I'm no Economist, but I can't escape the feeling that if we just stopped fiddling, the world would sort itself out

                                

Money, money, money, no one really understands what to do with it

At the end of last week, the EU leaders agreed on a 'historic' budget for the next seven years of something like £900bn. The actual figure was calcuated in Euros, but when you're dealing with numbers of this size, currency and exchange rates are pretty irrelevant. We'd be better off just saying 'a lot of money' or 'more money that any of us could ever really conceive of in any tangible way. It was also apparently a 'Victory' for DC as he'd achieved a 'cut' in the overall budget, but Britain's contributions were going to continue to rise. Meaning that Nigel Farage had an excuse to get on tv again, something which none of us really want. 

On the subject of Mr Farage, I'd like to take this opportunity to quote a tweet, of which I cannot recall the author, but whoever they are this is their joke: 'Voting UKIP because you don't like Labour or the Tories is like saying "I don't like Coke or Pepsi so I'll drink piss"'. 

It's unlikely that any of us will actually feel any noticable effect of the new deal with Europe, not that that justifies an obfuscation of the matter, as it does remain important. The point which I'm trying to make here is that getting up and angry about the actual economics seems to be a waste of time, unless you're an economist who understands what the problems (or otherwise) are with the way the deal has been done and why such large sums of money are being passed around in cyberspace. 

It's a similar issue with many of the broad sweeping cuts and the headlines that accompany them. Take this story for example 'Inheritance tax freeze to fund social care cap of £75,000'. In principle, I understand what they're trying to achieve. Which is people not having to pay for care when they reach retirement age, I can also see that what Jeremy *unt is attempting to do is tax people who get a large inheritance in order to pay for those who don't have much left to give when they die as they've sold it all to pay for care. 

Actually, this is a relatively straightforward example of how the Government is trying to make things better, however, as you read down the article it soon becomes clear that things are going to cost £Xbn or £Ym making the entire plan seem grossly over-complicated. This is accompanied by the news that the UK Economy 'slipped back towards recession in the last quarter of 2013'. What does that actually mean though?! When growth is less than 0.5% the only people who seem to be getting concerned over the economics are economists. 

Despite the fate of both Jessops and HMV in the first month of January (the latter of which is downsizing but looks to be moving towards some kind of resolution) for many other business (including the small business for which I work) business has greatly improved in the first 6 weeks of the new year.  

Why Gove's U-Turn on Assessment is Demonstrative of the Power of Speech, and how the Coalition can actually be for the better.

Sorry Govey, you've lost this one mate. 

Although it might seem odd, and somewhat eccentric, I almost cheered on a crowded train when I first read that Michael Gove had been forced to scrap his plans for a new (old) exam system in Britain for 16 year olds. A joke which I should credit to Andy Hamilton; 'Michael Gove wants us to return to the exam system that produced Michael Gove'; pretty much says it all about why we should be worried about any plans which he has to 'reform' education. 

I'd become a known bore on the subject of Gove and his pans to ruin future generations by saddling them with a single percentage instead of a grade and reducing their entire 12 years of education to a single day and a single paper. I had been somewhat skeptical that the plans would actually get through  and survive another Government. Given that they were due to be instigated until 2015. The year when the next election is due. 

I'm not anti-reform of the system, and I do think that there does need to be a re-think of the competition which has been introduced by having numerous exam boards. Having a centralised exam board would solve accountancy problems, but it would leave them unaccountable to anyone else. Anyone who has been through University will be aware that it can take months for work to be returned due to it being looked at  by 'External Markers' a.k.a Academics from other Universities who mark the work independently to ensure that everyone is being assessed on a level playing field. Although there is an argument that this could be done by teachers from different schools. It's a thorny issue to say the least.

How we assess people's ability at 16 has become less significant since the introduction of compulsory education until the age of 18, where qualifications have become more of a 'stepping stone' to the next stage rather than anything else. It is important that people's strength's and weaknesses are determined and I don't favour the complete eradication of assessment at 16, but it's a subject which should be dealt with lightly. As the decisions made will have major consequences on thousands of lives. 

A lot of that is beside the point today however, when what we are acknowledging is the power of objection to reforms by the adults most qualified to make the decisions about how children should be assessed. I'm not going to reproduce the details here, I'll instead harness the power of the internet and give you a link to the superb piece in the Guardian, which has all the details you need, here's that link.

It is also a sign that having a Coalition Government can be for the better. Whatever people may think of  the Lib Dems, they have had a hand in stopping Gove in his tracks. I'm not going to rake over old ground and re-ignite discussions about the morality (or otherwise) of making people pay for Higher Education, as that's not relevant here. 

After a week which started with a debate in parliament over whether or not people are 'equal' in today's society, we're looking to finish it with the news that whilst things might need to change, it needs more thought than just being nostalgic. 

A Stable Diet

Over the past year I've been trying to eat less meat, significantly, not eating meat in restaurants. I don't have any stern moral ground for this, nor will I attempt to justify this decision to you. I could just as easily ask you, why do you eat meat? If you can't justify it (social normality is not justification) then why do you do it? I'd also like to ask you one other question in relation to the news.

Is there any actual difference between eating one of these:

                                       

one of these;

                                       
or even one of these;

                                       
When they all look like this on your plate:

                                      
Because, and I mean this, I can't really see what the difference is, beyond what you consider to be 'socially acceptable'. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to mis-sell products. But even if all these animals were listed as 'ingredients' on the packaging would you really stop eating burgers?

If you're still confused about this, look up the meaning of sentient in the dictionary.