Skip to content

The Budget: the day before

21 June 2010, 11:37 am

I don’t understand economics. I didn’t major in it, I didn’t study it at university; I am a layman of the most basic degree when it comes to how economies work. What I and most of the British public do understand, however, is how much we take home in our weekly or monthly paycheck.

The Government is talking about massive spending cuts in the public sector. That includes salary freezes and increasing the amount paid into public sector pension funds. This includes me, as a local government employee, nurses, police, teachers, fire departments and civil servants in government departments in Whitehall.

Let’s look at pension contributions. The amount you pay is linked to the amount you earn. According to the Telegraph a “mid-ranking” nurse earns around £20,000 and with a 5% pension contribution pays around £1,000 per year. If the Government raises the amount public sector workers must contribute to 7.5% that nurse would then pay £1,500 per year.

In an effort to curb local authority spending the Government has announced a freeze on council tax. Councils receive their funds from central government and the rest they raise in council tax. Local authorities would normally raise council tax rates to make up for less money from the Government but now they are being encouraged not to do this. The logic is – and it is logical – that without the extra money from council tax local authorities will have to watch their spending because they won’t have enough money from either source.

There are also suggestions that VAT may rise from the current 17.5% to 19.5% meaning certain goods will be more expensive. Food does not have VAT but items such as clothing (not children’s), electronics, cars or takeaway food does.

The overall moral of this story is the Government say that everyone in the country, including them, needs to ‘tighten their belts’ and watch their spending. While this is understandable when trying to plug a budget deficit it is not necessarily the correct strategy when you already have an economy in trouble.

The term ‘double-dip recession’ has been bandied about quite a bit. Basically, this whole belt-tightening strategy is likely to hit the lower wage earners the hardest. Recessions are noted for higher unemployment and bankruptcies and lower household incomes. They are generally associated with a drop in spending. A double-dip means just when it looks as though the economy is recovering, it dips back into recession.

The public sector worker is making less money because the salary has been frozen and more money is being taken from that frozen salary for pension contributions. Combine that with higher tax on the goods we’re supposed to be spending on and you get a person struggling to make ends meet. You get someone who might go bankrupt. Let’s also throw into the mix the possibility of unemployment for that person. If public spending is slashed, potentially, less people are needed to provide the reduced services. This leads to more unemployment and the whole vicious cycle continues. And the private sector will continue to suffer if the public don’t want to, or can’t, spend money. The deficit may decrease but the economy will suffer further.

Again, I am not an economist. Most of this is from other places and is my take on what I’ve heard or read. The point is that I disagree with the Government’s strategy. Especially as I am a public sector worker, I may end up being hit hard with these ‘austerity measures’ and I am not happy. As I am not an economist I don’t have a strategy for the country. While I agree there should be some cuts in spending in an effort to stop the deficit from growing, potentially forcing millions of people into further economic hardship is not the answer. I can only hope that I am proven wrong in this belief. Time will tell.

Sources:

Guardian

BBC

Telegraph Council Tax and Pensions

Filed under Politics/Current Affairs. Tagged , ,
Comment

Ethnic Conflicts

17 June 2010, 10:36 am

What is a country? Is it a collection of people with the same culture, heritage or goals? What about the factions of people within a country: the Basques, Northern Ireland, Bavaria, Somalia, the Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia, Israel, Palestine, etc.

On the most basic level national borders are simply imaginary lines visible only on a map and only truly meaningful there. The only tangible borders are the island nations of this world including the UK, New Zealand and Australia. Where you have land-locked nations, such as in Europe, Asia and Africa, the borders are fictitious, created over the years by conquering or retreating or simply an arbitrary carving up of territories and drawing of maps, such as happened in the last century with the creation of Pakistan and the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Former Soviet countries seem to have suffered the most in the 1990s after the break-up but it does not seem to have dissipated 20 years later. Where once they were part of a massive nation-state within which ethnic conflicts were quickly quashed by the Kremlin, they are now forced to govern themselves side-by-side. The most recent example of this is the crisis in Kyrgyzstan with the ethnic Uzbeks.

Accounts of the horrific violence are still coming out: rape, mutilation, burning alive, beatings. Furthermore, there is speculation that Kyrgyzstan authorities may have been at the very least aware, if not complicit, in the violence. These two groups have a history of violence. Since Josef Stalin divided up the area encompassing Osh and Jalal-Abad between Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan these two groups have lived in bitter rivalry. A border arbitrarily drawn in the 20th century has led to this violence. This quote from an eyewitness sums up all ethnic conflicts with profound simplicity:

“But our ancestors were born here. Where should we go?”

This brings me back to my original question. What is a country? Can it be defined? There will never be a utopian society where there are no borders, where we all live in peace and harmony. That is a myth and even I am not so naive as to think it can work.

At issue, for me, is that these ethnic conflicts continue to happen and, more and more, they are pushed to the back pages of the newspaper or down to the bottom of the news website. At the moment the BP oil spill is dominating the headlines. While I think it is important news and, especially being from the region, am devastated by its effects, human beings are being murdered for nothing more than being of a particular ethnic group. Unfortunately, future ethnic conflicts may be just as difficult to prevent or contain as the oil spill. Both are just as damaging but both deserve as much attention.

Sources:

Wikipedia: Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan

Guardian 1 and Guardian 2

Filed under Politics/Current Affairs. Tagged , , ,
Comment

No one likes change

16 June 2010, 9:18 pm

Amongst today’s headlines including the continuing BP oil spill fiasco, the changes to the Bank of England by Chancellor Osborne, further Bloody Sunday Inquiry reaction and the vindication of the Shannon Matthews social workers I discovered this interesting piece in the Telegraph. The title caught my eye: “Expenses: MPs being ‘thrown to the dogs’”.

For anyone who isn’t aware, there was a big scandal last year involving the expenses MPs are entitled to in the performance of their duties. MPs are allowed what are known as ’second home allowances’ if their constituency is not in London or within commuting distance of Westminster. In other words, if you are an MP from Manchester you are entitled to expenses incurred while maintaining a second home in London or nearer to Westminster that you reside in when Parliament is in session. Clearly one cannot commute from Manchester every day.

The public would expect an MP to live comfortably. Some MPs, on the other hand, felt the need to live more extravagantly, which included buying £1,200 televisions, leather furniture, cameras, gardening services or on the other end of the scale, being so petty as to claim a measly £1.50 for a bottle of cleaner and £2.99 for a stainless steel dog bowl. There were also issues with ‘flipping’ where MPs would change the classification of their second home to their main home thus their main home would become their second home and they could claim expenses for it instead. This ranged from removal of dry rot to probably the two worst offences of all: moat cleaning and a duck island. That’s right, an MP flipped his constituency home, classifying it as his second home, and claimed money from the taxpayer for a duck island. It’s a floating house in the middle of a pond…for ducks and it cost £1,600. Basically, many MPs were caught with their hands in the cookie jar of public taxpayer money simply because the ’system was broken’. Most said they had done nothing wrong; it was the corrupt system that allowed them to claim for these items. They were only following the rules, they said. The public didn’t really buy it.

Now we have the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) operating a new allowances system and MPs are crying foul. They are claiming that it is too bureaucratic and it is breaching parliamentary privilege by preventing them from carrying out their duties. Funnily enough, I don’t really have any sympathy for them. Two points stand out for me in this article. Number one is this gem from Bob Russell:

“Mr Russell said that it was unacceptable that he had been forced to open a new bank account from which to pay his staff, because he did not want to have to use the account he shared with his wife.”

I beg your pardon? I think that most businessmen in the country have one bank account which they use to pay staff and conduct business and another private account for personal, family matters. In my opinion, this statement smacks of “let them eat cake”. Why wouldn’t you have a bank account from which you pay staff separate from that of your personal account? I just don’t know what else to say about this.

The second point comes from Mrs Ann Clwyd. She says that she would possibly have not bothered to stand for re-election had she known what a “hassle” it would be to claim allowances. Well, Mrs Clwyd, I’m sure your constituents in Cynon Valley, Wales will happily accept your resignation now if the “hassle” is just too much for you. I believe the phrase “put your money where your mouth is” might be appropriate here.

MPs are accused of being exceedingly rude to the poor civil servants tasked with assessing claims under the new system. The article says that:

“Nigel Gooding resigned as interim operations director of IPSA after just three months, saying that his “health and sanity” were being damaged by confrontations with angry MPs.”

Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. No one likes change but it would seem some MPs still have yet to grasp reality. Duck ponds, moats, claiming interest on mortgages that are paid up, claiming rent for flats owned by relatives or claiming for toothpaste and soap are not vitally important to your job as an MP. Stop complaining about the new system and get on with your job. Your constituents will thank you.

For more information on outrageous claims, see the Telegraph.

Filed under Politics/Current Affairs. Tagged , ,
Comment

What this blog is about

15 June 2010, 8:31 pm

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, please see the About page, now to your left or top right. The aims have always been somewhat the same: to be an outlet for my writing and opinions. Now, however, with my decision to pursue a career in journalism/writing I want this blog to become a bit more professional and something I can list on my CV. I hope you’ll continue to read. And the name is likely to change. While Verbal DiarLeah still is a fantastic name (thank you Mendy) I want something more professional. If you have any ideas, send them my way.

Filed under General. Tagged 
Comment

Bloody Sunday Inquiry: the report and conclusions

15 June 2010, 6:58 pm

Today saw the landmark publication of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry report as discussed on here last week. In the end, the report officially denounced the killings as “unjustified and unjustifiable” and vindicated all victims from any questions of attacks on soldiers. The soldiers opened fire on unarmed civilians with no provocation. They were under the impression that shots had been fired when, in fact, the original shots came from the soldiers themselves. It is now up to the prosecution service (PPS) in Northern Ireland as to whether to file charges against any soldier involved.

My opinion doesn’t mean much, to be sure, but I believe no one will be prosecuted. So far the victims’ families have only expressed relief that, after 38 years, the killings have been officially ruled unlawful. The question of who opened fire has been answered and the victims exonerated. I believe that most will want to draw a line under this tragedy. I believe that Northern Ireland has suffered enough and will not want to re-open old wounds and re-draw old battle lines. I could be wrong, though. I could be very wrong and the PPS could prosecute one soldier to set an example or all of the soldiers to ensure law has the final word. We don’t know yet what they will do.

I haven’t had as much time as I had hoped to devote to this today. The findings are summarised below thanks to the BBC and links to other news sites follow. Please read through these for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. I, for one, am happy to see justice for the victims and hope that this will put an end to one of the worst tragedies of the 21st century.

  • No warning had been given to any civilians before the soldiers opened fire
  • None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers
  • Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying
  • None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting
  • Many of the soldiers lied about their actions
  • The events of Bloody Sunday were not premeditated
  • Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein, was present at the time of the violence and “probably armed with a sub-machine gun” but did not engage in “any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire”

Sources:

BBC

Guardian 1 and Guardian 2

Telegraph

Filed under Politics/Current Affairs. Tagged , , ,
Comment

New immigration requirement

14 June 2010, 3:00 pm

I have struggled to find anything to write about today. I don’t know enough about economics to comment on the adjusted predicted growth forecast or whether cutting public spending will, potentially, lead to a ‘double-dip’ recession. I haven’t made up my mind about Obama’s allegedly ‘anti-British’ rhetoric. There are plenty of news stories about on which I have mild opinions, but I didn’t feel competent enough to write about any of them. This one, on the other hand, I do.

This comment piece was in the Guardian today. It is a real life affected by a current news story. Last week the Home Office announced that migrants wanting to settle in Britain will have to take an English test prior to applying or as part of the application process. Either way, if you want to live in Britain you must speak English.

About ten years ago I would have shouted from the rooftops that it was about time an English-speaking country stood up for the English language. A favourite argument might be “I would learn Spanish if I went to Mexico; why shouldn’t they be required to learn English?! Harrumph.” I’ve since mellowed, matured and realised just how incredibly backwards I used to be.

Now I would argue that, while I completely understand the sentiment and fear of ‘sham’ marriages behind the new requirement, this is arguably a rather xenophobic rule. If my husband had been French I would have learned French; there is no denying that. A point to remember, though, is that most people learn languages best, become fluent in them, by living in that country. By using the language on a daily basis it becomes second-nature. You’re not learning a language; you’re living the language and the culture.

This story also touched me because I’ve been affected by the immigration rules in this country. When my husband and I decided to get married we had to apply to the Home Office for permission to marry. My husband, as a British citizen, had to apply to a government department for permission to marry an American with whom he had fallen in love. We were 13 days late with our application as I needed at least three months remaining on my then-student visa and were turned down.

Because of this I had to quit my job and fly back to America to apply to the British Consulate for a fiancee visa. This took around six weeks and somewhere in the region of £250. This was in addition to the £150 already spent on the permission application and another £400-500 for a flight. The visa was granted and I flew back to the UK and married my husband.

Two days after the wedding we were back at the Home Office applying for my limited leave to remain. This gave me residence for two years, meaning I could work again. That cost another £500. By the time we had finished all of the applications and paid for an unnecessary flight to America, we’d spent the equivalent of some couples’ whole wedding budget. We didn’t have a honeymoon; we went to the Home Office and then straight back to work.

Again, I understood the idea behind this requirement: to try to prevent marriages of convenience for purposes of immigration. But in our case it penalised a legitimate couple. Thankfully it has now been ruled a breach of human rights by the Law Lords as there was no right of appeal if turned down, as we were.

My point is that there are enough hurdles to jump through without having to add an English language test that some people might not pass. Furthermore, they haven’t outlined the specific requirements. It will affect non-EU citizens so, presumably, that includes Canada, Australia and New Zealand: the other English-speaking countries in the world. Are they going to require English tests of migrants from these countries? It would be very unfair to have someone from, say, India sat next to someone from America taking the same English test. But if you don’t require everyone to take the test, isn’t that also just as unfair?

The arrogance in assuming that someone will be able to master the English language well enough to perform on a test just because they have married a native English-speaker is overwhelming. I will be very interested to hear the specifics of this requirement in the future, as well as the problems it’s likely to cause. This woman’s story will be just one of many and that is very unfortunate in a liberal democratic society in the 21st century.

Filed under Politics/Current Affairs. Tagged , , ,
Comment

Bloody Sunday Inquiry

11 June 2010, 9:21 am

Big news today out of Northern Ireland. I would think that most people would have heard of the Bloody Sunday massacre by now but, let me summarise briefly. Protestors convened for a civil rights march on 30 January 1972 and were diverted away from their intended route by army barricades. Thirteen unarmed protestors were shot and killed by British soldiers and one other man died four months later from injuries.

There are differing narratives of events including an IRA sniper taking aim at soldiers and very different accounts on the number of protestors from only 3,000-5,000 in the first inquiry to as many as 30,000 claimed by the organisers. What is not in dispute is that the order was given to fire upon the protestors.

This was during a period, known as the Troubles, when the British army occupied Northern Ireland in an effort to stem political violence between the mostly Catholic nationalist groups and the mostly Protestant unionist groups. There are many, many books on this topic if you want to learn more.

The 1972 inquiry into the killings concluded that soldiers’ behaviour “bordered on the reckless”. Now, however, the 12-year long Saville inquiry, to be published on Tuesday, will indicate that the killings were unlawful. This will potentially lead to soldiers being prosecuted for manslaughter or even murder.

Northern Ireland has been a tinderbox for much of the last 150 years. Violence has died down but behind the peaceful facade there lies the potential for escalation. Nationalists will never be happy until they are united as one Ireland. The two sides will always be at odds over how to govern the country in their power-sharing arrangement.

While it is hoped this report will be the final word on events of that day it has the potential to reignite passions on both sides for retribution. Relatives of Bloody Sunday victims claim they have never received justice. Others could argue that prosecuting soldiers will only open old wounds when it’s time to move forward. It should be interesting to see what the report says on Tuesday and reactions from both sides of Northern Ireland’s political spectrum.

Sources:

Guardian

Wikipedia

Filed under Politics/Current Affairs. Tagged , , ,
Comment

University Fees

10 June 2010, 9:07 am

Welcome to the new blog. I am hoping to write every day about something in the news. I may not always succeed but it is my aim for the next year. I may also write about running from time to time. Today’s topic: university fees.

David Willetts, the government Universities Minister, has hinted at raising university fees for students in the UK. Currently the maximum fee per year is £3,225. Mr Willetts has claimed that the current system is “unsustainable” and more suited “for the good times.” He also alleges that the system is not serving students effectively in that it “doesn’t contain strong incentives for universities to focus on teaching and the student experience, as opposed to research.”

Currently UK students apply for loans to cover tuition fees and living costs from the government-funded body the Student Loans Company. They pay back their loans once they have graduated and are earning more than £15,000. He has stated that students should see their repayment of fees as a “higher income tax” rather than a debt.

Mr Willetts indicated that the government wished to see more universities adopt a similar model to that of the London University. They have more than 45,000 students across the world studying through distance learning and 6,000 doing so within the UK. The government wants students to be able to pursue a degree at one university but attend the requisite lectures at a local college. It is alleged that this would allow students unable to afford to move away from home the ability to pursue a higher degree.

I have three comments/questions.

Firstly, I don’t think students will ever be able to think of repayments as an ‘income tax’ rather than a debt. I agree with the National Union of Students president-elect, Aaron Porter, who said graduates were leaving with around £22,000 to repay and that this felt “very much like debt to them”. Just because it comes out of your pay cheque through the tax system does not mean it is anything other than a repayment and asking students to consider it a tax doesn’t solve any problems. “A rose by any other name” springs to mind here.

Second, I would very much like to know how the current system doesn’t give universities incentives to focus on teaching as opposed to research. I don’t have an argument or answer to this; it’s a question. How does the current system lead to universities not providing adequate teaching? I don’t see the correlation between the ability to get and repay a tuition fee loan and sub-par teaching standards.

Thirdly, even if students are able to pursue a degree through distance learning, they will still need to fund their course somehow. Granted they may not need living cost loans but it seems to me that, while I think this is an excellent way to learn and agree it is the way forward, they will still potentially need to apply for tuition fees; therefore, where are the potential savings? Perhaps this is just an indication of how the government would like to see universities adapt and it isn’t linked to the funding of education. If it is, however, then my previous question of how the two are linked also applies.

Links:

BBC

Guardian

Filed under Politics/Current Affairs. Tagged 
Comment

THE MARATHON

26 May 2010, 5:06 pm

Sorry I haven’t been posting folks but the week before the marathon was a bit hectic and I was a bit stressed! It’s all officially over. I ran the Edinburgh Marathon on Sunday 23 May 2010 in 4:15:08…and with four stitches in my knee (more on that to follow). My ultimate goal was under 4:30 and my best case goal was 4:06-4:10. I am exceedingly happy with my 4:15 because this year’s marathon took place on the hottest weekends of the year so far and definitely one of the hottest weekends Scotland ever sees. Temperatures on Sunday went as high as 23 or 24 degrees Celsius, which is 74-75 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s some lovely weather to be out and about in here in the UK but it is definitely not the best weather to be running in and certainly not running a marathon.

I could tell from the very first mile that it was simply too warm to hold the 9:25/mile pace I had set myself. When it is that hot it is doubly hard to run. It is best to go on perceived effort more than pace or even heart rate. I had read that the key to a good marathon is to try to maintain as close to the same pace as possible throughout, with the obvious potential for slowing way down in the last quarter to half. I worked out my pace and for the first half I managed 9:37 per mile and the second half 9:52. My overall pace was 9:44 per mile.  Only slowing by 15 seconds per mile in the second half was very good. In the last couple of miles I did have to slow right down to training pace of 10:20 per mile a few times as it was so hot and I was so tired. But overall I was able to maintain a comfortable pace and finished the race strong.

I spent the three days prior to the race doing everything I was supposed to. I drank water little and often throughout the day to stay hydrated. I had no caffeine. I ate as many meals and snacks as possible that included complex carbs but took on simple also. On the Saturday I stayed off of my feet as much as possible all day and didn’t overdo it on the pasta that night to avoid feeling sluggish the next day. One the day, because it was so hot, I drank virtually non-stop throughout the race whether it was the Lucozade sports drink handed out along the route or the water. I would drink a bit of water and pour a bit on the head, drink a bit pour on the back, drink a bit, pour some on the legs; all an effort to stay cool. Homeowners along the route had their garden hoses out for you to run through and I took full advantage. So many runners were already walking by even mile 10 and so many others were dropping out due to heat stroke, exhaustion, dehydration, etc. I think common sense prevailed with me. I just paced myself, drank as much as I could and tried to stay as cool as possible. It apparently worked.

Finally, the knee. The route finishes at Musselburgh racecourse. This is/was a horse racecourse so it was grass. In order to provide traction, especially if it had rained, organisers bolted plastic rubber mats to the ground which had raised ‘nubbins’ – for lack of a better word. When you go from running on concrete that doesn’t give to grass and plastic that does and your legs have done 26 miles you can only lift the so high. I was literally 15-30 seconds from the finish line when I tripped on the mat and went tumbling. I didn’t even look down. There is a camaraderie among runners; we help each other out. I had barely touched the ground before a fellow runner had grabbed me by the arm and dragged me up back standing. I shouted ‘thank you’ and hurled myself towards the finish all the time thinking “oh crap, I’ve gone and got a scrape.” I crossed the finish line incredibly satisfied and looked down to discover a gaping hole in my kneecap and my knee-high white compression sock soaked in blood. The plastic ‘nubbins’ had torn my knee to shreds. I collected my medal and goody bag and headed to first aid. The Doctor and paramedic were great. I couldn’t really feel a lot from the endorphins, adrenaline and the fact that my legs had done 26.2 miles. They put four stitches in, dressed the knee and away I went to the reunion area to meeting my husband.

You can see the route map here. We ran by the sea for a lot of it and had great support from the locals. I would definitely do Edinburgh again but I’ve again got my sights set on London next year. I did really well in this marathon especially considering the heat; just imagine what I can do in cooler temps. Watch this space for the next marathon!

Filed under Marathon Training.
Comment

Marathon Training Day 100

11 May 2010, 6:08 pm

Tonight I did hill work. This is a mile warm up, run up a hill for 2:00, jog/walk down for 3:00, repeat 11 more times, mile cool down. That is all.

Filed under Marathon Training.
Comment
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »