not be on the ballot paper.
It will simply be the next 'it's not really very important' issue after we either vote to stay in or are denied that vote as this 'death by a thousand cuts' process rumbles on.
As I say you might be entirely cool about this whole thing.
You might well take a 'yeah whatever' approach. That approach has been promoted by the way by the endless joke EU directives on straight bananas, olives etc, to the extent where most people switch off when another EU story breaks. So that when a real biggie comes along, (like retaining one's nation state) people are not interested.
But make no mistake, if we vote to stay in - or, more likely we are denied a vote - we will be giving up not only the pound but our ability to control our own destiny as a nation. And our foreign policy (for example) will be decided by 27 other countries' views rather than our own. I'm not sure if I'd be happy about that if I lived in Gibraltar or the Falklands.
The funny thing (to me) is, that if we left the EU, it would almost certainly fail. We're the second biggest net contributor after Germany. If it failed almost all of southern Europe would be better off. And yet we are ridiculed by EU MPs who show their disdain for the UK endlessly from their ivory towers.
Dave holds many aces in his renegotiation stance but sadly I think he's struggling with the game of 'snap' let alone serious poker.
But then he's a Europhile anyway. What hope is there for us? Farage?
Yikes.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)