Palin for President...
I saw this on the Obvious - although I bet it is doing the rounds...
2008-09-07
I saw this on the Obvious - although I bet it is doing the rounds...
Palin for President...
I saw this on the Obvious - although I bet it is doing the rounds...
Entry tags:
A Wednesday in London: Temple, Cathedrals and a Ghost
A bit of a dilemma: a morning to spend before catching the 3pm train back north. After breakfast, I dumped my bag at King’s Cross and wandered around the building, trying to get myself stopped again looking for photographs. I know King’s Cross well – it has been my main link with London for the last fourteen years, and for four years before that (I used to get the milk train down over night; they would run old rolling stock, and one could find a compartment, pull down the blinds, and stretch out across the bench to sleep. It was cheaper than the misnamed “sleeper”, and more comfortable than the open-plan trains where one would be crammed in and there was always a loud Scotsman with a quickly emptying pallet of Special Brew sitting opposite me), but when I searched, there were few images which grabbed me. (This contrasts greatly with St Pancas next door, which I thought was superbly photogenic when we visited in February; I must go back to St Pancras to start a journey: Nice would be nice…)
I did however see this.
( A long rambling random walk through London... )
I did however see this.
( A long rambling random walk through London... )
Entry tags:
A Wednesday in London: Temple, Cathedrals and a Ghost
A bit of a dilemma: a morning to spend before catching the 3pm train back north. After breakfast, I dumped my bag at King’s Cross and wandered around the building, trying to get myself stopped again looking for photographs. I know King’s Cross well – it has been my main link with London for the last fourteen years, and for four years before that (I used to get the milk train down over night; they would run old rolling stock, and one could find a compartment, pull down the blinds, and stretch out across the bench to sleep. It was cheaper than the misnamed “sleeper”, and more comfortable than the open-plan trains where one would be crammed in and there was always a loud Scotsman with a quickly emptying pallet of Special Brew sitting opposite me), but when I searched, there were few images which grabbed me. (This contrasts greatly with St Pancas next door, which I thought was superbly photogenic when we visited in February; I must go back to St Pancras to start a journey: Nice would be nice…)
I did however see this.
( A long rambling random walk through London... )
I did however see this.
( A long rambling random walk through London... )
Even more bibliophile art...
De Zeen has this article on objects made out of recycled books by Laura Cahill.
Mostly vases - but also a table and a standard lamp.
(Via BoingBoing).
Mostly vases - but also a table and a standard lamp.
(Via BoingBoing).
Even more bibliophile art...
De Zeen has this article on objects made out of recycled books by Laura Cahill.
Mostly vases - but also a table and a standard lamp.
(Via BoingBoing).
Mostly vases - but also a table and a standard lamp.
(Via BoingBoing).
Entry tags:
Thinking about social networking and stuff...
I have just been reading a piece on the New York Times website about the increasing role Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media play in our lives (via BoingBoing.
It reminded me a lot of an article I read in the Independent earlier in the summer; I meant to blog about it at the time (indeed, I was going to tie it in to an article in The Economist about Jimmy Whales – the founder of Wikipedia - although, irony or ironies, articles on the Economist website can only be read by subscribers: it is distinctly not open source or “web 2.0”).
The article in the Indie, by Michael Savage (no idea if he is this Michael Savage or not; but it was in keeping with his thesis that I needed to Google him!), takes a privacy angle: are we happy that all this personal information is out there? (I was going to write “private”; but of course if it is on the internet, private is the one thing it isn’t.)
( Read more... )
It reminded me a lot of an article I read in the Independent earlier in the summer; I meant to blog about it at the time (indeed, I was going to tie it in to an article in The Economist about Jimmy Whales – the founder of Wikipedia - although, irony or ironies, articles on the Economist website can only be read by subscribers: it is distinctly not open source or “web 2.0”).
The article in the Indie, by Michael Savage (no idea if he is this Michael Savage or not; but it was in keeping with his thesis that I needed to Google him!), takes a privacy angle: are we happy that all this personal information is out there? (I was going to write “private”; but of course if it is on the internet, private is the one thing it isn’t.)
( Read more... )
Entry tags:
Thinking about social networking and stuff...
I have just been reading a piece on the New York Times website about the increasing role Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media play in our lives (via BoingBoing.
It reminded me a lot of an article I read in the Independent earlier in the summer; I meant to blog about it at the time (indeed, I was going to tie it in to an article in The Economist about Jimmy Whales – the founder of Wikipedia - although, irony or ironies, articles on the Economist website can only be read by subscribers: it is distinctly not open source or “web 2.0”).
The article in the Indie, by Michael Savage (no idea if he is this Michael Savage or not; but it was in keeping with his thesis that I needed to Google him!), takes a privacy angle: are we happy that all this personal information is out there? (I was going to write “private”; but of course if it is on the internet, private is the one thing it isn’t.)
( Read more... )
It reminded me a lot of an article I read in the Independent earlier in the summer; I meant to blog about it at the time (indeed, I was going to tie it in to an article in The Economist about Jimmy Whales – the founder of Wikipedia - although, irony or ironies, articles on the Economist website can only be read by subscribers: it is distinctly not open source or “web 2.0”).
The article in the Indie, by Michael Savage (no idea if he is this Michael Savage or not; but it was in keeping with his thesis that I needed to Google him!), takes a privacy angle: are we happy that all this personal information is out there? (I was going to write “private”; but of course if it is on the internet, private is the one thing it isn’t.)
( Read more... )
A rant about windfall taxes...
There has been a lot of talk over the past few months about the need (or otherwise) of the UK government to charge the energy companies – electricity, gas and oil – with a windfall tax.
Labour MPs, unions and even 70% of the public support such a tax (sorry – I can’t find the reference).
I really don’t understand this at all.
The argument goes that a windfall tax is needed because the energy companies are making excess profits: that is, they are profiting from unfair market practices – they either represent an oligolopoly or, locally, a monopoly.
The electricity and gas companies – privatised in the 1980s and 1990s – are regulated by the Office of Gas and Electricity markets – Ofgem. If any energy companies are abusing their market position, they should be subject to sanction by Ofgem, the Office of Fair Trading - “making markets work well for consumers” (I mean, jeez! It’s their bloody job!) or the Competition Commission.
That’s right – there are three different regulatory bodies who have the power to investigate market abuse by energy companies.
If MPs or the unions believe the energy companies are profiting from excess prices because the energy retail or wholesale markets aren’t working properly, they have lots of ways of prompting an investigation – which would result in large fines.
As it is, these companies are making large profits at the moment. (I have no idea if these are excessive or not.) As a result, they pay a large amount of money in corporation tax – this is a good thing: it pays for hospitals and schools and lots of other things we need money for in society.
This is a very different argument to saying that energy prices are high, and many people may need help to pay their bills this coming winter. This is something MPs and unions can do something about. Indeed, looking after their constituents is what they should be about. But they don’t need to bash businesses whilst they are about it.
Labour MPs, unions and even 70% of the public support such a tax (sorry – I can’t find the reference).
I really don’t understand this at all.
The argument goes that a windfall tax is needed because the energy companies are making excess profits: that is, they are profiting from unfair market practices – they either represent an oligolopoly or, locally, a monopoly.
The electricity and gas companies – privatised in the 1980s and 1990s – are regulated by the Office of Gas and Electricity markets – Ofgem. If any energy companies are abusing their market position, they should be subject to sanction by Ofgem, the Office of Fair Trading - “making markets work well for consumers” (I mean, jeez! It’s their bloody job!) or the Competition Commission.
That’s right – there are three different regulatory bodies who have the power to investigate market abuse by energy companies.
If MPs or the unions believe the energy companies are profiting from excess prices because the energy retail or wholesale markets aren’t working properly, they have lots of ways of prompting an investigation – which would result in large fines.
As it is, these companies are making large profits at the moment. (I have no idea if these are excessive or not.) As a result, they pay a large amount of money in corporation tax – this is a good thing: it pays for hospitals and schools and lots of other things we need money for in society.
This is a very different argument to saying that energy prices are high, and many people may need help to pay their bills this coming winter. This is something MPs and unions can do something about. Indeed, looking after their constituents is what they should be about. But they don’t need to bash businesses whilst they are about it.
A rant about windfall taxes...
There has been a lot of talk over the past few months about the need (or otherwise) of the UK government to charge the energy companies – electricity, gas and oil – with a windfall tax.
Labour MPs, unions and even 70% of the public support such a tax (sorry – I can’t find the reference).
I really don’t understand this at all.
The argument goes that a windfall tax is needed because the energy companies are making excess profits: that is, they are profiting from unfair market practices – they either represent an oligolopoly or, locally, a monopoly.
The electricity and gas companies – privatised in the 1980s and 1990s – are regulated by the Office of Gas and Electricity markets – Ofgem. If any energy companies are abusing their market position, they should be subject to sanction by Ofgem, the Office of Fair Trading - “making markets work well for consumers” (I mean, jeez! It’s their bloody job!) or the Competition Commission.
That’s right – there are three different regulatory bodies who have the power to investigate market abuse by energy companies.
If MPs or the unions believe the energy companies are profiting from excess prices because the energy retail or wholesale markets aren’t working properly, they have lots of ways of prompting an investigation – which would result in large fines.
As it is, these companies are making large profits at the moment. (I have no idea if these are excessive or not.) As a result, they pay a large amount of money in corporation tax – this is a good thing: it pays for hospitals and schools and lots of other things we need money for in society.
This is a very different argument to saying that energy prices are high, and many people may need help to pay their bills this coming winter. This is something MPs and unions can do something about. Indeed, looking after their constituents is what they should be about. But they don’t need to bash businesses whilst they are about it.
Labour MPs, unions and even 70% of the public support such a tax (sorry – I can’t find the reference).
I really don’t understand this at all.
The argument goes that a windfall tax is needed because the energy companies are making excess profits: that is, they are profiting from unfair market practices – they either represent an oligolopoly or, locally, a monopoly.
The electricity and gas companies – privatised in the 1980s and 1990s – are regulated by the Office of Gas and Electricity markets – Ofgem. If any energy companies are abusing their market position, they should be subject to sanction by Ofgem, the Office of Fair Trading - “making markets work well for consumers” (I mean, jeez! It’s their bloody job!) or the Competition Commission.
That’s right – there are three different regulatory bodies who have the power to investigate market abuse by energy companies.
If MPs or the unions believe the energy companies are profiting from excess prices because the energy retail or wholesale markets aren’t working properly, they have lots of ways of prompting an investigation – which would result in large fines.
As it is, these companies are making large profits at the moment. (I have no idea if these are excessive or not.) As a result, they pay a large amount of money in corporation tax – this is a good thing: it pays for hospitals and schools and lots of other things we need money for in society.
This is a very different argument to saying that energy prices are high, and many people may need help to pay their bills this coming winter. This is something MPs and unions can do something about. Indeed, looking after their constituents is what they should be about. But they don’t need to bash businesses whilst they are about it.