The Murdoch media have been less-than-subtly ramping up their attacks on the BBC in recent weeks, arguing that Auntie should not be allowed to publish what amounts to a free newspaper on its very extensive website. This is of course in no way connected to Rupert Murdoch's musings about starting to charge for news content on his own websites in the next twelve months.
Now James "I got the job on pure merit" Murdoch, President of News Corp, has pitched in with an all-out assault on the BBC and on the regulation of UK media. Murdoch wants the BBC to be "much, much smaller" and wants it to stop using public money to compete with commercial newsgathering operations such as Sky News. He also wants the requirement for TV to provide unbiased news coverage to be eliminated.
Let's see if I understand this. It's OK for News Corp., owned and controlled by a man who changed his nationality in order to circumvent media ownership rules in the United States, to seize a near-monopoly of satellite TV in the UK; it's OK to take most live sport off the free airwaves, coming close to destroying the actual sports in the process, and it's OK to use the group's print media, especially The Sun, to provide shameless plugs for the rest of the group's outlets. But it's an outrage for the publicly-owned BBC to disseminate the products of its newsgathering team, which is probably still the best in the world, over the Internet in competition with Murdoch's rather less vaunted crew.
As for the "unbiased" requirement, anyone who has seen Murdoch's Fox News outlet in the US (motto "Fair and Balanced"!) will perhaps have some doubts about letting the same breed of knuckle-dragging bigots loose on the British airwaves. (Mr Eugenides provides a link to a hilarious piece by Fox's singularly loathsome Glenn Beck here).
The worrying thing is that the BBC has so few defenders among the political classes these days. Labour has probably still not forgiven the whole "dodgy dossier" episode, and has certainly taken Murdoch's shilling in the past ("it was The Sun wot won it"). Now that Murdoch is clearly planning to endorse the Tories in the next election, you wonder what favours he may be looking for in return.
Reportedly, James Murdoch and Robert Peston got into a big shouting match after Murdoch's speech. Normally this would be one of those fights where I'd be rooting for both egomaniacal combatants to get KO'd, but in this case I'm firmly in Pesto's corner.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Friday, 28 August 2009
Ryanisation
I'm no fan of Ryanair: its mendacious pricing, its borderline flouting of regulations and its outright contempt for its customers. A couple of Saturdays ago it provided 11 check-in desks at Stansted Airport while operating over 250 flights. Thousands of passengers were left behind, but of course as Ryanair sees it, that's their fault, or possibly the airport's, and they won't be getting any compensation.
Luckily I have a choice of airlines. I flew Ryanair a couple of times, when it was smaller and marginally less unpleasant than it is now, but I consciously avoid having anything to do with it any more.
It seems that some people admire Ryanair rather more than I do. According to The Guardian and other papers, the local (Tory) council in the London Borough of Barnet are looking at the Ryanair model in the provision of public services. It's not entirely clear what this means, but it appears that the council is looking to provide only the most basic of services "free" (i.e. paid for by all taxpayers), while charging for anything it deems to be an add-on.
Predictably, there's talk of contracting out service provision to the private sector, as if that's a new idea. Just about everything in my own area (which as it happens is just north of Barnet) is already contracted out. Some things, such as rubbish collection, work tolerably well, though I'm not entirely thrilled by the fact that the recycling lorry turns up at 6:30 in the morning. Others, such as road maintenance, are expensive and appallingly badly done.
Even if the private sector could do the job better, though, there would still be a philosophical issue. I have two levels of choice with Ryanair: to travel with them or not; and if I do travel with them, to pay for all the "extras" or not. I don't have the first and more important of those choices with my local council -- I can't get someone else to repair the potholes at the end of my street. Efficiency is a desirable thing, in both private and public sectors. However, it's wrong to assume that the pricing practices that might work for a wholly discretionary transaction, like that 6am flight to Bydgoszcz, can be applied to the monopoly provision of public services.
Luckily I have a choice of airlines. I flew Ryanair a couple of times, when it was smaller and marginally less unpleasant than it is now, but I consciously avoid having anything to do with it any more.
It seems that some people admire Ryanair rather more than I do. According to The Guardian and other papers, the local (Tory) council in the London Borough of Barnet are looking at the Ryanair model in the provision of public services. It's not entirely clear what this means, but it appears that the council is looking to provide only the most basic of services "free" (i.e. paid for by all taxpayers), while charging for anything it deems to be an add-on.
Predictably, there's talk of contracting out service provision to the private sector, as if that's a new idea. Just about everything in my own area (which as it happens is just north of Barnet) is already contracted out. Some things, such as rubbish collection, work tolerably well, though I'm not entirely thrilled by the fact that the recycling lorry turns up at 6:30 in the morning. Others, such as road maintenance, are expensive and appallingly badly done.
Even if the private sector could do the job better, though, there would still be a philosophical issue. I have two levels of choice with Ryanair: to travel with them or not; and if I do travel with them, to pay for all the "extras" or not. I don't have the first and more important of those choices with my local council -- I can't get someone else to repair the potholes at the end of my street. Efficiency is a desirable thing, in both private and public sectors. However, it's wrong to assume that the pricing practices that might work for a wholly discretionary transaction, like that 6am flight to Bydgoszcz, can be applied to the monopoly provision of public services.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
The quality of mercy
It's not difficult to make the case for the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. There is plenty of evidence that his conviction as it stands is unsafe -- al-Megrahi appears to have been fitted up. Private Eye has been saying this for years, and so have relatives of some of the UK victims. In the normal course you'd be content to wait for the evidence against the conviction to be tested on appeal in court. But al-Megrahi has terminal prostate cancer, and may well be dead before the appeal process is through, so there's at least a makeable case for releasing him on compassionate grounds. Which is what the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenneth McAskill, has chosen to do.
But if the decision to free al-Megrahi is defensible, how come everyone involved looks so bad?
* McAskill erred badly in meeting al-Megrahi a few weeks before announcing his release, which inevitably creates the impression that some kind of a deal was struck.
* McAskill's boss, Scotttish First Minister Alex Salmond, has been unable to resist the temptation to indulge in his usual bluster and grandstanding.
* As the furore has grown, the UK government has cravenly hidden behind the legal nicety that the decision is "Scotland's alone", ignoring the fact that (a) the UK concluded a prisoner exchange treaty with Libya early this year -- and al-Megrahi is/was the only Libyan in UK custody; (b) Gordon Brown discussed the issue with Muammar Ghadafi some months ago, and (c) Lord Mandelson appears to number a prominent Libyan or two among the slightly dubious characters he habitually meets on other people's yachts.
* The Libyan government, and al-Megrahi himself, seem to have reneged on an apparent undertaking to keep his return to Tripoli as low key as possible. Even if al-Megrahi were completely innocent -- which is very unlikely -- this would be insensitive at best and contemptuous at worst.
However, the dubious honour of exhibiting the worst behaviour of all in this sorry saga has surely gone to the Americans. The level of government and public outrage over McAskill's decision is nauseating, considering the Americans' own record. Less than a year before the Lockerbie atrocity, a US warship (the USS Vincennes) shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, with the loss of more than 200 lives. No-one has ever been punished in any way for this. Just last week, even as the screaming about al-Megrahi was reaching a fever pitch, the US released several members of an Iraqi terrorist group that kidnapped five British citizens in Iraq a few years ago. Supposedly the group has repented of its past misdeeds. However, none of the hostages has ever been found, and four of them are presumed dead. The release ends any hopes of bringing these people to justice.
The repugnant John Bolton was all over the TV news last night, fulminating about al-Megrahi's release. He noted that al-Megrahi had served 14 days in jail for each of the Lockerbie victims. Hell, Bolton has all sorts of buddies who are responsible for much higher body counts than al-Megrahi stood accused of, and none of them has done any jail time at all. As one irate Scottish blogger puts it, "stuff some more freedom fries in yer yap and gie's peace".
But if the decision to free al-Megrahi is defensible, how come everyone involved looks so bad?
* McAskill erred badly in meeting al-Megrahi a few weeks before announcing his release, which inevitably creates the impression that some kind of a deal was struck.
* McAskill's boss, Scotttish First Minister Alex Salmond, has been unable to resist the temptation to indulge in his usual bluster and grandstanding.
* As the furore has grown, the UK government has cravenly hidden behind the legal nicety that the decision is "Scotland's alone", ignoring the fact that (a) the UK concluded a prisoner exchange treaty with Libya early this year -- and al-Megrahi is/was the only Libyan in UK custody; (b) Gordon Brown discussed the issue with Muammar Ghadafi some months ago, and (c) Lord Mandelson appears to number a prominent Libyan or two among the slightly dubious characters he habitually meets on other people's yachts.
* The Libyan government, and al-Megrahi himself, seem to have reneged on an apparent undertaking to keep his return to Tripoli as low key as possible. Even if al-Megrahi were completely innocent -- which is very unlikely -- this would be insensitive at best and contemptuous at worst.
However, the dubious honour of exhibiting the worst behaviour of all in this sorry saga has surely gone to the Americans. The level of government and public outrage over McAskill's decision is nauseating, considering the Americans' own record. Less than a year before the Lockerbie atrocity, a US warship (the USS Vincennes) shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, with the loss of more than 200 lives. No-one has ever been punished in any way for this. Just last week, even as the screaming about al-Megrahi was reaching a fever pitch, the US released several members of an Iraqi terrorist group that kidnapped five British citizens in Iraq a few years ago. Supposedly the group has repented of its past misdeeds. However, none of the hostages has ever been found, and four of them are presumed dead. The release ends any hopes of bringing these people to justice.
The repugnant John Bolton was all over the TV news last night, fulminating about al-Megrahi's release. He noted that al-Megrahi had served 14 days in jail for each of the Lockerbie victims. Hell, Bolton has all sorts of buddies who are responsible for much higher body counts than al-Megrahi stood accused of, and none of them has done any jail time at all. As one irate Scottish blogger puts it, "stuff some more freedom fries in yer yap and gie's peace".
Friday, 21 August 2009
"It all makes work for the working man to do"
One of the Keynes's best-remembered suggestions for dealing with the Great Depression was that it would make sense for governments to pay workers to dig holes and then fill them in again. I'm happy to report that in today's troubled economic times, at least one sector is taking the old Bloomsburyite at his word.
We had a small leak in the water main under the pavement in front of our house this week.
On Tuesday morning I called the water company to report the leak. (Tally so far: workers 1; vehicles 0).
On Tuesday afternoon a man came and looked at the leak and marked the spot with blue dye. He was onsite for about 10 minutes. (Tally so far: workers 2; vehicles 1).
On Wednesday morning two men turned up, dug up the pavement and fixed the leak. They were onsite for an hour and a half, of which at least 45 minutes was spent erecting barriers, signs and so on. Our street is a 50-metre-long cul-de-sac with four houses but hey, you can't be too careful. Anyway, tally so far: workers 4; vehicles 2.
On Thursday afternoon two men turned up in a massive truck. They took down all the barriers and signs, scooped up the stuff the previous crew had dug out of the hole, filled in the hole with fresh screed and tamped it down to a depth of about 6 inches. Then they put all the barriers and signs back up. Time taken: 15 minutes. (Tally so far: workers 6; vehicles 3).
On Friday morning two workers came and took down the barriers again, moving them onto my neighbour's property. They filled the hole with tarmac and smoothed it over, then left. Time taken: 10 minutes. (Tally so far: workers 8; vehicles 4).
Finally, at lunchtime on Friday two men turned up, took 5 minutes to load all the barriers and signs onto a small truck and drove away. Job done! Final tally: workers 10; vehicles 5.
I can have no possible complaints about the speedy response to my initial call, and I suppose the contractor has figured out that this is the most cost-effective way to work. In the old days, though, I'm pretty sure that one truck would have showed up with all the tools needed for the job, there would have been a whole lot less arsing around with barriers and it would all have been completed in one afternoon. Still, I'm sure Keynes would have enjoyed it.
We had a small leak in the water main under the pavement in front of our house this week.
On Tuesday morning I called the water company to report the leak. (Tally so far: workers 1; vehicles 0).
On Tuesday afternoon a man came and looked at the leak and marked the spot with blue dye. He was onsite for about 10 minutes. (Tally so far: workers 2; vehicles 1).
On Wednesday morning two men turned up, dug up the pavement and fixed the leak. They were onsite for an hour and a half, of which at least 45 minutes was spent erecting barriers, signs and so on. Our street is a 50-metre-long cul-de-sac with four houses but hey, you can't be too careful. Anyway, tally so far: workers 4; vehicles 2.
On Thursday afternoon two men turned up in a massive truck. They took down all the barriers and signs, scooped up the stuff the previous crew had dug out of the hole, filled in the hole with fresh screed and tamped it down to a depth of about 6 inches. Then they put all the barriers and signs back up. Time taken: 15 minutes. (Tally so far: workers 6; vehicles 3).
On Friday morning two workers came and took down the barriers again, moving them onto my neighbour's property. They filled the hole with tarmac and smoothed it over, then left. Time taken: 10 minutes. (Tally so far: workers 8; vehicles 4).
Finally, at lunchtime on Friday two men turned up, took 5 minutes to load all the barriers and signs onto a small truck and drove away. Job done! Final tally: workers 10; vehicles 5.
I can have no possible complaints about the speedy response to my initial call, and I suppose the contractor has figured out that this is the most cost-effective way to work. In the old days, though, I'm pretty sure that one truck would have showed up with all the tools needed for the job, there would have been a whole lot less arsing around with barriers and it would all have been completed in one afternoon. Still, I'm sure Keynes would have enjoyed it.
Monday, 17 August 2009
USA vs. NHS
In the eyes of its supporters, the American medical system can do no wrong, but it's evidently been powerless to prevent a severe outbreak of foaming at the mouth in and around the Republican Party. I'm not sure why they're picking on the NHS: Canada is a lot closer at hand and has a much more state-dominated health system -- private care is essentially illegal in Canada, apart from dentistry and eyecare, which it certainly isn't in the UK. (Maybe Republicans don't know where Canada and Europe are located in relation to the US. A Spanish colleague of mine once recounted how he had pitched up in St Louis as a student. One of his hosts asked him how long it had taken to drive from Spain to Missouri).
But I digress. Anyway, there's been a lot of humour to be had in the attacks on the NHS. One of my favourites so far has been the broadcaster Sean Hannity, who talked about a man in Lancashire who couldn't find an NHS dentist and decided to reattach a crown using Superglue. "If Obama gets his way" said Hannity, "better stock up on Superglue". It's possible that Hannity doesn't know that you can get private dental care in the UK -- i.e. that you have a choice, which is what the Republicans are supposedly fighting for -- but I think it's much more likely that he chose to conceal that fact from his audience.
It's unfortunate that it's come to this, because if you look beyond the imbecilic ravings of Hannity (and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Mark Steyn, to name just a few), there are some sensible voices to be heard on the US right. David Frum (a former George Bush speechwriter, but just this once we won't hold that against him) had an excellent piece in The Times at the end of last week, though unfortunately it's vanished from their website. He noted that the US Government already spends as high a proportion of GDP on health as countries like Canada and the UK do; what drives the overall proportion of US GDP dedicated to health to such extraordinary levels is the amount spent by the private sector, mostly financed through insurance. Frum argues that Government health spending is growing unsustainably fast. His take on the situation is that a lot of the opposition to the Obama plans is coming from senior citizens, who are major recipients of Government health funds and who fear that the Obama plan will direct some of the money away from them. Hence the scare stories about death panels, drug rationing and so on. It's our old friends the grey greedies again, in their US incarnation.
Frum may be right about a lot of this, but I don't think his dispassionate analysis has much in common with the mob protests that are taking place every day across the US. For example, Frum argues that nobody is ever denied treatment at emergency rooms. Hospitals simply add the costs for those who can't or won't pay onto the bills of those who do. This would undoubtedly be news to one redneck I saw last week, screaming into the camera that "these people want their healthcare paid for by those of us who work for a living". Sounds like that's already happening, Bubba.
Ultimately I guess it's none of our business if the US wants to bankrupt itself to pay for healthcare that in terms of measurable outcomes is no better than that in the rest of the world. I just wish they hadn't dragged us into the debate.
FOOTNOTE: an interesting (racial) angle on the US health care debate here.
But I digress. Anyway, there's been a lot of humour to be had in the attacks on the NHS. One of my favourites so far has been the broadcaster Sean Hannity, who talked about a man in Lancashire who couldn't find an NHS dentist and decided to reattach a crown using Superglue. "If Obama gets his way" said Hannity, "better stock up on Superglue". It's possible that Hannity doesn't know that you can get private dental care in the UK -- i.e. that you have a choice, which is what the Republicans are supposedly fighting for -- but I think it's much more likely that he chose to conceal that fact from his audience.
It's unfortunate that it's come to this, because if you look beyond the imbecilic ravings of Hannity (and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Mark Steyn, to name just a few), there are some sensible voices to be heard on the US right. David Frum (a former George Bush speechwriter, but just this once we won't hold that against him) had an excellent piece in The Times at the end of last week, though unfortunately it's vanished from their website. He noted that the US Government already spends as high a proportion of GDP on health as countries like Canada and the UK do; what drives the overall proportion of US GDP dedicated to health to such extraordinary levels is the amount spent by the private sector, mostly financed through insurance. Frum argues that Government health spending is growing unsustainably fast. His take on the situation is that a lot of the opposition to the Obama plans is coming from senior citizens, who are major recipients of Government health funds and who fear that the Obama plan will direct some of the money away from them. Hence the scare stories about death panels, drug rationing and so on. It's our old friends the grey greedies again, in their US incarnation.
Frum may be right about a lot of this, but I don't think his dispassionate analysis has much in common with the mob protests that are taking place every day across the US. For example, Frum argues that nobody is ever denied treatment at emergency rooms. Hospitals simply add the costs for those who can't or won't pay onto the bills of those who do. This would undoubtedly be news to one redneck I saw last week, screaming into the camera that "these people want their healthcare paid for by those of us who work for a living". Sounds like that's already happening, Bubba.
Ultimately I guess it's none of our business if the US wants to bankrupt itself to pay for healthcare that in terms of measurable outcomes is no better than that in the rest of the world. I just wish they hadn't dragged us into the debate.
FOOTNOTE: an interesting (racial) angle on the US health care debate here.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Eurozone growth shock horror
Bill Emmott, former editor of The Economist, grabbed a chunk of The Times op-ed page today to argue that the coming economic recovery will provide a vindication of Thatcherism. According to Bill, it is the more liberal and flexible economies, like the US and Britain, that will benefit the most from the upturn.
Oops. Within hours of The Times hitting the news stands, both Germany and France reported GDP growth of 0.3% in the second quarter of the year, a period in which liberal Britain and flexible US both recorded further falls in output. Both France and Germany saw higher personal consumption, partly in response to car scrappage schemes, as well as improvements in the construction sector.
It will be a long time before anyone can write a definitive account of how the recession unfolded, let alone assess the effectiveness of the fiscal and economic policy measures taken in various countries. Who knows, Bill Emmott's view may even turn out to be accurate in the long run, which is why I'm getting my jeering in now.
That said, I think it's already possible to venture a few thoughts on the relative stances of various central banks. The Fed has been widely praised for its prompt response to the crisis; the Bank of England rather less so. But both must bear responsibility for fostering their countries' debt-financed consumption booms in the first place, through excessively easy monetary policy. In contrast, the ECB (and my other favourite, the RBA) largely ignored pleadings to keep feeding the beast by cutting rates.
As we may now be seeing, it's easier to boost your economy when stimulus is really needed if you haven't already shot your bolt. For overborrowed consumers in the US and the UK, the instinctive first response to emergency cuts in interest rates has been to increase savings and start paying down debt, which is the exact opposite of what the economies need. In countries like France and Germany, where the consumer wasn't tapped out in the first place, stimulus can be much more effective. The steady-as-she-goes approach of the ECB, much ridiculed by Anglo-Saxon commentators during the go-go years, suddenly seems a lot smarter than the trigger-happy lurching around of the Fed and the Bank of England.
Interestingly, I heard an animated debate on CNBC earlier this week about the fate of Fed Chairman Bernanke, whose term expires fairly soon. There seem to be a lot of people gunning for him: supposedly, opinion polls show that Americans distrust the Fed even more than they distrust the IRS. Good old Larry ("who ate all the pies and all the pizzas?") Summers was one of the names mooted as a replacement. I think this would be unfair on Bernanke, who is a student of the Great Depression and whose actions once the crisis broke were massive and effective. I'd have been much more inclined to fire his predecessor -- any time after 1998, basically -- but it's too late for that.
Oops. Within hours of The Times hitting the news stands, both Germany and France reported GDP growth of 0.3% in the second quarter of the year, a period in which liberal Britain and flexible US both recorded further falls in output. Both France and Germany saw higher personal consumption, partly in response to car scrappage schemes, as well as improvements in the construction sector.
It will be a long time before anyone can write a definitive account of how the recession unfolded, let alone assess the effectiveness of the fiscal and economic policy measures taken in various countries. Who knows, Bill Emmott's view may even turn out to be accurate in the long run, which is why I'm getting my jeering in now.
That said, I think it's already possible to venture a few thoughts on the relative stances of various central banks. The Fed has been widely praised for its prompt response to the crisis; the Bank of England rather less so. But both must bear responsibility for fostering their countries' debt-financed consumption booms in the first place, through excessively easy monetary policy. In contrast, the ECB (and my other favourite, the RBA) largely ignored pleadings to keep feeding the beast by cutting rates.
As we may now be seeing, it's easier to boost your economy when stimulus is really needed if you haven't already shot your bolt. For overborrowed consumers in the US and the UK, the instinctive first response to emergency cuts in interest rates has been to increase savings and start paying down debt, which is the exact opposite of what the economies need. In countries like France and Germany, where the consumer wasn't tapped out in the first place, stimulus can be much more effective. The steady-as-she-goes approach of the ECB, much ridiculed by Anglo-Saxon commentators during the go-go years, suddenly seems a lot smarter than the trigger-happy lurching around of the Fed and the Bank of England.
Interestingly, I heard an animated debate on CNBC earlier this week about the fate of Fed Chairman Bernanke, whose term expires fairly soon. There seem to be a lot of people gunning for him: supposedly, opinion polls show that Americans distrust the Fed even more than they distrust the IRS. Good old Larry ("who ate all the pies and all the pizzas?") Summers was one of the names mooted as a replacement. I think this would be unfair on Bernanke, who is a student of the Great Depression and whose actions once the crisis broke were massive and effective. I'd have been much more inclined to fire his predecessor -- any time after 1998, basically -- but it's too late for that.
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Inglourious banking basterds
HSBC makes £3 billion-plus profit! Still not doing enough to boost lending! Uncooperative bastards!
Barclays makes £3 billion-plus profit! Starts paying big bonuses again! Arrogant bastards!
Northern Rock loses £700 million! Too many bad loans! Useless bastards!
Lloyds loses £4 billion! Fooled into taking over loss-making HBOS! Naive bastards!
Word up to Alastair, George, Vince and most of the media: if any one of you has a coherent sentence to utter about what you think the banks should be doing, please feel free to utter it now. Otherwise, it might be better to just, you know, SHUT IT.
Barclays makes £3 billion-plus profit! Starts paying big bonuses again! Arrogant bastards!
Northern Rock loses £700 million! Too many bad loans! Useless bastards!
Lloyds loses £4 billion! Fooled into taking over loss-making HBOS! Naive bastards!
Word up to Alastair, George, Vince and most of the media: if any one of you has a coherent sentence to utter about what you think the banks should be doing, please feel free to utter it now. Otherwise, it might be better to just, you know, SHUT IT.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Mind the gap
Silly me! For a while there, I believed that the government was seriously strapped for cash. Why, just this past week, de facto Prime Minister Lord Mandelson said that public spending plans would have to be cut back.
Then we hear of a plan for the government to finance gap years abroad for 500 of this year's graduates, who won't be able to find jobs at home because of the current depressed state of the economy. (This, of course, is in no way the result of the dumbing down of university degrees noted in a report by a committee of MPs this very weekend). The gap year scheme will fall under the remit of....Lord Mandelson.
In other news, over 600 workers at a factory on the Isle of Wight are in the process of being made redundant. The factory makes wind turbines. The government has pledged itself to create "green" jobs and is banking on a massive expansion of wind power to help reduce carbon emissions. Maybe Lord Mandelson can get his 500 graduates to explain what's going on here, because I sure as hell can't figure it out.
Then we hear of a plan for the government to finance gap years abroad for 500 of this year's graduates, who won't be able to find jobs at home because of the current depressed state of the economy. (This, of course, is in no way the result of the dumbing down of university degrees noted in a report by a committee of MPs this very weekend). The gap year scheme will fall under the remit of....Lord Mandelson.
In other news, over 600 workers at a factory on the Isle of Wight are in the process of being made redundant. The factory makes wind turbines. The government has pledged itself to create "green" jobs and is banking on a massive expansion of wind power to help reduce carbon emissions. Maybe Lord Mandelson can get his 500 graduates to explain what's going on here, because I sure as hell can't figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)