BBC Blog Network

User Profile

sweetsmellofsuccess

Listed below are comments made by sweetsmellofsuccess between Tuesday, 14th July 2009 and Friday, 23rd October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

First draft of UK economic history 1:23pm on 23 Oct 2009 Just a few points:

Firstly, what do all those City "experts" do all day? They've spent three months guessing whether GDP will go up/down/nowhere, and got it hopelessly wrong. They are often "surprised" by what happens to interest rates, as well. Hmm. Perhaps they aren't experts after all, then. You could toss a coin with roughly the same degree of accuracy, it would seem.

Secondly, where are all those other "experts" who predicted this would be a white-collar recession, affecting London, professional groups, and women most severely? As Hugh Pym has diligently pointed out, all those assertions turned out to be complete cobblers as well. As usual, London and the chattering classes are doing best in the downturn. Manufacturing, most places north of Watford, and manual male labour, are doing the worst. Plus ca change...

Why would we now take the views of these "experts" seriously about when/how the recovery will take place?
Will we miss the targets? 6:12pm on 20 Oct 2009 A good article, Mark, but it is based on the premise that you believe central control will reduce.

It is doubtful that either Labour or the Conservatives will actually yield control. To do so would mean standing in front of a microphone and stating that local services are a local matter, and nothing to do with the minister beyond a general strategic direction. No politician in this country is going to do that.

What will change is the nature of that central control. Expect to see more use of 'target-by-budget' (targets effectively set through the giving/withdrawal of funding) and 'retrospective control' (using audit/inspection to retrospectively control public services by naming/shaming/criticising those who not only fail to meet targets, but fail to carry out the prescribed processes in the prescribed manner).

Not a party political point - either party will be doing this post-2010.
Can Brown stay silent? 11:42am on 24 Aug 2009 This is a domestic decision with international consequences. The decision itself has quite rightly rested with the Scottish government in Holyrood, who have constitutional responsibility for justice matters. In my view, the right decision was made, although the process was mishandled by the SNP and gave some mixed signals that were unnecessary.

However, the implications of the decision run to the international stage, and to responsibilities of the UK government - trade, terrorism, diplomatic relations. These fall beyond any single minister, and so Gordon Brown is accountable for them. Especially so, since the process of negotiation with Libya has been going on at a senior level for many years, beyond the reach of Holyrood.

However, once again Mr Brown is absent when it suits him. He's happy to pipe up with feeble 'down with the kids' tripe about SuBo or a football match. When it comes to genuine accountability for political decisions, he has a long and wretched history of believing that others should cover for him. Yet another reason why he is so temperamentally and personally unsuited to be Prime Minister.
Time to say goodbye 5:22pm on 19 Aug 2009 Perhaps you could ask your bosses, Justin, to change the job title for your successor. 'Correspondent for the United States', maybe. Or 'Correspondent for reporting everything Obama does'. But not 'North America correspondent'. Because in all your time dining out in Georgetown you only blogged on Canada once (a story about Obama, natch) and never blogged about Mexico. So 'North America' is something of a joke, no?

Now you're back, hopefully you will avoid the familiar BBC trait of living in London, reporting from London, using London as an example of everything, and quoting 'us' as if everyone lives inside the M25 and uses the Underground every day.

Hopefully.
Statistical gender bending 9:02pm on 07 Aug 2009 Given that Ms Harman had used this totally junk figure before, and been called on it by Sir Michael, the question should be:

Why didn't all of the media immediately jump on the statistic and denounce it for the misleading garbage it is?

There is a very real story to tell about inequality of opportunity, but using statistical fakery in this way merely obscures the real issues, and invites false conclusions and incorrect policies.
Obama stardust for teflon Rudd? 3:36pm on 07 Aug 2009 Petesyc:

The answer to your question about not being burned by the financial crisis could equally be Canada - no bank bailouts, a short recession and shallow budget deficit after a decade of surpluses, banks now moving into the world's top ten, and huge oil reserves.

As for Rudd, I have to agree that he is bland and nondescript and has shyed away from difficult or controversial decisions. I also agree that it makes sense for Obama to use Rudd's knowledge of China.
The long and slow recovery of the UK economy 10:51am on 22 Jul 2009 The ability of 'experts' to repeat what happened in the late 1980s/early 1990s - without realising they are doing so - is staggering.

In the late 1980s, we had an artificial boom based on house prices and cheap credit. Claims of a 'productivity revolution' turned out to be hot air. In 1990 the taps got turned off double-quick. Cue a recession, repossessions, banks demanding back the money they shouldn't have lent. Lots of hot air about 'lessons learned' and how a house is a 'nest not a nest egg', and how banks would introduce new systems so that 'this will never happen again'.

Fast forward to a few years ago. A mirage of a boom fostered by cheap credit, poor lending decisions and a housing boom. Lots of guff about how this was actually quite sustainable, and built on fundamentals that weren't there before. It all goes wrong; withdrawn credit, house prices plunge, unemployment, recession. Lots of talk about 'lessons learned', and how new systems will ensure 'this will never happen again'.

The interesting thing is what happened to public finances. I think I'm right that in 1992 the budget deficit was around 8% of GDP, yet by 1999 we were in surplus. Without (I worked in the public sector at the time) draconian cuts; just some pruning and reigning in of long-term costs.

I think forecasters (and journalists) tend to overshoot in each direction - boom or bust. I would think that, without going crazy and mangling our public services, we can be back in fiscal balance within six or seven years.

It would be interesting, Stephanie, to compare the rhetoric of the early 1990s with that of today. I think they would be remarkably similar.
Sharpening elbows 2:10pm on 21 Jul 2009 Well, making people pay tuition fees and take out student loans is a very good way of ensuring that the wealthy are the only people who can access jobs requiring a degree (medicine, law, accountancy). Self-evident, I'd have thought.

Additionally, high-paid jobs are mainly in London. Many capable people can't afford to move to London for a job that pays nothing (e.g. internships) but leads to better things. Since policy-makers and the journos who 'hold them to account' all live in London, they don't seem to even register this as an issue. This metrocentric assumption then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

The whole political/economic/financial/media/cultural system is totally Londoncentric. I mean, all your examples here, Mark, are from London. The Today Programme even carried out interviews about the pain of inequality from, wait for it, Hampstead. Inequality? Equal access to foccaccia? Where's my placard?
Arsenal will not miss Adebayor 1:37pm on 16 Jul 2009 I see the majority of the Gooners are saying "yeah, get rid of him, not world-class, not good enough for us, another master stroke by Wenger to get £25m".

Don't you see the irony of praising Wenger's 'genius' in this matter, when he's the guy who bought Adebayor and has played him as the main striker for the past two years? What 'genius' is involved in playing a sub-standard striker?

Arsenal have, for the past few seasons, played some very pretty football and lacked a goalscorer who could just roll the ball into the net. How many points have they dropped that way? Wenger has failed to address this year after year, relying on 'potential' from a variety of strikers who then fail to display it.

Michael Owen was going for free...
Is culture too London-centric? 9:13pm on 14 Jul 2009 Ooh, this is either cheeky, or a deliberate misunderstanding on your part. Mr Bradshaw is stating that UK culture is focused on London, not that everyone in Britain loves London and can't see past that to their own regional cultural offerings.

Culture in Britain is so overwhelmingly London-centric it isn't even funny. Of course the people in Manchester and Gateshead aren't London-centric. It's the people in London, who dominate policy, funding and organisation, who are so embedded inside the M25 you'd swear they aren't legally allowed to leave the capital. Chief culprit is the BBC, whose staff bleat and moan at the very prospect of having to live in Manchester, who barely seem capable of producing a news story unless it's in London, and produce 95% of the theatre, concert, book and film reviews from the comfort of their London armchair.

«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

sweetsmellofsuccess