MPs have today voted to give themselves £10k on top of their current expenses to inform us more about what they and Parliament do via a website.
Quite why it costs £10k to set up and maintain a website that tells us what an MP is doing I don’t know.
Quite simply, all an MP needs to do is set up a blog that acts as an online diary. They can then tell us what they’ve been doing and why. Simple and best of all it’s free.
What an embarrassment for the BBC last night when Terry Wogan and Fearne Cotton announced different winners at the same time on last night’s Make Your Mind Up show.
It’s interesting the BBC has given no explanation to as to why the two presenters announced different winners.
This latest blunder comes of course on the back on the many phone-in scandals, which started with Richard and Judy and has led to ITV Play being axed all together. I wonder just how long viewers have been ripped off by these phone-ins as it seems odd that all of a sudden so many errors are being discovered. The explanation for this could be that it’s just being picked up. The best way to ensure you doesn’t get ripped off? Don’t phone in.
There’s been a campaign of radio adverts running for some time now promoting the tougher penalties for using handheld mobiles. The advert tries to get its message across by saying its “harder to concentrate on two things at the same time”. The two things being the driving and the talking.
This is kind of off message really as correct me if I’m wrong but you can still talk to someone whilst driving as long as it’s on a hands free system, hence still having to concentrate on two things at the same time.
Surely the campaign should focus on the fact it’s difficult to drive whilst using a handheld phone. You can’t change gear for example without taking your driving hand (if you’re holding the phone in your right hand) off the steering wheel.
Despite the tougher penalties and this campaign, the message doesn’t seem to be getting through. There are still plenty of people using their hand held mobiles. Surely a call isn’t that important it can’t wait until your able to pull over?
With the FA finally being handed the keys to the new Wembley Stadium this week, it led me to wonder, has construction in this country gone forwards or back in the 80 years since the original stadium was built.
The original stadium began construction in 1922 and opened on 23rd April 1923, taking only 300 days to build. The new stadium has taken 5 years to build, 7 if you include the delay to actually starting the construction.
In terms of cost, the original stadium cost £750’000 compared to £757 million pounds for the new one. Using Measuring Wealth to calculate the £750’000 in today’s money you get this:
£28,495,652.17 using the retail price index
£32,908,995.82 using the GDP deflator
£128,967,442.87 using average earnings
£159,930,757.94 using per capita GDP
£215,927,827.71 using the GDP
So in just over 80 years it now takes 5 times longer to build a stadium, and even using the most expensive measure GDP, the stadium cost £541 million pounds more than the original. In terms of time and cost then the construction industry certainly has gone backwards. Doesn’t bode well for the Olympics.
The Cash for Honours inquiry just got interesting.
Up till this point I had been rather sceptical of this inquiry going anywhere, but the announcement today of Ruth Turner sending an email to Jonathan Powell regarding Lord Levy suggests there is credible evidence to bring a prosecution.
Of course we don’t know what the contents of the email are, due to the injunction and it is quite likely that Ruth Turner would email Jonathan Powell, mentioning Lord Levy, but no standard routine email would lead to an injunction being sort by the Met Police to prevent the discloser of the email.
Could justice be done after all? Well there is still a long way to go, but this investigation is starting to look like it’s not a waste of time after all.
You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
* 48% of test takers were more theist than you.
* 50% of test takers were more materialist than you.
Big Government vs Small Government
"The big government advocate believes that governments should be responsible for regulating a wide array of social practices, even what might be considered personal decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, children's education and births. A small government advocate thinks that, wherever possible, these issues should be up to individuals or companies to direct."
You scored 65 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
* 66% of test takers were more big government than you.
* 32% of test takers were more small government than you.
Nationalist vs Internationalist
"The nationalist believes in the sovereign rule of nation states, particularly his or her own. The internationalist believes that there should be more important international fora and perhaps, ultimately, international government."
You scored 51 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
* 31% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
* 68% of test takers were more internationalist than you.
Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
You scored 65 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
* 67% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
* 32% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.
Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
"The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic."
You scored 74 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
* 95% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
* 4% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.
Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
"Both of these categories assume a capitalist system. Assuming this system, the controlled market believer holds that government should intervene in regulating a nation's economy: wage laws, environmental standards, privatised industries and workplace relations policy. A liberal market thinker believes that such regulation is unnecessary and often counter-productive."
You scored 59 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
* 80% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
* 19% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.
Marxist vs Non-Marxist
"This scale purports to show to what extent you follow the thought and teachings of Marx. Marxists tend to be scientific, materialist and revolutionary, believe in class struggle and the laws of historical and dialectic materialism."
You scored 73 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
* 95% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
* 4% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.
This question has just been asked on the Politics Show, why would you vote for Ming Campbell?
It’s a very good question, why would you?
The Lib Dem’s do have a couple of very good policies, politically reducing income tax in favour of green taxes is a very good idea.
However in a day when image means as much as policies Sir Campbell is a long way behind Cameron and even Gordon Brown. I just can’t picture Ming as a Prime Minister. I don’t think had he been in the Labour or Conservative Party, he would ever have got to Leadership level. He was a very good Foreign Affairs Speaker, but as a leader he just doesn’t cut it.
I do think he will still be the leader of the Lib Dems for the next election, which will be a mistake. The reason I can’t see him going before then is because of the level of respect he has from his fellow Lib Dem MPs. Unfortunately though, respect doesn’t gain you votes.
