Paid the money and got the facilities in the wee small hours.
Put up a holding page with a graphic based on an old idea. Then added a bit of z-index work to explain the extra d (so nonchalant, since a little blood was sweated).
Created email address thing@eddwilson.co.uk and proved it could receive and send messages.
The coalition government, and Nick Clegg in particular, is fond of arguing that we must deal with the public spending deficit quickly rather than leaving the burden to our children and grandchildren. He oversimplifies a little (not that he is alone in that).
Deep breath...
We are told we have a deficit (net government borrowing) of £155bn per year. This is down from a projection of about £170bn by the outgoing government, I seem to remember, but it may be politically disadvantageous to remember that. The actual figure for 2009/10 was £159.8bn according to the Office of National Statistics
£109bn of that is judged to be structural deficit - the problem that remains when economic activity returns to "normal" conditions, whatever they are.
This structural deficit must be eliminated by 2015, which I take to mean "by the end of the financial year 2014/2015", so that the government has a chance of achieving a result by the time of the next election. This could be seen as normal political cynicism, or perhaps refreshing honesty.
They really have four working years to achieve their aim (2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15), plus a few things like the VAT increase which take effect before May 2011.
Now, the interest we are paying on our national debt, the size of which is rarely mentioned (but in March 2010 was about £1000bn according to the ONS) is £43bn per year. That's £118m per day (even I can work that out), but which year does that apply to? 2010/11?
If we "carry on as we are" those interest payments will increase to £63bn per year by 2015 (2014/15 or 2015/16?). Or is that the figure we will reach with the proposed cuts?
Whatever, to deal with our £109bn structural deficit, we are going to make cuts of £83bn (or maybe £81bn, depending on your spokesman) "by 2015".
To have any sensible effect, that £83bn must be an annual figure, to chip into but not entirely eliminate the £109bn shortfall, though sometimes it is quoted as a reduction over the next four (or five) years. But we are not going to achieve the full £83bn until 2014/15 (I think), which seemingly will leave us with a structural deficit of £26bn per year, and a national debt of (you work it out).
We will then be paying more interest per year (and per day) than we do now, because the national debt will have grown even if the annual deficit has shrunk. We will therefore be handing on to the next parliament (our children and grandchildren will come along a little later) a much bigger bill than we currently owe.
Nothing here should be taken as a criticism of the decisions taken today (though I may have many). The presentation of these numbers does look inadequate, but would anybody being honest about them ever get elected?
I have to keep pinching myself as the coalition - and it's the Conservatives in charge of this bit - says again and again that people returning to work will continue to receive some of their benefits. The idea is that it should always be worth taking a job or working a few more hours.
On the face of it they're talking carrot not stick - here at least. Other measures, such as the proposed caps on housing benefit and on overall benefit per family, certainly are sticks, but will operate in an entirely arbitrary way. Some families will be slammed and have to move, sometimes to different towns. Others will hardly be touched.
So if you get a job, some of your benefit entitlement sticks with you. Forever? I haven't seen any mention of time limits. Labour had several schemes of this sort (horribly complicated) but they were time limited. And the person next to you doing the same job will be paid less than you if he/she has been in post for a while.
There is more to see in this area, so roll on October 20. Then I'll know exactly what to complain about.
I know, I'll put everything I've ever thought of into this speech of a lifetime. The good stuff, the bad stuff, it's my moment in the sun so I don't care.
"If we are not this party, no-one will be." What?
A foreign policy based on values, not just alliances. Er, I think so, though big brother might think that's a dig at him.
Are you one of the last generation that didn't get climate change or the first that did? That's the new generation message that matters.
Optimists of history... I'm with you there, but we're going to need some luck. And some f***ing hard work.
Derek Simpson sat on his hands through the one pointed comment about strikes, then came out in front of the cameras and agreed violently.
It is reported ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/20/serengeti-wildebeest-threat-devlopment ) that a road will be built across the Serengeti national park in east Africa.
What's under threat? The life cycles of millions of animals, a vast and relatively untouched ecosystem, one of the biggest land carbon-sinks in the world. And the rest.
What's under threat? Development of the east African economy, which has to operate over vast distances, versus the white safari trade which supports a significant number of not-very-highly-paid tourist workers. And the rest.
Policies for development, from conventional through sustainable to radical, all aim to stop poor people being poor and therefore to place a greater load on the planet. Roads across extraordinary ecosystems are just one step on this path, and there will not always be plausible alternatives.
If human need trumps everything else, and we insist on breeding as we do, there will soon be little left to save.
Danny Alexander (Beaker to his friends) has "let it slip" that he and his coalition friends plan to invest (that means spending new money!) in tracking down tax evaders and restricting tax avoidance. This will raise £7 billion pounds by the end of the planned five-year period, he said.
That's a total, I thought, but he'd like us to believe it's an annual figure. The BBC have just reported exactly that - £7 billion a year by 2015. It would be nice to be proved to be too cynical. Watch this space but don't hold your breath.
Why are we so surprised when groups we label "Islamist" (or all the alternatives) offer food to Pakistan flood victims? We might (and I do) abhor some of their tactics and some of their friends, we might point out the bleedin' obvious that food distribution will build support for the group (how cynical!), but we have to accept that some of these people have a connection, through society and religion, to the communities they feed.
Remember the Kobe earthquake? Among the earliest distributors of aid were the Yakuza. Self-interest certainly, but social embedding as well. We have to develop a rather more sophisticated analysis.
Let's avoid job losses in the public sector, suggests the coalition government, by increasing the efficiency of procurement. That means minimising prices of the things the public sector buys from private sector suppliers - switch suppliers, renegotiate prices - which will tend to produce job losses in the private sector.
There is still much argument about "progressive cuts" - will top earners suffer a 3% decrease in income and the bottom group be hit with cuts of 5%? Or vice versa? This is a distraction. Top earners can shrug off a 5% reduction, middle earners can (usually) rearrange a few things and manage 5%, while those at the bottom have nothing to spare and 5% is a cut to the bone.
If poorer people make greater use of public services than richer people, and cuts are made to public services, then these cuts affect the poorer more than they do the richer.
Recent Comments