Biden v Trump

 

Sleep Joe v Pussy Grabber

We flatter ourselves that we know and/or understand the folks who have been elected to represent us. In the end; they become caricatures based, usually, on our prejudices and expectations. Still the idea that we know them persists. This is a very human frailty. We are at heart a tribal species and research shows us that, at most, we “connect” with about 150 people. On the very personal level this number is much smaller with family, close relatives and friends and work-related members dominating.

The Rule of 150 was coined by British Anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, and is defined as the “suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships and thus numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms …

This is fine until we get to, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. '' In the USA and the UK to give two examples with many millions of voters required to give consent to be governed this inevitably leads to a disconnect between the governed and the governors.

We therefore fall back on our prejudices, our shared values, our history, our ethnicity, our religious beliefs and many other fallible sources of context to make our choices about who is to be elected. This in itself is not a problem. The problem comes when we revert to our tribal past to make judgements about how well, or no, the elected leaders are doing. We revert to the tribal past so that we can use what is familiar to us from our own experience to judge the leader’s performance by direct evidence. He did this. He said this. He usurped my property, my mate, or my gods. He is so bad that we need to leave the group and start over. Not only is he a bad guy, but he is a bad guy because I know him. He’s in my circle. I have first hand experience of his bad behaviour or bad judgements; so I vote with my feet and leave and that’s how, in a very large part, we came to populate the entire planet.

Problem here is easy to define. We don’t know Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or, even say, Vlad Putin, so we have to judge them by what we see or perceive to see what they do and say.

What tools do we have to overcome the inherent disconnect between the voters and the elected? In the past we relied on the media - chiefly the print media - to provide us with details of the policies a government might follow. Nowadays the media has proliferated into realms our political leaders could have once only dreamed of. The media is the message has now become the media is the only message. And the message is almost always about character.

In the 1980’s I was fond of what I called the next-door neighbour test. Imagine the house next door was sold to (in those days) Margaret Thatcher. Can you imagine living next to Maggie? You’re in your garden and there she is looking over at your undies on the washing line and tut-tut ing! Nightmare! (incidentally, in those days despite the fact that she won a slew of elections you could never find anyone who would admit to voting for her) So who passes the Maggie Test today? Joe Biden? Not likely. Vlad the Putin – never. Bonking Boris? He wins in and landslide. He’s inviting you round for drinks or he’s in the local pub buying everybody a drink! Boris wins hands down.

The transition of news from print, television and radio to digital spaces has caused huge disruptions in the traditional news industry, especially the print news industry. It is also reflected in the ways individual Americans say they are getting their news. A large majority of Americans get news at least sometimes from digital devices, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 7, 2020.

The days of FDR’s fireside chats and the Presidential news conference are largely gone.

Even the “great communicator” Ronald Reagan would find it difficult today. Poor old Tricky Dick lost the 1960 election, chiefly because the voters judged him hot, sweaty and flustered at the debate with Kennedy.

This transition is not in itself a bad thing. A multiplicity of news from a variety of sources could be a good thing, but only if John Q Public is diligent enough to evaluate not just the news but also the source. There is little evidence that this is happening. The result is folks see something on their news feed and just accept it, particularly if it reinforces their prejudices.

Personally, if I see that a “story” is from Fox News, or the New York Times I tend to gloss over it, admittedly for completely different reasons, but gloss nevertheless. I regret that most folks are not so discerning. Even more worrying is the tendency for folks to stick to the media outlet that most agrees with their already-formed prejudices. This is bad for democracy.

A fairly simple example:

The claim: Thomas Jefferson said giving to those who are not willing to work endangers democracy

A Dec. 16 post to the Facebook page for Save Southern Heritage and History includes a statement about democracy allegedly written by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not," says the quote, which is credited to the nation's third president in a meme.

Save Southern Heritage and History is a society and cultural website that also posts conservative news and patriotic memes, according to its Facebook profile page.

USA TODAY reached out to the group for comment.

The statement has recent origins and has not been found in Jefferson's catalog of writings.

I’m sure that “quotations” from liberal sources which purport to “prove” that GW Bush was/is a racist or that Trump supported Vlad the Putin through thick and thin could also be easily found.

We have, as a society, lost the art of critical thinking. We are not questioning either our leaders or our news sources. We are allowing falsehoods to profligate with impunity.

More recently from CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics/fact-check-dale-top-15-donald-trump-lies/index.html

Lest we think that only one party/individual can play fast and loose with the truth:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-gets-history-wrong-second-amendment-limi/

So, what are we to take from the lack of trustworthiness in our political leaders?

Some folks may conclude that voting is just a waste of time. Some may conclude that all politicians are alike and completely untrustworthy. Some may be moved to grab a banner and march for their chosen person/cause. Some may conclude that only violence is able to effect real change and grab a gun!

I found this from Neil Fleming, whoever he is?

Do British people view the USA as a legendary country?

Absolutely. There’s lots of things you excel at and are world leaders among developed nations.

Your lack of healthcare, dreadful employment laws, endemic racism, lack of gun control, lack of social care, regular mass shootings, lunatic creationists, conspiracy nuts, lack of paid vacation time, expecting people to work for tips rather than a decent wage. Out of control trigger- happy police. Ludicrously jingoistic warmongering attitudes. A fear of anything mildly liberal. Terrible food standards. The death penalty. An utterly corrupt political system.

And all the gun toting, right wing, bible thumping republicans who think all of the above is acceptable.

This theme is not just historical: It was reported on 5 April that Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s League Party (formerly the Northern League) and the country’s controversial deputy prime minister, has invited leaders of other European radical right parties to a conference in Milan, scheduled for 8 April. Salvini’s aim, according to the Guardian, is to create a bloc of right-wing populists which extends beyond the Europe of Nations and Freedom group in the European Parliament. With 36 seats, ENF is the smallest grouping in the parliament and Salvini is clearly aiming to create something grander.

What are his chances of success? Perhaps his biggest prize would be to attract Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s far-right prime minister, who has (still) not been ejected from the centre-right European People’s Party grouping in the European Parliament, despite having been censored for his attempts to push Hungary in an authoritarian direction (or as he styles it, ‘illiberal democracy’).

Although Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has confirmed it is sending a representative, Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front has said she will not be attending. Le Pen herself hosted a similar meeting in Nice in 2018, at which Geert Wilders from the Dutch Party for Freedom and several other influential radical right speakers were present, an event which indicated how hard it has been to create a pan-European radical right bloc.

Glorifying the nation

This should not surprise us. At the root of radical right ideology is a glorification of the nation, a narrative of exceptionalism and superiority that inevitably puts like-minded nationalists from different countries at odds with one another. It is one thing to drive across a European border to a secret location to attend a blood and honour gig; creating a fully collaborative pan-European radical right quite another challenge.

As David Barnes recently wrote, narratives of European civilization have been both common and hard to sustain; Oswald Mosley’s post-World War II argument in favour of ‘Europe – A Nation’, which shares many similarities with today’s anti-immigrant discourses promoted by the likes of Salvini, found few takers, despite the fact that a notion of Europe having a homogeneous racial and cultural background was widely held across the continent’s radical right movements.

Besides, in today’s Europe, when some radical right leaders such as Salvini praise the Russians and share the Kremlin’s desire to destabilise the European Union, others, such as Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński and the Law and Justice Party – despite sharing Salvini’s aim to break the ‘Germany-France axis’ in Europe – come from a very different perspective, that of Poland’s traditional suspicion of Russia.

And where some, such as Geert Wilders and, to some extent, his new rival Thierry Baudet of the Forum for Democracy – whose penchant for highfalutin verbiage has already become notorious – talk of defending European freedom in the face of a supposed Islamist advance, others, such as Orbán and Le Pen, are more socially conservative.

Even if Europe’s radical right leaders share certain fundamental ideas, however, such as a belief in the need to defend the ‘white race’, a hatred of Islam, a desire to stop immigration, and a basic ultra-nationalist position, it is hard to see how the clash of nationalisms that conferences such as Salvini’s will expose can survive the experience.

Indeed, we have been here before. During the interwar period, attempts to create a ‘fascist international’ were set in motion on several occasions. Historians who have recently conducted research into ‘transnational fascism’ – such as Federico Finchelstein, Aristotle Kallis or Arnd Bauerkämper – have shown the extent to which fascist ideas and personnel criss-crossed the continent of Europe and beyond (to the Americas, for example), so that fascist ideology and practice were often shared.

Examples might be fascist aesthetics, racial ideology, or training camps. Fascist leaders such as Mosley or Coreneliu Codreanu were inspired by and devoted to Mussolini. And Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany established an uneasy alliance. But the analysis can only take us so far, before it becomes clear that such collaborations might have been set in motion but could not be sustained, as the different groups with their rival nationalisms ran aground on the rocks of mutual suspicion.

Finding alternative idea-mongers in Europe is less easy. Traditional left wing parties in the UK and on the continent are, despite the fear generated by conservatives, are definitely in retreat. More right-wing parties are on the up.

Take, for example, Bonking Boris and the British Conservative Party. Despite the left-wing rant from Neil Fleming, the UK public like Boris and his policies. The voted for him in droves at the last election and in spite of his recent problems with Party-gate they still generally support his government. This may change with the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, but there are no guarantees.

It is interesting to note that many political leaders have managed to survive scandals. Ronnie Reagan springs to mind. When push comes to shove it seems the voters will forgive peccadilloes and poor judgement calls far easier than the commentariat.

Perhaps the most glaring obfuscation here is the old adage: I hate to be an I Told You So. Actually, we all love to be an I told you so. We are never happier than when we are sure that we have the inside track on our fellow man, have the winning combination at the gambling tables, have all the answers whilst others are scrabbling around in the dark, have cracked the code whilst others are just dim-witted morons.

I conclusion: the incessant labelling as either right or left wing ideas and policies has very little effect on the average voter. It does tend to consolidate the support for leaders who need a secure base from which to launch a bid for political power. It encourages a volume of poor thinking from both sides. It adds nothing to political debate. It encourages the kind of mental agility that Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels  would have been very proud of indeed.

Price of Gas and Pork

 The price of gas is a poor indicator of how well a country's economy is performing. Think I'm wrong? Check out the gas prices in Venezuela. They can't give the stuff away.

In the USA gas, or petrol as it is called in the UK, has a checkered price history. When I was first buying the stuff in Kansas City, we often had what was affectionately known as a gas war. Gas got as low as 12 cents a gallon. Happy days! But, not to last. In those days I'm fairly sure the USA was self-sufficient in gas. Before OPEC, gas was plentiful, cheap and readily available. Furthermore gas prices have always been variable from state to state. California gas prices could make you cry?! Currently it's at 4.40 a gallon. It's 2.43 in KC. In the UK, a litre (4.4 liters per gallon) is £1.25 Making a gallon of gas about 5 bucks. What is clear is that the price of gas is a poor indicator of almost anything. Yet, it is a question which concerns the American public and folks in the UK I can assure you.

Gas is a function of the price of energy in general. Your packet of Oscar Meyer bacon has gas as a function of its retail price. The farmer who raises the pig, the slaughterhouse which processes the meat, the factory that slices and packs the meat in a carbon-based container, the bacon curing process, the advertising budget of Oscar Meyer, the consumer's trip to the store to buy the bacon all are components that decide the price of Bacon. Fixing the actual reason for the recent rise in bacon prices to the mast of a particular policy or politician is whilst very probably self-satisfying to some folks and an anathema to others overall not very sane, relevant or important.

Clearly, for a variety of reasons, some good, some possibly spurious, food and gas prices are only going in one direction. This is likely to continue regardless of who is in office.

American consumers need to wake up and smell the coffee. In the UK coffee it's between 9 and 14 £ per kilo (2.2 pounds) in the USA it's about 8.50 dollars a pound- that makes it about 3 bucks more expensive in the US. Your Starbucks is going to get more expensive. Inevitable. If you are a big coffee drinker, I suggest you switch to tea!

Both the US and UK have been cheerfully living high-on-the-hog (pardon the pun)by effectively ripping off the commodity producing nations. They used to do it very nicely with gas until the advent of OPEC and the demise of Texas gold. With pork, the Chinese consumer is now mopping up any cheap pork and the US consumer is paying the price. As more Chinese eat bacon and pork, the cost to the US or UK consumer is going to go up.  It’s Economics 101.

As a result of the Biden administration's conversion to a greener energy policy, the consumer is going to continue to pick up most of the tab for the energy component of the rise in commodity prices.

BTW (an aside) A US lab today reported that they are on the verge of the Holy Grail, commercially viable nuclear fusion which will make arguments about the price of almost everything redundant. Unfortunately, this may well not happen until beyond our life-time.  Our grand or great, great grand-kids may well look back on this and wonder what all the fuss was about!

Until fusion comes on-stream the price of energy will continue to sky-rocket and we (the consumer) will bear the brunt of any price rises.  This will be true no matter where you live.  The idea that the U.S. can insulate itself from the global economy is a pipe-dream.  This was at the core one of the policies of Donald Trump.  MAGA - make America Great Again - presumes that somehow America  stopped being great at some time.  It plays to the same audience as Charles Lindberg’s tribal appeal called America First before WWII.

When the New York Times interviewed Donald Trump in March 2016, one of the reporters, David Sanger, suggested that Trump’s foreign policy could be summed up as “America First”—“a mistrust of many foreigners, both our adversaries and some of our allies, a sense that they’ve been freeloading off of us for many years.”  

“Correct. O.K.? That’s fine,” Trump responded. Sanger pressed him to be sure. “I’ll tell you—you’re getting close,” Trump said, in his typically staccato style. “Not isolationist, I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First.’ So, I like the expression. I’m ‘America First.’ ”

This is one factor is driving the US consumer into fits of apoplectic rage. Even with sleepy Joe onboard the focus is on the consumer and their perception of the meaning of America First in consumer affairs.. What Donald and Joe forget to tell the electorate is that at the bottom line politicians of whatever persuasion can be powerless to affect the price of either gas or bacon. They can, of course, and often do tinker around the edges by tweaking the tax or import duties on particular products. This may assuage the public for a bit and effectively kick any real decision down the road, but, and this should come as no surprise, all politicians do this all the time. After all, why take a potentially awkward decision or even worse a potentially vote-losing one when you can effectively b***s*** the public and do nothing at all.

Addendum

The withdrawal from Afghanistan has been overshadowing everything else in the news.  Neither Trump, Biden or Boris come out looking particularly well.  Joe Biden has taken a pasting, and rightly so.  People wanted out of Afghanistan, but thought that the folks organising it might have put a bit of thought and effort into it.  The UK media are blaming Joe for not seeing the demise of the Afghan army as a real possibility.  They are probably right.

Economics 101

A wealth plan for the ages and for all

Now, I am the first to admit that I am functionally economically illiterate. I must point out that this in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. After all even though there is a loud and boisterous group who like to pretend that economics is a science, most people recognize that economics is to science as bookmaking is to wealth. The systems involved in each are, at best, enlightened guesswork and at worse ill-informed charlatanism.

I have long had an economic plan. This plan has been the subject of ridicule and approbation from all sides.

By way of illustration: it resembles my famous cherry-pie mathematics theory. Cherry-pie maths postulates what happens when you apply some mathematical principles to a cherry pie. For example, if you add one cherry pie to another cherry pie you get two cherry pies. OK?

Now if your multiply instead of add you get something different, so the mathematicians tell us. Where I come from, adding is like multiplying. Add two things together you get more. Multiply two things together you get more. (Like rabbits for example or cherry pies)

Therefore when the mathematicians tell you that 1x1 = 1 – hey! not where I come from! IF you multiply 1 cherry pie x another cherry pie – the maths genii say you get one cherry pie. Crazy – what ever happened to the law of conservation of mass and energy? Where did the rest of the pie go to?

No, multiplying one cherry pie by another cherry pie means you get two pies – not one!

Similarly, if you ask maths guys they will tell you that multiplying two negative numbers together creates a positive sum. So -10 x -10 = 100. Yeah, right.

In the real world if I go to Barclays bank and borrow £1000 pounds – go next door to HSBC borrow another £1000 and then ask them to multiply my borrowings together and send me the cheque for 1 000 000, they just won’t do it! (Go ahead, try it and see, but be prepared to be laughed at!)

Result: my cherry-pie maths is rooted in the real world. Economics is rooted in the mathematical world. And, the two rarely meet - and if they do it is usually with an earth-shattering collision.

How does this fit with my plan to exploit the economists? Simples.

Take as an example the National Lottery. Since it’s inception in November of 1994, the National Lottery has produced more than 4,750 millionaires. Gosh, that seems a lot – especially since I’m not one of them! Not only is it a lot of winners: it is also a lot of money. And, here is the important point: it (apparently) does not cause inflation – or indeed any other blip in the economic life of the nation. This could be because it is essentially self-financing – indeed there is money left over to give to good causes. In actuality the National Lottery is a wealth redistribution vehicle. It takes money from millions of citizens and gives it to a few.

I propose something similar. But, why not just cut out the middle man and give money directly to the public. There are about 27 million households in the UK.

For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion. That’s about 5000 per year per household. The government seems content to fund this.. Of course, they could just give every household £ 5 000 and say you get your own healthcare – use it to buy health insurance for example. By way of comparison: How much does the US spend on healthcare per person?

$10,345 per person.

So, here in the UK we are content to let the government redistribute wealth through the NHS.

Why not let the government do this on an industrial scale?

My plan: the Chancellor writes to all 27 million households and tells them that on January 1, 2019 he is going to deposit 1 million pounds in their bank account. He explains that if asked he will, of course, deny this. All you have to do is provide the Inland Revenue with your bank account details and on Jan first the money will be deposited. The only proviso, if you haven’t spent the money by Jan 5 he will take it back.

I figure that 5-10 million households will think it’s a hoax and do nothing. Another 5-10 million will lose the letter, or forget or be so drunk after New Year they just fail to do anything. So, 10 million folks will get the million and spend it (oh, yeah, one more proviso). You can spend it either to pay off your debts or buy stocks, shares or bonds. Or a combination of either.

The result: the total cost to the exchequer will be about the same as the annual spend on the NHS. 

 

10 million households will no longer have a mortgage payment to find every month. Those 10 million will also own most of the shares in VW, GM, US Steel and South Africa’s diamond industry.

And, here’s the best bit, they will have paid for these non-perishable assets with mostly worthless paper currency, for the pound will sink like a rock. No real matter – that’s why only non-perishable assets are allowed. Makes no difference if the pound in your pocket is worthless, if you own real assets. Works for me. Also, the best bit is the economists will hate it!

From where I’m standing it looks like winning..

German Guilt

A thousand years will pass and still this guilt of Germany will not have been erased – Hans Frank

Let us leave it to a convicted Nazi war criminal to provide the twisted rationale for a French surrender and the collective European amnesia which allows the Germans to play hard ball with the EU.

So what do we get?

That fat Hausfrau Merkel dictating to Europe what the Germans will allow them to do.

That Eau d'Dwarf Sarkozy, product of a Greek Jew and a Hungarian aristo ( I know, you can hardly believe it) is still so frightened of the big bad Germans that he hides under a Carla's skirt whenever he sees one approaching the long-extinct Maginot Line.

That arch-coward George Papandreou, instead of reminding Merkel of the debt Germany owes to Greece, cobbles together an unlikely looking coalition of losers to placate the Krauts.

I can not believe it!

Meanwhile President Obama sits on the side-lines and waits to see how the Europeans can screw up the world's economy because he does not have the stomach for a fight with Germany. The war-time coalition must be spinning so fast in their graves that if only we could harness the force involved we could solve the energy crisis for another generation.

Let us forget the economics of the situation. Like all economic arguments no-one, least of all the politicians, really understands what's going on.

I'd rather focus on the Germans.

How did they, seemingly all of a sudden (in economic terms), become the all powerful super-Krauts who must be obeyed?

Don't forget barely a generation ago they were destitute, relying on the rest of us, mostly us as in U.S., to make sure they didn't starve. So we did.

Remember the Marshall Plan? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) Read carefully what the Germans did with the money!

Regardless of how you slice it, the Germans owe us all big-time.

Billions were spend trying to get rid of the Nazi crowd. Whole European countries were bankrupted – including Greece. Millions of Europeans perished.

Then we gave the Krauts a lot of money to prevent them from turning Soviet.

My plan. The Germans should underwrite the Greek debt. All of it. And, for all time.

Then every year British, Irish, French, Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian and Danish citizens should form an orderly queue outside their chosen German auto factory to collect their new BMW, Audi, Mercedes or Porsche.

No payment due cause they owe us and owe us big-time.

That's my economic plan to solve the Euro crisis.

You tell me why it's wrong. Go on, tell me.

Royal Weddings

Cameron Smacks Lips!

A real cynic (me included) could hardly contain themselves - as David Cameron could hardly contain himself when announcing the forth-coming royal nuptials.

He must have thought all his Christmases had come, and come very early!

A real cynic might even have wondered if their wasn't some Prime-Ministerial connivance with the interested parties? After all, this joyous occasion could not only bury any bad news the government wishes, but also provide a much needed kick start to the economy and a rise in the feel-good factor by a factor of mucho!

Nobody does it better. When it comes to a royal occasion England just can't be beaten. And, the sequence is getting more and more interesting and crowded. Summer 2011, Royal Wedding, Summer 2012, London Olympics. Summer 2012, Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Bonanza for whoever is in government at the time. Cammi-knickers must be licking his lips at the prospect – remember what a fine job the Falklands War did of securing a Conservative majority for beyond a decade. All that's missing is a resurgent NUM for the Tories to persecute and it just could not get better!

Bookies

I'm not one for indiscriminate betting, but the bookies may have taken a pasting on the date – it's in April whereas they had August as the favourite.

Dress

Everybody and their uncle will be trying to find out the details. And, the bookies will take a bet on anything!

Clergy

One bishop has already resigned for suggesting the marriage won't last. My bets on the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Supporters

Prince Harry is a certainty – even though he is the spiting image of Hewitt.

Cost

News is that the Middletons are involved in the cost – I expect they will provide the dress (perhaps with a donation from Wills.

Babies

Odds on a nine-month pregnancy and a baby in January 2012 must be very short – get your bets down now. I expect the Queen's gyno will have already certified the ladies fitness for child-bearing, though expecting her to be a virgin is definitely out.

King Wills?

Not a starter. Despite all the polls saying he'd be better than Charlie, it is not something even remotely possible – barring an early Alzheimers onset for the old Prince of Wales.

Overall Verdict

A cracker. We may all need cheering up as the cuts bite hard. Excellent timing for the Government.

Cracker.

South of Thickthorn - again

South of Thickthorn – the end is nigh – or is it?

The most entertaining anecdote in Bill Bryson's Notes from a Small Island occurs when he discusses the English preoccupation with roads and their preoccupation with the best way to get from one place to another. For anyone who has ever been regaled by the locals encyclopedic knowledge of the road network this is a must read. It reminds me of the apocryphal Irish story of the local Paddy who when asked how to get to Carrickfergus replied, “Sure, I wouldn't start from here.”

In a self-congratulatory wave of over optimistic balderdash, the EDP announced that the government had at last agreed that despite the desperate economic times, the remaining stretch of the A11 south of Thickthorn would be dualled; thereby finally linking Norwich with the rest of the world. Whiskey, foxtrot, zulu!

Let us leave for a moment the drip drip drip of irony so thick it makes molasses in January seem positively runny and rejoice!

Wait a minute – let's not crack the champagne quite just yet.

With considerably less fanfare and with a complete lack of journalistic integrity, the EDP soon announces that the construction work is unlikely to start before 2012-13. Ministers, when quizzed, confirm that the money to dual is definitely committed, but not quite so committed that it is actually available. Confused? You ought not be. Governments are very good at dissembling information with enough caveats to make the average football manager seem positively erudite and the epitome of linguistic elegance.

Amidst all the balderdash has anyone actually noticed that this “battle” was lost over 30 years ago when some eejit decided that the M11 should go from London to Cambridge – despite the fact that the A11 goes from London to Norwich. With a stroke of the bureaucratic pen, Norwich was condemned to sit on the side lines and wait for a government hand out in order to get a descent road link. Hello – we're still waiting!! To add insult to injury Look East reports on a new link road to provide fast access from a Cambridge business park to the M11!! Where are the reporters asking how money can be found for this, yet the A11 will have to wait? Call themselves journalists?

I can see Rivers of Blood as the A11 money (yes, it's definitely committed says the Minister over and over again and again) is pushed further and further into the future – perhaps till after the next general election when, low and behold, certain facts will have come to light which were not available when the original decision was taken and must be investigated thoroughly with another public inquiry which can not possibly report until 2014-15 – but the money is definitely committed, says the Minister. Ad nauseum.

So, where do we go from here?

Probably nowhere, slowly.

Suggest you get Bill Bryson's book and have a good read.

Football Failings

Only occasionally do I intrude into the wonderful, wacky world of football. Mostly it is either too silly, too exasperating or just down right too frustrating.

Recent developments deserve a mention. I happened on an interesting programme on the BBC News channel the other evening. It was a discussion regarding some of the recent financial crises that have been plaguing the “beautiful game”.

In case you missed it, Portsmouth FC are about to enter administration and a number of other clubs are queuing up to join them. That's the story, basically.

Like the weather, lots of folk are talking about it, and no-one is actually doing anything.

The programme “identified” some areas that need discussion/amendment/improvement. Clubs are (obviously) being extremely irresponsible with their finances. Players (and their union) are milking the cow for all it's worth – despite the fact that the teats are giving no succour, for the milk has run out. Fans are in disarray because of increasing ticket prices and lack of success on the field.

Where to start?

The Clubs. Football clubs operate as if they were immune to the forces of economics and gravity. Being immune to gravity is especially good for them as they think they can avoid the drop! Yep, that's how stupid they are. The truth is only a very few clubs, either by reason of an incredibly wealthy owner or owners, or a fan base that covers the known world can possibly aspire to win the Premiership. All the others are simply treading water. Clubs can, of course, never admit this because it would upset and alienate the fans.

The Supporters. The supporters like to think that they are the backbone of the club and the most important leg of the tripod. They are chin-dribblingly deluded on both counts. Clubs make noises about how wonderful the fans are and how they are striving to win trophies and championships for them. In reality, as long as some fans ( primarily the most stupid ones ) continue to troop gaily through the turnstiles so that the TV companies can pan the cameras around the ground without encountering too many empty seats; the clubs aren't really worried about the supporters ( or cannon fodder if you prefer ). Clubs know that the real money comes from TV.

The Players. Players are easy targets. Well, those at the very top who earn obscene wages are easy targets. The PFA is charged with protecting all players and their views on wages are simple. Get you hands off! For the PFA the problems with club finances are nothing to do with them and they don't really want to discuss or negotiate any change to the status quo.

What's to be done?

The Clubs. Clubs will not regulate themselves. Leagues will not regulate clubs. FIFA, UEFA, etc. will not regulate clubs. The EU ( for once charged with doing something useful ) could regulate clubs. How? Make Europe-wide rules and regulations regarding club finances. Stipulate the amount clubs can spend on players and transfers. Clubs should only be able to spend a proportion of TV and gate receipts and bring down wages and ticket prices in order to comply. At a stroke you level the playing field and make football more competitive.

The Supporters

Supporters need educating. This will be tough for they generally make Dewsbury Chavs look like intellectuals. Deep down they know they are gormless. Commentators, managers, players and administrators must stop pandering to fans' basest instincts and explain their real strategy: i.e. stay in this league, remain solvent, introduce more home-grown players that fans can identify with, live within our means and avoid what seems to be attractive short-term fixes!

The Players

Players are their own worst enemies. They are all in the gossip columns too often because they earn obscene amounts of money and don't know how to spend it except on Chav Flash. Players must learn to sign contracts that mean something, that put most of their earning into long-term investments instead of short-term bling, and act like responsible adults instead of spoiled brats.

Incidentally, none of the above had even the remotest chance of being adopted.

Merchant Bankers

Cockney Rhyming Slang.

Well. We have the British Airways staff going on strike, the N 25 only being partly built, the A 11 imploding south of Thickthorn, the MoD probably closing an airbase and cancelling plans to upgrade the fighter force, interest rates at almost zero and the Daily Mirror fronting a campaign to rubbish the climate change gurus.

Any connections?

Strangely, yes. It's the banks. Or, more precisely, the antics of the government and the merchant bankers over their bail-outs and their bonuses.

I cheerfully confess, with pride, that I neither understand nor particularly care about economics. It's just a pseudo-science. How else can you explain the crazy way money has been acting.

For example, you might reasonably expect that when the government is borrowing record sums of money to fund the bankers greed and The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street's penchant for toxic assets that interest rates would be sky high to attract investors.

They are nil.

Question one on the Economics 101 final exam: explain.

We are assured that no money can be found to fund essential infrastructure projects, yet the pit full of funds to bail out the banks is seemingly bottomless. The sums are colossal and should mean high interest rates. Explain please.

For climate change read bankers bail-out. Who else will benefit from an increase in global infrastructure projects. Yep, it's the bankers.

When British Airways goes bust with a massive hole in their pension fund who gets the goodies? Bankers.

And, when the MoD can't find a few millions to protect the nation who should we thank? No prizes for guessing - the bankers.

Am I just taking cheap shots at everyone's favourite target for being crossed off their Christmas card list and saving a few pennies that way. Not really, the bankers have just about finished off the Royal Mail in their spare time.

Come the revolution, these greedy geeks in pin-stripes will be exchanging their garments for real stripes as they are marched (with their bogus bonuses and bulging bank accounts confiscated to fund real progress for real people) straight into the Gulag.

Can't wait.

New Year's Resolutions

What's Great in '08?

Time to make some resolutions to improve things in 2008.

I have some good ideas.

One

Lose weight. Always a popular choice, but, hang on, is it really necessary? Does anyone ever ask if losing weight is really necessary or has it simply become an all-encompassing mantra? Why does everyone want to lose weight?

There is no doubt that as I have gotten older I have added a few pounds. How many? I've been checking. I've been tracking my weight religiously for about nine months now. In that time my weight has fluctuated by about 8 pounds. It started out going down and then just after Christmas it has peaked about 2 pounds more than it was in April.

Why is this? It was lowest in the summer when I was eating BBQ and drinking beer. That makes no sense! Unless you factor in the increased physical activity provided by outdoor activities that are possible in the summer and not in the winter, things like sport, gardening, long walks with the dog.

Conclusion: Weight is cyclical according to the season and needs to be tracked for at least a year before any real conclusions can be drawn. Also, your weight in Jan is bound to be large, remember all that Christmas dinner!

Shakespeare usually got it right. What did he say about weight? Sir John Falstaff: “a good, portly man was he”. And we all know what a great guy Sir John was.

Let's not forget Julius!

Caesar: Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.

Nuff said?

Two

Give up smoking. No, sorry, I already did that one. Was it hard? Yes. Can anyone do it? Yes. I wish I had given up 30 years ago! Am I sounding sanctimonious? You bet.

Three

Sneak out of Iraq. This sounds flippant, but it is not. It is not necessary to declare the withdrawal from Iraq. It would be better to just do it. Unfortunately, military operations have become almost impossible since the end of WWII. Now the generals have to announce their plans and allow them to be scrutinised by the politicians before they are attempted. This is just nutty.

Better idea – make your plan to get out, get out and then tell everyone about it later.

Works for me.

Four

Stop looking of Who's – a – ma – bin – liner. The man is irrelevant and if the military establishment couldn't find him after all these years it's not likely to happen now. Better plan. Announce that he is dead and when the inevitable video tape turns up purporting to be from him – declare that it is a fake and ignore it.

Also works for me.

Five

Throw money at Afghanistan. I actually emailed Ol Dubbya to just such affect when this mess started. Needless to say, he ignored me. It would be better for everyone if we just game the Afghans lots of money. People sitting around watching re-runs of Little Britain do not suddenly break off and plant an IUD. If you can't win the hearts and minds – buy them. That's what capitalism is all about anyway.

Last real revolution we had in the U.S. was the Whiskey rebellion of 1794 http://www.blurtit.com/q324958.html - after that we just got in the gas-guzzler and went to the store. Great for democracy.

Should work for the Afghans as well. Let's try it!

Six

Forget Global Warming and go the beach. I was astounded the other day when on TV a commentator let slip that the climate data they use to “prove” climate change is only 100 years old. Yep, that's one hundred years. It's like basing your calculations for the coming wheat harvest on the growth rate of a wheat plant in the corner of a small field in Nebraska in the last 14 seconds. It is all nonsense.

Trouble is if you question the orthodoxy of that globe-trotting, very rich eco-warrior Al Gore, people call you nutty.

Bottom line. Climate varies naturally. Right now, it's getting a bit warmer. End of analysis.

All the other nonsense is just conjecture. We have no accurate, historical climate data to base any conclusions on. There is good circumstantial evidence that the climate has changed fairly dramatically in the last 1000 years.

Witness the Vikings. Pretty tough dudes by all accounts. But, about a thousand years ago they up and sailed away to Iceland, where their descendants are still, grabbed a quick holiday to Greenland (anybody notice the name, Greenland) and mooched over to Canada - probably Labrador, not noted as a holiday destination today!!

Had they lost their marbles? Probably not. It was just a bit warmer then. And, this was nine hundred years before much fossil fuel had been burnt.

Explanation? Climate is subject to natural variations.

Learn to live with it!

Don't forget the “Mini-Ice Age” in the 18th Century!!

Of course, we all need to be responsible for husbanding the resources of the planet as well as we can. But, and this is a big but, you don't have to subscribe to the Global Warming Quasi-Religious Dogma to be a good citizen.

Stop feeling guilty and enjoy the warmer weather.

That's enough resolution for anyone!

Get your Christmas drink in - now!!

Gordo's after your wallet again!

Yesterday's news was dominated by the concerns expressed about binge drinking and the effects it is having on the nation's health.

Health chiefs are queueing up to recount the dangers of binge drinking among the young. The Centre for Public Health at John Moores University surveyed young people and found that they regularly “pre-loaded” up on drink at home before spending the rest of the evening necking pints.

Professor Mark Bellis concludes that while city centre pubs and clubs are making efforts to control binge drinking – nothing is being done to reduce the sales in off-licences and supermarkets. This, he contends, is the real problem. Drinkers are already pickled before they embark on an evening out. He points to the “ridiculously cheap” price of alcohol in supermarkets as the prime cause of drunks populating our city centres in the evening.

I say: hang on to your wallets! A big rise in the duty on alcohol is right over the horizon.

The logic is not hard to follow. Good Old Gordo has just about sucked the life out of the duty on petrol and diesel. There is no room for manoeuvre on income tax or national insurance. The economy is slowing and house prices (chief arbiter of the nation's feel-good factor) are falling. (It's enough to drive anyone to the bottle!) To cap his day, England are about the be knocked out of the European Cup before they even get there – and by Abramovic's Russia no less!

It's not a good time to be PM. You can almost visualise the scenario where Gordo quits and begs Tony to come back and fact the music – the music for which he wrote the notes!

So, searching for some way to balance (only figuratively) the books, GOG needs a scapegoat. Cheap booze for the masses may be it. At least, he thinks so.

Wait a minute! Isn't this the bean-counter who has kept the duty on booze below inflation for the last ten years? Isn't, then, GOG the one to blame if booze is too cheap and fuelling a “let's get it down our necks fast” culture!

Answer? Yes!

Best case – in the next budget the duty on alcohol will be raised substantially. Worse case – GOG will find a way to raise the duty now – before the Christmas rush so he can really rake in the cash!

Remember, you heard it here first.

I wonder if it's possible to bet on an above-inflation rise in the duty on beer, wine and spirits in the next budget?

Can't stop, bit short of readies, must get down to William Hills before it closes – there is some easy money to be made if they will take the bet.