the BBC have your say question: Are you ready for the 'age of austerity'?
3 comments posted, all 3 disappeared off the "awaiting moderation" list, 2 DAYS later they reappear with note: UNPUBLISHED as the debate is now closed.
yet the post that doesnt criticise the government is published within 20 minutes...
Denz on 04.28.09 @ 02:34 PM CST [link]
WHO on swine flu - update
more evidence in the latest "news" conference from the world health organisation:
"there is no evidence of cases so far being in contact with pigs"
"now is the time to prepare!"
two amazing statements from the WHO!
made even more alarming, by their statement that "closing borders and restricting travel is not helpful!" (this at the same time as they upgrade the status on the virus, to one below a pandemic!)
- now is the time to prepare? what does this mean? governments around the world should be buying in millions of vaccinations? (this would help their sponsors wouldnt it!) - restricting travel is not helpful? are they mad? they release statements and have updates and give the virus a high warning rating, but at the same time condone travelling to areas infected?
you couldnt make this stuff up!
its as if the WHO want this virus to spread and increase around the world...
at present we are all seeing the world health organisation (WHO) put out updates and reports regarding swine flu, i suspect this has more to do with funding.
i know, i know, its easy to pick holes in a large organisation, etc, etc but as ive posted before, they are not independant, and many of their "policies" are being imposed upon us by our government.
a quick search around the net reveals they have a number of pharmacutical companies who "sponsor" them, but how often they are funded is a little vague to say the least. WHO have run ins with the british medical journal, they have taken a british newspaper to court (and lost) when they tried to print results of one of their "studies" on passive smoking.
when they compiled a study into passive smoking, which was researched for more than 10 years, the WHO cancelled the findings from being released at the very last minute, and it became an "internal" report, as results showed little or no effect on others from passive smoking, which undermined one their main campaigns in recent years, which no doubt would also have damaged their level of funding?
as the article linked above quotes (from the WHO's own findings in the 90s) diseases could be wiped out with less than a quarter of the funding the WHO receives in just one year.
now, after a disastrous year for companies and business, as regards profits, around the world, we have an outbreak of a flu virus, for which millions of vaccinations could be made available, etc, etc.
- sponsored by many pharmacutical companies? - less than 200 cases reported (almost half have not been diagnosed and confirmed yet) yet the WHO upgrades its pandemic rating for the strain of flu and gives out updates on a grand scale to the world? - after 12 months of money market crashes and lost funding? - and vaccinations are made by the companies that sponsor their organisation? - yet the WHO still advise that closing borders and restricting travel is "not a helpful measure" (anyone would think that they are trying to encourage the spread of this "flu?") - how can they advise AGAINST travel restrictions and be taken seriously?
the whole affair smells a bit fishy to me... too many conflicts of interest and too many coincidences, which given their track record and the way they are funded (in the current financial climate) suggests to me, that all is not what they want us to believe!
Denz on 04.28.09 @ 10:02 AM CST [link]
stop the world.. i want to get off
last week i turned up early for work, nothing needed doing so i headed out into the yard for 5 minutes for some fresh air, waiting for the kids to arrive.
i stood there looking at the nearby hills, farmers tractor pullin a huge log up hill, and in front of me was a queue of traffic, all the crazy people making their way to work and all cursing as they sat in stationary traffic without even noticing i was there. like bubbles of anger floating past, some were shouting and rowing with those in the back of their cars, others were on their own, staring at the car in front whilst not knowing where they were really going.
not a single one could see and hear what i could,birds singing in the trees, cool breeze on the mush, etc, nothing special, for about five minutes.. time stood still, when i think of the endless hours ive spent sat in traffic everyday, heading out to serve people in a shop who talk to you like something theyve stood in because they have to be somewhere else 5 minutes ago... it amazes me why i didnt change work years ago.
to be honest id forgotten about it, until i spotted a pic on facebook of a mate gawping at the reebok.. wow i thought, its not just me that wonders off in the swede every now an then... phew, thought id lost the plot!
Denz on 04.28.09 @ 12:13 AM CST [link]
Monday, April 27th
gordon brown giveaways
giving away the taxpayer's money is brown's favourite past time, his latest speech giving money away:
£15 million pounds to afghanistan to pay for their elections he has also increased a previous afghanistan giveaway this week, by £50 million pounds
TOTAL TAX GIVEAWAY: £65 million pounds (that we are being taxed for) to a country on the otherside of the world which has nothing to do with us.
Denz on 04.27.09 @ 10:54 AM CST [link]
labour's soundbite machine is working well...
i like reading peoples opinions, always open to question, my own views on anything and everything, i challenge almost daily.
but occasionally, some of the stuff i read amazes me, how much i disagree with someone can be miles off: todays BBC have your say, asks "Are you ready for the 'age of austerity'?" (after conservative calls for a change of direction in government, some of the replies scare me...
How can some of the tory toffs talk of being thrifty then threaten to leave the country because of increased taxation ? - why not question why banks have been given billions of OUR money, which we have to pay back, so that there is money available for us to borrow? (isnt that more worrying?)
Cameron may snipe at Labour for what has happened, but that's just daft especially given that the Tories, being in opposition have been totally useless for 10 years while it was clear to see what would eventually unfold. The standard of corporate and government leadership in the UK is woeful! - exactly what could cameron have done then? labour MPs is where you should direct your fire, they voted in browns plans and spending plans, the opposition are in a minority by 66 votes, how many votes have labour MPs voted to stop with the opposition? (answer = not a single one) the conservatives (and the liberals) have not set the corporate rules (the labour government have) and the government leadership has been under "new" labour control for 12 years... sir, your sniping at the conservatives is daft - as you accuse the conservatives of the same thing you accuse the labour government of
I think Tories are just taking advantage of the situation by touting austerity when they actually promised to 'match Labour spending' themselves before the credit crunch . How then would we not be in the same situation if there were voted in? Labour haven't been perfect and have taken some ridiculous decisions but they have invested in a lot of good things that are good for this great nation - tories just taking advantage of the situation? what do you expect them to do? - when they actually promised to 'match Labour spending' themselves before the credit crunch true they did, but until a general election, the conservatives do not get to see the UK's accounts, so they have to rely on figures released by the government, which, 1 day after last weeks budget turned out to be complete fantasy! - How then would we not be in the same situation if there were voted in? perhaps they would make sure money was being spent correctly? they have already said they cannot match labour's spending commitments, and the government have admitted they cannot meet their own spending commitments!
all things invested in are good, if you support their cause, the government spent vast amounts ofmoney bailing banks out (almost £20,000 per voter between aged between 18-65) yet the public (who will pay this money back) havent seen one penny piece of it... i disagree with this "policy"
8 Million unemployed/incapacity under Thatcher, think about it! - you couldnt make this stuff up... i suppose you were one of the band of labour fans who believed that the tories were so nasty, if you broke your leg the ambulance wouldnt take you to hospital unless you could pay for it? 8 million unemployed is way off, you are not a banker are you? (you could be with your uncanny inaccuracies for quoting figures!)
Under investment, Under investment, Under investment!
Here we go again - At least we have had nine years of recovery since the last time! Make the most of those school computers, new trains and dropping waiting lists, they will all soon be distant memories! - education and NHS will see increases in spending - but at a slower rate than the labour government of 12 years will do - something which just last week in the budget, your wonderful labour party copied! they called it "efficiency savings" - which means increasing spending at the rate of 0.7% instead of the 1.4% theyve been saying they would for the past 2 years - dont believe me, READ IT, its in the budget speech given to parliament!
school computers - i remember blair's wonderful speech, saying "every school in the country would have access to the internet", what a superb idea! shame though, as anyone with half a brain who looked at how many schools already had it at the time, saw that more than 87% of schools already had the internet or were in the process of having it installed... perhaps a better analogy to quote back to you, would be the amount of money that was spent to "retrain" teachers to manage school internet networks (and the costs of staff covering them whilst on these "retraining courses"), was more than the costs of installing the actual internet in every school!
new trains - so pleased you mentioned this... ever heard of railtrack? the private company that joe public invested in by buying shares and pension funds invested money into, which labour systematically ran into the ground (not my words, but those of the high court which ruled against the government) leaving share buying public with only the price they paid for them instead of the actual price they were before labour trashed them... pension funds had also invested in them, these pension funds lost hundreds of thousands of pounds.... and for what? so labour could set up "network rail" - network rail, the wonderful company run by labour, that charges increasingly higher prices to those train companies tied in for 7 year contracts, to provide a rail service, which is why rail ticket prices have almost TREBLED since network rail took over from railtrack!
dropping waiting lists? - the wonderful "policy" that is extending waiting lists for consultancy by almost the same times! or could you mean the a&e departments? - which, on arrival, you get a civil servant to enter your details onto the hospital computer (normally after at least a 30 minute wait) and are then sent back to the waiting room for between 2-4 hours, but because you have been "seen" by someone within 30 minutes, waiting times are shown to be falling?
We need a change to the way we are Governed not the Tories coming in bashing the lower classes yet again. They destroyed the mining and steel industries out of sheer spite. - millions were able to buy their own home under the tories, our pension fund in 1997 was one of the best in the world, both of these helped a young worker (back then) out, after what had been delivered by labour in the late 70s, god help us, we needed a change of direction. mining industry was in freefall.... it cost less than 87p to bring a bag of coal from south africa yet it cost more than £2.50 to bring a bag of coal from a welsh mine, the nuclear option was needed, even voted against it by labour MPs, who now propose a french company build more nuclear power stations!
steel industries - were the world leader under the tories... it was under blairs government that british steel was given a more than £2 million fine by the european parliament/courts who thought they had a monopoly, which led to the break up of the company, and since then, its downfall. destroyed them out of spite? you couldnt be more wrong!
Here come the Tories, the party of mass unemployment, the party of cuts, the party who only care about their toff friends. - errr hello, unemployment is higher now than when labour came in in 1997. only this time, there are many millions of people who cannot live without tax credits, whereby the state subsidises their job, effectively making up their wages from the taxpayer pot, this was only needed because manufacturing has been left to close down and we are now a "service" economy, which is a shame as we could really do with some manufacturing now, dont you think?
ill end now as youve no doubt had enough of these soundbites, the labour soundbite bloggers have put in some overtime me thinks.
just remember: last week we had the worst budget since world war two, with alistair darling telling us that he will "half the budget deficit within 5 years to £98 billion" a nice idea, but sadly totally fabrication, as it was based on the government's own forecasts, which not two days later were shown to be completely wrong (the economy would shrink by 1.5% in 3 months to march, when it actually shrank by 1.9%)
half of £175 billion (which is how much the UK is in debt by) is not £98 billion - not a good start there chancellor!
his forecasts wrong.... his figures wrong... he saved the best for last:
he will half the borrowing debt in 5 years - but proposed not a single tax rise (that would bring in any large amounts of money to pay off the debts) nor did he propose a single cut in public expenditure (if you allow for the reduction in money growth the NHS and education will get - down from over 1% to 0.7%)
yet not a single political or news website, channel or newspaper journalist has asked labour how they will claw back the £77 billion pounds they say they will, in five years time!
we pay an ever increasing licence fee which is compulsary, for a so called "independant" BBC service. if you dont have a licence, then you will be fined heavily and if you dont pay that you can be found guilty in court and have a criminal record!
political bias: its long been noted that the BBC is not politically independant. in a news report they give their political slant and opinion, before they report the actual story.
See a typical example of their bias here where a simple policy announcement by the opposition (should they win a general election) is placed at the end of the report after government, unions and the BBC reporter have all given their opinion!
self promotion: BBC push their own programs in a variety of ways. - breakfast news - guests are always from their own tv shows, opinions are given by guests who are promoting their websites via the BBC news website An example with details can be found here - how many times must they link a "news" guest to doctor who or the latest reality voting program they are running?
- then we have my favourite game to play when watching "the weakest link" - how many BBC programs can they include in the questions? (which is noticeable, as the popular programs on other channels are never used in their questions)
sports news: this gets my goat the most, and is the reason i posted today.
in the early hours of this morning, carl froch (our only world boxing champion) fought in america against jermain taylor, defending his title. it was a great fight with froch fighting back from an almost impossible position, to win the fight and retain his title.
on waking up this morning, i switched on BBC news 24 channel (which is supposedly live, but is not always live at all) to see the result of the fight. luckily, after just 3 minutes they went to their sports reporter for the latest sports news!
story 1: moto GP (which BBC show on freeview channel 301/302) was the lead story story 2: grand prix in bahrain qualifying from yesterday (which BBC have rights to show the race) story 3: arsen wenger the arsenal manager giving his opinion of todays game (which BBC have highlights agreement for) story 4: falkirk's chances in todays scottish cup semi final (which BBC news have rights to show the goals from)
they then cut back to the main news people who reported on the london marathon (which BBC are showing all morning on their main channel BBC1)
so what of our world boxing champion and his great comeback? not one single word!
disgraceful, i have to pay a compulsary licence fee, even if i never watch the BBC channels, i expect some independance and actual news reporting!
disastrous news for the country today, as official figures show that GDP FELL for the first 3 months of the year by a staggering 1.9%! breaking story here
many people say, "that means nothing to me... " etc, but to those who follow the UK's accounts, it is a really serious problem and for those who are not interested or dont understand.. you will do over the coming months!
an illustration for you of the problems Britain is facing:
imagine the UK economy is a household, that earns £100 per week.
on wednesday the budget announced that borrowing for the UK would be at £175 billion for the next two years, which is equal to 79% of gross domestic product. its the 79% we are interested in.
in our example - our UK household brings in £100 per week, debt is at 79% of GDP (GDP = weekly income of £100) which means out of our £100 earnings, we are paying out £79 (79%) of it to pay off debts on money that weve borrowed. (do you see?)
this leaves the UK household with just £21 to live on per week.
in wednesday's budget, alistair darling had to tell us how we would manage to reduce the 79% and free up some more of our £100 per week, so we could have more to live on.
The two ways he could have done this would have been to announce tax rises, or announce cuts in public services - the problem was he did neither! the token "50p tax rate" and a few savings he could find, wont hit us until 2011 (or after election in labour spin)
the figures produced in the budget were based on a fall to the UK economy of 3.5% of GDP this year. in the breaking news link i posted at the top of this post, the "forecast" drop of 1.5%, turned out to be 1.9%, thats almost half a percent WRONG!
so the 3.5% fall that labour predicted for 2009/10 (ie this year) within 2 days is already wrong!
the most worrying thing about today's figures, is the manufacturing data: the manufacturing sector, shrank 6.2% in the first three months of the year, having decreased 4.9% in the previous quarter
thats real jobs (not civil servants in call centres, etc) have fallen by 11.1% in just 6 MONTHS!
more information to come later today!
Denz on 04.24.09 @ 10:56 AM CST [link]
Thursday, April 23rd
Budget 2009 breakdown
i can honestly say (as youd expect me to i guess?) that yesterday's "budget" was the worst ive heard in my entire lifetime! worse than all those in the 70s, worse than any in the 80s and 90s, and we had two recessions in that time. darling's budget was disgraceful, it lacked planning, it lacked approach, it lacked everything.
it is based on fantasy figures, so bad was it, it was as if labour decided what they needed and pulled a figure for future growth out of the air to fit!
top rate tax increased to 50p if this is actioned over the next 5 years, we will be lucky if we see £1 billion pounds raised from it - it is a token gesture designed to wrong foot the opposition rather than actually save us all some money.
£15 billion pounds of "efficiency savings" - if that was possible, why only do it now? why not make the cuts, then borrow money on what remains outstanding? how much interest is payable on a £15 billion pound debt? (us taxpayers are paying it) - where are the £15 billion of "savings" coming from? we dont know as he hasnt told us and continues to dodge the question!
it could be, that instead of increasing spending on public services by 1.1% every year, he will now only increase public spending by 0.7%? if this is correct, then why have labour been calling the conservatives "cutters of public spending" when they have done exactly the same thing in the budget? lets clear this labour lie up, once and for all: the conservatives are not proposing to cut public spending, they are cutting the amount of increases in public spending each year as it cannot be afforded - this is exactly the approach that labour have now adopted.
£2000 pounds discount for trading in a car over ten years old and buying a car less than a year old this is a complete fudge and will damage the car industry! the con trick comes in the form of who pays for this £2000 "discount"
£1000 is provided by the taxpayer - taken from borrowing and no doubt the taxpayer will also have to find more to pay it back as there will be interest on the money borrowed to set up and pay for this scheme the other £1000 is provided by the dealership itself! in the past 12 months car prices have shot up as dealerships raise the same revenue, but from less sales. - what do labour suppose will happen to the car dealership prices now?
Ill tell you - dealerships will increase their prices by between £1000 - £2000, because they can, so those trading in a 10 year old (or older) car, will pay the same amount as they would have done already, (but as a taxpayer theyll also have to pay more in taxation to pay for this scheme, plus theyll have to pay VAT on their new car at the price BEFORE the discount is applied!) but for every single buyer, who does not have a car to trade in for this "discount" they will have to pay higher taxation to pay for this scheme, higher amounts of VAT and a higher price for the car than they do now!
and what do labour think will happen - regarding costs for scrapping these old cars?
the dealership have to now arrange for the old car to be taken away and scrapped - will the dealership pay these costs themselves out of the goodness of their hearts? or will they add this onto their selling price, leaving customers with yet more to pay? this policy is totally unworkable and damaging to an industry it was brought in to help! ask any labour minister whats going to happen with the old cars used in the "discount" scheme, and they will look at you blank.... they simply dont know! (great planning that is!)
finally (as im giving myself a headache) with this farse of a budget - our borrowing deficit i was having a think (i do think occasionally) how best to illustrate just how big the borrowing deficit in this country is. we hear all the time about £50 billion here £175 billion there, but they are just numbers, so here's my feeble attempt to illustrate just how serious the problem is now.
in the 1997 general election, labour slated the conservatives about the UK's borrowing deficit.
under the outgoing conservative government - "... The general government net cash requirement for the calendar year 1997 was £11.5 billion lower than in 1996. General government net borrowing decreased from £34.0 billion in 1996 to £15.3 billion in 1997" QUOTE: office of national statistics (press release)
thats right a borrowing deficit of £15.3 billion (net) this is what labour absolutely went to town on, as the interest payments on the government's debt was "crippling the economy"
yesterday the labour chancellor revealed that after 12 years of their labour government being in power, the borrowing deficit for the next two years would £175 billion pounds!
finally (i promise) we had a cracking insight into how gormless this shower in power really are! the chancellor (in charge of the country's finances) declared today, that he "will cut the borrowing deficit in half over the next five years"
at the end of 5 years (if the joke growth forecasting of 3.5% in 2010 is correct) the borrowing deficit will be £98 billion pounds - you do the maths... what is half of 175? (i make it 87.5) so how does the chancellor get half of 175 as 98? this shows me that he is 10.5 (thats £10.5 billion pounds) out in his figures... hardly inspires confidence does it!
if he is to be believed (and its a big if) about his forecasts and projection, and everything comes true like he says it will, even in 5 years time, the taxpayers of the UK will be paying £55 billion pounds in interest alone.. this is more than 3 and a half times the TOTAL borrowing deficit they inherited when they first came to office!
and all this "paying back" without any higher taxes or cuts in public spending.... is this labour chancellor's real name paul daniels?
the UK cannot go on like this.... it must be time for a change of government!
time for a change!
Denz on 04.22.09 @ 12:07 AM CST [link]
Tuesday, April 21st
Inflation measure turns negative?
more bull spouted by those in charge of watching the UK inflation rates:
"... The ONS said that the biggest downward pressure on inflation had come from energy prices as the price of oil was significantly below the level it had been in the same month last year." - then why have millions of homes not seen a drop in home energy bills? - why have petrol prices increased by 8p on some of our local garages, despite only a 2p per litre tax increase?
"... Vegetable imports from Spain revived, sending vegetable prices lower, after being hit in the previous month by poor weather conditions" - our prices for fruit and veg has increased consistantly since january, doesnt match the "experts" opinions - if veg is coming in from abroad, with the pound being so weak against the euro, its actually costing more to import goods... this is being reflected in prices, so what are the "experts" talking about?
"... Transport costs also fell as a result of lower fuel prices, which also fed into lower air fares. " - air fares lower? utter tosh! airfares are going through the roof, and have been doing for the past 3 years - transport costs fell? the cost of motoring has continued to increase in every month of 2009
"... The price of clothing was also up from a year ago, with women's outerwear a particular driver" - clothing is imported, so how can fruit and veg imports be falling, but other imports are going upin price? the weak pound effects ALL imports,you cannot just pick and choose. i see today tesco announced record profits, food sales (which is spin for the food side of our business has brought in an increased profit of 3.9%) at a time when people struggling is disgraceful.. shows clearly that their food prices have increased dramatically, as they have lost almost 4% of market share (so how else have they increased profits in this sector???)
this labour government remind me of cornflakes: supermarket own brands look the same, and cost almost as much as kellogs, but they dont taste the same.
labour in some aspects look like the liberals, in others they look like the conservatives, on a few issues they appear to be like the green party, ukip, etc, but when you look at their policies overall, this falls apart, they just dont "taste" the same. they are not what it says on the packet!
budgets are an annual event, but with the amount of "pre budget leaks" (which labour use to test public opinion) its becoming nothing more than a floor show. the amount of times in the past 12 years weve had labour budgets, that reannounce old schemes like they are new and original (to catch the headlines) are a joke.
when we examine the detail, they mostly have no new funding, on some occasions they have simply reallocated the money they said they were already allocating.
Chancellor Alistair Darling is set to extend the stamp duty "holiday" on homes costing up to £175,000 by three months, to the end of the year. - this will be like the 2p petrol tax rise, which was suspended until until april and then ushered in with as little publicity as possible The government is also set to provide money for construction sites where work has stopped because of funding problems and for building council houses - which begs the question, why did they sell off council housing in the first place?
i can hear the objections to this now... labour didnt sell off thousands of council houses! look at the detail, its clear they did! - in my area, they put a vote to the tenants in council housing, to stay with the council or move to housing association (which was made up of the old council workers anyway!) it wasnt as simple as council or housing association? the housing association sent out information to every council home, offering them new kitchens, new boilers,new central heating, etc. as a tenant, the chances are that most were on low incomes, the chance of a brand new kitchen, boiler system etc, along with any decorating allowances once the work was done, the tenant understandably voted yes to the change.
the problem was the government offered only 27 million pounds investment if property stayed under council control - yet offered 42 million if it went to private housing authority. is the housing authority claiming money for repair jobs now? why start building homes for the council now?
Tuesday's government reports are expected to say it is possible to make a further £10bn efficiency savings from Whitehall departments from 2011/12 - on top of the £5bn already pledged for 2010/11 - as Mr Darling tries to show how he intends to balance the public finances. - ironic as the news ran with gordon brown telling us that you have to spend and borrow to get out of a recession, "... you cannot cut funding as others would do!" the very next news story said treasury sources revealed that £15 billion pounds of "savings" would be made across government departments... more labour spin!
Denz on 04.21.09 @ 10:01 AM CST [link]
Monday, April 20th
Budget 2009 leaks
Three days before the election and the leaks have started already, stories and reports from "experts" are appearing all over the media and interweb.
"... Chancellor Alistair Darling is expected to announce some £15bn of spending cuts over the next few years when he delivers his Budget statement. He will say the money can be found by making Whitehall more efficient." - how do the BBC know this? who has leaked some of the budget information? an end to the world of spin? it doesnt sound like it to me!
"... BBC political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg says the Budget will reveal the extent of public borrowing this year, potentially more than £160bn" - no, really? the budget will reveal the extent of public borrowing this year? how unusual! isnt this the whole purpose of making a budget statement? cmon BBC get a grip!
"... The Treasury has already said that there will be £5bn of savings in the financial year 2010 to 2011. But Mr Darling is expected to say that another £10bn will be found from the 2011-12 financial year onwards." - expected? after the headline of the story is the front page lead story, the BBC's correspondant can only state that the chancellor is "expected" to say something? hardly on the button reporting is it!
"... A decision on including the car scrappage scheme in the Budget has still not been finalised by the Treasury. This could see motorists receive a payment of £2,000 to trade in cars that are a certain number of years old. Officials are still studying the detail of how such a scheme might work, but it is expected that a plan of some description will feature somewhere in Wednesday's announcement" - we already know this, it was reported on last week, and BBC news actually led with it on their bulletins, as if it was confirmed already!
"... Experts believe he could now revise this to a projected drop in annual growth of between 3% and 3.5% - which would be the worst recession since 1945. However, Mr Darling is expected to say the economy will return to growth next year and gain further strength in 2011" - these are the same experts that totally missed the biggest financial collapse in british history are they? this is the same chancellor who got his borrowing figures wrong in the last budget and told us he represents the political party that (caused) can fix everything?
"... Meanwhile, the Ernst & Young Item Club predicted that the UK economy would shrink by 3.5% this year, but only by 0.1% in 2010" - how convenient, a positive report published over the weekend (to point at in the budget), that has the financial expertise to state that 7 years ago, the bank of england would have to raise interest rates to 8%, when every single forecaster disagreed with them, which of course it never did, as its opinion was totally wrong!
so the first leaked story about the budget on the most watched news channel and website, didnt really tell us anything, it repeated old statements and suggested what might happen! not exactly breaking news is it......
Denz on 04.20.09 @ 09:03 AM CST [link]
This is the labour through and through person, that is very rare in the 2000s, one that has genuine scruples. a simple google search of her name, reveals a catalogue of opposition to "new" labour policies and real questions asked throughout her time as an MP and beyond.
The BBC have just spoken to her on the phone, live on news 24, and disgracefully tried to tie her resignation from the party, in with the email scandal in the news recently, asking her outright at the start of the interview, "is your resignation due to the email issue?" - Alice replied, "not at all, its the policies that i cannot support, this labour party is not the one ive supported for so many years!"
the BBC then ended the interview with the caption blazened across the bottom of the screen: Alice Mahon is sickened by the email scandal
Alice, you have shown by your voting record alone, that you have scruples and will stand upto any party (even your own) who tries to fudge things and doesnt implement policies that it says it will. for that, you have earned my respect and i value your opinions and comments. I may not agree with your views, but you present them in an open manner and rightly defend them with valid arguments and facts.
Alice revealed that she had hoped that after blair (whom she said she couldnt have stood another full term of him being prime minister) brown would return to old labour values, but he hasnt! in 2005, alice tells us, labour were elected on a manifesto which included:
no privatisation of the post office - they then part privatised the post office a vote on the eu constitution - they then changed it in name only and imposed it on us
on the post office, we agree, greg pope labour MP, has pictures on his website, standing side by side our local post office owners, saying he will fight for them in parliament to keep it open (even though he couldnt turn up at the open day to drum up support) within 5 days, he went back to parliament and voted to close 5000 post offices!
old labour people whilst having differing views to myself, always earn respect because they dont spin their arguments, and try and belittle mine as they have no factual case for doing anything.
ill be slated for this post no doubt, but its free speech here....
the sprog supports pirate bay, and 50% of me supports them as well, for too long record/film companies are too dominant, they do not price films/music based on cost, they extort as much money as they can from the public, which is wrong i think.
however....
i cannot help but view the judges decision as having a ring of truth about it.
the complaint by many (including me) is that they charge too much, so its sour grapes when a website comes along and upsets their nice little monopoly. had pirate bay been fighting a "crusade" they might have won their case?
but the judge states clearly that those behind the website are lining their own pockets with huge amounts of money off the site.
this for me anyways, puts a whole different light on the case.
how many times have you been on a website and seen the following: "please use our links, as we receive a small commission, which allows us to keep the site free to pay for running costs or all money made from your using our links to shop, goes back into the site for its up keep
statements like this are utter tosh... i know of not one that doesnt operate as a business, take a basic forum website, do they really need £5000 per year to keep going? not even a quarter of this would cover their running costs!
if the website is genuine, why doesnt it publish the amount of money it makes each year then let you decide for yourself? because it doesnt want you to know how much money its making!
in the pirate bay case, the judge has clearly seen the amount ofmoney they are making from the website, and how the site is portrayed as being on "a crusade against major record/film companies" and made a point about how they are "lining their own pockets in anorganised manner" from the site.
dont forget also, the website operators are earning advertising revenue from all across the world, do they pay tax on any of it?
the record companies pay tax, we have to pay tax, should they pay tax? maybe if they did things as everyone else has to, then they would have won their case?
i drive a van and a car on a regular basis. for this, i pay a heavy price via fuel taxation, road duty, VAT, vehicle repair costs/MOT, constantly higher insurance premiums (despite not having a single accident in 13 years).... plus of course parking charges at hospitals and in most town centres, etc.
then there are the possible extra costs, speeding/parking tickets for example, or penalties for parking in the wrong parking bay on a car park, or parking slightly outside of a bay... you get the picture.
anyways..... i have a major issue with the government here, in that the motorist pays out over £45 billion a year to the country's coffers, yet the prices of public transport keeps going through the roof and the amount of investment in these projects, has rarely in the past 11 years of the labour administration, been even a quarter of the income generated off the motorists back! dare to question this, and you are accused of wanting to close schools and hospitals! (wasnt i greg pope - labour mp for hyndburn)
so today i hear about yet another "new scheme" to pay the car buyer thousands of pounds of taxpayers money (i thought the country had no money left?) if they scrap their old cars and buy clean and more efficient cars, that save on co2 emmissions, even electric cars!
electric cars? they save on co2 compared to petrol and diesel cars do they? so how does the government of today think electric cars are charged up? using fossil fuels to generate electricity! - in finland or whereever they are copying this practice, they use only renewable energy, so it really does cut co2 emmissions!
fossil fuels are expensive, the government doesnt help by making vast amounts of money with their taxation on it, but electricity? even more expensive now, and just wait until the public start paying extra to cover the costs of installing all the charging devices around the country... electricity prices will increase as demand increases, and hey presto (as if by magic) the government will make vast wads of cash (to spend on starting more websites like redrag.com no doubt - kick em in the balls guido!) and tax us all to the hilt again, but on a higher level!
reduce emmissions - why not..... get all the loonies OFF THE ROAD???
if traffic runs smoothly, then emmissions will fall as we are not all stuck in traffic jams everyday.
The pedestrian: i love em, i used to be one! but why are they crossing roads (designed for vehicles) not 10 feet away from a zebra/pelican crossing? half the time they have headphones on and cannot hear traffic, they walk across junctions without even slowing down to stop or checking for traffic... but the worst one has to be when they stroll out on a zebra crossing, expecting the driver to deal with it!
im all for safety first, but when ive got a 14 ton artic up my arse, in a 30/40 mile an hour zone and you decide to step out WITHOUT CHECKING ITS SAFE then you are asking for trouble..... do i slam on causing serious injury to me, the wagon driver and possibly any other pedestrians in the area? or do i run you over?
a vehicle does not have to stop at a zebra crossing, its the driver's choice, the driver will make a decision if its safe to stop and let you cross, the pedestrian should stand at the crossing and WAIT! a person can stop instantly - a car cannot!
the cyclist: i have a lot of time for the genuine cyclist, the routine sunday pedaller, who uses cycle lanes, waits at traffic lights etc, the ones who sometimes have their children with them (also on a bike) - they are courteous, have good road manners and observe the dangers well - i will always give way to them and help them whenever possible, even if it means i trail behind them in the car for a mile or so until its safe to pass them.
there are cyclists outthere who CAUSE ACCIDENTS! its not a simple b road down to the town centre anymore, to these loonies, its the tour de france! they do not use cycle lanes (special people they are) they ride in the middle of the road two/three wide, they dont observe the highway code, they show no respect to pedestrians crossing and traffic lights, or the traffic they hold up, they just want to win the yellow jersey.... pillocks they are!
town centre layouts: if you were from a different country and landed in a UK town centre, you could easily think that the whole purpose of a town centre, was to trap the motorist into paying more money out to the state and to increase petrol useage (bringing in yet more money for the state) example jack straw's town of blackburn, to drop the sprog off at his fav club used to take just 5 minutes from the outskirts of town to the club in the centre, it now takes more than 30 minutes: why?
to get to the edge of the centre there are now 6 major roundabouts to navigate, once in the centre, there is a one way system that would boggle the minds of a mathematical genius! where formerly two lanes of traffic to turn left or right, there now exists 4 to 5 lanes of traffic to go in 3 directions, there are occasions when 5 lanes of traffic have to be crossed just to get in lane for the next set of lights as you enter the town centre, there are 5 more sets of lights, its a complete pain in the arse!
the whole "system" if you can call it that cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, the whole system is costing the motorist more money in used petrol/diesel, which in turn increases co2 emmissions.... which defeats the whole purpose of today's "new" scheme!
previous post about loans to the UK car industry from the EIB, questioned the judgement of the british government giving taxpayer's money to the EIB (for them to give it to industry/schemes) then guaranteeing the same loan, so if the company couldnt pay it back, the UK taxpayer would have to pay it again!
so i did some digging on the EIB and how it gets its funding, heres what i found:
".... The EIB is non-profit-making and gets no money from savings or current accounts. Nor does it use any funds from the EU budget. Instead, the EIB is financed through borrowing on the financial markets and by the Bank’s shareholders – the member states of the European Union. They subscribe jointly to its capital, each country’s contribution reflecting its economic weight within the Union"
oh dear..... not good! bit of a contradiction there!
note how it doesnt use any EU funds to finance itself.... it funds itself firstly via borrowing on financial markets (ooops not a good time to be doing that!) then it gets additional funding from the bank's shareholders... cool... who are - "the member states of the european union" (NOT cool.. thats the UK then!) who are already up to their necks in debt?
at least they (EU countries) jointly subscribe (ie, pay) into its pot... NOT! "... each country’s contribution reflecting its economic weight within the Union" so some countries contribute more jointly than others... ie, the UK subscribe more funding than say poland or all the other former eastern block countries.
and who provides the money the UK government give to the EIB? the UK taxpayer! its even worse than i first though.... as its not simply part of our contribution to the EU's funding each year, its in addition to the UK's contribution to EU funding each year!
not to worry though, at least there are strict safeguards and protections in place for the EIB's lending policies? surprisingly NOT! the EIB has absolutely no regulation laws or rules governing it, whatsoever!
it can throw money at whatever project it wants, and it has, and lost considerable amounts of money in the process! - so no regulation (who was proposing more regulation for financial institutions recently? let me think.....) - no accountability - again who was recently telling us this was essential to financial institutions?
the UK puts forward one representative to sit on its committee... who that is? god only knows because i havent been able to find the information yet.
is this part of labour's european policy? "we want to be leading europe at the heart of europe, not sat on the side lines using our veto and opt-outs"
more info as i find it... including how much each year the UK "subscribes" in taxpayer's money to the EIB .... again this information is not readily available to the UK public...
car makers landrover/jaguar and nissan have been granted hundreds of million pounds worth of loans, part of the condition of their loans is that they must use the loans to "develop more fuel-efficient vehicles"
how have we have come to this?
Old way of doing things: the car company sells its product at a price to attract customers and make a profit, much of those profits are then plowed back into the company, a form of investment to develop new vehicles to increase sales in the future. this investment is needed to prevent the company from having to borrow vast sums of money from the banks, (plus the interest payments) the less borrowed = more for investment for the next models, it was a simple process, it increased competition between makers, which cut prices for the customer, ie, US!
"New" way of doing things: the car company sells its product for maximum profit, all car companies are allowed to borrow heavily, have huge interest payments and loans, but instead of using profits to pay off their debts, they are allowed to increase borrowing, and announce bigger profits to sound stronger than they actually are. all is well whilst borrowing rates are negotiable, but as weve seen, as borrowing costs rise, the companies find themselves up turd creek without a paddle. this "new" way increases monopolies in the industry, which increases prices for everyone, puts workers jobs at risk, and creates a business model that doesnt need to worry about failing and breaking even, as it will receive tax payer's money to save it, to pay off its debts!
which is a better way of doing things? way number 1: the company gets its finances in a mess, the government has the option to either step in and save it with taxpayers money, or let it fall (giving a lesson to every other company in that industry) so its either merged with another company or closes down.
way number 2: the company can appeal to a european fund (paid for by taxpayers) which takes ages to report back, meanwhile many jobs are lost, for a small investment loan, (which is again guaranteed by the taxpayer - and those in charge of the european fund take their cut out of the taxpayer funded pot) to develop more fuel efficient cars (who is going to monitor this? and how? and how much will they be paid for doing this non job?) which as we all know, will be used to pay bonuses for staff (proving it will be almost impossible)
i can see what they are trying to do, but the government cant complete way number 1, as they signed away that right to the european union!
so we have a government that cannot even help out a major UK employer even if it wanted to - we are in the ludicrous position of the taxpayer possibly paying twice to give the company one loan!
the taxpayers money is given to the euro body to then give to the company, and the taxpayer also has to guarantee the loan, so if the company default and cannot pay it back, we the taxpayer pay for it again!
the magic of gordon brown...... an unfunny version of tommy cooper, instead of messing up magic tricks, brown is messing up the future of the UK, on the world stage... problem is, no one in the UK is laughing!
Denz on 04.13.09 @ 10:22 PM CST [link]
Sunday, April 12th
Easter
Im not a big follower of Jesus and the bible etc, but i do believe in people having their own faith (of some kind) i view the bible as a "moral guide" thats been around for centuries. there are endless examples quoted of how a person should approach a situation for example.
everyone must have faith in something or someone or a theory, etc, so when i see advertising that attempts to exploit this religeous time of year, i switch off. companies please note: you havent a chance of enticing me into spending my money when you do this!
some of the advertising ive seen, has been deplorable: - sparkling wine - "traditional fare at easter" - furniture sales just for easter - money off flat screen tvs this easter - easter clothing sales - easter holiday sales - do it yourself this easter time
the list is endless, i know that business needs to promote itself, but is there no yearly occasion they wont turn into a "must buy" or "promotional" period?
what about the staff that have to work? what about their families? when is it not a time for profit from others?
what ever faith you believe in, i wish you all a peaceful time this easter.
Denz on 04.12.09 @ 12:39 PM CST [link]
Thursday, April 9th
john prescott's opinion
its not often i link to a pro labour party piece on the internet (if you dont count the BBC) but you have to read this:
i was almost tempted to join up to "labour's fourth term" just to ridicule the "out of touch/waste of space bag of wind" type MP - but thought id post it here instead.
can you believe the nerve of this man? (i use the term man loosely)
here we have an MP who abused his government position to cheat on his wife, with a woman who lost her job for it - but really didnt lose her job, she moved to a different department and now earns even more money than she did whilst working and sleeping with prescott!
a man who when on a walkabout for a general election (whilst promising not to introduce student loans no doubt) was hit by an egg thrown at him by a voter, then grappled with him and punched him in the face, in front of tv cameras, and he didnt even get a warning... let alone an official caution!
now hes saying how glad he is that his actions led to the lady who threw custard in mandelson's sneering little mush, has accepted a police caution for doing it, which will show up on her records, as her actions were stupid!
i suppose prescott would prefer that she had simply voiced her objections with more than two supporters present - this way she would have been arrested under "anti terror legislation"?
i cannot believe that people actually vote for this person, let alone support him in government to represent the UK when he was deputy prime minister, we truly do live in a gormless world!
its a simple message but one that needs repeating:
high street shops are struggling - its not the recession, its not "credit crunch" - its that the "offers" and "sales" are simply not good value!
the customer (well this one anyways) is sick to the back teeth of wonderful sales that are nothing close to good value!
how many times in the past few weeks have you seen a shop or website, advertising "upto 20%" or "upto 50%" off sales, and when you have checked the prices of these offers, they are pitiful?
here are some of the latest batch of "offers": - FREE returns (wow, if its faulty i can send it back? bargain that is... NOT) - FREE delivery on orders over £279 (stunning, if i pay over £20 id EXPECT delivery to be free - a saving of a tenner, its making me want to buy already.... NOT) - televisions - Was £399... NOW £349! - it would be a "saving" if it wasnt on sale for £329 at christmas and £359 as little as 5 weeks ago!
and my favourite: "buy one get one free on [insert some obscure product they didnt sell when people had plenty of credit on their cards]"
people are not stupid, they are not buying because business are not reducing prices. its as simple as that!
car maker goes bust, yet the prices of their cars goes up high street businesses are finding it tough, yet their prices are going up supermarkets are telling us that people are shopping own brand products more - yet they have pushed up all their prices on the products people on a budget are shopping for!
you want more customers using your business, LOWER YOUR PRICES!
the bank of england keep telling us how imports are getting more expensive, due to the weak pound. so why doesnt british retailing source british products? it would boost manufacturing, increase jobs, support the economy and help everyone, who knows they might start making profits on foreign markets with the surplus of stock being sold abroad.
a final example for you: the wii console... ive had endless companies stating sales on these in the past few weeks, yet not one single one is selling the console for less than £189.99 - which is the price they were at christmas!
as far as good value goes, the uk shopper is seeing almost no value for money!
labour MP for our area, greg pope, has only ever sent through "a reminder" that he is representing us and "is there to help" on four occasions during his entire parliamentary existence.
the first two mail drops he did, were on official house of commons notepaper, each just a reminder that he was there (shame he never answered any political questions with as much vigour) there was an outcry about this, as its against parliamentary rules to canvass support during a general election using taxpayer funded MP stationary (and rightly so)
on both occasions, within two weeks of his "reminder" a general election was called so technically, he wasnt braking the parliamentary rules.
the next time i got a reminder posted through my door, was a loverly shiney leaflet telling me how much work he has been doing for everyone (he forgot to mention that he was in charge of NHS dentist contracts, but missed two important votes in parliament for them, and sent another labour mp to vote on them) about 4 weeks later, gordon brown (general buffoon and a sir in the world of banking regulation) admitted that he was going to call a general election, but decided against it!
so when this week i received another shiney reminder of greg pope, (without any statement about who has paid for it - so ill assume its been put together and paid for using public money - as is his habit with mail drops) it tells me that we maybe having an election sooner than is legally required.
* couple this with the sudden "anti-terror" news stories filling all the papers and news bulletins, cynical i maybe, but burying bad news is common practice for mandelson, brown and his cronies.
are they gearing up for an election? i think so!
Denz on 04.09.09 @ 10:39 AM CST [link]
Saturday, April 4th
Food prices crisis is growing!
the UK is facing a crisis, as food prices have risen, by more than 18% in the past 12 months!
"...too much salt, too much fat, too much sugar, cheap cheap cheap just isn't good enough."
a while ago i posted about sausages, i was outraged (yes that much) about how pork sausages could contain less than 33% pork - a reader of that post, replied that it was essential to keep food affordable for low income families (a fair point i thought) even though i disagreed with their view.
the report continues, making references to supermarkets and how the prices are rising despite customers choosing the "cheaper" options.
im sure i have bored anyone who wanders to this space to read my ramblings (ramblings being polite) often enough. but if i reitterate the point enough times, maybe it will start to stick?
i am not just a cranky old git, with a whinge, when will people learn that supermarkets over charge and manipulate the people that use them? im not talking the odd bit of crafty marketing etc, we see that all the time, we almost expect it.
but when people are struggling yet all the tinned goods at the supermarkets have their prices rise for no apparent reason, or polythene meat products are laid out and presented as fresh (with prices that are more than the same polythene packed goods on the shelf) isnt it time that people stopped and took a look at alternative options for their food shopping?
when was the last time you negotiated a discount at a supermarket till?
its not hard to save money AND eat better quality goods.
meat: buy from a supermarket, imported - polythene packaged - presented as fresh but out of a packet - by a non skilled worker who wears a uniform but struggles to name the animal it comes from (let alone name an actual cut of meat) - who conveniently suggests cooking methods and sauces that can be used with the "joint" that you are buying (known as "add on sales" in the retail world) OR buy from a local butchers - established and running for years in your local area - many animals have been bred locally (within 30 miles) on a farm - can name all the cuts of meat - can give you advice on cooking times/methods - can be hagled with for a bit of a discount or will throw you in an extra chop etc - at prices regularly below that of a supermarket.
its a no brainer - i shop at an established butchers, an established market fruit and veg GREENGROCERS, a small independant fish mongers, and i save on average around £40 a week over the same products in a supermarket, and they are better quality and keep longer, i eat all the best cuts of meat, my fruit and veg comes mostly from the UK and keeps over the week, i get recipes and local sauces to cook with, along with advice from people who have worked in the industry for years, milk and eggs from a local farming milkman - so that when i land at the supermarket for tinned food and bread, i can bypass all the supermarket marketing and save pounds every week.
and at what cost is all this? i have to walk a bit further to my car, where ive parked, big deal, i can live with that... could YOU?
Denz on 04.04.09 @ 10:42 AM CST [link]
Thursday, April 2nd
what will G20 achieve?
- will it reduce the increased taxation my household will have to pay over the next 30 years (as a result of labour's mistakes in non regulation?) - will it result in my household receiving money instead of it going to the banks, so that they can lend it to me and charge me interest upon it? (even though in theory the money they are given is from the taxpayer) - will it reduce my gas/electric/water prices? (and end discrimination in the process?)
- will it make those who created this whole mess, ie, those who imposed the policies upon the people, accountable for their own actions?
from what i can see, spending hundreds of millions of pounds to have world leaders visit, so they can simply confirm and sign what their staff have already agreed over the past couple of months, which benefits the man in the street in no way whatsoever, is a gross waste of time money and resources.
* those who created this mess will still not be accountable for their negligence * those who didnt bother to use regulation - whilst telling us the people, that we were protected - will still carry on in the same jobs * the economists, who missed the biggest financial disaster for 80 years, are now all telling us that confidence is returning and things are getting better, etc, - does anyone still believe these halfwits?
but the best thing is that all these world leaders have been conned by gordon brown. we have no money and we are broke - the one group we could goto is the IMF - the same IMF that has suddenly got a 1 TRILLION reserve fund payment, mostly from japan and china.... **i wonder what brown has given up to get them to give the IMF so much money (which he can now goto with cap in hand and borrow from)???
Denz on 04.02.09 @ 11:22 PM CST [link]
