Thursday, January 08, 2009
Compare the Meekat.com
This is a really clever and rather fun site:
Q. Isn’t a meerkat a type of mongoose?
A. NO! This great insult! Mongoose not good enough to lick dropping from my shoe! I am
meerkat and I live in mansion filthy mongoose could only dream about in wildest dreams.
Q. Isn’t a meerkat a type of mongoose?
A. NO! This great insult! Mongoose not good enough to lick dropping from my shoe! I am
meerkat and I live in mansion filthy mongoose could only dream about in wildest dreams.
A matter of concern
The Times has a follow-up to the story initated by Julia Goldsworthy yesterday, which found that Councils in England and Wales are taking people to court too quickly if they fall behind with their council tax payments. One million people received court summons, whilst bailiffs called on 600,000.
They have found that some householders who owe less than £2,000 in arrears are suddenly faced with a bill of up to £50,000 and forced to sell their homes because of the exorbitant fees which kick in after bankruptcy. Insolvency accountants who chase up small council tax arrears of a few hundred pounds charge up to £600 an hour. They say that up to 5,000 householders were pursued for bankruptcy last year and at least 1,000 were made bankrupt.
Vince Cable is absolutely right when he says that there seems to be no justification whatever for these astronomical fees for what appears to be routine work. He believes that there is a clear case for the Government to intervene either by involving the competition authorities or by opening up the business to a wider range of providers. I agree.
They have found that some householders who owe less than £2,000 in arrears are suddenly faced with a bill of up to £50,000 and forced to sell their homes because of the exorbitant fees which kick in after bankruptcy. Insolvency accountants who chase up small council tax arrears of a few hundred pounds charge up to £600 an hour. They say that up to 5,000 householders were pursued for bankruptcy last year and at least 1,000 were made bankrupt.
Vince Cable is absolutely right when he says that there seems to be no justification whatever for these astronomical fees for what appears to be routine work. He believes that there is a clear case for the Government to intervene either by involving the competition authorities or by opening up the business to a wider range of providers. I agree.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Getting Britain working (or not)
The Conservatives held a Get Britain Working" day yesterday in which their Shadow Cabinet toured Britain meeting businesses and workers. According to the Conservative Party, the away-day is to allow "David Cameron and the Shadow Cabinet" to hold forums which "will be attended by local business owners, business organisation representatives, relevant voluntary organisations, local people, Conservative councillors and Conservative Parliamentary candidates."
However, the Daily Telegraph reports that one Shadow Minister was missing, drawing attention once more to the alleged lack of commitment by senior Tories, who prefer to keep lucrative part time jobs rather than spend all their time holding the government to account.
Step forward Tory Shadow Business Secretary Alan Duncan who has chosen instead to attend the 53rd Anglo-Swiss Parliamentary Ski Week in Davos in Switzerland. How this will impact on David Cameron's reshuffle we have yet to see but rumours are rife that former Channcellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke is being lined up for Mr. Duncan's job.
However, the Daily Telegraph reports that one Shadow Minister was missing, drawing attention once more to the alleged lack of commitment by senior Tories, who prefer to keep lucrative part time jobs rather than spend all their time holding the government to account.
Step forward Tory Shadow Business Secretary Alan Duncan who has chosen instead to attend the 53rd Anglo-Swiss Parliamentary Ski Week in Davos in Switzerland. How this will impact on David Cameron's reshuffle we have yet to see but rumours are rife that former Channcellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke is being lined up for Mr. Duncan's job.
Gaza
An excellent article from Nick Clegg in this morning's Guardian on the Israeli invasion of Gaza:
Brown must stop sitting on his hands. He must condemn unambiguously Israel's tactics, just as he has rightly condemned Hamas's rocket attacks. Then he must lead the EU into using its economic and diplomatic leverage in the region to broker peace. The EU is by far Israel's biggest export market, and by far the biggest donor to the Palestinians. It must immediately suspend the proposed new cooperation agreement with Israel until things change in Gaza, and apply tough conditions on any long-term assistance to the Palestinian community.
Brown must also halt Britain's arms exports to Israel, and persuade our EU counterparts to do the same. The government's own figures show Britain is selling more and more weapons to Israel, despite the questions about the country's use of force. In 2007, our government approved £6m of arms exports. In 2008, it licensed sales 12 times as fast: £20m in the first three months alone.
There is a strong case that, given the Gaza conflict, any military exports contravene EU licensing criteria. Reports, though denied, that Israel is using illegal cluster munitions and white phosphorus should heighten our caution. I want an immediate suspension of all arms exports from the EU, but if that cannot be secured, Brown must act unilaterally.
Finally, the world's leaders must accept that their response to the election of Hamas has been a strategic failure. The removal of the EU presence on the Egypt border in response to Hamas's election, for example, has made it easier for the rockets being fired at Israel to get into Gaza in the first place. An EU mission with a serious mandate and backing from Egypt and Israel would help Israel deal proportionately and effectively with the threat from weapons smuggling.
Brown must stop sitting on his hands. He must condemn unambiguously Israel's tactics, just as he has rightly condemned Hamas's rocket attacks. Then he must lead the EU into using its economic and diplomatic leverage in the region to broker peace. The EU is by far Israel's biggest export market, and by far the biggest donor to the Palestinians. It must immediately suspend the proposed new cooperation agreement with Israel until things change in Gaza, and apply tough conditions on any long-term assistance to the Palestinian community.
Brown must also halt Britain's arms exports to Israel, and persuade our EU counterparts to do the same. The government's own figures show Britain is selling more and more weapons to Israel, despite the questions about the country's use of force. In 2007, our government approved £6m of arms exports. In 2008, it licensed sales 12 times as fast: £20m in the first three months alone.
There is a strong case that, given the Gaza conflict, any military exports contravene EU licensing criteria. Reports, though denied, that Israel is using illegal cluster munitions and white phosphorus should heighten our caution. I want an immediate suspension of all arms exports from the EU, but if that cannot be secured, Brown must act unilaterally.
Finally, the world's leaders must accept that their response to the election of Hamas has been a strategic failure. The removal of the EU presence on the Egypt border in response to Hamas's election, for example, has made it easier for the rockets being fired at Israel to get into Gaza in the first place. An EU mission with a serious mandate and backing from Egypt and Israel would help Israel deal proportionately and effectively with the threat from weapons smuggling.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
What unionists?
Alan Cochrane in the Daily Telegraph reports that the The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party have changed their name and are now known simply as The Scottish Conservative Party. Will the Welsh Tories follow suit?
Alternative energy
Interesting article in yesterday's Guardian on the proposal to construct a barrage across the River Severn. Tidal Electric, which wants to generate electricity by using up to 13 tidal lagoons built on the estuary floor from rock instead of a barrage has accused Government consultants of miscalculating the costs so as to promote the barrage scheme above the lagoons.
Studies carried out by the engineers AS Atkins, for Tidal Electric, have suggested that the lagoons could generate twice as much power, per square mile impounded, than the barrage, and therefore generate about 25-40% more energy without damaging the shoreline. However, the plan sent by Parsons Brinckerhoff to ministers says the tidal lagoon option would be eight times more expensive than the barrage scheme and would not generate as much power.
It is difficult to believe that the barrage will cost less than tidal lagoons to construct or even that it will keep within the £14 billion estimated budget. If we are to proceed with it then there must be an authorative and independent assessment of the costs of all alternatives to ensure that we are getting value for money.
I am also struck by the parellels between this row and what has happened in Swansea Bay where there are proposals to construct a tidal lagoon. It seems that this project has been thwarted at Government level, both at Westminster and Cardiff Bay, despite many experts believing that it is feasible and cost-effective.
I am not anti-wind power but there does appear to be an element of truth in accusations that the Government is incapable of looking objectively at any other non-fossil energy source and that Ministers and civil servants are promoting turbines at the expense of other feasible and more reliable alternatives. Lagoons are hardly cutting edge. It is not as if the government is being asked to invest in or approve untried technology. Maybe it is time they gave them a chance.
Studies carried out by the engineers AS Atkins, for Tidal Electric, have suggested that the lagoons could generate twice as much power, per square mile impounded, than the barrage, and therefore generate about 25-40% more energy without damaging the shoreline. However, the plan sent by Parsons Brinckerhoff to ministers says the tidal lagoon option would be eight times more expensive than the barrage scheme and would not generate as much power.
It is difficult to believe that the barrage will cost less than tidal lagoons to construct or even that it will keep within the £14 billion estimated budget. If we are to proceed with it then there must be an authorative and independent assessment of the costs of all alternatives to ensure that we are getting value for money.
I am also struck by the parellels between this row and what has happened in Swansea Bay where there are proposals to construct a tidal lagoon. It seems that this project has been thwarted at Government level, both at Westminster and Cardiff Bay, despite many experts believing that it is feasible and cost-effective.
I am not anti-wind power but there does appear to be an element of truth in accusations that the Government is incapable of looking objectively at any other non-fossil energy source and that Ministers and civil servants are promoting turbines at the expense of other feasible and more reliable alternatives. Lagoons are hardly cutting edge. It is not as if the government is being asked to invest in or approve untried technology. Maybe it is time they gave them a chance.
A tax cut?
All this morning's papers give some prominence to David Cameron's promise of a tax cut for basic rate savers if the Tories get into power and for once it is a proposal worth looking at. After all many pensioners, who rely on their savings to maintain a decent standard of living, have found themselves struggling in the face of the recession and the impact it is having on the value of their investments.
However, as Nick Clegg points out the impact of this so-called cut will be negligible. It only amounts at today interest rates to an extra 40p a year for someone saving £100. Far better would be the sort of big, permanent, fair tax cuts proposed by the Liberal Democrats and which will take many of the poorest pensioners out of paying tax altogether.
The other problem with Mr. Cameron's proposal is how it is to be paid for. Although he plans to keep spending on schools, health, defence and international development at Labour's planned levels, projected spending in other departments could grow by only 1% in real terms, instead of the 4.1% planned by Labour. That means restrictions on spending by the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, business department, and communities department.
In other words the Tories will effectively allow spending on the police, prisons, the court system, investment in small business, local government and regneration projects to fall behind other departments, despite the increased demand on their resources. That is a matter of judgement on their part of course and it does matter how this expenditure will be managed. We have yet to see the details of that but once we do at least the electorate will now have something to consider when they look to cast their vote at the next general election.
However, as Nick Clegg points out the impact of this so-called cut will be negligible. It only amounts at today interest rates to an extra 40p a year for someone saving £100. Far better would be the sort of big, permanent, fair tax cuts proposed by the Liberal Democrats and which will take many of the poorest pensioners out of paying tax altogether.
The other problem with Mr. Cameron's proposal is how it is to be paid for. Although he plans to keep spending on schools, health, defence and international development at Labour's planned levels, projected spending in other departments could grow by only 1% in real terms, instead of the 4.1% planned by Labour. That means restrictions on spending by the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, business department, and communities department.
In other words the Tories will effectively allow spending on the police, prisons, the court system, investment in small business, local government and regneration projects to fall behind other departments, despite the increased demand on their resources. That is a matter of judgement on their part of course and it does matter how this expenditure will be managed. We have yet to see the details of that but once we do at least the electorate will now have something to consider when they look to cast their vote at the next general election.
Monday, January 05, 2009
The Doctor's new assistant
Sara Bedford draws attention to this article in the Daily Telegraph, which speculates that Doctor Who's new assistant might be Lily Allen. My vote goes to Charlotte Church!
Age of consent
It is always dangerous to rely on a newspaper for news especially when the article is as speculative as this one, however this morning's Guardian does raise some issues that deserve consideration, even if they have got it wrong.
The paper claims that the government is considering raising the school-leaving age to 18 immediately, as a way of combating the huge rise in unemployment, particularly among the young, that it expects to see this year. They say that there are also proposals to accelerate the filling of existing vacancies at local authorities.
The Government has of course already passed legislation that will ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds remain in school, training or an apprenticeship until they are 18, but that only applies to children who turn 11 this year, and so does not effectively start for another five years.
However, the paper argues that because the 137,000 rise in those unemployed in the three months to October contained 55,000, or 40%, who were in the 18-24 age bracket then this has prompted a radical re-think. They say that while the country's overall jobless rate is currently 6%, among 18-24-year-olds it is 14% and among 16-17-year-olds it is 26%.
Personally, I was never happy with the original legislation. It seemed to me to be unnecessarily restrictive to force 16-18 year olds to stay in education or training and that such a measure will only cause problems for those earmarked to teach or train these young people. After all, it is not easy dealing with reluctant pupils, especially when they feel that government legislation is taking away their freedom to choose.
Do not misunderstand me. I am all in favour of more investment in 16-19 education and training, offering more choice to those who want to continue down that route. That is a long overdue investment. But these young adults must have the freedom to find employment if they wish, even if that work does not contain a training element. And let us face it, there is no point in extending formal education and training if there is no employment at the end of it.
And that is the point. Bringing forward this provision so that it becomes effective immediately rather than 2014 or 2015, smacks of desperation on the part of the government. They are manipulating the statistics rather than offering real opportunity. It does take time to put the relevant training places and apprenticeships in place and my best guess is that the providers are nowhere near ready. There is certainly no guarantee that there will be jobs for these youngsters in two years time.
I was also quite amused by the suggestion that local Councils should accelerate the filling of existing vacancies. Many of these jobs are being kept vacant because local authorities cannot afford to fill them. A lot will disappear in the current budget round as efficiency savings. If the government is going to massively boost the resources available to councils so as to rectify that then that is all well and good, but we all know that is not going to happen.
Like many other proposals this is just spin put in place so that others can be blamed for not delivering. If the Guardian piece is to be considered accurate then the government needs to do better.
The paper claims that the government is considering raising the school-leaving age to 18 immediately, as a way of combating the huge rise in unemployment, particularly among the young, that it expects to see this year. They say that there are also proposals to accelerate the filling of existing vacancies at local authorities.
The Government has of course already passed legislation that will ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds remain in school, training or an apprenticeship until they are 18, but that only applies to children who turn 11 this year, and so does not effectively start for another five years.
However, the paper argues that because the 137,000 rise in those unemployed in the three months to October contained 55,000, or 40%, who were in the 18-24 age bracket then this has prompted a radical re-think. They say that while the country's overall jobless rate is currently 6%, among 18-24-year-olds it is 14% and among 16-17-year-olds it is 26%.
Personally, I was never happy with the original legislation. It seemed to me to be unnecessarily restrictive to force 16-18 year olds to stay in education or training and that such a measure will only cause problems for those earmarked to teach or train these young people. After all, it is not easy dealing with reluctant pupils, especially when they feel that government legislation is taking away their freedom to choose.
Do not misunderstand me. I am all in favour of more investment in 16-19 education and training, offering more choice to those who want to continue down that route. That is a long overdue investment. But these young adults must have the freedom to find employment if they wish, even if that work does not contain a training element. And let us face it, there is no point in extending formal education and training if there is no employment at the end of it.
And that is the point. Bringing forward this provision so that it becomes effective immediately rather than 2014 or 2015, smacks of desperation on the part of the government. They are manipulating the statistics rather than offering real opportunity. It does take time to put the relevant training places and apprenticeships in place and my best guess is that the providers are nowhere near ready. There is certainly no guarantee that there will be jobs for these youngsters in two years time.
I was also quite amused by the suggestion that local Councils should accelerate the filling of existing vacancies. Many of these jobs are being kept vacant because local authorities cannot afford to fill them. A lot will disappear in the current budget round as efficiency savings. If the government is going to massively boost the resources available to councils so as to rectify that then that is all well and good, but we all know that is not going to happen.
Like many other proposals this is just spin put in place so that others can be blamed for not delivering. If the Guardian piece is to be considered accurate then the government needs to do better.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Cover-up?
Congratulations to Paul Flynn, who has been pursuing the multi-billion pound subsidy to an American company in the event of a catastrophic accident at Sellafield during part of the massive £93 billion clean-up of the nuclear legacy there.
As the Independent on Sunday reveals the Government pushed through the handover of Sellafield to a private business at breakneck speed because it feared that the "unstable management arrangements" of the controversial Cumbrian nuclear complex risked its safety. In doing so they effectively by-passed Parliamentary scrutiny by preventing MPs challenging the deal.
The paper tells us that 'the cover-up arises from the awarding, late in November, of a contract to run the nuclear complex to Nuclear Management Partners, a consortium of US, French and British companies. Although the contract is worth some £22bn, the consortium told ministers that it would walk away from the deal unless it was fully indemnified against the costs of cleaning up an accident at what is one of the world's most hazardous nuclear sites.
Normally, as the documents repeatedly acknowledge, the Government would place a special minute before Parliament if it intended to undertake a liability of more than £250,000. MPs would then have 14 days to raise an objection, which would stop the undertaking going ahead until it had been dealt with. But MPs were not told about the Sellafield indemnity until 75 days after the last moment when they could object, even though it potentially exposes the taxpayer to liabilities running into billions.
The energy minister Mike O'Brien blames a "clerical oversight" for this. But the documents clearly show that the senior civil servants and nuclear administrators had been actively discussing how to limit MPs' chance to object at least since early last year.'
This whole incident highlights a number of issues with nuclear facilities such as Sellafield. Firstly, for those who argue that alternative energy sources such as wind power have an unfair advantage because of public subsidy, it is worth noting that nuclear power has far greater amounts of public money propping it up and that the hidden subsidy for this form of generation lies in the clean-up costs and the public indemnity of risk.
Secondly, it underlines the aura of secrecy and the lack of accountability that surrounds civilian nuclear projects. Ministers and civil servants find the level of subsidy involved to be uncomfortably high and seek to avoid effective scrutiny on it. The security issues involved too make proper oversight difficult though not impossible.
With Wylfa Nuclear Plant on Anglesey due to be shut down and decommissioned in 2010 and with Trawsfynydd in the process of being decommissioned then there will inevitably be questions about the cost to the public purse involved there as well as well as the level of accountability. How does this episode impact on proposals for a Wylfa B to be built on Anglesey?
As the Independent on Sunday reveals the Government pushed through the handover of Sellafield to a private business at breakneck speed because it feared that the "unstable management arrangements" of the controversial Cumbrian nuclear complex risked its safety. In doing so they effectively by-passed Parliamentary scrutiny by preventing MPs challenging the deal.
The paper tells us that 'the cover-up arises from the awarding, late in November, of a contract to run the nuclear complex to Nuclear Management Partners, a consortium of US, French and British companies. Although the contract is worth some £22bn, the consortium told ministers that it would walk away from the deal unless it was fully indemnified against the costs of cleaning up an accident at what is one of the world's most hazardous nuclear sites.
Normally, as the documents repeatedly acknowledge, the Government would place a special minute before Parliament if it intended to undertake a liability of more than £250,000. MPs would then have 14 days to raise an objection, which would stop the undertaking going ahead until it had been dealt with. But MPs were not told about the Sellafield indemnity until 75 days after the last moment when they could object, even though it potentially exposes the taxpayer to liabilities running into billions.
The energy minister Mike O'Brien blames a "clerical oversight" for this. But the documents clearly show that the senior civil servants and nuclear administrators had been actively discussing how to limit MPs' chance to object at least since early last year.'
This whole incident highlights a number of issues with nuclear facilities such as Sellafield. Firstly, for those who argue that alternative energy sources such as wind power have an unfair advantage because of public subsidy, it is worth noting that nuclear power has far greater amounts of public money propping it up and that the hidden subsidy for this form of generation lies in the clean-up costs and the public indemnity of risk.
Secondly, it underlines the aura of secrecy and the lack of accountability that surrounds civilian nuclear projects. Ministers and civil servants find the level of subsidy involved to be uncomfortably high and seek to avoid effective scrutiny on it. The security issues involved too make proper oversight difficult though not impossible.
With Wylfa Nuclear Plant on Anglesey due to be shut down and decommissioned in 2010 and with Trawsfynydd in the process of being decommissioned then there will inevitably be questions about the cost to the public purse involved there as well as well as the level of accountability. How does this episode impact on proposals for a Wylfa B to be built on Anglesey?
Double whammy
It could happen to anyone of us. We are coming back from shopping, get out of a taxi laden down with bags and lose our wallet.
Culture Secretary, James Purnell was lucky to get everything back including his cash, credit cards and debit cards. He was lucky too that his House of Commons pass was handed into the local police as well. It could well have been used to gain access to sensitive areas of government.
Mr. Purnell was also the Cabinet Minister who misplaced confidential documents relating to a benefit claim when he travelling by rail from Cheshire to London in October. He allegedly broke guidelines by taking documents out of his ministerial red box before wandering along the train carriage chatting on his mobile.
The purpose of this post is not to draw attention to Mr. Purnell's double whammy, though he does appear to be particularly accident-prone, but to show how easy it is for valuable identification papers to be lost, even by Government Ministers.
If we were to be forced to carry ID cards it would be a simple matter for somebody to acquire one, clone it and use it. Where is the security in that? The fact is that an over-reliance on these plastic cards could lead to danger in itself. Not only would they not achieve the purpose they were designed for but ID cards could create new problems.
Culture Secretary, James Purnell was lucky to get everything back including his cash, credit cards and debit cards. He was lucky too that his House of Commons pass was handed into the local police as well. It could well have been used to gain access to sensitive areas of government.
Mr. Purnell was also the Cabinet Minister who misplaced confidential documents relating to a benefit claim when he travelling by rail from Cheshire to London in October. He allegedly broke guidelines by taking documents out of his ministerial red box before wandering along the train carriage chatting on his mobile.
The purpose of this post is not to draw attention to Mr. Purnell's double whammy, though he does appear to be particularly accident-prone, but to show how easy it is for valuable identification papers to be lost, even by Government Ministers.
If we were to be forced to carry ID cards it would be a simple matter for somebody to acquire one, clone it and use it. Where is the security in that? The fact is that an over-reliance on these plastic cards could lead to danger in itself. Not only would they not achieve the purpose they were designed for but ID cards could create new problems.
Labels: ID
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Top Advert of 2008
This blog does not carry advertising and I generally try to avoid commercials, however I am currently enjoying this advert for PG Tips enormously and thought it was worth sharing.
More grief for the economy
If the government have not yet realised that their approach to alleviating the recession is not working then this morning's news will have given them cause to pause for thought. Their reliance on macro-economic measures such as cutting interest rates and stimulating demand through cuts in VAT is proving to be ineffective, a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
The £12.5 billion spent on cutting VAT in particular is looking to be poor value for money in the light of the latest Retail Insight Report, which suggests that retail footfall was down 3.1% in December from a year earlier, whilst the the stamp duty holiday for homes under £175,000 has failed to arrest the decline in mortgage approvals. They fell to 27,000 in November, the lowest for nine years.
The Guardian tells us that the banks are defying the government by starving businesses and households of loans and warning that credit will become even scarcer in the first three months of this year. Banks and building societies are being deterred from lending by the worsening economic outlook and the fall in house prices and other assets against which loans are secured.
First time buyers and those struggling to cope with negative equity and falling incomes need targeted help whilst small businesses need access to credit currently being denied them by the banks. Like other politicians I have encountered small businesses faced with the withdrawal of long established and sustainable lines of credit by their bank. Solid businesses have been plunged into crisis by such actions and desperately need assistance from Government to get through this recession.
If the Government is to intervene then it must do so in a more precise way, guaranteeing credit for small businesses and helping home owners. The recession we are facing looks to be deeper and longer than the government is predicting. They need to adjust their response accordingly.
The £12.5 billion spent on cutting VAT in particular is looking to be poor value for money in the light of the latest Retail Insight Report, which suggests that retail footfall was down 3.1% in December from a year earlier, whilst the the stamp duty holiday for homes under £175,000 has failed to arrest the decline in mortgage approvals. They fell to 27,000 in November, the lowest for nine years.
The Guardian tells us that the banks are defying the government by starving businesses and households of loans and warning that credit will become even scarcer in the first three months of this year. Banks and building societies are being deterred from lending by the worsening economic outlook and the fall in house prices and other assets against which loans are secured.
First time buyers and those struggling to cope with negative equity and falling incomes need targeted help whilst small businesses need access to credit currently being denied them by the banks. Like other politicians I have encountered small businesses faced with the withdrawal of long established and sustainable lines of credit by their bank. Solid businesses have been plunged into crisis by such actions and desperately need assistance from Government to get through this recession.
If the Government is to intervene then it must do so in a more precise way, guaranteeing credit for small businesses and helping home owners. The recession we are facing looks to be deeper and longer than the government is predicting. They need to adjust their response accordingly.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Joining the Euro
The photograph on the left was donated by Gary Lewis and illustrates the weakness of the pound. Currently the exchange rate for tourists is £1 for one Euro.This morning's Western Mail leads with the extraordinary proposition that joining the Euro at this stage will somehow rescue the Welsh economy. The paper cites as its authority a number of politicians and experts nearly all of whom would no doubt agree that we should have joined the Euro some time ago and that if we had done so then we would not be in such a mess. I am not so sure however that they would want to enter the Eurozone at the current rate of exchange and with the British economy where it is.
Dafydd Wigley sums it up in my view when he says that Britain’s decision to opt out of the euro was a “missed opportunity” and warns that Britain’s economy may now have become too weak to share the benefits of the single currency.
For once I agree with Adam Price, though I may not go as far as him in the conditions he wants to impose before we join the single european currency. He argues that it would be “economic madness” for Britain to join the euro at present.
I continue to be a supporter of Britain joining the Euro but I think we have to be realistic and accept that now is not the time to do it. If we had gone in a few years ago it may well be that we would not be in such a mess now. Certainly, holidays on the European continent would be a damn sight easier whilst exchange fluctuations would not have such an impact on the economy.
The important thing is that we must not miss the opportunity next time it presents itself to us and that means losing the sentimental attachment to the pound so evident in the recent ICM survey for BBC Radio 4’s The World At One.
