Good evening. A fine evening to reflect on some statistics on income inequality in the UK, one would feel.
Findings in 'The Guardian' in May 2009 from the Department for Work and Pensions and the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have shown the darkest results that Labour could have wished for.
We all remember, back in 1997, Labour's mantra to end child poverty...well roll on the largest inequality of income difference since the modern records began in the early '60s (1961 as far as the IFS is concerned).
A lot has happened since Mr Blair won his third election in 2005. England have won the Ashes. Twice! The poorest 10% of households have seen their weekly incomes fall £9 to £147 (after inflation). On the other hand, the richest 10% of homes have seen a £45 increase to £1033 weekly. Now Mr Major, that's just not cricket!
The Gini Coefficient, from HBAI data, shows a rise steeply in Thatcher's government, and then a levelling off, even a small decrease under Major and then a steady creep up under Blair, and more recently, Gordon Brown. Thus suggesting the most unnatural of results - Major's government closed the gap greater than New Labour did. Interesting stuff.
The IFS has suggested the poverty increase in 2007-08 was due to weak income growth for the low paid. Right too, that the rise in inflation had eroded the real value of benefits and tax credits, naturally.
Labour's goal is falling like Bambi on ice it would seem, and with the chance of that man Dave Cameron taking charge, I would be surprised if things improved in the near future.
Over and out.
SB
Wednesday 27 January 2010
Tuesday 26 January 2010
UK Finally Out of Recession...Just.
Official GDP figures were released earlier today, showing the final quarter of 2009 had positive economic growth of a mere 0.1%. Britain is finally out of recession then, but by the most marginal amount, and below many people's expectations. Many economists had talked of 0.4% being the figure, but as we can see, it is not as high as that. Nonetheless, it is positive growth and many have cited the Government's Car Scrappage Scheme being a help to that cause. The following link to the BBC News site gives a good background http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8479639.stm. More to follow shortly.
SB
SB
Tuesday 17 November 2009
Heyyy, what’s that? Plumbers battling for Keira Knightley and Hugh Grant? Well I guess I’d put my hands to work for Hugh Grant too ;) London’s biggest plumbing firm, Pimlico Plumbers, has commenced a £1m claim against a rival business, Service Corps, who are supposedly stealing their rich and famous clients! Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers has also accused Service Corps of persuading his staff to breach their contacts since setting up offices nearby.
I’d be furious if someone was taking Hugh Grant away from me... ohhh yes I would! Mr Mullins is not very happy about this at all, he said “I take very seriously any attempt to take from me the fruits of more than 30 years of sweat and hard work.’’ He must have worked very hard… he started his plumbing career from the age of 15 and he’s probably the only plumber in the UK who drives a Bentley Convertible! *sighhhh*
In order to see whether Service Corps are guilty of thieving Pimlico Plumbers customers, the courts have seized their computers in order to find any evidence against them. Service Corps are declining to make any comments. I say they’re going doooown!
IC
Monday 16 November 2009
Gold Price Hits Record High
The price of gold has hit a new all-time high of $1,043.77 an ounce after a decline in the dollar boosted the attractiveness of metals to investors.
Forecasters have stated concern about the possibility of higher inflation in the US as its economy recovers was another factor in lowering the price of the dollar, further boosting the appeal of gold.
The last time the spot price of gold hit a new high was in March 2008, when it reached $1,032.80 an ounce.
Analysts said the price of gold could still rise further towards the end of the year if the dollar remains weak.
The price of gold is also typically strong in the October to December period because of the higher demand for jewellery in the run-up to Christmas and the Indian festival of Diwali.
A growing number of private investors have been buying the precious metal as a haven against both instability in the financial markets and fears over inflation.
Gold is a physical commodity so any investment means it is owned in its entirety by the purchaser which isn’t exposed to any bank's financial survival.
Now a lot of investors are buying gold because they are concerned about the impact of higher inflation; they are fearful about how much governments are borrowing, and how much money central banks such as the Bank of England are putting into the economy.
Other precious metals also saw their prices rise on Tuesday, with silver up 3% to $17.11 an ounce, and platinum adding 0.9% to $1,305 an ounce. The price of copper was up 2.4% to $6,060 a tonne.
AS
Forecasters have stated concern about the possibility of higher inflation in the US as its economy recovers was another factor in lowering the price of the dollar, further boosting the appeal of gold.
The last time the spot price of gold hit a new high was in March 2008, when it reached $1,032.80 an ounce.
Analysts said the price of gold could still rise further towards the end of the year if the dollar remains weak.
The price of gold is also typically strong in the October to December period because of the higher demand for jewellery in the run-up to Christmas and the Indian festival of Diwali.
A growing number of private investors have been buying the precious metal as a haven against both instability in the financial markets and fears over inflation.
Gold is a physical commodity so any investment means it is owned in its entirety by the purchaser which isn’t exposed to any bank's financial survival.
Now a lot of investors are buying gold because they are concerned about the impact of higher inflation; they are fearful about how much governments are borrowing, and how much money central banks such as the Bank of England are putting into the economy.
Other precious metals also saw their prices rise on Tuesday, with silver up 3% to $17.11 an ounce, and platinum adding 0.9% to $1,305 an ounce. The price of copper was up 2.4% to $6,060 a tonne.
AS
Friday 13 November 2009
Student Loans - Problems and the Future
Around 100,000 students are yet to recieve their student loans, following on from the pattern from last year where around 80,000 students recieved their loans alot later than promised. For students in more affluent families this doesn't pose massive problems, maybe just an increase in the money loaned from dad and them having to pay it back at a later day. However, what about the less affluent students; The students whose parents are not in the top half of earners and who have to graft so they can earn money?
Student Finance, the body to approve and supply students loans need to sort their act out. Their reputation, the confidence of students, the future generation of our country; these are some of the things that are now in tatters and have the potential to be in tatters. Students need the incentive to go into higher education, they need to be sure that they can go into higher education with the security they need. At the moment, Student Finance are not in the position to do that. The government need to think again about the body who support our students.
Students who are educated privately ultimately do not share the same problems as those who are educated by the state. Those in private have the fallback of dad's money, they have someone to go to when times get tough and who can bail them out, therefore the lack of student loans may not be an essential part of university life to them. However, for those who dont have that luxury, their student loans are essential, both for their livelihoods and for the student experience. Being a student is about taking responsibility for your work and your play, but to do this (as said above) you need the security of money in the bank.
Not only does this pose problems to the current generation of students, but it could have implications further down the line, not only for student finance but for the number of future university applicants. Student Finance already find their reputation in tatters, confidence in them evaporated, but this poses the question are they still up to the job? Can we still trust them to juggle with the lives of our children/siblings? As for future university applicants, I doubt very much they would want to submit their application without some knowledge that their financial state at university is secure. If it isnt, the monetary problems students face at university will get worse, and the level of student debt will increase.
A students time at university is meant to be the best of their lives; a chance for them to release themselves. Obviously there is studying to be done, but it is a chance for students to explore, to open up new windows in their lives. But how can they do that if they dont have the money to do so? Not getting student loans not only impacts on the financial side of university, but on the students development as an individual, and surely that is something that should be avoided at all costs. JK
Student Finance, the body to approve and supply students loans need to sort their act out. Their reputation, the confidence of students, the future generation of our country; these are some of the things that are now in tatters and have the potential to be in tatters. Students need the incentive to go into higher education, they need to be sure that they can go into higher education with the security they need. At the moment, Student Finance are not in the position to do that. The government need to think again about the body who support our students.
Students who are educated privately ultimately do not share the same problems as those who are educated by the state. Those in private have the fallback of dad's money, they have someone to go to when times get tough and who can bail them out, therefore the lack of student loans may not be an essential part of university life to them. However, for those who dont have that luxury, their student loans are essential, both for their livelihoods and for the student experience. Being a student is about taking responsibility for your work and your play, but to do this (as said above) you need the security of money in the bank.
Not only does this pose problems to the current generation of students, but it could have implications further down the line, not only for student finance but for the number of future university applicants. Student Finance already find their reputation in tatters, confidence in them evaporated, but this poses the question are they still up to the job? Can we still trust them to juggle with the lives of our children/siblings? As for future university applicants, I doubt very much they would want to submit their application without some knowledge that their financial state at university is secure. If it isnt, the monetary problems students face at university will get worse, and the level of student debt will increase.
A students time at university is meant to be the best of their lives; a chance for them to release themselves. Obviously there is studying to be done, but it is a chance for students to explore, to open up new windows in their lives. But how can they do that if they dont have the money to do so? Not getting student loans not only impacts on the financial side of university, but on the students development as an individual, and surely that is something that should be avoided at all costs. JK
Thursday 12 November 2009
Cameron: Labour has Widened Poverty Gap
Writing in the Guardian for an exclusive article on Tuesday 10th November, Tory leader David Cameron hit out at Labour's handling of the poverty problem in the UK.
Regularly referring to Labour's 'Big Government' approach, Cameron claims that as the state continued to expand under Labour since 1997, the state has become 'more, not less unfair'.
He also goes on to say that for the first time in 30 years, the gap between the richest and poorest is at its widest. This also with his apparent plans to give adults greater education later in life to support themselves and children a 'second chance' at education should they come from a more underpriveleged background.
Interesting words indeed from a Conservative leader...as it seems to be the case with Mr Cameron, we only hear words of criticism for what everybody else is doing wrong, and yet no suggestions as to how he will tackle the UK's biggest issues today.
It's all very well putting into fancy words about what we already know about what the Labour government has done wrong over the last 12 years, as indeed we know it has done some things wrong, but the British public is fed up of hearing what they know and it would seem that the (probably) incoming Conservative party will be one that we all know of the past. Mr Cameron will just adopt the policies of Tory, yes Tory Blair. If you sift through the comments on the article you can see what many people really think, with general agreement along the lines of "OK that's fine, but what are you going to do about it Mr Cameron?"
Tell me something new, Dave!
SB.
Regularly referring to Labour's 'Big Government' approach, Cameron claims that as the state continued to expand under Labour since 1997, the state has become 'more, not less unfair'.
He also goes on to say that for the first time in 30 years, the gap between the richest and poorest is at its widest. This also with his apparent plans to give adults greater education later in life to support themselves and children a 'second chance' at education should they come from a more underpriveleged background.
Interesting words indeed from a Conservative leader...as it seems to be the case with Mr Cameron, we only hear words of criticism for what everybody else is doing wrong, and yet no suggestions as to how he will tackle the UK's biggest issues today.
It's all very well putting into fancy words about what we already know about what the Labour government has done wrong over the last 12 years, as indeed we know it has done some things wrong, but the British public is fed up of hearing what they know and it would seem that the (probably) incoming Conservative party will be one that we all know of the past. Mr Cameron will just adopt the policies of Tory, yes Tory Blair. If you sift through the comments on the article you can see what many people really think, with general agreement along the lines of "OK that's fine, but what are you going to do about it Mr Cameron?"
Tell me something new, Dave!
SB.
Monday 9 November 2009
The Common Room Canteen Monopoly
In their previous post, classical economists Sam Buckell and Kyle Dooley mentioned the monopoly occuring in Fullbrook sixth form. Our common room in the sixth form has its own small canteen and vending machines - great some people say; we dont have to leave the warmth of sixth form and stray out into the cold grounds of the school to buy a sandwich. However, if we delve deeper and look beyond the lady behind the counter, we can see things are not all student friendly.
The canteen has recently been speculated to be operating a monopoly. It takes advantage of the demand that we as students have; our constant demand for junk food such as chocolate and crisps or quick snacks like paninis seemingly being the perfect oppurtunity to squeeze more pennies out of our wallets. The canteen has relatively little competition, and like the larger monopolies on the market, exerts this power by charging high prices for the basic ammenitiies we crave.
Around a 5 minute walk away we have a Waitrose. If we look at the prices Waitrose charges for its confectionery, and compare them to the vending machine in our common room, it becomes obvious that a monopoly power is being exerted by the vending machine. In Waitrose, a kit kat costs 50p, whereas 55p is charged in our common room. Just think, which group of people has more disposable income; people who regularly shop in Waitrose or students in Fullbrook sixth form?
So, how can this problem be solved? How can the burden that the monopoly creates be reduced on the students in our sixth form? The answer lies with the simple packed lunch. Students bringing in a packed lunch would create competition for the canteen, competition that is needed in the sixth form. Students with a packed lunch would reduce the market share the canteen has, and their ability to manipulate prices in favour of profit maximisation, a classic example of monopolistic behaviour. However, although the packed lunch seems like the best option, it does have negative impacts, such as increasing expenditure of parents and increasing the revenues gained by the supermarket monopolies.
Even though the solution still poses problems, it must be conceded that these problems are small and only require small changes to a families spending patterns. The problem of the Fullbrook sixth form canteen monopoly is one that needs to be retified, otherwise students of this fine establishment will find themselves being manipulated for many years to come.
The canteen has recently been speculated to be operating a monopoly. It takes advantage of the demand that we as students have; our constant demand for junk food such as chocolate and crisps or quick snacks like paninis seemingly being the perfect oppurtunity to squeeze more pennies out of our wallets. The canteen has relatively little competition, and like the larger monopolies on the market, exerts this power by charging high prices for the basic ammenitiies we crave.
Around a 5 minute walk away we have a Waitrose. If we look at the prices Waitrose charges for its confectionery, and compare them to the vending machine in our common room, it becomes obvious that a monopoly power is being exerted by the vending machine. In Waitrose, a kit kat costs 50p, whereas 55p is charged in our common room. Just think, which group of people has more disposable income; people who regularly shop in Waitrose or students in Fullbrook sixth form?
So, how can this problem be solved? How can the burden that the monopoly creates be reduced on the students in our sixth form? The answer lies with the simple packed lunch. Students bringing in a packed lunch would create competition for the canteen, competition that is needed in the sixth form. Students with a packed lunch would reduce the market share the canteen has, and their ability to manipulate prices in favour of profit maximisation, a classic example of monopolistic behaviour. However, although the packed lunch seems like the best option, it does have negative impacts, such as increasing expenditure of parents and increasing the revenues gained by the supermarket monopolies.
Even though the solution still poses problems, it must be conceded that these problems are small and only require small changes to a families spending patterns. The problem of the Fullbrook sixth form canteen monopoly is one that needs to be retified, otherwise students of this fine establishment will find themselves being manipulated for many years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)