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. 

What Politicians could learn from David Bowie, or how to stay interesting in an increasing boring world

                                            

David Cameron wonders how he can get the plebs as excited as David Bowie did.

The internet nearly exploded with excitement this morning, and ordinary people felt like famous people on Twitter were their friend's as they all shared the collective experience of hearing the new song from Ziggy Stardust creator David Bowie. Now, I should be honest from the start and say that beyond his cameo in extras and the Father Ted episode which features three appearance of Elvis and a brief slaughtering of 'Ziggy played guitar' I know almost nothing of David Bowie or his music. What I'm not going to do, is offer yet another opinion to the mire on a song when I can't compare it to the artists other work.

What is more interesting about the release of the single, the upcoming album and the assumptions that there will be a tour is the reaction to the news. The main talking point of much of the coverage of the story was the fact that Bowie hasn't performed live since 2006 and 'has barely been seen in public' a phrase which translates as 'has managed to live his life relatively privately and let others take the limelight'. As such, the release of the new single comes without the weight of the past 7 years of Bowie's non-music life. Increasing the chances of it being judged on musical merits rather than hype. 

Unlike Paul McCartney, who many people just want to disappear quietly, or at least never sing again (I did say after the Olympics that dying might not be such a bad thing for Sir Paul - as it would prevent him from further alienating himself from the British public) Bowie has retained an air of mystery in an age when everyone knows everything and knowledge is there at the touch of a button. Questions which could, in the past have taken hours or days to answer, and which required a competent navigation of Dewey Decimal system can now be asked by a four year old. You don't even have to be able to spell as Google will patronisingly correct you. 

Staying relatively anonymous has now become a harder task than getting noticed. More and more it is possible for people to say contentious things on social media and then get noticed, not caring what is said about them. Only that stuff is being said and that they are the headline topic. For all of three minutes. 

The title of Bowie's single 'Where are we now?' is as ambiguous a statement as it is broad. A question which could be applied to any number of subjects, but which when viewed from a certain historical perspective (it's a decade since Bowie released any new music) a awful lot has changed about the world and as we enter the year that wasn't supposed to be, if you believed the Mayan's that is, it's a fair point to make, where exactly in the overall course of human history are we? Sure, we can tell where we are geographically, but probably not morally. 

What then, is the lesson that not just Politicians, but many more people besides, could learn from Bowie after today. In short, it's that keeping your head down and not saying anything until it is absolutely worth saying does you a lot of favours. There is a distinct surreality to the way in which politicians now give their statements, with new correspondents often saying '[Politician] is expected to say [main point of politicians speech slightly reworked by the press officer] later today'. There is no mystery, yet at the same time there has never been more mystery.

I'm never going to like David Cameron, but I'd have a little less disdain and perhaps a little more respect, if he wasn't constantly on the television. I might just be agnostic about the quality of Michael McIntyre's comedy if he wasn't grinning stupidly in a poster at every sodding train station and bus stop. Yes, David Bowie is an artist legend and yes, I'm sure that even if his new single was a reinterpretation of 'My Lovely Horse'  people's heads would still be exploding with excitement. But he's managed to remain relevant and culturally interesting without inviting television cameras into his home or letting 3 million people on Twitter know when he's just had a coffee.

If everyone did what they did best, and didn't try to do everything else. Things could be a whole lot better.

Happy New Year, By the way, you should've renewed your Season Ticket in December

  

                                    

The news that President Obama had avoided the 'fiscal cliff'' (no, me neither) cemented the fact that we were  guaranteed some gloomy financial news in Britain. Arriving right when expected, unlike many things in life, the annual blackmail of commuters was yet again hiked today. Rail fares across the country were raised by an average of 3.9%. I know that this may seem to be a relatively low number, and that for people who drive to work getting fuel at the best price constant gamble between convenience and the little red warning light inducing panic.

In reality though, fuel prices haven't actually risen much in the past 18 months. They've fluctuated heavily but if you were to take an average across the last year and half since I brought my old car, the biggest price change has been caused by driving between counties and vendors. Rail fares on the other hand have risen consistently year on year causing a real term rise of 50% over a ten year period. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't think of many examples of jobs where people's average salary has done the same.

It's not like cost of just existing has become any easier. And Gideon seems determined to make it still worse.

I know that I am extremely lucky to be in a job where my day to day travel comes under expenses (saving me about £100 a month) but I still feel justified in my animosity towards the rail companies given that I've been using trains on a regular basis for the past seven years. I've not noticed any real improvement in service, yes there have been some fancy new trains in the past 10 years but this doesn't make the quality of the service any better.

I am also conscious that rail companies have been spending money on stations attempting to catch more fare dodgers and thereby keep the costs down for those of us who actually pay for our train travel. However, the railway organisation is a mess, it is perfectly possible for track, station and train all to be owned and therefore maintained by three separate companies, dependent upon where you are travelling.

I'm not old enough to remember British Rail, but I do recall the complete cock-up of Railtrack and the subsequent cost to the taxpayer. Yes, things are probably better now than they were, and maybe they'll get better. It's not like we're exactly being filled with confidence though, the recent case of the West Coast Omnishambles   is sign enough that this government is just as incompetent as the last (and probably the next) when it comes to dealing with big businesses where the PM isn't personal friends with the Dark Overlord.

The national railway system is still subsidised by the Government, yet the rail companies continue to make a healthy profit. I'm not a trained economist, and I'm not claiming that I could do anything better. But I still can't help but feel like there has to be a better way to deal with the situation. Happy 2013 everyone, at least the rail fares won't rise for another year so that's something to celebrate!

Yay!