More like not enough time to say anything... having moved into our new house at the end of May - we still don't have broadband at home... oops. and am spending a bunch of time doing DIY and similar and so havn't has time to blog at all. Apologies to both my (used to be regular) readers.
Anyway - not really enough time to say much, politics seems to be a bit dull at the moment - summer so Browns not really got his feet under the table properly, Dave's still awaiting the result of his focus groups to tell him what to say, and Ming seems to have gone into hibernation.
Financials - believe I said something in my New Year predications about credit spreads blowing out... sub-prime seems to have been the excuse. Are we though it all - probably not. Is a big issue if you are a long-term equity investor - No. Will volatility continue to be high - probably.
Newcastle Utd - planning to go to the pompey match in November - anyone want to join me?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, 31 August 2007
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
So much to blog about... so little time...
Local Elections - Libs did badly, in comparison to what was expected. Does this mean a leadership election - I'm not convinced that the party have the stomach for regicide so soon after the last one. One of the things that is interesting to look at, is a comparison of local election results in seats which are currently Lib Dem, versus seats which are always going to be 'safe' Tory. I am awaiting some analysis from Mark Senior on this which should prove interesting in the detail.
Scotland - SNP did well - and deserve to attempt to form a government. It will be interesting to see how well minority government plays out, and how long it lasts for. In particular I wonder how much Labour will support some of the left-wing policies of the SNP, or if they will vote against on principle. Fascinating to see how this works and plays out - and hopefully, if successful, a link to getting PR for Westminster?
French Election - Congratulations to Sarkozy - let's just hope that he can do the things that France really needs, and promotes and encourages Free Markets, rather than the protectionism that has been slowly killing France over the years. How he deals with the issues of multi-culturalism that France also seems to be struggling with will also be the making, or otherwise of him in my opinion.
Newcastle United - End of the Roed - Simply put - Glenn didn't do well enough with the finances and players he was given, and he knows it. Is 'Big Sam' the solution - I really don't think so, but personally I think that the whole club needs overall from Top to Bottom - principally starting with the Chairman.
Scotland - SNP did well - and deserve to attempt to form a government. It will be interesting to see how well minority government plays out, and how long it lasts for. In particular I wonder how much Labour will support some of the left-wing policies of the SNP, or if they will vote against on principle. Fascinating to see how this works and plays out - and hopefully, if successful, a link to getting PR for Westminster?
French Election - Congratulations to Sarkozy - let's just hope that he can do the things that France really needs, and promotes and encourages Free Markets, rather than the protectionism that has been slowly killing France over the years. How he deals with the issues of multi-culturalism that France also seems to be struggling with will also be the making, or otherwise of him in my opinion.
Newcastle United - End of the Roed - Simply put - Glenn didn't do well enough with the finances and players he was given, and he knows it. Is 'Big Sam' the solution - I really don't think so, but personally I think that the whole club needs overall from Top to Bottom - principally starting with the Chairman.
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Easter Weekend - A Review - Politics
Just a couple of points that I want to make really - was having drinks with a friend of the wifes in the Old Green Tree. He was an admissions officer for a failing school in Bristol until recently and has just quit in frustration at the system. I appreciate that it's a one-sided view but he was saying that in a school where 90% of the pupils attend for 89% of the time, andn 10% for 11%, as an admissions officer he was asked to focus on trying to massage the figure to show that 90% attend over 90% of the time, and to leave the 10% to fester as clearly thats much harder. As he saw it a focus on targets and a target culture was so all pervading that the original aim of the targets (the kids that aren't attending) have been completly lost. If this is at all indicative of what Labour has done in Education, the NHS, etc. then things are potentially much worse than we think they are, and will take a lot more fixing to get people back to focusing on what the real issues are.
Monday, 5 February 2007
Environmental Taxes
Spegasaur has been having an interesting discussion about environmental taxes; basically "Should an environmental tax discourage behaviour, or should it pay for behaviour?"
As far as I see it, as long as an environmental tax does one of the 2, it is doing its job - the problem is when it does neither. Ideally it should do both - that is, it should discourage certain unenvironmental behaviour by some people, and the revenues from those that continue to indulge should be ring-fenced into things that cancel the behaviour. What should not happen is that a 'nominal' environmental tax is chucked on something, not in proportion to the environmental damage, and the revenues simply added to the Chancellors coffers.
As far as I see it, as long as an environmental tax does one of the 2, it is doing its job - the problem is when it does neither. Ideally it should do both - that is, it should discourage certain unenvironmental behaviour by some people, and the revenues from those that continue to indulge should be ring-fenced into things that cancel the behaviour. What should not happen is that a 'nominal' environmental tax is chucked on something, not in proportion to the environmental damage, and the revenues simply added to the Chancellors coffers.
Monday, 29 January 2007
Scottish Politics...
For those of you wanting to do some analysis and seat calculations for the Scottish Parliament elections there is now a website that does all this for you - Scotland Votes
Given the absence of reliable (or in fact any) opinion polls to enter in I'm not quite sure how useful it is, but as Peter Snow always says - "It's just a bit of fun"
Given the absence of reliable (or in fact any) opinion polls to enter in I'm not quite sure how useful it is, but as Peter Snow always says - "It's just a bit of fun"
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Tony Blair Dramatised... 2 different ways
Have had the slightly dubious honour of watching "The Trial of Tony Blair" on Friday evening, and then "The Queen" on Saturday evening.
Note: Spoilers start here...
Whilst "The Trial of Tony Blair" is set in the future (just before the 2010 General Election) and "The Queen" is set in the recent history of 1997, it is fascinating to see the two different portrayals of Blair. In the one he is shown as truly of the people, someone who really had a grasp of the mood of the nation, and who could do no wrong. In the other, he has lost his grip of reality, shown as failing to understand where it all went wrong and how 'his people' no longer seem to need him to lead them.
Both actors have clearly studied their muse, and the familiar gestures and facial inflections are there to help you believe that it is Blair despite the facial features being not particularly familiar. I have issues with 'Trial of Tony Blair' in that the Blair shown appears to lack intelligence and understanding, which, however much I dislike him, I don't think is a fair failing to attribute.
As for 'The Queen' - the only problem with the Blair here is that he is totally and utterly overshadowed by Helen Mirren's Queen Liz. (Well, that and Cherie is made more catty than even I can believe she really is, which unnecessarily enhances your sympathy for Blair)
In conclusion - I much preferred The Queen as a film, and Mirren really should get the Oscar predicted, but for satirical 'if-only's 'The Trial of Tony Blair' was much watch television.
Note: Spoilers start here...
Whilst "The Trial of Tony Blair" is set in the future (just before the 2010 General Election) and "The Queen" is set in the recent history of 1997, it is fascinating to see the two different portrayals of Blair. In the one he is shown as truly of the people, someone who really had a grasp of the mood of the nation, and who could do no wrong. In the other, he has lost his grip of reality, shown as failing to understand where it all went wrong and how 'his people' no longer seem to need him to lead them.
Both actors have clearly studied their muse, and the familiar gestures and facial inflections are there to help you believe that it is Blair despite the facial features being not particularly familiar. I have issues with 'Trial of Tony Blair' in that the Blair shown appears to lack intelligence and understanding, which, however much I dislike him, I don't think is a fair failing to attribute.
As for 'The Queen' - the only problem with the Blair here is that he is totally and utterly overshadowed by Helen Mirren's Queen Liz. (Well, that and Cherie is made more catty than even I can believe she really is, which unnecessarily enhances your sympathy for Blair)
In conclusion - I much preferred The Queen as a film, and Mirren really should get the Oscar predicted, but for satirical 'if-only's 'The Trial of Tony Blair' was much watch television.
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
Inheritance Tax - unfair, or not fair enough?
I have, for various reasons, been thinking about inheritance tax recently; what it's for, how it affects people, and what a liberal and christian attitude towards it is. This also lead me into thinking a bit about philanthropy and the attitude we have towards it in this country compared to the attitude prevalent in the US.
Personally, I am of the belief that rather than being too high at 40% (as most people, and all readers of the Daily Mail seem to think); inheritance tax is not high enough, and should be 100% with a noticeably lower threshold. Before you all start throwing things at me in rage and disgust, hear me out as to how I come to this thought;
As a christian, and as a political liberal, I fundamentally believe in the idea of fairness (in some nebulus form) and against the idea of subserviance. This leads to a belief, not in equality of assets as the socialists (communists) would aim towards, but in equality of opportunity. I think that most people would agree with some kind of nebulus idea like this ("yes, of course everyone should have an opportunity to go to University, although clearly it is not right for everybody" etc.), although probably not have developed or refined it particularly.
The problem with inheritance is that in effect, it is random. If you inherit a large amount of money, it is not a reward of your endeavour or skill (unlike a high job income would be), nor of your financial need (unlike state benefits in theory), but is essentially random. (ie you happened to be lucky enough to have wealthy parents).
It goes even further - in some cases, the burden of inheritance is unbearably high. I have met and spoken to people who knew from a very early age (due to incredibly successful parents or grand-parents) that they would never have to work a day in their lives. Obviously there are exceptions, but a fair proportion appear to be totally unable to lead happy, contented lives. The reason seems to be that they have a low self-esteem (due to not having acheived anything for themselves) and are permanantly worried about investments crashing and them losing all the money - they know that were this to happen they would have no idea how to cope and constantly worry about it.
Surely what should be encouraged is a culture of philanthropy. If you have a large estate at your death, then great - why not leave as a legacy, not a large amount to your children for them to bicker and fight about, but to a charitable cause close to your heart. What Bill Gates is trying to do in the United States with his charitable foundation is clearly to be applauded and encouraged and shows some of this theory. In the US they seem to have a better attitude towards this - which contrasts strongly to the overriding thoughts here of - 'but I deserve my parents money - it's my right'.
Personally, I am of the belief that rather than being too high at 40% (as most people, and all readers of the Daily Mail seem to think); inheritance tax is not high enough, and should be 100% with a noticeably lower threshold. Before you all start throwing things at me in rage and disgust, hear me out as to how I come to this thought;
As a christian, and as a political liberal, I fundamentally believe in the idea of fairness (in some nebulus form) and against the idea of subserviance. This leads to a belief, not in equality of assets as the socialists (communists) would aim towards, but in equality of opportunity. I think that most people would agree with some kind of nebulus idea like this ("yes, of course everyone should have an opportunity to go to University, although clearly it is not right for everybody" etc.), although probably not have developed or refined it particularly.
The problem with inheritance is that in effect, it is random. If you inherit a large amount of money, it is not a reward of your endeavour or skill (unlike a high job income would be), nor of your financial need (unlike state benefits in theory), but is essentially random. (ie you happened to be lucky enough to have wealthy parents).
It goes even further - in some cases, the burden of inheritance is unbearably high. I have met and spoken to people who knew from a very early age (due to incredibly successful parents or grand-parents) that they would never have to work a day in their lives. Obviously there are exceptions, but a fair proportion appear to be totally unable to lead happy, contented lives. The reason seems to be that they have a low self-esteem (due to not having acheived anything for themselves) and are permanantly worried about investments crashing and them losing all the money - they know that were this to happen they would have no idea how to cope and constantly worry about it.
Surely what should be encouraged is a culture of philanthropy. If you have a large estate at your death, then great - why not leave as a legacy, not a large amount to your children for them to bicker and fight about, but to a charitable cause close to your heart. What Bill Gates is trying to do in the United States with his charitable foundation is clearly to be applauded and encouraged and shows some of this theory. In the US they seem to have a better attitude towards this - which contrasts strongly to the overriding thoughts here of - 'but I deserve my parents money - it's my right'.
Monday, 1 January 2007
New Year Predictions... (Political)
Here goes a list of Political Predicitons for the New Year (partly inspired by my entry into the pb.com Political Forecast of 2007
- Gordon Brown will not be Prime Minister on the last day of 2007
- Both the SNP and the Lib Dems will do well at Labours expense in the Scots Parliament elections in May, and will go into coalition government with Alex Salmond as First Minister.
- No charges will be bought in the 'Cash for Honours' scandal.
- David Cameron's Conservatives will gradually lose popularity as people start to tire of his 'all things to all people' approach.
Wednesday, 29 November 2006
A Christian voice in Politics?
So why should I (we?) be involved in Politics as a Christian? I will try and give a short list here, which hopefully I can expand on and explain further in due course:
That's a start, although I'm sure that there are more that could be added in due course.
- As a voice for God in Society - As the prophets and judges were to Israel, so we should be today. God is concerned for Society as a whole and for his world (cf Genesis). As Christians we know that the world is fallen and sinful, and that it has been / will be redeemed. Even with this knowledge that what we do is never going to be enough to make 'as it is heaven, also on earth' we should still stand up for (our understanding of) God's views.
- As a voice for those without a voice - Jesus talks lots in his parables and teachings about standing up and speaking for those who are unable to do so for themselves. In the same way then, we should be standing up and speaking for justice and freedom from poverty, and being involved in both large scale campaigns to raise awareness, as well as being involved in in-depth discussions about the best and most godly ways to alleviate suffering and injustice.
- As a voice for God's people - Politicians should be (somewhat) representative of the people that they represent. Clearly then, a proportion of politicians should be Christian in order to ably represent the Christian population.
That's a start, although I'm sure that there are more that could be added in due course.
Monday, 27 November 2006
Scottish Independance
Mike Smithson over at politicalbetting.com has an interesting article on the correlation between Scottish sporting success and SNP electoral success. This appears to have been denigrated slightly by posters claiming that to try and correlate the two is to do down the SNP and not treat them as a 'proper' political party. Whilst I have some sympathy for that viewpoint, I do believe that if nations can do battle on the sporting arena, they tend to be friendlier off it because of it. Simply looking at the way in which we seem to have constant sporting contests against the Aussies, both in the Ashes and Rugby, and then noticing the number of Aussies openly welcomed in London, is perhaps worthy of consideration.
Friday, 17 November 2006
PQ - November Edition
The most recent (November) edition of PQ (The Evangelical Alliance's Monthly News and Christian Comment) is availiable here as a pdf.
In initial reading, most of it I would reasonably agree with, although personally I think that the front page (pointing out that legislation is not neccessarily a good thing) could have highlighted the campaign by Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems to scrap laws as part of their proposed 'Freedom Bill' Small beer really though...
In initial reading, most of it I would reasonably agree with, although personally I think that the front page (pointing out that legislation is not neccessarily a good thing) could have highlighted the campaign by Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems to scrap laws as part of their proposed 'Freedom Bill' Small beer really though...
Tuesday, 14 November 2006
Hello World
So... what does one write in a first blog entry?
I guess a generic introduction to the purpose, expected content and reason for the blog. There are so many blogs around that surely an extra one is just a waste of time and space. I would certainly make that comment about a number of other blogs that I've stumbled across in the past.
I wanted somewhere to be able to think through a number of things, as the very act of writing a cogent argument on-screen should force me to think it through properly, rather than having a half-hearted waffle... if anybody else reads it - then that is a bonus (or not depending on their point of view I guess).
As a consequence, I will try very hard not to include personal things that are not relevant - ie. no 'Today I went and bought a new TV, it's really cool'. I will try and discuss politics (UK mainly, although also generically as and when it comes up), religion (btw... I am an evangelical Christian - this is an important starting knowledge about me for anybody reading...) and hopefully the intersection of the 2. (By this I mean - does my religion, which should affect all aspects of my life, affect how I vote politically? - what do Christ's teachings suggest about the way we should interact with, and aim to direct, society today? - Does this mean that all Christians should vote for the same party, and if so which one?)
Hopefully that all makes some kind of sense to me, and will try and keep me on the straight and narrow blogging path.
Welcome to my world...
I guess a generic introduction to the purpose, expected content and reason for the blog. There are so many blogs around that surely an extra one is just a waste of time and space. I would certainly make that comment about a number of other blogs that I've stumbled across in the past.
I wanted somewhere to be able to think through a number of things, as the very act of writing a cogent argument on-screen should force me to think it through properly, rather than having a half-hearted waffle... if anybody else reads it - then that is a bonus (or not depending on their point of view I guess).
As a consequence, I will try very hard not to include personal things that are not relevant - ie. no 'Today I went and bought a new TV, it's really cool'. I will try and discuss politics (UK mainly, although also generically as and when it comes up), religion (btw... I am an evangelical Christian - this is an important starting knowledge about me for anybody reading...) and hopefully the intersection of the 2. (By this I mean - does my religion, which should affect all aspects of my life, affect how I vote politically? - what do Christ's teachings suggest about the way we should interact with, and aim to direct, society today? - Does this mean that all Christians should vote for the same party, and if so which one?)
Hopefully that all makes some kind of sense to me, and will try and keep me on the straight and narrow blogging path.
Welcome to my world...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)