h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Todays news that 1 in 5 eleven year olds have failed to reach the rquired reading ability , together with Top Up Fees torpedoes that promise.

Add that to 66 new taxes , which we were not going to get, and the shambolic situation of security at Windsor Castle yesterday , plus MRSA and lack of NHS dentists to name a few other failures [ ignore iraq, the PM does] and is it any wonder that New Labour are concentrating on the economy. Not too much else to brag about!

Since N L have hijacked many Tory policies over the last 8 years all the Tories need to do is hijack Gordon Brown's policies and then spend less...... it should work!

Oh and let us not forget that the much trumpeted unemployment figures are disguised by something over 2 million claiming Incapacity Benefit, and many of the existing jobs are short contract and / or minimum wage employment.

Novo

Noted that as well page already torn out of paper.

I'm not an economist but I detect from much of the election build up that though Brown's economy has been relatively stable and enjoyed growth in just about all the right areas - it has famously had some drastic effects in small doses elsewhere and long term looks a little shakey.

House prices for instance.

The weight of borrowing that underpins all of his sums.

The supposed need to up taxes.

Is it too swift to say that perhaps he wouldn't want to remain chancellor if he had to preside over the consequences of keeping the economy as he has* - and to wonder if would anyone else be incautious enough to want to take over the job if or when Gordon or the labour party aren't in a position to fill it?


*About interest rates. one of the first thing Brown did in 1997 was to hand interest rate control to the monetary policy committee at the bank of England, thus ending the reign of chancellors tinkering with the economy for short term political advantage.

All credit to him, that was a good decision.

But I don't see how then the Labour party can actually take credit for keeping interest rates low (with the consequences for invetment, mortgages etc) - it is no longer in their remit to do so, and whilst there are technically responsible for setting up the conditoons for the bank of england to take control - those decisions are not made by government, indeed most parties wouldn't go back.

There is a fudge going on here about economic stability that Labour is intent to run on (rather than its record on Iraq and Tuition Feees and everythgin else they cna justly be kicked for) I'm sure there's more to it than TB crowing we've had the lowest this and that for that last hundred years. It may be true, but at what cost?

Thanks for that Clive ****

I agree with much of what you say, and you expressed it better than I did !

I believe that the Iraq war is a much bigger issue than New Labour want it to be. No PM can take the country to war under whatever pretext by misleading parliament. It doesn't matter that there were no WMD's , If Teflon Tony used distorted 'Facts' to back his argument then he misled us. If he didn't know the info was dodgy , he should have done. So in my book that makes him responsible for misleading or being incompetent.

We will have to see how the parties shape today , and argue on from what turns up.

Novo


PS Did Gordon hand the control of intrest rates to The Bank of England that soon?, I thought it was more recent.

True the education promis has been broken but despite handing over rate of intrest contro lto the B/E it is fair to say that the government has helped keep the country stable to ensure that the intrests rates good stay reasonable (changing intrests rates represents the econemy doing badly) so the fact the B/E has hept then stable is a good thing.

However it won't last forever with housing prices making it very hard for firsdt time buyers a fall in house prices is immenent. This may be the start of an economic slump.

I seem to remember it was about then (- delegation , after all is the key to good management,) and in my possibly cynical way of thinking, decided the Chancellor was smart enough to cover himself should the economy go pear shaped. In politics, I've noticed a trend that its always very useful to have a scapegoat.

What is it Bart Simpson chants "It wasn't me and you can't blame me anyway"?

Something like that anyway.

I feel about New Labour two thing I can genuinely think we good decisions and worthwhile.

One is handing interest rate control to the bank of England.

The Second is introducing the Minimum Wage. (I'm always staggered to watch The Full Monty which was released in 1997 (and therefore filmed earlier) - wherein Robert Carlysle refuses a job for a paltry £2 something.) The minmum wages which i have worked under and very nice it was too has been a good change and one that prior to 1997 everyone was againts and again now I don't think anyone would go back on.

However, both of these thigns happened in Labour's first term.

Beyond that I *really struggle* to think of anything that I can justly applaude them for, everything in the second term became dominated by September the 11th 2001, Afghanistahn, Iraq and a string of broken promises, scandals and authoratarian scaremongering, from education, to security, from hospitals to schools.

And as I outlinrd above I find their claims to having provided economic stabilty open to spectulation on their veracity and I cannot and will not forgive them for taking this country to war as they did.

They do not deserve to be rewarded with a third term for that and I am not convinced that they derve a third term for much else.

and the rule is:

If in Doubt: Mumble.
If In Trouble: Delegate

Once again, can we ask that nicknames for individual candidates are avoided please? It's not really constructive and if it continues we may have to begin removing posts.

Many thanks.

post 4 is that?

point if interest how stringent are these rules?

I see by the forum currently displaying "No subject" we've already had a moderation referral and I gather that was for naming candidates.

I took that house rule to mean we couldn't say: " X is standing in my constiuancy. He's a right so and so I'll be voting for Y so should you."

Are we really to be discouraged from discussing figures and their policies, who are so evidently in the public eye in the name of political correctness?

In the one section of the beeb were we are permitted to discuss this coming election I would have thought leniancy and self moderation would have been the watch words unless something was clearly in breach.

I'll avoid them if I must but are are knicknames seriosuly really such a threat to democracy? Pull the other one.

The Beeb has a tricky enough job at the best of times. If moderation has to be strick now it is understandable.

To be honest i'm amazed that anyone is suprised that a political party has broken its electoral promises.

It's part of the political process, reguardless of what party is involved.

You make a load of promises hoping that the voters are gulible enough to believe you, they elect you into power. You then can relax and not give a monkeys about the voters for till the next election.

^^Precisely. And the only way to change the general distrust of politicians in the public is to do the opposite. It can work, but they need to stop voting themselves pay rises and start working for their countries. This applies, more or less, to most western democracies.

(Younger, developing democracies are, overall less bureaucratic, and more enthusiastic. It starts off like that, and then goes downhill.)

And if I remember rightly, when John Major (think it was John Major, I was out of the country for most of the 80s and half the 90s so I cannot be utterly certain which leader it was) refused his pay rise and made it clear he expected his MPs to follow his lead, the man mysteriously lost the supportof his party.

I agree with Ged. All politicians make pie crust textured promises and then don't give a monkey's about fulfilling them

I regret,Ioaconian, that the chances of anyone in a position of power not making the most of what they can personally GET out of that power are approximate to those of a snowball's in Hades

I believe its called human nature.

I do believe it's part of human nature, but I reckon some of these politicians do actually start with generally good intentions. They look at the current situation and think, 'This can't do.' They genuinely want to make a difference. But then they never do once they get the chance.

What I'm saying is that they can have what they can GET, but just NOT SO MUCH.

Afternoon Ged,

And a possible loss of 6000 jobs + the knock-on effect won't make us feel any less angry.
Novo

Novosibirsk: One thought with your comment on only 1 in 5 11 year olds reaching the required reading age.

Teachers (and by extension the government) shouldn't be blamed too much for this, i'd have thought that most children learn their reading skills when reading at home with their parents at bedtime.

Whether their parents aren't reading because they're at work, are too tired from work or can't be bothered, i don't know. (are there any parents who can comment on this?)

Maybe the government could do more to encourage parents to read with their children. Not only is it good for the childs education, but it must help create a bond between parent and child.

Speaking as a parent, I would hazard the guess that most parents if both are working full time in order to support themselves and their famillies, would be too exhausted to spend time reading aloud to their children... at bed time, or any other time, either.



Most parents cannot "parent" as well as they'd like to, because they're too busy going out to work to support their famillies financially, and the care of the children delegated to child minders. And child minders are paid to ensure the child is safe, not stimulated educationally. Its not a case of parents "not being bothered", I think, more a case of not having enough time or energy.

Add to this, the ease of other forms of "entertainment" for children (AND adults) - TV, Video and (once they're able to sit up,) the ubiquitous play staions, etc. Not to mention the PC.

Reading is becoming unfashionable,as a pass time (as is handwriting). I'm not saying I agree with it becoming unfashionable and therefore time consuming, but thats how it seems from my view point.

Oh... and by the way.... I hardly need ANY governement's "encouragement" to read more with my children, thank you. I can decide to do that all by myself.

I bitterly resent the government encouraging me to eat 5 fruits and veggies a day, to exercise more, to smoke less and to be environmentally aware, either, thank you.

I bitterly resent that ANY government should be so patronising as to assume I would NEED to "be encouraged" to lead an intelligent and healthy life style.

I have a brain of my own, thank you. I don't need a government to do my thinking for me. As far as I am concerned, my life has far too much government interference and far too few benefits from wise government.

Evandne: sorry i didn't mean to offend

I'm glad that you don't need the governments encouragement to read to your children. Thats great your doing your children a great service.