Skip to main content

100 Days

There is nothing really key about 100 days. It is a purely arbitrary point at which to assess a government.

However, one key assessment is what the interest rate is on government debt. The figures from Bloomberg today are:

UK (10 year) 3.037
Ireland (10 year) 5.236
Greece (10 year) 10.692
Germany (10 year) 2.353

That affects in the long term how much money is available for public services. Labour's strategy of don't cut so much in the short term leads to larger cuts in the Long term.

In the mean time the Coalition government is working to make the UK a nicer place to live. The banning of demanding money with menaces (aka car clamping on private land) is a good example of that. Yes people may still have to pay penalty charges, but the behaviour of so many clamping operations has been totally unacceptable.


PoliticalHack said…
Actually, there's no evidence to support the assertion that no cuts now means deeper cuts in the long term. The cuts are to remove the structural deficit, which is itself a volatile figure based on modelling, rather than an actual, solid number. Should the recovery be faster and the tax take increase, then deeper cuts may not be necessary.

While I'm broadly supportive of removing the right of clamping firms to threaten people with demands for extortionate sums, we do need a balance that allows people to secure their own property.

It is good to know that the country is getting better every day. Thousands will lose their jobs, some their homes and people's income will decrease, but at least they won't be clamped in their cars (assuming they can still afford them).
john said…
From an economic perspective there are slightly different approaches being taken in different countries so it will be possible to take a retrospective look at things as well as prospective.

However, the evidence is in the sovereign debt yields.

Obviously things are bad for some people, but that was inevitable even if your leader has stayed in power.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…