Market failures

I have been reading a book, "How Markets Fail", by John Cassidy, borrowed from the local library (and when he says local he means less than 200 yards away, European readers, about 180 metres - ed) and have not only been understanding what it says, but actually enjoying reading it (how can that be - amazed ed)!

Now being that kind of sad person (What? You have a problem with lack of light in Winter in the Northern Hemisphere - medical ed), in that I read books on Economics amongst other things. I have now read more than a few books on the most recent recession and this particular book is damn fine (like a wine, it seems to get better the more I drink of it - waxing lyrical ed).

It gives a history of economic theories over the past 150 years or so, and trips lightly to the conclusion that most (but not all - economics ed) economic theories fail to explain anything that appears to happen in the real world at all (you just can't trust those trusty theories - ed). There does seem to have been a move to more realistic theories in recent years, as they start to take into account that most interesting factor, "real people" and psychology. What took them so long you may well ask?

Most (if not all - ed?) of the older theories that had been put forward (and taught as gospel in many Universities - education ed) had a large number of assumptions that failed to match the real world, and unfortunately for us, were used as tools to help in policy making by governments and financial authorities  world wide (oops - ed)

What economics seems to boil down to is; that the world is inhabited by irrational people with an inbuilt herd instinct, who are forgetful of  history and have absolutely no ability to foresee the future (well how many more booms and busts do there need to be before we get that it is the norm - economics ed). 

So given this, what I do find amusing, is that most of us in work have pension schemes where our pension fund managers invest our money to beat "the market" but where history shows us and time again that most managers fail to beat the market average (Worth reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books, The Black Swan & Fooled By Randomness, which although are a bit of a hard read, are very enlightening - economics ed). Worth noting that there will always be some people who beat the market, but that is most likely (tee hee - maths ed) down to probability.

Markets of all kind seem to move in cycles, generally boom and bust (like in in the UK the market for houses - see here, for the boom and busts over just the last 40 years, including our latest one - ed) but we seem to forget it after a few short years! Remember even Gordon Brown (hiss, boo - ed) told us with all sincerity that, "we will never return to the old boom and bust", as recently as 2006, just before we entered the longest recession in generations! So much for that theory!

So, if you are a little interested in why we are where we are, this is a book I can recommend.

Afterthought
Another entertaining and very readable book is, "Whoops", by John Lanchester, a book which is a breeze to read and very informative on the subject of how we got into this current mess.

Graphery [Thoughtlet]

Definition: Graphery:- the act of playing around with interactive online graphs. Example here. First known word use here.

Tax cuts for millionaires

This keeps getting raised and it annoys the pants of me (well rotated pairs I hope - fashion ed). 

In April 2009 Alistair Darling, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced a new 50% tax rate on all income above £150,000. Previously the highest rate was 40% for all income above £37,400. This measure was timed to come into effect from 5 April 2010, just before the next UK election, which the Labour party expected to lose, and indeed did (hurrah - agitprop ed)

So, whichever Government that was going to follow them, was going to find the economic outlook pretty grim and the Government income and expenditure in total disarray (as ever after a Labour Government - economics ed), in fact the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne left a note for the next incumbent of the office, which read, and I quote, "Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there's no money left. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam."

Now, given that the Labour party had been in power since 1997, that is, 12 years, before creating this new tax band you have to ask yourself if this measure was going to raise a substantial amount of income tax, why had they not brought it in beforehand?

Simply politics, given their inevitable and indeed looming defeat, the Labour Party wanted to put the following Government (now the Coalition - ed) in a bit of a dilemma, given that, removing this new tax band, would cause huge political fallout. In fact the Labour party have used the partial removal of this band to berate the new Government over tax cuts for millionaires.

This was and still is a political masterstroke, as here we are in 2013 with the Coalition, which announced a reduction of this new rate from 50% to 45% in the April 2012 Budget, and with its actual removal looming on the 5 April 2013 being berated after the Chancellor's Budget speech with this hackneyed phrase,  by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband (like the real thing, David Miliband, but softer and more cuddly - ed)

Now, I am not sure about you but £150,000 (in any ones book a lot of dosh, moolah, rhino, cash - ed) however it is not a £1,000,000  (that's even more dosh - ed) by any stretch of the imagination, but that is the Labour Party for you, never very good with figures.

What I will endeavour to show, by showing the costs of various salaries through the periods 2009-10 (last year of the Labour government, without 50% band, so max rate 40%), 2012-13 (last year with  50% band) and the forthcoming tax year 2013-14 (50% band decreased to 45%) how much tax a disparate set of incomes actually raises.

Note the figure the furthest on the right is the percentage of income that the tax payer keeps, it is quite noticeable that the proportion that you keep decreases the more you earn, progressive taxation is what it is called, not only do you pay more in pounds, you pay an increasing percentage.

The tables also shows the cost to the employer as your gross income plus the employers NI contributions that are in effect a "job tax" on the worker.

2009-10 Last Year of Labour Government 40% Upper Tax Band

Makes for some interesting reading for the year 2009-10 above, that under the Labour government a millionaire salaried worker (perhaps a Premier league footballer or perhaps a banker - ed) gets net pay of 59.63% or £596,313 (ooh that's large - ed) but also generated £530,954 in income taxes (includes income tax, employees NI and  employers NI - ed)

Last financial year with 50% upper band

For this last financial year, we can see that the "millionaire" is now only getting net pay of 49.85%  or £498,537 but is generating £638,429 to the Government coffers! That is quite a substantial extra contribution of over around £107,000 more  a year than under the Labour Government. If this is that lucrative for the Government, why didn't they raise it earlier?

Coming Tax Year 2013-14, with 50% cut to a 45% Upper Tax Band

In the coming financial year, the millionaire will be keeping 50.29% of their income, or £502,908 but still be generating £634,030 for the Government coffers. So, even with this, "tax cut", the "millionaire" tax payer is still contributing more to the Government coffers than at any time under the Labour Government.

Given the large amount of money that these "millionaires" (anyone earning over £150,000 being a millionaire obviously - ed) generate, surely we want more of them rather than fewer, as each one of them contributes one hundred and twenty times more than the £20,000 a year tax payer.

Afterthought
It is worth noting, that in the year 2009-10, according to HMRC, there were 16,000 people who declared themselves as having incomes of £1 million or greater, by 2010-11 there were only 6,000 in the same group.

It is unlikely that 10,000 millionaire income earners disappeared, it is more likely that some brought forward their income (as these high earners are generally paying themselves via dividends rather than as PAYE - ed) to pay at the lower tax rate, or they may have put off taking that income until a later time when the rate has been reduced, as high earners can usually do, as they have well paid accountants and financial advisers to help them make these seemingly tricky decisions

Those earning £150,000+ (308,000 people) pay £47bn or just under 30% of the total.

Those earning between £35,000 and £150,000 (3.7 million people) pay £57bn or 34% of the total

Given that there around around 30 million workers in the country (according to the HMRC, so the figure must be right - ed), then the rest of the 26 million works pay the rest, 36%, of the total.

What is also interesting about these figures, is that most, in fact 80% of the workers in this country earn an after tax income of less than £35,000. In fact there is a nice bit of graphery (is that really a word? - ed) over at the Guardian, which is interesting to play with.

So in an environment where the words, "paying their fair share of tax" is bandied about, given that the top 20% already contribute 64% of the tax, aren't they already paying their fair share of the tax?

Power On

Well, since 08:28 this morning, this has been a no power household. It finally came back on at 17:55. Makes me wonder if the freezer has managed OK, not opened the door at all, but did open the fridge door a couple of times to make some hand warming cups of tea. Luckily for us we have a gas hob, which had to be lit with a lighter, but managed that without any incident (Ray Mears would have been proud of you - ed)

When I rang the power company this morning they said that the power would be back in an hour. A little optimistic in retrospect methinks. Rang again at 16:15, and was told that it would be on between 4 and 5pm. Well they were a little later than that, but arguably better late than never. At least we aren't snowed in down in the South as some parts of Scotland are who haev been without power for a few days now.

Funnily enough had just lit some candles in the front room, as the light was fading, and dug out the rewindable torch, but failed to find the battery powered torch. Know that I put it somewhere sensible (dangerous thing when he knows where something is - look what happened in the Attic - ed) but have not been sufficiently goaded to properly look for it. Think I am all searched out after Sunday in the attic.

But the  power is now back on I am just knocking out a quick post about it. I mean my readers need to be informed.

Seems that not all of Alton was struck, as I braved the bitter cold of the great outsdoors earlier, well I did  pop to Boots and Sainsbury's to stock up on a couple of items and noticed that Alton High Street was unaffected.

Mildly disappointed that the power is back on, I was looking forward to deciding whether we should go out to The George for dinner, assuming they had power or staying in and cooking a meal on the gas hob and eating a candlelit dinnner which did sound quite attractive, but that would require a bottle of wine to make it romantic?

Nothing on the Scottish and Southern Electric Power Distribution Site with the reason for the failure, all they said this morning was that there was a problem at a local substation.

What was noticeable, with the power outage, was that when the mobile phone ran out of charge and I couldn't access any form of news or social media and strangely the world didn't end? Bizarre eh! We are lucky to still have a landline phone (that old style technology does sometimes come in handy - ed), and the extension in the bedroom worked, but the main phone downstairs didn't as needs mains power. But what can you do with a landline in terms of accessing information on the internet without a working router (which needs electricity - ed) not much it seems.

Afterthought
Might be worth investing in a spare battery for the mobile to give me a little bit more time on the internet should we get another power outage (but you would have to keep it charged, and somewhere where you can remember, so that you can find it should the need arise - ed)

Attic

Been having a bit of a sort out of the attic. Not the one between the ears, but the real one up between the rafters.

Now, this is one of those jobs that gets postponed and postponed, but I was looking for something and I thought I knew where it was (he didn't as it turned out - ed) and unwisely I was determined to find it.

So Sunday afternoon, when it was bitterly cold outside and it was merely cold in the attic, the hatch was opened, the ladder lowered, and my loins were girded ready for action, Luckily I have a system which was put into effect when the boxes went up into the attic a couple of years ago. But even with the initial best of intentions things in the attic have lost a little shape since then, as you will see below (sigh - ed)

However, a slight aide before I start the story. I do have a number of theories to do with putting boxes in the attic, namely the following rules:

1. Don't do it at all. Never ever, ever put boxes in the attic. Remember don't do it, because if you do, at some point there will be something you need that is in the attic and will not been findable or alternatively you are moving house and need to 'Clear the Attic', which involves bringing the boxes down from the attic, repackaging the contents into newer, less decrepit boxes, moving the said boxes to  the following house, putting the boxes back up into the next attic. I recall taking two days to empty an attic at one house, luckily, the contents never went back into the attic of the following house, as I applied rule 1 very firmly indeed. 
2. If you do feel you need to put boxes of 'stuff' in the attic, catalogue the contents of each box and put that list on top of the box, take a photo of the contents of the box and number and date the box on both the lid and the side. The box can then be put into the attic. Ensure that the photos with the content picture and list/catalogure are put onto computer  - preferably in the cloud. Note: As and when more stuff is put in the attic, apply the same actions, otherwise madness ensues
3. Simply write on the box lid a brief overview of the contents (David's ref books, Star Trek TNG DVDs, etc - ed)
4. Put boxes in the attic all higgledypiggledy with no form or structure, because we all know that is the real way to do it.
5. Date and time boxes, which then, if remain unopened for X years are taken out of the attic and binned/recylced without opening. Remember, unopened, because you know as well as I do, if you open the box, you will find a reason to redate the box and leave in the attic. Remember, boxes in the attic are not just for Xmas, they are for life!

Now having tried, 1, 2, 3, 4 and more recently 5. at different times and in different houses, I have come to the conclusion, that 2 is the one that should work (whaddya mean should - suspicious ed).

There is a large CAVEAT in that if the boxes' lids are swapped whilst digging through boxes at a later time, this particular methodology fails unless as part of methodology 2, you write the number of the box on the side of the box as well!

Now, in our house, we have in fact implemented both Rules 1 & 2, with a little 3, 4  and 5 thrown in to make things that much more interesting. All of  Bridget's gear is boxed, photographed, numbered and dated and placed in number order in one half of the attic (excellent, well done Bridget - ed). Strangely, we never seem to need to find anything from Bridget's boxes, possibly as that would be simply too easy.

The other half of the attic (well considerably less now, as most of it has been brought downstairs to clear out - ed) is in a mix of 3/4 with lids changed to protect the innocent. So a box entitled "Ref books", which should contain Software Development Reference books, is found to contain Science Fiction books. A box named DVDs, contains a couple of bags of marbles and a treasure chest (and there was I thinking you'd lost your marbles - ed).

So, why am I clearing out the attic, I needed to find something (and when that mood is upon him, nothing, absolutely nothing will stop him, sigh - ed) and as part of that search I wanted to find a specific Fantasy book that I knew (possibly not - ed) was in the attic, Alvin Maker, by Orson Scott Card (though he did find books 2,3 and 5 in that series, failed to find the first, sigh - ed).

But, given that the looked for item was not to be found by use of any kind of  intelligent search algorithm, as I simply 'knew' it was up there, and I 'knew' what was in the box with it; due to the astounding failure to apply Rule 2, when my stuff was put into the attic the search became a look through almost every box in my half of the attic, and unsurprisingly result in a "failed to find" event; followed by an initial give up, "I'm never going to find it, mutter, mutter, Dick Dastardly", moment, that caused Bridget to apply, "Davey Control Rule 1 - feed and water at regular intervals".

So, we retreated downstairs for a cup of tea and something to eat (two fried eggs on toast, with a grind or two of black pepper, hmm - culinary ed). This was then followed by a return to the attic, now with my batteries fully charged and applying the, "You must have moved it", Rule, that is, as we had failed to find the item in my half of the attic, it must have somehow been moved to Bridget's half and it wasn't me that moved it...

So we ended up taking a look through Bridget's half of the attic only to find some unnamed, unnumbered boxes of  mine (oops - ed), which of course, did not contain the sought for article. 

At this point, the frustration had reached, "Danger Will Robinson", levels, (with siren and the flashing red lights - ed), and I decided unilaterally to,  "Sort Out", (in best Ray Winston, cockney Londoner fashion - ed), the attic good and proper. Well, obviously only my half, as Bridget's is well, already what you might call, sorted.

So what then. Every single box in my half of the attic was gone through, with all books sorted into ones to go downstairs (as he will never read them again - ed)  to be sold or given away. Alton has a very understanding 2nd hand bookseller, who will take certain types of Science Fiction and Fantasy books, so I might even make a couple of quid (enough to buy the book you failed to find? - ed)

After another hour in the dusty cold environs of the attic, when we reached the last couple of boxes, guess what, we found the box we were looking for, which, bizarrely enough, did have a description of the contents, including the item that I was looking for, written on the lid!

Somehow it had been overlooked in the intial reconnaissance (I would say, "Now there's a surprise", but that might elicit a slap to the head - cowardly ed) , as would almost naturally be the case. So, success in the end, but the failure to find the Alvin Maker book was a bit of a blow.

But, my half of the attic is, "Well Sorted", now, so I know where my marbles are (you must feel so proud - ed), I know where all my LPs are,  I know where all my CDs are, I know where all my DVDs are, the books that are being kept to potentially read are in just a couple of boxes, my work related reference books are in boxes with lids named "Ref books", it is almost like a plan. (Did you apply any of  Rule 2? - ed).

All the stuff to go, has been brought down, a dozen or so board wargames from the 70-80s, also Strategy & Tactics, Fire & Movement, Phoenix, Ares, Omni magazines, which according to the web, are now worth something, so they will be sold, hopefully as a job lot else I will be busy on speciliast websites or ebay. Can't say that that is something I am looking forward to.

Afterthought

There is a much (much much - ed) funnier blog about attics and moving written by a chap called, Michael Marshall (Smith) . Well worth a read, as are his books.

The cough that comes with going into the attic for any prolonged length of time has returned. Bizarre, that, the post cough taste, is well, "Atticy", I think that is the best word that I have to describe it. Luckily, it only lasts for a day or so until the lining of my lungs has caused a sufficient number of coughs to clear out all of the "Atticyness", gunk that I inhaled whilst moving and interrogating boxes.

BTW Haven't forgotten about the Tax Cuts for Millionaires blog, it is really just bubbling under. Be available Real Soon Now.

Flaming Hot Pickled Onions Batman

Our favourite butcher, Norman Reads, over in the nearby town (without a soul - ed) of Four Marks, which also has an embedded cheese shop (no Python sketches, thank you - ed) had a new item on their display table the other weekend. What was that I hear you ask?

Yes it was the, intriguingly named Flaming Hot Pickled Onions. These are very strong pickled onions, with chillis added. Never heard of this combination before, so had to give them a try, I mean what else could a poor boy do?
Simply, wow, I mean, wow, well actually I mean, WOW.

Absolutely incredible, now I like pickled onions, shallots, well any pickled onion like substance. But the addition of chillis just takes them to another level of wonderful.

The first one I ate caused so much zing in my mouth that I unintentionally drooled, (never a good sight to see a grown man drool - ed). It was that flavoursome, my taste buds just didn't know what had hit them, or indeed what to do with this unbelievable combination of flavours (or the excessive drool - ed).

Luckily for all, and to stop further damage to t-shirts and jumpers (he's that kinda guy readers - fashion ed), we have come up with a plan. So simple (in retrospect - drool control ed), cut them into quarters, that way eating a quarter at a time doesn't cause the consequent drool overflow my mouth (wonderful - any more details you'd like to share - culinary ed)

Here is a photograph of the jar, to show that I am not joking (seriously not joking - truth ed). 

Popped back to the butchers a little earlier on today to get some more, only to find they had none left, but they did have a couple of jars of cocktail onions with chillis, so bought them, and also asked two have two jars of the large onions put by, the next time there was a delivery. The staff at the butcher's had no clue when the chap would be delivering again. If push comes to shove come make my own, now that I know what a killer combination this is (any bacteria left in your mouth after that first whole onion? - ed)

Strangely, for something so fantastic, there is no name or address on the jar to say who makes them and where they are made. If I find out, I will let you all know, as these zingy wowy zowwy (perchance were you listening to David Bowie taday - music ed) things are the best thing ever to bring life back to a tired mouth.

Afterthought.
In case you were worried that I hadn't ranted enough about the Budget, I have another post in the offing about the so-called Millionaire's tax cut (careful now, he is primed and could go off on a rant at the merest hint of interest - economics ed).

But I have been a little busy today to get it finished. Seems that another painting is gestating. May well be another Birthday present, but very hush-hush so absolutely no information until the Birthday has been and gone.

Naturally once it is officially on display, I will  put a link to the many stages of the painting, from not quite initial sketch (was a bit of a bugger to get it into the right shape - ed) to completed article (as I am sure you would all love to see it - art critic ed)

Post Script
It is sad to report that the chap who created these beauties has stopped making them as his labelling was not up to scratch according to Trading Standards.

Budget Analysis

Well, that was mostly a non-event. Apart from George frothing and spitting as he spoke, he really could have done with wearing a bib, causing Ed Balls and Ed Miliband to spend a lot of their time ducking and diving to avoid the spittle flying from one side of the house to the other.

There is a sop to house buyers with extra help for not only all first time buyers but all those wishing to move up the housing ladder (on houses less thatn £600K - most of us - ed). It will be interesting to see whether or not this will have any effect, as the devil will be in the detail, and getting the government involved in house purchases in any way would seem to be an opportunity for an increase in form filling and might even make the system grind to a complete stop.

What has been offered to small businesses (SMEs), is an Employment Allowance, a rebate of £2,000 on their Employers National Insurance contributions, that is only one amount per company. This will be very valuable for very small companies wanting to hire their first worker, as it will wipe out the entire amount of Employers NI for workers with a salary up to £22K. But this is a pre-announcement and will only be from April 2014 (it is never from tomorrow, unless it is a tax rise, when it is usually midnight tonight - ed)

What is significant, is that from April 2014 (another year to go - ed) is that the income tax threshold is to be increased to £10,000. This means that you would be able to earn £10,000 before you pay any income tax, but you would still be paying National Insurance of £288.

What I like about this and they need to go further still, is that it is a further move to getting all those that are on low wages, and are deemed poor by the Government out of paying tax altogether.

Beer duty escalator abolished!

I wrote about the Beer Duty Escalator in a previous post and obviously that post (are you really crediting yourself with this change - faithless ed) in conjunction with the Stop the Beer Duty e-petition has been a resounding success!

Well done to The Chanceller for not only abolishing the escalator (shares in Otis headed downwards after this announcement - ed), but more much more than that - he has cut the price by 1p from Sunday, but given that that is at the wholesale level it is unlikely that the price of a pint at the 'bar face' (coal face - ed) is unlikely to go down.

Almost 2000

Up to 1988 page views (the total over the last few months - don't get too excited - circulation ed) - am I am getting quite excited to see it roll over to 2000.

I would like to thank all of you for reading my rant and wiffle, I have a list of people to thank (the list is longer than a 10,000 line code listing - in other words quite long - reckon this will need a little editing - ed)

Firstly I would like to [oh no you don't snip, snigger snigger - ed]

Post Afterthought
Hurrah, been there, done that, next number that I want is 5,000. Stick with me and let me entertain you (oooh, errr, know that one - entertainments ed)

New Press Regulator to spend our tax pounds

It appears that the new press regulation will include websites such as this one, if I cover "news-related material".

In Schedule 4, in "Key Definitions", it says and I quote:

1. (b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

i. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or
ii. a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);

So what is, "news-related material", you might ask and sadly as in many Government documents, they have to define and define and then redefine their terms so that we can work out what it means. They do this in section 1 e)

e) “news-related material” means:

i. news or information about current affairs;
ii. opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs; or
iii. gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.

So, hang on, I give opions about matters relating to news or current affairs, that must mean that it covers me? Do I gossip as well - don't think so, but they don't define gossip, so I have no idea on that front. So does that mean I have to subscribe to one of the Regulators? And if not what happens to me?

What is worse than this, this draft Royal Charter effectively says that our tax pounds are going to fund it for the first three years, how do I work this one out, in the section Money it states:

11.1. The Exchequer shall grant to the Recognition Panel such sums of money as are sufficient to enable the Board to commence its operations and thereafter fulfil its Purpose for the first three years after the date upon which this Charter becomes effective

Which means that after the first three years, it has to charge the Regulators that it has given the OK to, sufficient fees to keep itself ticking over. But, and here again, it comes to our tax pounds, in section 11.7 it effectively says that if the Recognition Panel racks up losses due to legal fees or

(c) wholly unforeseen events, it shall have the right to request further reasonable sums from the Exchequer.

which means if it makes a massive mistake, then we could well end up paying for it!

Who is a part of this and how does this new body work then?

Well this is the interesting part (oh no - head for the hills, its that word again - outdoor ed), the government have basically instructed the Queen (long may she continue to rule over us - Royal Ed) to issue this draft document, as they do not want to be seen to be doing it via the House of Commons or via a law (statute as they call - ed)

The document explains that a "Body Corporate" is to be created, which is simply a legal entity (thing, object - ed) somewhat grandly called the "Recognition Panel". Aha, what are they going to recognise you might wonder (wandering off at this point - ed) but that would be getting ahead of ourselves.

This "Recognition Panel", will have a board (like in a board room - ed), called the "Board of the Recoginition Panel", with me so far?

This Board, "shall be responsible for the conduct and management of the Recognition Panel’s business and affairs", with you so far, but what is its business and affairs. Patience dear friend (and particularly my foreign friends, this is a very British way of handling delicate matters that you don't want the Government to do - ed) I am going as fast as I dare!

First, they have to define a few matters about who can or cannot be on the "Board of the Recognition Panel".... dull dull dull, then they get to the purpose of the "Recognition Panel" which is.


3.1. The Purpose for which the Recognition Panel is established and incorporated is to carry on activities relating to the recognition of Regulators in accordance with the terms of this Charter.


Eh, just what are they talking about. Well, it means exactly what it says, that the purpose is to "recognise Regulators".

Right, but who are the "Regulators", and what are the terms of the Charter?

You have to realise, that you need time and effort to get to the bottom of this, as it will determine the freedom or otherwise of our Press for quite some considerable time to come, assuming that the Press themseleves understand this wiffley document (pardon Your Majesty, the wise and informative words in this document that you have so kindly brought forth - kowtowing ed). 

Heading back to the definitions section, it defines a "Regulator" this way in Key Definitions section 1:


a) “Regulator” means an independent body formed by or on behalf of relevant publishers for the purpose of conducting regulatory activities in relation to their publications;

Eh? Isn't that what the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is already. Well NO you just haven't read enough of the document yet!

The Recognition Panel will only recognise a "Regulator" if and only if they meet the the 23 (interesting number 23 - anyone read The Illuminatus Trilogy by Shea and Wilson - good books ed) conditions outlined in the Schedule, "Recognition Criteria".

This is a long and tedious list (please don't bore us with it - ed) that attempts to define what hoops a potential, "Regulator", has to jump through before being recognised as a, "Regulator", by the, "Board of the Recognition Panel". (Think I may have lost the will to live - ed)

One of the steps (count them 23 - ed) is that the "Regulator" to be has itself to create a "Board" - eh? Anyone still with me at this point, (I presume that we aren't there yet - ed)

What those who code might have noticed is that the "Recognition Panel" is in fact a meta-body, that is a body that gives the rules for the creation of other bodies, in this case, "Regulators", who are themselves "independent regulatory bodies" that need to meet various but not all of the  Leveson Inquiry recommendations. Is that the nub of the matter, yes. But where are the newspapers etc in all of this? We are almost at the point where they are mentioned but not quite mentioned!

Now, once a Regulator has been recognised, they then can allow entities to subscribe to them i.e. agree to adhere to the rules as laid out by the Regulator. This is where the Press come into it. The Press are the subscribers to the recognised Regulator - and must then abide by its rules and also fund it!

It has taken a while to get here, and I have cut out pretty much all of the gritty detail. For your interest and mine I knocked up this a coloured diagram which is basically it without most of the verbiage and who appoints who to what.

Hope this helps

So all of the above is being created to do what? Ensure that we do not put the freedom of the press under the control of the House of Commons and hopefully improve on the way the press are currently self-regulated - which is done by basically creating a new Regulator or Regulators as there can be more than one (surely there can only be one, another film reference for those who made it to here - film ed).

Who appoints the Recognition Panel?

What, you mean it isn't obvious, well that will be the Commissioner for Public Appointments, well not exactly, this Commissioner will himself appoint 4 candidates to be on an Appointments Committee and unbelievably this committe will then use a set of criteria defined in Schedule 1 section 3 named most enlighteningly, "Criteria for Appointment to the Board of the Recognition Panel". So it seems to go and on... (ariston - advert ed)

Do we really believe all of this?

I have no idea whether you belive all of the above or do not. If you read the actual Draft Royal Charter, after having read the above, it will be a bit more obvious what they are on about, and might make it easier to understand.

You must be joking

Whilst watching Breakfast today I was caught totally unprepared for something called 'news'. This is where the wonderful team bring me some information that is totally new to me. This is a rare occurrence, as what they tend to do is regurgitate whatever has been the 'news' overnight (waking up and listening to the radio in the middle of the night is bound to keep you ahead of events - ed)  and due to cost cutting at the BBC, i.e. the same newsroom is used to feed all of the news programmes, what appears on the radio overnight, generally become the talking points for the day ahead. Breakfast TV in general is not renowned for 'breaking' news.

Today's new 'news' for me was an organisation called, "The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers", (AMOL)  who had a spokesperson on for a rebuttal of something that the Eric Pickles MP said (Eric is someone who appears to have some office in 'Da Governement' (tm) that allows him to spout off about various local government issues on a somewhat monotonously regular basis) .

What Mr. Pickles had said was, "I believe we need to give people the good grace to pop into a local corner shop for 10 minutes, to buy a newspaper or a loaf of bread without risking a £70 fine". Whilst I do realise that leaving the dog outside the shop could lead to a fine, I had not realised that the simple act of  popping into the local corner shop (what if the shop is not on the corner, but two doors away from it - confused ed) would potentially be the cause of a fine? 

Just to clarify, Mr. Tickles (? - ed) remark, he was talking about parking your car on the high street (with you now - ed), not you as a simple non car owning pedestrian popping into the shops and getting fined for doing so! (Phone rings. It is a call from the the vocal local government minister asking how much do I think they could raise for fining random citizens for walking about the high street. Answer: Fine all those who are drunk and disorderly £1,000 a pop, that would raise millions, and pay for the cleaning up of the cells afterwards - ed)

Now, AMOL's, (have they gone AWOL? - military ed), spokesperson came on and derided this, as, I am sure that you can imagine, Mr. Pickles had not said how this effectively free 10 minutes would be implemented.

Do the machines have to be altered to generate a 10 minutes free ticket that then needs to be displayed on the front windscreen?

Perhaps you need to buy a ticket and get it timestamped by the close at hand traffic warden to show that you were only using it for ten minutes. Once you have your timestamped ticket, you then fill in a form available from the local council and send the ticket and the completed form to the council with a request for a refund?

I mean, do Ministers actually think before they open their mouths? (Is that a real question or rhetorical - ed)

What you have to realise, is that Mr. Tickles (surely Pickles - ed), was speaking to an antique crowd of blue blooded, traffic warden hating, low tax, pro local businesses, anti big supermarkets (obviously excluding Waitrose, otherwise where would one shop - shopping ed), anti-Labour (well obviously that doesn't include the Reinemachefrau, or the gardener, or any of the other paid for home help, as they are all lovely - ed ) folk at the Conservative Spring Forum  last weekend, so this kind of worthless prattle is bound to get a standing (presumably with aid due to age - ed) ovation,

Anyway, apart from the minor aside (and rantette - ed), the point of this post was to bring to your attention The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, (AMOL), which is not as one might think a law organisation but is a wonderful limited company. Limited not only as in a private company, but limited in who can join. They have strict selection criterion (as they correctly put it - i.e. more than one - ed) that you (as a solicitor - ed) must pass before you can join.

The organisation's real purpose, read their Mission Statement for what say, I would imagine, is to ensure that if you hire a solicitor who belongs to this organisation, you can be sure they are experts in the area of motor offences, (Does that mean they can charge more than a solicitor that is not part of the AMOL - ed?), well not experts necessarily, but they are solicitors that have applied for and passed the criterion to join the organisation!

What I do find laughable, is that not all members (solicitors - ed) have to pass the, "stringent criterion", as the founding committee have decided, and I quote,

"The founding committee have unanimously short-listed a select number of solicitors with known expertise to be invited to join AMOL on this basis. They will be exempt from criteria 1, 2 and 4 below"

So, this presumably includes the founding committee themselves! I mean what would be the point of creating an organisation that you were then not allowed to be in?

"So what is criteria 3?", you may well ask, well I did:

"Any applicants must be confirmed as having no pending complaints or criminal prosecutions pending against them by the Law Society",  

So this suggests to me (well in his contorted chopt-logic mind - ed) that there are a number of solicitors with known expertise that AMOL didn't want to invite in, because these potential invitees are in trouble with the Law Society, and they wouldn't want the wrong sort of people in their club!

What is also amusing, is that one of the founding members, or as the web site states, "Founding Chief Executive and President", (for life I wonder - ed), Miss Jeanette Miller,  has been nicknamed, "Miss Justice", due to her fighting the goverment, "head on", to ensure that motorists who are found innocent at court have their legal costs paid for out of the Central Funds (our tax pounds - ed) and these funds are being slashed (and this was in 2009 - history ed)

I have to say, that in my humble opinion m'lud, this stand against the government is just a trifle (hmm, cold custard, strawberry jelly, with real strawberries in it, a home made sponge base doused in brandy, all topped off with 100s and 1000s and whipped double cream - hmmm food ed) self-serving, as one could well argue that a majority of the costs incurred at court are the fees generated by the solicitor's that the motorists hire to represent them, and who might you hire, solicitors with guaranteed expertise in motor offences, which takes us back to AMOL! Self-serving?

Interesting that AMOL's web site says this quite clearly in this quote,

"She (Miss Justice - ed) explains it would be impossible for her team to conduct the work with the meticulous level of preparation and care they do under the legal aid/new central funds regime"

It does make you wonder what they have been doing under the new regime, being less meticulous in their levels of  preparation and care? Surely not as that would be in breach of their own mission statement!

Afterthought
It is interesting to note that AMOL are based in Manchester, and if you watch Breakfast TV, there are  now a lot more talking heads, or experts from that region of the UK (for Ralph the Alaskan, up north in the UK is anywhere north of a place called The Watford Gap, which is not the Watford that you best mate Sir Elton John talks about, but a small town in Northamptonshire - ed) than there used to be when Breakfast TV was housed in London.

What has surpised me is that they even have Universities up North (shurely shome mishtake - ed) and generally I can even understand what the local people say when the  reports go  'oot and aboot' in Manchester. Wonders will never cease.

Commentless in Gaza

I have no way of knowing (aaaah, says the crowd - ed), whether anyone finds anything that I am writing interesting or not. I know from the stats that the wonderful Google show me (until they remove it or start charging you, Google Reader anyone - cynicism ed) that someone or something is creating page view statistics (and I have had to agree that I don't, darn it - circulation ed)

Bizarrely, ever since I opened up the comments so that anyone could comment (well after I have vetted it so stop spamola etc - editor ed), the small number of comments has plummetted (one t or two - spellchecking, hmm, will go with two - ed) from a very small number, to 0, yes ZERO. Just what are you all up to out there?

Mutter, mutter, mutter, frizzin, razzin, Dick Dastardly...

But, never mind, I shall not dint (lovely word - logophile ed) in my efforts. Comment or no comment, I shall bravely march on through the year trying to evoke some kind of response from you all.

What I do need to do, is try and publish some of the draft posts that are sitting behind the scenes of this page, just waiting for a fresh coat of varnish before being pushed forth out pnto the storm tossed ocean that is the great Interweb.

Some time ago I gave a list of the posts in the offing, in the Hold Your Horses post if I remember correctly (of course you do you fool, you have just put in a link to it - exasperation ed)

So, removing the ones that I have finished and posted (hmm, not as many as I thought - circulation ed). Here is the updated list of outstanding posts, seems that I have managed to do four (what only 4 - circulation ed). Remember all of these are in the offing... if you would like to ask for any particular one to be raised in priority then you may....

• Freelance Contractors (potted history of contractors, IR35 and related subjects, ... started but a long one and getting longer as just popped over to add some more)
• Angels On My Shoulders (good and evil inner voices)
• Oxford's Underground Cathedral (Collins clan - started almost finished)
• Stream of Unconsciousness (thought processes and a how to embed them symbolically in a post)
• Politicians Uh (What are they good for...) (politics, democracy)
• Barbados (about a honeymoon holiday - with colour photos!)
• Black Dog (depression and in passing Winston Churchill)
• Your lying eyes (why what we see isn't actually there)
• It's One O'Clock (busy dreams, nightmares etc)
• Spending matters (Government expenditure - maybe with some colourful charts, ...started  but keeps going off message and other posts being created instead)
• Emotion (control or lack thereof of emotion and consequences of its repression)

You must understand there are many things that I have to do, and some of the pending posts are going to be quite long, and there is all the news that intrudes that I sometimes need to comment on.... the whole world is continually moving and I have to move with it (are you daring to give reasons for your failure - ed)

So, on your marks, get set, go, comments please!

Hard Working Families

I am sure (pre-punditing the budget are we - economics ed) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne is going to use that phrase during the forthcoming Budget this Wednesday.

Now, don't know about you, I have always wondered what this phrase actually means

To start with, that does, "Hard Working", mean?

• Does this means people who do their contracted hours of employment? 
• Does it mean people, who work more than their contracted hours (overtime) of employment for extra pay or for no extra pay?
• Does it mean low paid people who cannot survive on the minimum wage and so have two jobs, for example 80 hours a week security guard, the 80 hours a week cleaning woman (Reinemachefrau, name that film - entertainments ed). 

Even Wikipedia struggles to come up with what this phrase actually means.

Could we assume that, "Hard Working", means having a job that requires some kind of physical effort i.e. strength. But, this cannot be the case as, most if not all of the heavy industries of the past, that required physcial strength, rather than intelligence, have withered overthe past 50 years or so, for example coal mining down from 718,000 in the 1940's to 12,000 or so today, manufacturing jobs down from 8.7m to 2.5m.

Most jobs today are in the service sector, around 75% of the workforce, with its mostly 'clean', knowledge based office jobs, so how does, "Hard Working", fit in with this?

Are the, "Hard Workers", the ones that eat their lunch at their desks? No, they are just web browsing

Maybe, the "Hard Workers", are the workers that are more productive than their compatriots? If so, how is this determined, and more importantly how does Mr. George Osborne know who they are?

Is there a box that employers have to tick as part of the, "Red Tape",  that clogs up the arteries of UK business, for instance,

Please indicate for each member of staff whether they are a:

• Hard
• Medium
• Soft

worker?

Sounds more like they are boiled eggs! (I prefer hard boiled, mashed up with a little mayonnaise, black pepper, salt and a dash of chilli, then spread over a freshly baked pannini, hold the cress, hmmm - food ed)

Maybe the, "Hard Workers", are  just, "Hard", as in tough, people you wouldn't want to get the wrong side of, perhaps, they are the bullies, who force the rest of the workforce to keep their noses to the grindstones, (are you by any chance referring to Managers? - ed).

What is most interesting, (oh no, not that word again - ed), is that it isn't just about the workers, it is, "Hard Working Families", so presumably that includes the children as well?

Yet, again, where does Uncle George get the figures from?

Do teachers have to assess on some kind of regular basis whether the child is hard or not, and submit this information to whatever the name of the Department of Education is called this week (for non-UK readers, Ralph and Esmerelda in particular - the name of the government department that handles education is renamed on a regular basis to what end I do not know, here is the history of the department and it shows nine different names over the past 174 years, with the time between changes decreasing, much in line with the decreasing levels of literacy and numeracy in the country! - ed)

So I am totally bewilderd (are you sure - ed). I have no idea what kind of criteria the politicians use to determine that a family is hard working? I cannot for the life of me think of anything that is sensible? I can think of some rather silly criteria, but I would be worried that whaever silliness I think of might actually turn out to be the case!

So over to you, Mr. George, give us a plain spoken English version of a, "Hard Working Family", so we have some idea what on earth you and the rest of the politicians are talking about.

Afterthought
Maybe the Chancellor is simply trying to discriminate between those that work for a living and so generate taxable income for him to spend rather than those who do not generate any taxable income.

But even then, even if you don't generate any taxable income, you spend money that does generate tax for the government, see post Taxing Matters to see how much!

Spending Matters: The Deficit and National Debt

Some time back in the dim and distant past, there was the post Taxing Matters. It showed all the places where 'Da Government' (tm) were taking our tax pounds from.  This was going to be a post about where 'Da Government' (tm) spend out money, but as I have been writing it, it has morphed into an article about Government overspending (the deficit) and the accumulation of this into the National Debt and how that relates to us mere taxpayers.

Some definitions:

The deficit is simply how much more the Government spends each year than they receive in tax. (With you so far - ed)

The deficit is funded by borrowing money (ok - ed)

Each year of deficit is added together and is called the National Debt (Phew, that was understandable - ed)

For the year 2011-12, the amount of money that the Government received in tax is the gigantic figure £550,000,000,000, how much, £550bn (only approximate you know, they really can't get more accurate than that - ed). How are we supposed to deal with a number that big? How does it relate to our daily lives?

What is most surprising, is that even this enormous number isn't enough. 'Da Government' (tm) are spending more, yes more, they actually spent £690,000,000,000 aka £690bn (approximate as well - ed).

This means they spent £140bn more than they took in taxes! This was financed by borrowing £140bn from the markets (I wonder who that is, not us is it - oops - ed) to keep to their existing spending plans. So they are spending 25% more than they are receiving, that is simply totally outrageous!


In more human terms, it is like a tax paying citizen getting a net £30,000 salary but spending £37,500. Can you afford to spend 25% more than you earn?  If so, presumably not for long!

What is more, this £140bn doesn't go away, it is added to the pile of debt, that we, yes, you, me, and our non-tax paying, non voting children, will have to pay back at some time in the future, this leads to what is called The National Debt.

Hang on a second, 'Da Government' (tm) are racking up debt that we then have to pay back? Unfortunately yes, it means that the politicians, remember these are the people who got a mandate from the electorate (or not as in that particular argument - ed) are spending money all of us haven't even yet earned, let alone paid tax on!

Now, of course, this massive over spend is never shown in the above light, i.e. how much more they are spending than they are receiving,  no, that would be too easy. A number like 25% overspend doesn't go down well, too big a number, so what the politicians do, and not just ours the whole darned lot of them, they use an internationally recognised comparison designed to make it look not quite so bad (simply brilliant - ed)

How do they do that then? They compare this yearly deficit against the UK's yearly GDP (the GDP for the year 2012 was about £1,533,000,000.000 or £1,533bn), why? It makes the overspend seem much smaller! So, as far as ' Da Government' (tm) and the international financial markets are concerned the deficit, this 25% overspend is in fact calculated as (140/1533)*100 which makes for around 9% deficit for 2012. Now 9% sounds much more managable than 25%, don't you agree?

What about the debt? Well, The National Debt, that is the total amount of money that the Government owes well to be more precise the total amount of money to be paid back by current and future tax payers (all of us voters, those non-voters, and even those without a vote - ed) was by 1st April 2012 about £1,278.2bn and increasing each year as each year's deficit is added to that figure.

My oh my, that sounds like a lot of money! So the 'Da Government' (tm), yet again get away with comparing this enormous number against the UK GDP another enormous number, because it makes for a percentage figure that is internationally recognised (hurrah - ed). As of Q1 2012  the National Debt was 86.8% of GDP.

On a more human level this is like the UK tax payer on a net salary of £30,000 and having a total debt of £26,040.

So, if the government stopped all spending, and used all government tax receipts to reduce the National Debt to 0, it would take about 2 years 4 months. Well obviously this is unacceptable to the populace, as we quite like our NHS, schools, libraries, police, armed forces, civil servants, pensions, welfare, government ministries, secret services, government waste and so forth and so on. The country would not survive if they stopped spending on everything!

What is perhaps, less obvious but even more disturbing is that we are paying interest on the money that the Government has borrowed? Eh, what do you mean. I mean that the markets that loaned the money to the Government, want some interest on the money they have loaned, and they will want their capital back at some point to.

Really? They want interest and their original money back as well, how come? Well, it is just like if you took a loan from the bank, you will have scheduled payments over a number of years to pay back the loan. But, in fact it is more iniquitous than that. The money that has been lent (remember by the markets - ed ) is paid back interest only, that is the full original amount has to be paid back in a lump sum at the end of the period, usually 15 years in the case of the UK.

In 2012, this interest only loan was costing £43bn. Yes, £43,000,000,000. Quite a big number. If compared to the taxes actually raised (£550bn - ed), this gives us a percentage figure of (43/550) *100 = 7.82%. (Not how the government calculate it  - they, yet again, compare this to the UK GDP and come out with a percentage of 3% - economics ed). Whichever way you put it, the interest still has to be paid and the capital has to be paid back.

If we put these astonishingly large figures in the more human understandable terms of our £30,000 a year tax payer, it would mean that they would be paying interest only of £2345.46.

Hang on, I think I understand all that, but how do the Government pay back the capital that those market chappies lent us? I mean is there a massive balloon payment at the end of the period, where all of the capital that was borrowed has to be paid back, well yes there is! Well done, you are starting to get it.

Now, you will like this (not a lot - ed). When the time comes, the Government will simply borrow more money from the markets and use that to pay back the capital on the original loan! So one outsanding loan's capital is paid off by taking out another loan! Brilliant, who would have thought that!

Now, naturally this cannot continue indefinitely, can it? We shall wait and see.

A more balanced view (really - ed), that is looking at historical graphs of government spending, the various changes in the deficits (and surpluess sometimes - economics ed) and the National Debt in the UK (since the 1700's) show that deficits can be brought under control, and that National Debt can be reduced.

The Government simply has to:

• stop spending more than it is receiving in tax, i.e. reduce the deficit to 0 and preferably run a small surplus (so stopping the increase in the National Debt and in line with that stopping the increase in Government spending on the interest only loans that finance this deficit)
• put money aside each year to pay back the loans capital

The most interesting question is how they go about doing this! You might think that all of the members of the House of Commons be they in Government or in the Opposition could agree with those two simple statements. Actually, no they can't. Amazing isn't it.

Afterthought

The UK National Debt is a very easy website to read, lots of nice graphs, with far far less of the ranty comments that I tend to make gives a plain spoken, serious look at the whole malarkey.

The Guardian has a couple of useful pages, one on government spending,  and one that give you figures for government tax receipts (our tax pounds - ed) and some wonderful graphs for where the government spends our tax pounds.

The UK Public Spending website is simply  fabulous, not only does it have all the data, but it lets you create your own graphs to help you grasp all the figures in ways that are meaningful to you.

Return of Charlie The Dog - Heather, Don't Look

Well, it appears that Charlie the Dog is going to make himself known to us today. The picture was finished a while back, but my Sister-in-Law Heathers' Birthday is not until November, and I just cannot wait any longer (why is that - ed)

Well, the picture has moved from the mantelpiece and up onto the top of a cupboard. It is no longer visible, and I miss him, (really - ed). Well I miss him looking at me in his languid way, as he asks,

"Have you finished painting me yet? I simply cannot hold this position any longer."

Talking dog eh? No, no, no, that is what I imagine him saying, he didn't actually sit for me, just got some emailed photos to aid in his creation.

The photo that I worked from

Ready, steady, sketch

Trying to get the hair colour

Fluffing up the hair

Attempting to get that nose right

Bit of shading and outlining the background and more nose fiddling

Attempting to get the floor sorted, yet more nost fiddling

Finished article, as you have to stop at some point, still not happy with the nose.

 You may recall from the original article, that one of the photos I received was a little scary. This one gives me the frights (you are just way too sensitive - ed)

Democratic Deficit: Mandates a-go-go

You may wonder, what right does  'Da Government' (tm) have to levy taxes on us at all (ok I wonder? If I don't will there still be a post? - ed).

Well, unfortunately for us, we keep giving 'Da Government' (tm) a mandate at the infrequent elections they deign to let us have. Once they have this mandate (and my word it is a powerful money raising device - ed), they then have the democratic legitimacy to raise money from us via taxes, spend it as they see fit and create new laws to encroach on our freedoms with barely a murmur from us once the election is over.

"Hang on a moment", I hear you say, "But I didn't vote for this latest lot of good for nothings, I voted for the other useless bunch of nerks!".

But you must understand, it doesn't matter that you didn't vote for them, or that you didn't vote at all, enough of the other guys and gals did vote for them! Now, you've had your vote (so give us your money - ed), so now the winning party can do what they like to you and in your name, (secret courts anyone, suppresssion of the press, raising taxes, misspending your hard earned money, killing non-UK-voting foreigners in the name of our/their freedom and security etc - ed)

Now, obviously this mandate (No! Not man date Esmerelda, my lovely Australian reader, mandate a political concept - it has nothing to do with your dating life - ed)  is a powerful thing. It could be seen as the ultimate power pill, once you've got it, the UK is your oyster baby and my oh my don't those politicians just love it.

So you could argue that each vote cast creates an amount of political power (nano-mandate - ed), so the more votes a party garners then the larger the mandate they can lay claim to if they manage to win the election.

You'll just have to bear with me whilst I explain the profoundly unfair democracy we appeared to be lumbered with i.e. a paliamentary majority voted for by a minority of the population which then gets to inflict on us their whims and wheezes, thanks to this mandate.

So, as ever, it is not that straightforward (really - ed). What we need to remember is this; given the proportion of the voting population who actually vote and then taking into account the percentage of the vote cast for the winning party (or parties - given the current coalition - ed), you will almost always find that the party winning a UK election were given this mandate by a minority of the total voting population (Note: anyone under the age of 18 obviously doesn't get a say in matters, because, because, well I am not sure why, but they aren't allowed a say, and if they get shirty about it they will be sent to bed early without dinner, or worse, sent to the naughty step - ed).

So the winner of the most recent UK election (or non-winner in the case of the 2010, there was no outright winner, just a no-score draw - ed), now has a mandate and can, not only change the laws of the land, but also gets to run the country!

In most, if not all other, serious grown-up countries in the world this is not that unusual (are you sure - ed), but what is unusual about the UK's democratic system is that

• the Upper House is toothless (and it is not just the age of the members that makes this so - ed)
• there is no separation of powers (one government to rule them all - ed)
• there is a lack checks and balances (surely we have the scales of justice and all of those powerful select committees - ed)

How can this be? This sceptered isle, this magnificent country with such a deep rich democratic history, the land that contains the Mother of all Parliaments, just how can this be so?

I mean (rant mode engaged - thrusters ahead full - trekkie ed) effectively we have a unicameral system, (actually bicameral - as there is the House of Lords - ed), as the House of Eleven Lords a Leapin' is toothless as it cannot stop 'Da Government' (tm) from pushing through legislation that it wants, (three strikes and we override any sensible suggestions you may have to improve our legislation, and we will it the law anyway - na na na na na - yaboo sucks - we have a mandate - political posturing ed).

So what the Government wants it gets! In fact, the House of Lords will not even veto any Government legislation that was written in the winning party's election manifesto (the little known, and of course as befits our great nation the unwritten Salisbury Convention - ed). Does that make you want to actually read the party manifestos come the next election - it should do!

Now you (obviously I am not - ed) may be surprised about how toothlessness the Upper House is. But this has been a deliberate policy by all political parties to ensure that the Lower House (House of Commons - politics ed), is the source of all political power in the UK.

I mean, let us look at the facts, reform of the Upper House was first mooted over one hundred years ago (yes, really - historical accuracy ed) and this democratic deficit and its potential check (checks and balances anyone - ed) on the untrammelled power of The House of Commons has been kept on the back burner with no serious attempt at reform for a very long time

Ok,  there was some attempt in the early years of the Blair Labour administration, but at the end of the day no-one in the House of Commons seemed to want to have the Upper House actually voted for, as that would give it some of that voter generated political legitimacy and more importantly a large dose of mandate and that could not be allowed under any circumstances (would be like turkeys voting for Christmas - ed)

So, no Government wants this reform, as it would weaken the supremacy (as it is known - ed)  of the House of Commons.

I mean, honestly, what is the point in going through all of that election malarkey if you don't get a free hand to legislate as you see fit and run the country to boot (does make you wonder where the other hand is, in the till perhaps? - ed).

So, to sum the above up, a minority of the population give the winning political party a mandate to do as they see fit and the rest of us who didn't vote for them or in fact for anybody at all, are bound nevertheless to pay the taxes and abide by the laws that the new Government enacts (shurely shome misthtake - ed).

Afterthought

Here are the figures for the UK election in 2010:


Total electorate: 45,673,633 (approx, hard to find the actual number for 2010)

Eligible but non voting: 15,985,633 electing 0 MPs
Tory:  10,703,654 electing 306 MPs
Liberal Democrats: 6,836,248 electing 57 MPs
Labour: 8,606,517 electing 258 MPs
Others: 3,541,185 electing  29 MPs

Total who voted for the coalition parties: 10,703,654 + 6,835,248 = 17,539,702
Total  who didn't vote for the coalition parties: 15,985,633 + 8,606,517 + 3,541,185  = 28,133,135

So: (17,539,702 / 45,673,633) * 100 = 38.40% of the total electorate voted for the coalition.

So, the current coalition's mandate was given to them by less than 40% of the electorate, so most of us didn't want them, but we got them irrespective of that. Some democracy, eh!

Nano-mandate [Thoughtlet]

Definition: Nano-mandate: the amount of political power that a single vote generates at an election.

Note: The sum of the nano-mandates a party wins at an election create a mandate, from which the  winning party derives its political legitimacy to enable it to carry out the work of government.

You read about the new South American Pope here first!

Seems that I had a good guess that it would be a South American for the next Pope. Not a young man by any sense of the imagination, but with a birthday of 17th December 1936 he is a spritely 76, four years above the average for the College of Cardinals.

It is interesting to note, that the College of Cardinals, are allowed pick someone outside of their own number, if they so wish. Never been done, can't for my life see as to why that would be.

The other thing to note, is that South America is home to 40% of the world's Catholic's, according to Michael Hirst of the BBC and more pertitently is a place where the Catholic Church is still held in some esteem. 

Interesting to think, that in South America, men are seen to be authority figures, leaders not just in the home, but at work and in society as a whole (patriarchal societies, perhaps - ed). They really don't go for that namby pamby Western Liberal, metrosexual type of man down there (are you sure? - ed), which is why they have chosen a Pope from that region. (? - ed)

So it appears that there will be no liberalism (big or little 'l' - ed) in the Catholic Church whilst he holds the position, and 

• there will be no move on woman priests  (no change there then - ed)
• no sensible talk or action on the use of contraception, remember every sperm is sacred and is a potential tithe earning Catholic sinner (ouch - ed)
• there will be no seaching enquiries into the sexual antics of numerous priests and their associated coverups (no change there then - ed0
• there will be no enquiry into the allegations of bribery and corruption at the Vatican (no change there then - ed)

The song remains the same even though the chairs have been shuffled!

Afterthought

Sorry for going on about the Pope so much recently. The post on Government Spending is proving to have a rather difficult gestation, it is taking as long as it takes, and now matter how many extra resources I throw at it, it ain't going to appear sooner than it does.

I could argue that it is there or thereabouts, and needs some very colourful graphs as the figures readily available from 'Da Goverment' (tm) are so very interesting (aha that 'interesting' word again - ed)

For those that have not realised it, no Government, not a single one (not even Mrs Thatcher's Governments - economics ed) has reduced public expenditure when denominated in simple pounds. 

Why, mainly because you have to take into account inflation and the iniquity of fiscal drag (the Government gets more money automatically as average wages go up - as the tax bands are not automatically uprated for inflation - economics ed).

Even the so called, "massive cuts", that we are having now, are cuts to planned higher levels of spending, not actual cuts, i.e they are reducing the rate of increase to less than inflation, so your next tax pound that the Government gets will buy fewer services (unless deflation kicks in - economics ed).

The crux of the matter, is that as the economy is flat lining, the tax revenues have flat lined and so there is no 'natural' year on year growth of the Governments tax revenues, so they are having to make some tough decisions.

The real question, and one that no Government has ever faced up to, is, "What is the Government for?". Now a debate on what Government should or should not do would be thinking about. 

Anyhow, this afterthought seems to have become a pre-post to the forthcoming post and I really can't let it steal the thunder.

[David stands up and moves his hands away from the keyboard. Now breathe, deep, long slow breaths, this is not the article you are looking for, move along - ed]

Latest Painting - Michael Saunders RIP

We have a lovely picture of Mike Saunders on the wall of our grandly named front room. The room with the restricted natural light (thanks to a natural light bulb, all is not lost - ed), and freezing today with the bitter wind chilling the house no matter how far I ratchet the thermostat up (thanks to snug, close fitting and reassuringly new underwear my vitals have not been lost to posterity, though finding things in the last chilling toilet break was much more difficult than I would have hoped - ed).

Why did I mention Mike, oh yes, well Mike was/is my father-in-law, Bridget's Dad, who unfortunately for all concerned, passed away in October 2010, hence the RIP in the post title. Anyhow, last week I had suggested to Bridget that I do a painting of her Dad, well after the flood of tears had passed (and that was just me - ed) - I wanted to find a photograph of him to base a painting on. With me so far?

Well, to try and keep to the point (yes, please do - ed), we visited Bridget's Mum (my Mother-in-Law, Jo - ed) to drop off a slightly early Mother's Day card last Saturday and I managed to remember to ask to see a particularly good set of  Black & White photos of Mike, which I borrowed to choose a portrait to paint. Strangely the one l liked best and the photo that was to become the basis for the painting was Jo's second favourite, the favourite all ready on the wall and so not in the set!

Now, if you have been following the trials and tribulations (did you mean the trouble with tribbles - scf-fi ed), of my painting endeavours, you will notice that I tend to do IN YOUR FACE bright colours (ooh you're so clever David - sarcasm ed), so the challenge was to do a Black and White painting (surely there must be a Shades of Grey reference coming up - ed). Nope, not one, sorry to disappoint you.


Anyhow, to cut the wiffling to a minimum, below are the various stages of the painting, from sketch , to what I think is almost but not quite the finished article.

Initial Sketch

Fill in backgroumd - not a roaring success

Add some detail

Broad brush the clothes - fiddle backgroud

Fill in beard in prep for detail

Detail beard some more

Almost, not sure, the finished article

 Afterthought

Probably about time I let the whole world see my paintings, so if you are interested below is the link to the secret hiding place on the web (not so secret if it is now accessible on the interweb - ed)

Click David's Paintings to see them. As I do new ones, and just noticed the Sand, Sea and Fallen Tree is not there as yet, I will put them in the same place, probably.