http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/12/mandelson-clegg-brown-coalition-talks
During coalition talks for a so-called Lib Lab-government (Liberal Democrats and Labour), Nick Clegg is said to have pressured Gordon Brown to leave Downing Street. Peter Mandelson was present at the coalition meetings and is now spreading all the stories about what supposedly happened between Lib and Lab. Also, Labour would have to accept a new election system without even holding a referendum to hear the opinion of the public, claims Mandelson. The meeting on which this all is said to have happened, was kept secret for a long time, according to Mandelson.
My opinion:
I believe it is rather silly and useless to keep continuing the discussion about what did and did not happen in coalition talks. There is a coalition with LibDem and Conservatives now, so I do not feel that "What really happened during the coalition talks?" is the most important question the UK should worry about. If Nick Clegg really pressured Gordon Brown in this way, I believe that to be a bit of a dirty way of negotiating, but then again, politics has more than once been said to be war, and I suppose this event proves that statement.
maandag 12 juli 2010
UK recession even deeper than first thought
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/12/uk-recession-deeper-than-first-thought
Recent research by the government shows that the recession in the UK is even worse than was thought before. Current figures show that this recession is deeper even than the one at the beginning of the 80's, and is worse than the Great Depression-recession in the 1930's. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that the economic decline was 6,4%, which is higher than the original estimate made, which aimed for 6,2%. Another thing indicated by the ONS, is the fact that the economy is mainly kept alive and growing due to state spending, as consumers still save a lot and therefore do not contribute much to the growth of the economy.
My opinion:
I found this article rather dull to read. Economy is a very important topic, especially considering the recent recessions, the bank problems and all that, but economic growth and all that still are not really fascinating. The fact that the state keeps the economy alive rather than the consumers doing so, is not really surprising in my opinion, as most people tend to stop spending in economically bad times, because they do not want to get into trouble due to their spending habits. When the economy gets better, so will the consumer spending.
Recent research by the government shows that the recession in the UK is even worse than was thought before. Current figures show that this recession is deeper even than the one at the beginning of the 80's, and is worse than the Great Depression-recession in the 1930's. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that the economic decline was 6,4%, which is higher than the original estimate made, which aimed for 6,2%. Another thing indicated by the ONS, is the fact that the economy is mainly kept alive and growing due to state spending, as consumers still save a lot and therefore do not contribute much to the growth of the economy.
My opinion:
I found this article rather dull to read. Economy is a very important topic, especially considering the recent recessions, the bank problems and all that, but economic growth and all that still are not really fascinating. The fact that the state keeps the economy alive rather than the consumers doing so, is not really surprising in my opinion, as most people tend to stop spending in economically bad times, because they do not want to get into trouble due to their spending habits. When the economy gets better, so will the consumer spending.
Jamie Oliver calls for more funding to back school meals revolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/08/jamie-oliver-school-meals
Jamie Oliver wants the government to invest more money in the project that tries to reform the school meals. He made these statements after the announcement of the results accomplished so far, which show that more and more children eat healthy meals at their schools. Oliver said that current positive results are an indication that the government should invest even more money, to continue the positive line and to make sure that the results will not turn out to be a temporary success. However, the department of Education has announced not to continue the 'healty-food'-subsidy they used to give to local councils in order for them to make schools serve healthy meals.
My opinion:
I think this should receive the amount of priority Jamie Oliver is trying to achieve. Of course, healthy school meals are important, but I believe that, considering the necessity of cuts being made in the United Kingdom, measurements such as these should not be on top of the priority list. In my opinion it is more important to make sure school buildings are renovated (for example, of course) than to make sure those same schools serve healthy dishes. I understand Jamie Oliver's wish to continue the project, but I believe he, too, should be realistic about the financial problems the country is facing. Therefore I believe this project should not be continued.
Jamie Oliver wants the government to invest more money in the project that tries to reform the school meals. He made these statements after the announcement of the results accomplished so far, which show that more and more children eat healthy meals at their schools. Oliver said that current positive results are an indication that the government should invest even more money, to continue the positive line and to make sure that the results will not turn out to be a temporary success. However, the department of Education has announced not to continue the 'healty-food'-subsidy they used to give to local councils in order for them to make schools serve healthy meals.
My opinion:
I think this should receive the amount of priority Jamie Oliver is trying to achieve. Of course, healthy school meals are important, but I believe that, considering the necessity of cuts being made in the United Kingdom, measurements such as these should not be on top of the priority list. In my opinion it is more important to make sure school buildings are renovated (for example, of course) than to make sure those same schools serve healthy dishes. I understand Jamie Oliver's wish to continue the project, but I believe he, too, should be realistic about the financial problems the country is facing. Therefore I believe this project should not be continued.
A date with death
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/06/death-date-predicting
Scientists are getting closer and closer to being able to predict the date of one's death. Causes of death such as genetic diseases (for example Huntington, which I mentioned in my previous blog), and being able to predict the process of Alzheimer's disease in a patient from up to ten years before the disease actually shows itself (using a special protein that supposedly is an early indication of Alzheimer developing) are all signs on the wall that we are able to predict more and more about our health's development. Also, scientists discovered a gene and, based on that, developed a genetic test which should be able to prove whether a person will reach 100 years of age. All this made the author wonder: Do we want to know our death date?
My opinion:
I think I would want to know my death date, because it gives me the chance to do everything I want to do and know that I can safely pass away when my time comes. If, for example, I get hit by a train tomorrow, there are still many things I have not yet been able to do, see or experience, and if the scientists reach the point at which they can predict your death date, that means I know beforehand and can work on my so-called bucket list early on in life. On the other hand, it would be a creepy thought, knowing "Oh, I have only 1000 days of life left and then I will die". So yeah, I definitely see the difficulty the author aimed for with this article.
Scientists are getting closer and closer to being able to predict the date of one's death. Causes of death such as genetic diseases (for example Huntington, which I mentioned in my previous blog), and being able to predict the process of Alzheimer's disease in a patient from up to ten years before the disease actually shows itself (using a special protein that supposedly is an early indication of Alzheimer developing) are all signs on the wall that we are able to predict more and more about our health's development. Also, scientists discovered a gene and, based on that, developed a genetic test which should be able to prove whether a person will reach 100 years of age. All this made the author wonder: Do we want to know our death date?
My opinion:
I think I would want to know my death date, because it gives me the chance to do everything I want to do and know that I can safely pass away when my time comes. If, for example, I get hit by a train tomorrow, there are still many things I have not yet been able to do, see or experience, and if the scientists reach the point at which they can predict your death date, that means I know beforehand and can work on my so-called bucket list early on in life. On the other hand, it would be a creepy thought, knowing "Oh, I have only 1000 days of life left and then I will die". So yeah, I definitely see the difficulty the author aimed for with this article.
Fear of insurance penalties keeps Huntington's sufferers in the shadows
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/30/huntingtons-disease-fear-insurance-penalties
The chairman of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, stated that Huntington's disease needs far more attention. Current records indicate that approximately 7 in 100.000 Britons suffer from Huntington's disease which makes it a low-priority condition for research, but Rawlins believes this number is much lower than the real amount, because many Huntington's sufferers or carriers of the gene are afraid of saying this, because it makes their health insurance much more expensive. Only about 20% of the people at risk of carrying the Huntington's gene, actually take a test to establish whether or not they will be getting the neuro-degenerative disease, most of which are people wanting to have children. An all-parliamentary group is now being formed in order to draw more attention to Huntington's disease and to try and decrease the stigmas surrounding the disease.
My opinion:
I believe it to be unbelievable that people are afraid of having a genetic and serious disease diagnosed because the health insurance will punish them for carrying the gene! Especially considering the fact that this also negatively influences the prevalence numbers, in my opinion something needs to be done about this as soon as possible. People may never be punished for health issues, and making people pay more insurance because of their genetic make-up is just totally unethical and wrong. I am therefore happy with the formation of a group to draw more attention to the matter. I hope this will help killing the stigmas.
The chairman of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, stated that Huntington's disease needs far more attention. Current records indicate that approximately 7 in 100.000 Britons suffer from Huntington's disease which makes it a low-priority condition for research, but Rawlins believes this number is much lower than the real amount, because many Huntington's sufferers or carriers of the gene are afraid of saying this, because it makes their health insurance much more expensive. Only about 20% of the people at risk of carrying the Huntington's gene, actually take a test to establish whether or not they will be getting the neuro-degenerative disease, most of which are people wanting to have children. An all-parliamentary group is now being formed in order to draw more attention to Huntington's disease and to try and decrease the stigmas surrounding the disease.
My opinion:
I believe it to be unbelievable that people are afraid of having a genetic and serious disease diagnosed because the health insurance will punish them for carrying the gene! Especially considering the fact that this also negatively influences the prevalence numbers, in my opinion something needs to be done about this as soon as possible. People may never be punished for health issues, and making people pay more insurance because of their genetic make-up is just totally unethical and wrong. I am therefore happy with the formation of a group to draw more attention to the matter. I hope this will help killing the stigmas.
Andrew Lansley to cut thousands of jobs in purge of NHS 'bureaucracy'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/11/andrew-lansley-jobs-purge-nhs
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will probably cut thousands of jobs at the National Health Service because he believes there is too much bureaucracy in the organisation. Lansley will probably abolish whole departments of the NHS, including the 2000 employee-Food Standards Agency. Lansley says the money saved will equal the salaries of 30.000 nurses and promises that the money will be reinvested in what he calls frontline services, and as such, believes this will improve the healthcare offered to the British public. This does, however, mean the sacking of possibly tens of thousands of managers, administrative workers and so on.
My opinion:
I am all in favour of cutting bureaucracy, but I believe it to be unethical to fire thousands of people who cannot help their jobs were created as a part of that same bureaucracy, just because of that same oh so popular b-word. It appears as though the coalition government is being very populist, always shouting "Bureaucracy!" to compensate for their harsh cuts on all departments. Also, abolishing whole departments is probably a bit over-enthusiastic, to put it that way. I believe such cuts should first be researched properly (which has not been the case, from what I can judge based on the article) before trying to get nice headlines with such remarks.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will probably cut thousands of jobs at the National Health Service because he believes there is too much bureaucracy in the organisation. Lansley will probably abolish whole departments of the NHS, including the 2000 employee-Food Standards Agency. Lansley says the money saved will equal the salaries of 30.000 nurses and promises that the money will be reinvested in what he calls frontline services, and as such, believes this will improve the healthcare offered to the British public. This does, however, mean the sacking of possibly tens of thousands of managers, administrative workers and so on.
My opinion:
I am all in favour of cutting bureaucracy, but I believe it to be unethical to fire thousands of people who cannot help their jobs were created as a part of that same bureaucracy, just because of that same oh so popular b-word. It appears as though the coalition government is being very populist, always shouting "Bureaucracy!" to compensate for their harsh cuts on all departments. Also, abolishing whole departments is probably a bit over-enthusiastic, to put it that way. I believe such cuts should first be researched properly (which has not been the case, from what I can judge based on the article) before trying to get nice headlines with such remarks.
zondag 11 juli 2010
Michael Gove urged to help most run-down schools
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/11/michael-gove-school-cuts-criticism
Michael Gove, the secretary of education, is being pressured to change his plans concerning the cuts on 700 school rebuilding projects. Both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives demanded the secretary to confirm that plans would be made to help the schools in desperate need of renovation despite changing the current building plans. Even a lot of Gove's own LibDem-colleagues criticise him for these plans. He argued that changing the plans was allowed because they cost a lot of money as a result of an overload of bureaucracy. Gove's cuts are part of the massive cuts being done by the coalition government, but the coalition is also under pressure due to Gove's actions, as LibDem and Tories seem to have some strong differences on the issue.
My opinion:
I believe these cuts are unheard of. Of course, bureaucracy is something that should be fought, but I believe that plans consisting of too much bureaucracy cannot be a reason for schools to lose their rebuilding funds. I understand the demand for a solution for schools in urgent need of renovation, and I believe the MPs could, and perhaps, should, have been even more strict and demand for the plan to be continued and only be cut on the bureaucracy-aspect. Also, I think this shows the first cracks appearing in the coalition-government, with politicians on both sides hurrying to express their opinion on the matter. I wonder how this will end...
Michael Gove, the secretary of education, is being pressured to change his plans concerning the cuts on 700 school rebuilding projects. Both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives demanded the secretary to confirm that plans would be made to help the schools in desperate need of renovation despite changing the current building plans. Even a lot of Gove's own LibDem-colleagues criticise him for these plans. He argued that changing the plans was allowed because they cost a lot of money as a result of an overload of bureaucracy. Gove's cuts are part of the massive cuts being done by the coalition government, but the coalition is also under pressure due to Gove's actions, as LibDem and Tories seem to have some strong differences on the issue.
My opinion:
I believe these cuts are unheard of. Of course, bureaucracy is something that should be fought, but I believe that plans consisting of too much bureaucracy cannot be a reason for schools to lose their rebuilding funds. I understand the demand for a solution for schools in urgent need of renovation, and I believe the MPs could, and perhaps, should, have been even more strict and demand for the plan to be continued and only be cut on the bureaucracy-aspect. Also, I think this shows the first cracks appearing in the coalition-government, with politicians on both sides hurrying to express their opinion on the matter. I wonder how this will end...
White workforce 'hampering GCHQ anti-terror efforts'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/11/gchq-anti-terror-ethnic-minority
The British anti-terrorism organisation GCHQ, that is responsible for eavesdropping, could achieve better results than they currently do, if they hired more ethnic minorities. Black and Asian intelligence officers complained of a 'racist environment', and the company's 5000-people staff only contains very few Asian and black people. The management itself is even completely 'white'. The company's white culture harms their productivity because a big part of their work is tracking communication between terrorist suspects, which is often in other languages such as Urdu and Arabic. The lack of employees speaking the respective languages has proven to harm efforts in detecting codes and cultural nuances in conversations intercepted by the GCHQ.
My opinion:
It is rather stupid to not employ ethnic minorities in an organisation like the GCHQ, especially since these minorities may have the requested languages as their mother tongue. Also, I believe such an organisation should represent the society well, and having nearly no ethnic minorities in the company, and none whatsoever in the higher ranks, does not represent society well. I believe it would not even be positive discrimination to specifically hire people of a certain ethnic background, considering this background is relevant for the job requirements. Therefore I feel the company should start hiring people based on both background ánd skills, to re-establish a balanced ethnic staff.
The British anti-terrorism organisation GCHQ, that is responsible for eavesdropping, could achieve better results than they currently do, if they hired more ethnic minorities. Black and Asian intelligence officers complained of a 'racist environment', and the company's 5000-people staff only contains very few Asian and black people. The management itself is even completely 'white'. The company's white culture harms their productivity because a big part of their work is tracking communication between terrorist suspects, which is often in other languages such as Urdu and Arabic. The lack of employees speaking the respective languages has proven to harm efforts in detecting codes and cultural nuances in conversations intercepted by the GCHQ.
My opinion:
It is rather stupid to not employ ethnic minorities in an organisation like the GCHQ, especially since these minorities may have the requested languages as their mother tongue. Also, I believe such an organisation should represent the society well, and having nearly no ethnic minorities in the company, and none whatsoever in the higher ranks, does not represent society well. I believe it would not even be positive discrimination to specifically hire people of a certain ethnic background, considering this background is relevant for the job requirements. Therefore I feel the company should start hiring people based on both background ánd skills, to re-establish a balanced ethnic staff.
Raoul Moat family seeks second postmortem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/11/raoul-moat-family-postmortem-taser
The family of the shooter that was hunted for a week before committing suicide, Raoul Moat, wants a second post-mortem examination because the police report does not mention anything that points to taserwounds, whereas they are sure police officers used stun guns on Moat. Also, Moat's uncle is upset because the police did not allow him to talk to his nephew. The uncle states he was the closest to a father Moat ever had, but the police did not allow him because they were afraid he would be at risk. The uncle feels that his familiar face could just have been the required bit to convince Moat into not committing suicide.
My opinion:
I believe it to be at the very least extremely peculiar, that the reports do not contain any information concerning wounds made by stun guns. It appears as though the police are covering for themselves now, and I think that is not the impression the police ought to aim for. Also, I consider their decision not to allow the uncle near to be simply wrong, as the uncle might have been able to influence his nephew enough to stop him from killing himself. I think the outcome reached now is the worst thinkable for both the police, as they do not come out pretty, and the family, because they may always have the "What if..."-feeling, with his uncle not being allowed to talk to him.
The family of the shooter that was hunted for a week before committing suicide, Raoul Moat, wants a second post-mortem examination because the police report does not mention anything that points to taserwounds, whereas they are sure police officers used stun guns on Moat. Also, Moat's uncle is upset because the police did not allow him to talk to his nephew. The uncle states he was the closest to a father Moat ever had, but the police did not allow him because they were afraid he would be at risk. The uncle feels that his familiar face could just have been the required bit to convince Moat into not committing suicide.
My opinion:
I believe it to be at the very least extremely peculiar, that the reports do not contain any information concerning wounds made by stun guns. It appears as though the police are covering for themselves now, and I think that is not the impression the police ought to aim for. Also, I consider their decision not to allow the uncle near to be simply wrong, as the uncle might have been able to influence his nephew enough to stop him from killing himself. I think the outcome reached now is the worst thinkable for both the police, as they do not come out pretty, and the family, because they may always have the "What if..."-feeling, with his uncle not being allowed to talk to him.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)