BBC Blog Network

User Profile

dlilley

Listed below are comments made by dlilley between Tuesday, 28th July 2009 and Monday, 9th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

The Treasury hedge fund 8:24pm on 09 Nov 2009 In the US they called their assest protection scheme "TARPS" and earlier this year many US banks paid back their troubled asset protection funds to the state and the state made a profit of 17%.

I have floated an idea that may be naive but it goes like this. We have a national debt approaching £1t and interest payments will be £1,000 per head next year. 20% of our current paper issue has been bought with QE funds. My proposal is that the G20 central bankers meet and agree an equitable reduction in QE that would leave most countries with no deficit. Just like coordinated interest rate cuts allow rates to be cut to near zero around the world with no impact on FOREX, capital movements and import costs, so, coordinated QE cuts would not impact on balances.

I would just like to say something fundamental about banks and interventionism.

Banks are owned by shareholders, everything they did had to be approved by shareholders and shareholders are smart because they are pension funds employing professionals. We may ignore this fundamental and attack the bank directors but the truth is that society at large was convinced that the national and global economy was on the up when it wasn't.

We so often use the word "capitalism" to describe first world economies yet capitalism was replaced by interventionism some 150 years ago. The state intervens; first preventing children chimney sweeps, taking 50% income tax plus 11% NIC, spending more than the rest of the country put together, etc. The interventionist here were so busy taxing, borrowing, spending and hiring that they took their eye off their real business, that of governing. They so stimulated GDP by taking PFI and tuition fee subs and removing pensions tax credit that most of us did not know we were having jam today. Banks lent on the back of false economic growth and a subprime government. Only Patience Wheatcroft of the Times was telling us that the interventionists had taken £2000b from pensions and we have yet to feel the consequence when we realise we have no jam tomorrow.

We may have one committee room where we berate banks for lending too much and another committee room where we berate them for not lending sufficiently. We can hold this contradiction without smiling because we don't have a position on the line other than looking good to our voters.

Whilst we are busy talking about the ghost of capitalism we are not putting checks and balances on the out of control interventionists. The first check should be to stop them spending the next generation's income today. The next generation should decide how to spend their income.
Brown and markets 11:57pm on 05 Oct 2009 I sometimes think that everyone is missing the point. The "Nice Decade" observed by Dr. King was not so nice when we remember that much of the money circulating and delivering positive GDP was borrowed money that would have to be paid back sometime in the future.

When the central bankers Ben and Mervin took cogniscience of the debt bubble (house prices at three times historical norms here and double in the US) and started to stop debt growing to bursting point by raising interest rates it was too late. The bubble did not contract but burst and led to the credit crunch. The credit crunch was the consequence of the debt bubble. Debt was the cause of our problems.

Regards,

David Lilley
The politics of 'proper behaviour' 01:10am on 02 Oct 2009 There are such simple answers to our problems. Problem solving is our fortee. It is what we do best. But it is not in the interests of state funded law enforcement. They need criminals. It is their income.

We could multiply Police presence on the streets 5 fold by giving them an Ipod such that they could be illiterate but still have all the evidence in the bag. We could double sentances if you were lying and then they would own up and we wouldn't have to pay the courts time.

We pay so many to encourage criminallity by making it their livelehood.

Regards,

David Lilley
The politics of 'proper behaviour' 00:26am on 02 Oct 2009 It was such a simple mistake. "Tough on crime and the causes of crime".

Tough on crime meant an automatic halving of sentences. Tough on the causes of crime meant every criminal was not a criminal but a poor victim of the causes of crime. Nevermind the victim, there is no revenue in helping the victim whilst we would have a major problem with revenue if we eliminated crime. Crime pays us big time.

If you are confused then ask a criminal whether crime pays. It pays them, the police, the probation service and the legal aid lawyers. Punish crime and the prisons would be empty. How easy is it to arrest a criminal when 70% are unable to read or write, 70% have drug problems and 70% have leaning difficulties.

Regards,

David Lilley
Are 'broken families' responsible for 'Broken Britain'? 11:21pm on 07 Sep 2009 I have not been challenged to return and defend my statistics this time but I do have a little more to say.

Firstly you might read IDS's email to Mark Easton at the bottom of Mark's piece above.

Secondly, for the many who said having a single parent didn't prevent them doing well at school. It didn't with me. It doesn't with servicemen's children. It does, however, when there are drugs, alcohol, deprivation and antisocial parents.

Thirdly, lets stop knocking our servants, our politicians. You are being political if you are reading this and you are being political if you post a comment and I for one am pleased that you devote your time to this big subject and I call none of you a troll. Basically there is politics (talking) or war (fighting).

When John Major was PM he said "3% of pupils leave school unable to read and write and 7% leave with no qualifications, do they all want to be PM? Schools are failing them." (from memory). Last year 12% of sixteen year olds left with no qualifications and I think the BBC reported that it was as high as 25% with white boys. Bradford had 20% truancy with white pupils a few years ago and some 10 years ago it was estimated that a truant costs the tax payer £2m over his lifetime.

Enough depressing statistics. This is a great country and I could present 1m statistics to corroborate that and I could even present some non-demon solutions but if you check out the Social Justice Policy Group website you will find some professional (non amateur) solutions. I am an engineer and apologise for being personal when arguing.

Regards,

David Lilley
Are 'broken families' responsible for 'Broken Britain'? 11:08pm on 04 Sep 2009 In reply to #80 and 82.

Thankyou for your interest in my statistics. I have returned to my source and make the following qualifications:

-If you wish to visit the data it is online on the Social Policy Justice Group website. IDS is the founder and was chairman of the report but the data comes from dozens of organisations, mostly charites, and none of the contributors were paid. It is now, as one of you states, "The Breakdown Britain" report but I think it was initially titled "The Broken Britain" report and this put the term Broken Britain into parlance. I sent emails to the IFS and others at the time quoting the following figures from the Broken Britain report and not the Breakdown Britain report.

-the figures I have quoted from memory should read;

The children from lone parent families are 75% more likely to fail at school (from the Breakdown Britain report). The near 100% failure at school belongs to those in care homes. And for those who leave school with no qualifications the outcomes are stark with 5% spending time sleeping on the streets, 20% in and out of prison, 30% (not 40%) alcoholic, 30% (not 40%) drug addicts and 70% clinically depressed.

-The following figures come from the Breakdown Britain report:

70% (and elsewhere 50%) of all young offenders come from loan parent families. The 70% figure may include those from care homes.

1/3 of all prisoners come from single parent families.

Children from loan families are;

75% more likely to fail at school
70% more likely to be drug addicts
50% more likely to be alcoholics
35% more likely to be unemployed

I am not on this comments page for social networking. I spend most of my time hanging around under bridges waiting for goats. I felt it necessary to protest against the Mark Easton/BBC/OECD report that flew in the face of these statistics. This is a lot of misery to be in denial about. The first step in solving a problem is to understand it, truth is correspondance with the facts and in infinite regress does not help. My memory wasn't that bad from a 30,000 word report that I read two years ago.

Please make some comments on the Andre Aggossi school.

Regards,

David Lilley (my own name)
Are 'broken families' responsible for 'Broken Britain'? 10:33pm on 03 Sep 2009 # 30 DameMolestrangler

Thankyou for your interest in my statistics. I memorised them from last year's Conservative Party "Broken Britain" report. You will find many more similar statistics therein.

You may also wish to research Andre Aggossi's school in Las Vegas which has the following statistics, again from memory:

-located in the worst part of town

-high demand for places

-annual running costs are half the state average

-it is a state school and not private

-most of the pupils are black

-most of the children are from single parent families and most of the fathers are in prison

-outcomes are nothing less than fantastic and from a standing start it is one of the top state schools in the US

-it attracts good teachers because pay is good because school hours are longer than other schools so they work longer hours and more weeks per year for their higher rewards

-if you attended the school from 4 to 18 you would spend 2 years longer at school than at a normal US school

-the key is in the robust parent school contract and of course the extra school-time

-the political message is "I (Andre) can do this at half the cost per pupil per year so why can't you?"

I hope that these statistics also generate some interest.

Regards,

David Lilley
Matching jobs to the jobless 01:31am on 03 Sep 2009 In the two years following EU enlargement in 2004 1,000,000 guest workers came to the UK with jobs to go to. 600,000 came from the new EU states and some 400,000 were Poles.

I live in rural North Yorkshire where local employers had to use agencies to get help because local adverts did not deliver. At that time a Pole could earn 5 to 6 times more than he or she could earn in Poland for the same work. Many Poles were doctors and graduates but they were eager to come here and face many challenges to earn money to send home. "Get on your bike heros" is an appropriate phrase to describe them. They did not take our jobs but rather they did the work that we were encouraged from doing by our "being better off on benefits".

We face a world where we can so easily fail and be rewarded for failing whilst Poles face a world where even their girl-guides were killed because they could read and write and may lead an uprising.

We should not tempt people from working with benefits nor disincentifise them from working with taxation. Work is good. Having one in six of your neighbours better off than you by not working is bad and you will surely join them. You did not win the war. Your grand-parents did. And they did it by working.

Regards,

David Lilley
Are 'broken families' responsible for 'Broken Britain'? 00:28am on 03 Sep 2009 IDC is correct in protesting against Mark's report. We are making a story out of the OEDC's challenge to the Conservative's "Broken Britain" report in the same vain as we never gave much coverage to the "Broken Britain" report.

Our outcomes from broken homes are there for everyone to judge. Almost 100% of children in single parent families leave school with no qualifications. 20% spend their life in and out of prison where 80% of prisoners cannot read and write, 40% become alcoholics, 40% become drug addicts and 70% become clinically depressed. These are our outcomes nevermind the global picture.

Daddy leaves primarily due to financial pressure and his awareness that his family will be better off financially without him. The state is a partner in waiting and to every single parent mother there is a lonely and near destitute father with no support group like the BBC. This throws further financial pressure onto his peers of similar income and family breakup accelerates threefold in 20 years.

Regards,

David Lilley
Make a comment on youth unemployment 9:43pm on 28 Jul 2009 I don't make light comment because so many of the 1m NEETs have desperately sad stories like Drew Miles, comment number 21.
Employers are the ones who employ but the rules are so hostile and therefore restrict the employers desire to employ. Many small traders work incredible hours every day of the year except Christmas day but cannot afford to share their workload with NEETs.

When 1m quest workers came to the UK in a two year period following the expansion of the EU in 2004 they came with a job to go to and the vast majority were paid NMW or better. There are NEETs who could have taken this work in every case.

David Lilley

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

dlilley