Thursday 10 November 2011

Follow up to what to do with Preston

The Tithebarn project has fallen through and now Preston Council is considering what to do with Preston City Center. While their are many ideas, Ben Casey is proposing what I think to be a genius idea.
He wants to convert half the bus station into shops while retaining the other half a bus station.
This will allow for development of this historic building and mean the bus station is kept in a location that is valued by the community but also mean new shops can be build and the surround area invested in. The project will cost less than the Tithebarn project and seems to have all sides happy.
Considering the weight of public opinion towards this issue it seems the obvious solution to all sides problems.



Written from LEP article and Preston bus station.co.uk

Saturday 29 October 2011

What to do with the City of Preston, Concerning the Bus Station


Internationally Preston is not well know, even the people of Preston sometimes are known to joke about how on earth it became a city. If you live in the UK you may have heard of Preston for one of these reasons; you've heard of the University of Central Lancaster that's based in Preston, if you heard about 12 year old cage fighters or maybe Preston's bus station that was recently in the news for being an endangered historic building.

Preston at it's best, the Harris building.
The City council has a plan to put Preston on the map. It's a new shopping complex and refurbishment of the market end of town. Unfortunately they have it completely wrong! The idea that Preston can be put on the map by building a new shopping center like say Manchester, Blackpool, Birmingham, Hull, London... and pretty much every city in the UK, is doomed to fail by its nature! We are in an economic slow down, shops are closing down throughout the country, their are boarded up shops in Preston and the project will cost billions of pounds the council don't have and they have recently lost financial backers because its a bad idea!
As if this idea didn't seem bad enough as you look deeper it gets worse, they will build this site were the bus station currently is by tearing down the bus station then building a smaller bus station further way from the train station (occurring to some reports although the plans keep flip flopping)  and if you didn't know the bus station is the largest car park in Preston. We don't have a surplus of parking so why do they want to removed a large multistory car park to make room for something that will bring people into the city then leaving them with no were to go. What will bring people to Preston is something different basic common sense, never mind economics will tell you that there is a limit to the amount of revenue that can be made from shopping, any gain in one place is a loss to another. Preston needs to make itself different but the tragedy  is it already is.
Recently Preston made headlines for the right reasons because one of its buildings was listed as an important monument. Preston Bus Station has just been added to the World Monument Fund's treasured places at risk list, this list only contains 67 buildings global! Preston Bus Station is not just loved by architects, it recently came top of the Lancashire Evening Posts most loved building in Preston. In fact, as i pointed out to the council, the Save Preston Bus Station had far more facebook likes than Preston Council's page.
The tragedy of all of this is while Preston Council fights with supports of the bus station nothing is being done in Preston, now Preston Council blame supporters of the bus station for slowing things down but actually supports of the bus station want the same thing. No body wants to keep the bus station as it is but it needs to be developed. This is the dream for the bus station:
Preston bus station concept, More at: Link
Preston Bus Station could be incorporated into a new shopping center! A shopping centers that will catch the eye unlike the same old shinny monstrosity proposed by the council. Perhaps people will say look at this amazing building that has been brought back to life. It's better there are so many options open to the bus station to give it life! The large flat level on top would be perfect for an elevated park. The other day I saw skaters enjoying the curves of the bus stations, perhaps one of the upper levels could be a skate park? Putting to use what we have, that developing the community and putting things to good use. 

We simply cannot keep the bus station because it is unique, it is a drain on finances, to bring it up to standard would cost £4 million alone! People often the quote the £700 million investment here but that isnt our money, its the developers money and they wouldn’t pay £4 million to clean up the bus station i'm afraid.
- Preston Council -Link


No they wouldn't pay for £4 million to clean it up but it's easier to get £4 million than £700 Million. Realistically of course the dream of refurbishing the bus station would cost more than £4 but it would probably cost less than £700 Million. One of the main investors was John Lewis, which is now scaling back its new operations and I think has pulled out of this project. Forget building a huge shopping center on the site of the bus station, convert it into smaller plots in which small shops can set up. Smaller shops are better for the economy than larger ones that simply put all competition out of business and it makes the project more adaptable. If one pulls out its not a loss making the project all together more adaptable.
UCLAN
 
The great thing about refurbishment is that it could attract the graduate jobs Preston wants. As mentioned earlier UCLAN is on the rise attracting international attention. The problem is graduates can't find that many local jobs. An interesting building like the bus station could be what brings businesses into Preston to stay. Perhaps some of the bus station could be offices? If you left some of the many floors are parking and kept some buses running out of it, it would be an amazing place to base a business! In a city with graduates, in a building with a park on top, parking, buses on site and by using the walk ways you could get straight into the Guild Hall which would benefit from more business along with nearby markets that would of course add the attraction. An alternative option to the current project wouldn't even be too ridgid seen as there are still near buy buildings that can be demolished if needs be.
It blows the mind to think that Preston Council is pushing forward a project that costs a huge amount of money, is not popular (we need development in the city is not equal to we support the project! That is fact skewing), not as beneficial as the alternatives and results in tearing down an unique piece of architecture in return for paying an new architecture to design something which will fade away into the hundreds of 21st center shopping centers being erected globally. Dare I say the whole thing whiffs of a personal vendetta by certain members of the council. I hope the council wake and think differently! Now is not the time to simply open the first page of the city development hand book and pick out the obvious shopping centre option, we can't take Liverpool One drop it in Preston and expect all our problems to go away.
Were living in changing times, we can't live in a society built on excessive consumption and borrowing which is exactly what this project is. It's time to put the Tithebarn project to rest and for the council to practice what its preaches: Recycle!


Sign the partition

Thursday 6 October 2011

Looking back at Libya

The Libyan war looks like it will cost over £1.7 billion! It's a costly amount but worth while in my opinion. I've always been on the side of the war in Libya, this is why.
Opposed to the other wars in the Middle East the Libya conflict was against a clear foe and with the support of the majority. In the war in Afghanistan the US an its allies took sides with the Northern Alliance that had been in civil war with the Taliban, then quickly ended the current government and replaced it with this new government of militants and war lords. There was little control, it was poorly managed and the Taliban were turned from being in power to being nothing then re-emerging as a hard core terrorist organization with the new Afghanistan government being utterly corrupt and huge division in the country. In the Libyan war it was not power hungry war lords that were seeking to over throw Gaddafi but normal citizens. Equally the support for Gaddafi was relatively small if the country was united then it would not have huge sections of the population that would instantly be cast out.
Another key factor was that we didn't land troops or 'wage war' on Gaddafi, instead our approach was to give the rebels the military backing they couldn't possibly must them selves. 'lending' air support to the rebels helped them counter Gaddafi in ways that they couldn't have done other wise.
Yes we did intervene and while there is no denying that we went further than simply protecting civilians and actually removed the Government, yet there is also no denying if we hadn't intervened then there would have been far worse atrocities. The hidden mass graves slowly being uncovered are tell us that.

If we don't intervene then we become isolationist, if we had just kept our selves to our selves and let it sort out then what kind of country would we be. The people of Libya were asking for our help. I find it hard to tolerate the opinion that we have budget problems so we shouldn't save tens of thousands of lives. Isolationism militarily, politically and economically only leads to war, oppression and economic depression.
I accept that greed played a part in driving this war, oil! I guess to be an economist is to accept that greed can sometimes bring about good, capitalism is built on greed and while there is no doubt ( to most sane people) that unbridled capitalism has huge costs and the beast of greed must be controlled through intervention, along the way it creates great things.
I'm not being naive there are a lot of problems in Libya, a revolution causes lasting damage to a country. First of course being that Gaddafi isn't dead, there is still a risk of Gaddafi extremists but as we've seen actually so far this appears to minimal if existent at all? The biggest problem is of course that their is now an entire country flooded with arms! As a matter of fact the fact that Gaddafi is still fighting has some advantages, it channels the violence at an enemy, it's giving the transitional council time to prepare for when its all over and they need to deal with controlling the country. Essentially the fact that fighting is still going on means the council has yet to deal with it, all though of course I'm sure everyone is hoping that Gaddafi's supporters give up soon. Another risk is the council may also struggle to keep a fair open democracy going. The problem that new countries often end up falling back into the old traps of dictators is a very real risk for Libya although they have an key advantage, the support of powerful nations. Libya is now a close ally to Europe and is located near to Europe. It's quiet developed and willing to be democratic. There's reason to be hopeful.

Looking back at Libya it shows that while war is generally wrong, sometimes correctly managed and well executed with a bit of luck thrown in, it can be a really help to people. Still this doesn't mean we should be bombing the middle east until we've made it more westernized! Every siduation is different, were fortunate that in this case we actually got it relatively right  and made a difference.
Cameron looking smug

Tuesday 9 August 2011

Who is rioting?

Who would have thought in a time of heavy cut backs in police, military, benefits and community services, in a time of economic crisis, political discontent and global unrest that the UK would see rioting... it sounds so simple when you put it that way but these riots seem to be more a looting and arson spree than a statement of discontent. Its very difficult to take a line, are these people simply mindless and violent thieves or the victims of a society which has failed to deal with certain areas of long term depravity and deteriorating social responsibility.
There is a lot of talking around about what turns a person into a looter or a rioter? A lot of the arrested are criminals that have been perilously arrested, it seems a lot of the looting is simply a result of criminals uniting to over run the police. While there may be some individuals rioting for ideological reason the vast majority are rioting for the pleasure of destruction and reward of theft. These riots may have been started in response to a young man being shot dead by police when he may not have had a gun but now in the 3rd day there is no political reason driving it. 
Pictures like this of a boy being mugged while he bled some up the mentality of the looters; theft.


While these rioters are criminals and clearly need to be dealt with there is an issue, what turned these people to this. In the long term why have these youth's decided the path of criminality is best?
That is a deep social issue and it is linked to unemployment, upbringing, social mobility and education. The areas many of these individuals come from are areas of high relative poverty. These young people have made the decision that they gain more benefit from looting than obeying the law. This is a decision that can be influenced, perhaps if the punishment was worse they would not riot. Perhaps if they had more options. Perhaps if the draw back from rioting came from within, if they believed it was wrong! Dealing with these problem can help reduce crime but the problem is it requires money, something the government is short of. These events are everyone's problem and we are all a little bit responsible.
There are huge negative externalities for all of society to bare if we don't deal with this
At the end of the day, though, these people are not reflective of the UK or the youth of the UK. What ever reason is driving their actions it is uncalled for. What is necessary is control to be restored so mass theft and burning of homes is stopped, what we need to make sure is that we don't give up on these areas of depravity. The worse thing we can do is to label people and write of areas as thug foundries, some say we need a much bigger stick (or water cannon?) but we also need a carrot too. Think short term and long term, cutting back the stick and removing the carrot will only lead to an enviroment for this behavior to re-occur. 

Wednesday 15 June 2011

E.coli Economics (what is good economics)

The E.coli outbreak is just another thing to at to the list of things making this world a bit of dreary place at the moment, so many negative externalities to current events. The E.coli outbreak is an example of another external factor its very difficult to put into models, economics is very dynamic and far reaching and so is the world on it.
The future of salad sales or even tourism to europe is uncertain, its likely the cucumber market will take years to recover after wild accusations. Equally will this see a shift in investment? This area of medicine could see a boost, its difficult to know. The decision to invest in a E.coli treatment opposed to another treatment could save or cost lives and that kind of decision can fall into the rhelm of economics. Economics is not just fiddling with graphs in a dusty room, the future of humanity relies of economics.  its always been that way, we just didn't call it economics. Economics is philosophy, politics, psychology, maths, history, geography.. it touches all other subjects and in my opinion a good economist knows that. 
I've found there is a rivalry between academic areas, stereotypically physicists look down their noses at psychologists who call themselves scientists, geographers don't like economists 'butting in on their subject' but after all all subjects cross over. If you want to a build a space shuttle you need everyone, you need the mathematician to calculate, you need plenty of physicists, it won't work with out your computer scientists and chemists. If you want to know if its worth while or how to get the resources to do it you need an economists or at least an economic climate that lets you built it; weather thats a firm after a profit of a communists government showing off! You need to know what space will do to people so thats your psychologists and sociologists, the list goes on and on. 
Ideas should be put together, people should work together, thats all people and after all thats pretty much the reason the interest is so critical. Stagnation of ideas or worse, refusal to listen to others is what will be the down fall of everything! 
Free communication and cooperation is key and the most important thing in economics should be ideas! You can't do anything to the factors of production with out enterprise, in what ever form it takes. A closed minded economists won't get far because as annoying as it may be, economics models break over and over again and every recession throws up a new wave of problems. 
The E.coli outbreak might at first seem to fall into the rhelm of medicine but its clear its effects are far reaching. 

Wednesday 4 May 2011

Vote No to AV campaign Parody.

When you go to vote on the 5th of may, make sure you vote NO to AV
Why you ask?

Well here is why:

There are only a few countries that use AV, Indonesia and Austral the only ones worth mentioning and those countries are rubbish. People in these countries don't even like AV (source: ....) we should listen to them.

AV could lead to smaller parties having more political power as it leads to a voting system that better reflects what people actually want! We can't have that! Can imagine those small parties like the Greens getting into a position of power or the BNP! Do you want the Nazi’s to win? NO then vote NO.

Nick Clegg thinks AV is a good idea; he is a big liar and knows nothing. We all hate deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg so AV must be evil too! That logic is undeniable.

Vote No to AV is a cross party organization of all British politicians:  Mainly Tory’s but they are all that count oh and look a Labour Peer and these guys...


If your looking for some of the many credible reasons not to vote AV try looking on the internet..

An accurate and fair advert for AV
The vote No to AV campaign: because personal jibes on your allies and childish reasoning is how to get your message across. 



Vote No to AV campaign is cross political movement.. funded by the Tory donor alliance

Thursday 10 March 2011

Public Sector Pension's reform likely to trigger unrest

The Hutton Report has announced that public sector pensions will be reformed, which means that most workers in the public sector will get less and will have to work longer. The new system will involve scrapping the final salary scheme in which pension is determined by final grade and insted pensions will be determined by average pay throughout career. As for the retirement age, it will be brought into line with the national retirement age of 65 from its previous age of 60 for public sector workers. This is yet another blow for the public sector to add to the pay freeze, which with inflation predicted to be 4% will see a significant fall in real income (in fact employees in the public sector will be 4% worse off).
Taking away pension rights, freezing pay, sacking workers and putting remaining staff under pressure is a sure way to stir up wide spread union action. Civil service unions have becoming increasingly more daring in recent years, increasing strikes and its rumoured they are mobilising for mass protest. Add to the civil service unions to the battle cries of the aggrieved teaching unions, the already striking lecturers, furious students and the police federation has made its stance as very much against the Government. You have to wonder who isn't against the Government.
Walking around Preston Town Centre I was surprised to see members of the Socialist Worker Party asking for signature against cuts, I was even more surprised to see the number of signatures they had as people showed a keen interest in their march on London. The graph from Youpoll shown bellow shows the decline in popularity of the Lib Dem and Conservative party since forming Government.

The popularity of the Government is falling and Unions are mobilizing, times are going to be very tough for the Government. As long as they maintain their plan of contractive fiscal policy through cut backs whist leaving the super rich and culprit banks untouched, people are going to questions what Government they elected.

Libya

Since the protests in Tunisia sparked up the events middle east I have watched very closely. Tunisia and Egypt saw their undesirable leaders fall but it is Libya where the greatest struggle is. Not in my life time have I seen anything I would consider to show as many examples of bravery, courage, determination and passion as in Libya. Its very all too easy to place the label of good and bad onto each side in Libya, Col Gaddafi seems to be epitome of villainy.
Gaddafi's regime was the classic dictator model of Police State, State TV and keep your subjects in horror and awe. The fact is that those on the streets of Tripoli supporting Gaddafi actually appear to believe that he is saving them from Western Colonists that are funding an al qaeda rebellion to take their oil! While that is not evil its just staggering ignorance, it does mean that Gaddafi's supporters don't really have a grasp on the situation and thus surely it is the rebels liberating them not Gaddafi. We should consider though that from their perspective Gaddafi did drive out their King and considering the controversy surrounding Iraq and general behaviour of oil companies it becomes more plausible that with state media that these people could believe Gaddafi's nutty account of events. Gaddafi feeds his supporters tales of mighty victories against the rebels which so far have mostly lies!
Gaddafi told 'his people' that he had taken the oil town of Ras Lanuf when in fact it was still under rebel control and declared Zawiya liberated when it had been levelled to the ground it reports suggest rebels still remain. In fact when the BBC attempted to visit Zawiya 3 reporters were beaten up to the point of death and thrown on a flight home...
Gaddafi's forces are killing civilians, beating up news crews, they have superior fire power and most of them are violent gangs or mercenaries. The rebels have some basic weapons, a few stolen tanks, toyota pick up trucks but more importantly resolve! Holding Ras Lanuf and Zuara against the odds day after day is a miracle yet I fear it may not last. Zuara and Ras Lanuf are under huge pressure now from land and air, there is only one clear solution... intervention.
To intervene or not to intervene, is a question that up until Gaddafi started bombing his own people was hard to answer, it is now a question with a more obvious answer; no fly zone. We have frozen Gaddafi's assets and demanded his resignation to response, so we should now impose a no fly zone. Of course there are problems with this, such as having to bomb Gaddafi's air felids and it is claimed that it could alienate some rebels and Eastern leaders, these seem to be fading. The rebel government in Benghazi appears to be asking for it, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic council approve, France and the UK are pushing for it and the USA is hinting so why have we not imposed it! A no fly zone would simply rob Gaddafi of his unfair advantage, its not sending in troops.
It seems to me to be out-ragious that we sitting just off the Libyan coast with the power to stop Gaddafi yet we do nothing, Gaddafi is murdering his own people with arms we sold him and hired troops with money we helped him accumulate. If we don't move quickly the rebels could loose and I would never forgive the British Government for that, we're willing to take money from the expoliations of the Libyan people but then not give a damn when they are fighting for the very principles we are supposed to be promoting. On another not, its interesting how quick we run to America when they propose military intervention but when we bring an idea to the table that doesn't involve sending in troops to conquer a country they won't commit.

Wednesday 23 February 2011

Arise Comrades! Communism has returned?

If you check Wikipedia you will find it will tell you that the Communist Party of Great Britain disbanded in 1991. Textbooks may imply that Communism is long gone and with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and China now widely regarded as a capitalist nation you would be forgiven for thinking that Communism is dead never mind the concept  it exists in the UK.

However your wrong, despite officially disbanding in 1991 the Communist Party of Great Britain merely changed its name and after several mergers it appears to have re-emerged. Here is the website of CP (communist party): http://www.communist-party.org.uk/  
Formed of trade unionists put off by New Labour and other Socialist supporters that have been neglected by mainstream politics, as well as long-standing communist supporters. Its not really a surprise to see a return to strength for the Communist movement, considering the growing uneven distribution of income, rising unemployment and political disillusion (voting figures can tell you this). The movement also states in its party slogan 'for peace' tapping into the growing 'anti-imperialism movement' (that being imperialism of the USA, that evil capitalist over lord). There’s also no better catalyst than Conservative Government with a regressive austerity plan at a time of stagnating growth and rising inflation. 
Youth Employment is still rising and its clear to see the consequences of this, all you have to do is look at a few boarders south to find millions of revolting Arabs bringing down corrupt 'capitalist' kings. The students protests showed British students are willing flare up their own small-scale revolt and when attending an open day at Manchester University I saw plenty of Marx propaganda. 
I would say main stream politicians are really not taking seriously the threats these movements pose and the media is quick to pick on plenty of far right examples (BNP EDL etc), in times of economic desperation and political disillusion people turn extreme.  


Communism, a mad theory created by a bunch of destabilizing radicals or the answer?



Monday 7 February 2011

BUS WARS: Chapter 4: Price Wars

A price war is a phonomium that occurs in an oligopolistic market. In oligpopistic markets only a few firms dominate the market and according to game theory this leads to businesses to battle directly with one other. Unlike in a free market were firms struggle to influence the market each other (price taker), in a oligpoplistic market each firm has a direct impact on one another, if one business lowers its prices it can attract people to them and thus cut the revenue of their rivals.
A bus war is a brutal for of price war. In terms of the example above if one bus company lowers its prices to go from the city center to a village and another bus company that runs the same route does not then bus users are likely to switch from one bus service to another. A bus war is far more amplified than a price war as the businesses are pinned to a certain route pitched directly against each other.

In the mid 2000s Stagecoach's quest to increase its market share organically rather than taking over firms it created deadly bus wars across the country one such brutal war of economics was in the city of Preston. Preston was targeted by Stagecoach and the creation of Preston Citi was the 'army' they committed. Preston Citi was a re-branding to take Preston Buses advantage in identity with the city it would also give Preston Citi more freedom to compete with Preston Bus. In key areas across Preston, Preston Citi bus were launched in direct competition with Preston Bus. Preston Bus responded like wise.
Soon Preston Bus and Preston Citi Bus were running simultaneous in direct competition, both lowering their prices against each other. Preston Bus lowering its prices to force out Preston Citi and Preston Citi lowering its prices to drive out Preston Bus.
One of the critical battle grounds was Ashton, were bus tickets into Preston Centre were as low as 40p at one point, a stark contrasts to other routes were Preston Citi was charging well over £1.
It was not just price competition, Preston Citi also launched loyalty schemes such as day riders and mega riders which proved successful in capturing control of the market.
Price competition for Preston Bus was not stustationable, making losses per customers and looking market share they were in deep trouble. While Preston bus struggled, Preston Citi could make losses and be sustained by profits across the Stagecoach empire. Preston bus was making a anual turnover of around £11 million but compared to Stagecoaches £1.2 Billion. Preston Bus was owned by its employees with no where to go for funding or help. Preston bus was soon facing yearly loses and it Stagecoach now moved in for the kill...

Wednesday 2 February 2011

Pol-Eco-UK Facebook Page

If you want to stay up to date with Pol-Eco blogs then why not like the new facebook page for updates:

Wednesday 26 January 2011

Double Dip already?

Most Economists predicted 0.2%-0.6% growth in the last quarter of 2010,  I thought I was sticking my neck out a bit predicting 0.2-0.4% and stating we would go into negative growth in 2011. However despite being being convinced we will go into double dip, I was very much taken back when Oct, Nov and Dec of 2010 growth figure was -0.5% growth!!
As we can see from the graph this is serious, it is more of a dip than at the beginning of the credit crunch. I decided to plot the Prime Ministers and parties onto the graph, it highlights mainly that David Cameron inherited an economy in recovery and has now knocked it down into near to a double dip. This graph also highlights how John Major managed to recover GDP from the 1990s recession and then hand the boom over to Tony Blair who kindly have Gordon Brown the bust! 
It seems that Fiscal policy is more important than George Osborne hoped, lets hope that this is just teething problems for Crowing out theory. Theoretically all this negative growth means is more surplus capacity for new businesses to expand into as the public sector contracts..
Yet to say that GDP is all a result of Government policy would be wrong though. Its easy to blame Gordon Brown for the credit crunch but in reality it was not his fault. Equally to colour in this dip blue and blame it on the coalition is also naive. George Osborne has blamed the fall in GDP down to the cold weather. 
If we break down the figures it is true that construction was the driving factor behind the fall in GDP however to say it was all down to bad weather I think is also being naive, there have been many Government construction projects canceled in the wake of budget cuts, this also could have hurt construction. According to this BBC article the ONS said: '...even if the weather impact had been excluded, activity would have been 'flattish'"  So even the snow can't explain the poor performance!
All in all wether the negative growth was the Governments fault or not going down a road of fiscal contraction during a period of negative growth is reckless.  

Were to draw the line and what ever happened to left wing

In the recent General Studies paper it asked something along the lines of:
'Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems, they are all the same, theres no point in voting' 
Discuss wether it is worth while having different political parties. 
The entire premise of my EPQ is about the different philosophies and policies of different parties so this question spurred me into some what of a frenzy of defining political parties, historical examples. Hopefully which will give me quite a good grade at the end, although you can never tell with General Studies and most peoples view on the subject (not mine) are summed (if not a bit roughly) by youtuber: RichandPoor


Yet upon coming home I noticed this article: 


Lord Owen 'could vote for Labour' under Miliband

Lord Owen was one of  the key founders of the SDP party that broke away from labour in the 1981s to eventually merge with the Liberal party to found the Liberal Democrats. The fact that he would not support the Labour party makes a complex situation more difficult. 
There was a time when Labour and the Conservatives were clear cut (not that i was alive to remember it)  and it was not too hard to define the Lib Dems but now drawing the political line is very hard! 
Historically Labour were left wing, Conservatives were right wing and the Lib Dems were central left yet right now the Lib Dems are in coalition government with the right wing Conservatives. 
Oh but how right wing are the Conservatives, replacing a flaming touch with a green tree signalled a so called reinvention of the Tory party to the centre. David Cameron trumped the 2010 emergency budget as 'fair' and progressive, but their  polices don't seem to much of a far cry from Margate Thatcher. Experimental economic policy (crowing out theory and PSNCR priority) and downsizing the public sector is classic Tory policy.  Even the Conservative command acknolages this,  this we know thanks to Wikileaks. 
Yet tweaks to the Conservatives to make them friendlier and more electable seem like nothing compared to Tony Blairs New Labour. The reinvention of Labour Party sifted the party of the Unions into a central  Party to Govern Briton for just under 13 years. Tony Blair was named 12th most infuential right winger in the telegraph! Nick Clegg leader of the 'central-left' Liberal Democrats came 3rd!!
What happened to left wing!?
Well Mr Milliband is not leader of the labour party and it seems he is brining back the left. Elected by the Unions Ed is not new labour which means he could just be left of centre? 
If your looking for the true left wing its actually within the right wing government, if you ask me I would say it those Liberal Democrats that risked peerage to vote against the tuition fees. In time we could see the end of the coalition, if the Lib Dems don't break under pressure they will dissolve back into two parties! 

Saturday 15 January 2011

BUS WARS: Chapter 3: Attack of the Monopoly

Stagecoach is an example of a business that has expanded through external growth and successfully! Founded in wake of the deregulation of the 1980s just like Preston bus and the all the other small bus firms, yet Stagecoach would grow into one of the market leaders. In the UK Stagecoach would be come one of 5 oligopoists however locally Stagecoach would be one of the most aggressive monopolists in recent history.
Stagecoach entered the market as a completely new firm (yet previously dealing in minibus hire). At first Stagecoach offer bus hire, with a personal service then it quickly began  growth and the first firm to be bought out by Stagecoach was McLennan Of Spittalfield. This allowed Stagecoach to move from merely operating hire services out of their home of Perth (Scotland) into operating local services to Glasgow under the name Magicbus. 
This was the beginning of huge growth for Stagecoach, through out the late 1980s. Along with rivals Arriva, Stragecoach opted for an aggressive take over strategy. Stagecoach took over maybe bus services including: East Midlands, Cumberland, Southdown and Ribble.
Stagecoach took over Ribble bus in 1988 and instantly moved for dominance across the North West. 


Stagecoach renamed Ribble bus to Stagecoach Ribble and soon began buying up other bus local companies. Stagecoach took over Barrow Borough Transport and created Stagecoach Cumbria out of the Cumbrian bus services. The Northwest was just one if the regions Stagecoach targeted, it grew to dominance across various regions all across  the UK and even bought out bus operators globally buying up UTM in Malawi. 


By the 2000s Stagecoach and bough up many smaller bus companies and had strong market share across major cities such as Manchester, London, Newcastle and Liverpool. There 1990s diversification into the rail industried  captured a significant market share and expansion globally was large scale. In 2001 all of the Northwest bus groups were merged into the group Stagecoach North West but it was not until 2006 that the bus wars truly began.

In 2006 Stage coach formed Stagecoach Preston Citi, its goal: to directly compete with Preston Bus! 











Main sources:  Stagecoach Group: History, Wikipedia: Stagecoach Group, Stagecoach Northwest

Friday 7 January 2011

Ed Miliband Receives Grilling on Jeremy Vine

In brutal interview did Ed hold his nerve?



The interview:
The Previous Government: After a blazing intro Jeremy gave Mr Miliband a chance to blame the past Labour Government and differentiate away from them, to which he defended the past Government. To the argument that they spend to much he said it was wise investment, although not prefect. He said the borrowing was responsible and said he paid off debt.
A caller attacked Mr Miliband first off in a petty manner about his voice then moving on to state the previous Labour government brought the country to its knees saying Labour wasted the governments money. He responded pointing out investments like the NHS to which she responding saying her mother had died of MRSA. Despite the onslaught he kept his cool using rational arguments such as 'for the most part people feel they have a good standard from the NHS' then twisting it to a Conservative jibs like their cuts to the NHS.
Others placed the sole blame for the financial meltdown on him which was also implied by Jeremy, he held off and stuck to the argument that it was not their fault because it was global.
His personality: When a calling with an alternative political view asked Mr Miliband to show some passion and heart in fighting the precent government, he said he would fight harder and picked up on her arguments backing them up, arguments such as 'we will never get playgrounds back'.
He was then accused of being faceless and 'shafting' his brother. He said his and his brother were best to stand against each other and fight fairly rather than back door deals such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He said that both of them 'had something to say'.
When questioned about not being on his childs birth certificate he put death to such rumours by saying he is now and it was due to not being married to the mother (his partner) and responded to why he was not married by saying he plans to but he did not want to marry for political gain.
Tuition fees: His response to tuition fees to was push forward his graduate tax. He said that the Conservatives were ruining the next generate which he would not. He said he did not join the marches because he had other means of protesting such as in parliament. He also again reached out to the young party by saying he supporting votes for 16 year olds.
Banks: He said he would help the working family by not implementing the VAT and benefit cuts by getting money from elsewhere such as higher bank levies. He offered an interesting solution to bonuses by saying further regulation of banks by making them disclose more information would reduce bank bonuses by letting share holders know more and thus putting them off from paying out. This is an interesting idea, although to me this just seems like shifting pay from bank workers that actually work to shareholders that don't.
War: He supported the Conservative policy on Afganistian and said that it was right because many terrorist bases were around that region.
Religion: When asked to stop faith schools he pointed out that many faith schools pre-date public schools and said most do a good job.
Finally interesting Jeremy was attack for attacking Ed on personal grounds not political, to which Ed responded by asking the caller to explain why he voted Lib Dems rather thus letting Jeremy off the hook.


 My response:
Ed held his nerve, no slips ('bigot') even against deep personal jibes and hard questions. He has some interesting and inventive policies although the idea he is too vague still holds up. Its refreshing to see him agree with some Con-dem policies and just valid defences. I agree that the finical crisis was not labours fault and investment is good, although perhaps running such large deficits is not responsible, its clear to make the destinction that an economy is not like a household and debt if very different to nations.
At very least I can say he is a good politician although  he appears to have developed that catchphrase 'let me just say'.


From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00d4khs - (disappears on 13th of Jan)