” They say that time changes things - but actually you have to change them yourself.”Andy Warhol (1928 - 1987)
Thursday, 3 January 2008
Quote of the day
Watch this space.
The UK Libertarian Party is setting out it’s stall on the net.
What they say so far looks very encouraging.
Let's hope that they come to the attention of enough of the apparently huge numbers of voters who have lost faith with the existing main parties.
…And let’s hope that those voters haven’t utterly given up on politics.
Reports of Speed limit reductions on the River Thames
According to the Evening Standard and the BBC, they report that the Port of London Authority (PLA) have halved the speed limit on the River Thames from 24 to 12 knots.
This has had the effect of doubling the commute from Greenland Dock to Embankment from 20 minutes at rush hour to 40 minutes.
The ostensible reason? Well the PLA claim to have made it as a ‘precautionary’ measure because of a significant increase in the number of fast vessels that use the Thames.
They are reported as saying: "In recent months new vessels have started operating new services on new routes and leisure operators have introduced tourist-related high-speed trips.
"This measure will help ensure continued high safety standards on the river."
I had understood that what limits there are were applied upstream (west) of Wandsworth Bridge, 4.3 knots (8kph) in the non tidal section and 8 knots in the tidal section of the river - and that downstream (east) of this point, the only requirement was that boats were not allowed to create ‘undue wash’.
Apart from that, what doesn’t quite scan, when you think about it, is the fact that if there was a previous 24 knot limit then surely none of the boats would have exceeded it.
If they had, then logically they could have been prosecuted. What difference does it make what speed they happen to be capable of travelling at, provided they only actually travelled at 24 knots?
If they couldn’t have been prosecuted then what is to hold them to any lower limit?
As for the number of boats – the numbers using the Thames now are nothing in comparison to those of the first half of the 20th century. The river is not exactly crowded.
This has had the effect of doubling the commute from Greenland Dock to Embankment from 20 minutes at rush hour to 40 minutes.
The ostensible reason? Well the PLA claim to have made it as a ‘precautionary’ measure because of a significant increase in the number of fast vessels that use the Thames.
They are reported as saying: "In recent months new vessels have started operating new services on new routes and leisure operators have introduced tourist-related high-speed trips.
"This measure will help ensure continued high safety standards on the river."
I had understood that what limits there are were applied upstream (west) of Wandsworth Bridge, 4.3 knots (8kph) in the non tidal section and 8 knots in the tidal section of the river - and that downstream (east) of this point, the only requirement was that boats were not allowed to create ‘undue wash’.
Apart from that, what doesn’t quite scan, when you think about it, is the fact that if there was a previous 24 knot limit then surely none of the boats would have exceeded it.
If they had, then logically they could have been prosecuted. What difference does it make what speed they happen to be capable of travelling at, provided they only actually travelled at 24 knots?
If they couldn’t have been prosecuted then what is to hold them to any lower limit?
As for the number of boats – the numbers using the Thames now are nothing in comparison to those of the first half of the 20th century. The river is not exactly crowded.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Quote of the day
” The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for centuries. It is an invention of civilization.”Mikhail Gorbachev
Is it really a myth that migrant workers do jobs UK workers wont?
According to the Telegraph a new report by Migrationwatch is claiming it is a myth that foreign workers are just doing work which UK workers don’t want, or filling newly-created jobs.
There is a suggestion that a generation of low-skilled British workers risks being ‘trapped’ in unemployment by record immigration.
They express concern that a combination of generous benefits and immigrant labour willing to work for low wages will create "an underclass of discouraged British workers."
A single person under 25, on the minimum wage of £193 pw is just £10 a day better off than if they were on the dole. A married person with two children is £30 pw better off than on the dole.
So what’s all this myth exploding nonsense then? The British worker would appear to be virtually as well off on the dole as doing these jobs. It is not surprising they don’t want to do the jobs. But it is still definitely a matter of them not being willing to do the jobs for the money.
It seems that Frank Field, the former Labour welfare reform minister interprets this as immigrant workers ‘trapping’ British-born people in unemployment, because the higher the level of immigration in an area, the ‘harder’ it is for the unemployed to come off Jobseeker's Allowance.
This is backwards logic at best. The state can hardly blame migrant workers for the fact that it pays such generous dole benefits that, by the time transport costs and the bother of getting up in the morning are taken into account, the recipients are unwilling to do jobs that would probably actually leave them worse off, while the more motivated migrant workers are willing to underbid them for work.
Surely the UK workers would be unwilling to work for these wages, doing these jobs in any case?
Is that not the reason why those jobs are available for the migrant workers to do in the first place - otherwise all these jobs would surely already be filled by British workers?
This situation primarily results from the level the Government sets it’s dole benefits at, combined with our membership of the EC.
There is a suggestion that a generation of low-skilled British workers risks being ‘trapped’ in unemployment by record immigration.
They express concern that a combination of generous benefits and immigrant labour willing to work for low wages will create "an underclass of discouraged British workers."
A single person under 25, on the minimum wage of £193 pw is just £10 a day better off than if they were on the dole. A married person with two children is £30 pw better off than on the dole.
So what’s all this myth exploding nonsense then? The British worker would appear to be virtually as well off on the dole as doing these jobs. It is not surprising they don’t want to do the jobs. But it is still definitely a matter of them not being willing to do the jobs for the money.
It seems that Frank Field, the former Labour welfare reform minister interprets this as immigrant workers ‘trapping’ British-born people in unemployment, because the higher the level of immigration in an area, the ‘harder’ it is for the unemployed to come off Jobseeker's Allowance.
This is backwards logic at best. The state can hardly blame migrant workers for the fact that it pays such generous dole benefits that, by the time transport costs and the bother of getting up in the morning are taken into account, the recipients are unwilling to do jobs that would probably actually leave them worse off, while the more motivated migrant workers are willing to underbid them for work.
Surely the UK workers would be unwilling to work for these wages, doing these jobs in any case?
Is that not the reason why those jobs are available for the migrant workers to do in the first place - otherwise all these jobs would surely already be filled by British workers?
This situation primarily results from the level the Government sets it’s dole benefits at, combined with our membership of the EC.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Democracy – Is it always necessarily a good thing?
All my life it had been one on my underlying and - unquestioned assumptions that it is. So much so that I didn’t realise it was, or question it in any way.
But is it really? There is much talk of the will of the people and the wisdom of crowds, but is this always a good thing, does it always produce a positive result.
Democracy depends on a rational, sensible, responsible and interested and reasonably educated electorate. It further requires that they actually pay attention to what they are voting for and deciding upon.
That they consider what it might be like to be actually subject themselves to the policies, laws and rule by the politicians they are keen on.
What it might be like if they were not in charge, but on the receiving end.
That they actually think through the likely consequences of policies and dogma to their logical conclusions and not simply rely on simpleminded wrote. Parliament please take note of the last.
Democratic processes don’t always produce desirable results. Hitler rose to power through the democratic process, as did the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Surely no voter in their right mind would want such to rule over them?
Democracy isn’t necessarily guaranteed to provide, or protect the rights, liberty, safety and the wellbeing of the citizen - We assume it is so, but it is not necessarily so.
A case in point is Pakistan. What will the democratic process, if it is allowed to continue, throw up there? Many of the elements that have so destabilised Iran are present to some extent there.
It is not simply a matter of academic interest, or even one of humanitarian interest. Pakistan possesses atomic weaponry. If it Pakistan becomes a detsabilised failed state then that is likely to fall into the hands of Islamicist terrorists. There are elements there who would like nothing better.
Are democracy and the universal suffrage that the West have placed such blind faith in promoting there sure to produce a positive result? Or is it possible Pervez Musharraf may be a better protector of the rights and the liberty of the Pakistani citizen than he is given credit for.
I am not willing to abandon democracy, but realistically - it seems that sometimes turkeys will vote for Christmas after all…
But is it really? There is much talk of the will of the people and the wisdom of crowds, but is this always a good thing, does it always produce a positive result.
Democracy depends on a rational, sensible, responsible and interested and reasonably educated electorate. It further requires that they actually pay attention to what they are voting for and deciding upon.
That they consider what it might be like to be actually subject themselves to the policies, laws and rule by the politicians they are keen on.
What it might be like if they were not in charge, but on the receiving end.
That they actually think through the likely consequences of policies and dogma to their logical conclusions and not simply rely on simpleminded wrote. Parliament please take note of the last.
Democratic processes don’t always produce desirable results. Hitler rose to power through the democratic process, as did the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Surely no voter in their right mind would want such to rule over them?
Democracy isn’t necessarily guaranteed to provide, or protect the rights, liberty, safety and the wellbeing of the citizen - We assume it is so, but it is not necessarily so.
A case in point is Pakistan. What will the democratic process, if it is allowed to continue, throw up there? Many of the elements that have so destabilised Iran are present to some extent there.
It is not simply a matter of academic interest, or even one of humanitarian interest. Pakistan possesses atomic weaponry. If it Pakistan becomes a detsabilised failed state then that is likely to fall into the hands of Islamicist terrorists. There are elements there who would like nothing better.
Are democracy and the universal suffrage that the West have placed such blind faith in promoting there sure to produce a positive result? Or is it possible Pervez Musharraf may be a better protector of the rights and the liberty of the Pakistani citizen than he is given credit for.
I am not willing to abandon democracy, but realistically - it seems that sometimes turkeys will vote for Christmas after all…
Monday, 31 December 2007
Auld Lang Syne
For most of us - who only sing the first verse and the chorus.
Here is the whole thing…
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And old lang syne?
For old lang syne, my dear,
For old lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For old lang syne.
And surely ye'll be your pint-stowp,
And surely I'll be mine!
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For old lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For old lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For old lang syne.
We twa hae run about the braes,
And pu'd the gowans fine;
But we've wandered mony a weary fit
Sin' old lang syne.
For old lang syne, my dear,
For old lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For old lang syne.
We twa hae paidled i' the burn,
Frae morning sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' old lang syne.
For old lang syne, my dear,
For old lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For old lang syne.
And there's a hand, my trusty fiere,
And gie's a hand o' thine!
And we'll tak a right guid-willie waught
For old lang syne.
For old lang syne, my dear,
For old lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For old lang syne.Robert Burns (1759 –1796)
Quote of the day
" I do think New Year's resolutions can't technically be expected to begin on New Year's Day, don't you?
Since, because it's an extension of New Year's Eve, smokers are already on a smoking roll and cannot be expected to stop abruptly on the stroke of midnight with so much nicotine in the system.
Also dieting on New Year's Day isn't a good idea as you can't eat rationally but really need to be free to consume whatever is necessary, moment by moment, in order to ease your hangover.
I think it would be much more sensible if resolutions began generally on January the second.”Bridget Jones (Helen fieldingl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
