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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…