Lets be honest- Lassie lived with idiots. Every week one of them was getting pinned under the tractor. And every week Lassie would dutifully rush back to the house to alert the others. She'd whimper and tug at their sleeves. But every time they'd waste precious minutes saying 'Is anything wrong, girl?', 'Do you think she wants us to follow her?' and 'What is it?'. It's almost as if this was the first time this had ever happened, instead of happening every single week beforehand. I mean with all these people being pinned under tractors, its a wonder they managed to get by at all.

They probably got by on federal crop supports, which Lassie filled out the applications for...

Comments

On her website she claims that during 2005/2006 she claimed £8,123 on Members travel. She claims 'I anticipate that my mileage around the constituency and backwards and forwards from home to London will between 20,000 - 30,000 miles per year.'. Now the quickest route (according to the AA route finder) between Flitwick and the Houses of Parliament at SW1A 0PW,Westminster is 43.6 miles.
Assuming a mid point of 25,000 miles, this equates to 577.36 trips...or 288 return trips. Incidentally the 30,000 miles would be 344 return trips to London.

However Nadine doesn't make a lot of return trips. She claims £21,634 for 'a flat in Westminster' for when 'I don't finish until very late in the evening and start early the next morning'. Now I don't know how many days she doesn't make the return trip back, but I assume it going to be a fair few to justify the 21 grand for a flat.

There is another complicating factor in this. Nadine claim's she gets 'Great holidays'. Well she should do as BBC Website states 'The parliamentary year, or session, normally runs from mid-November until late July.'. Additionally 'Both Houses of Parliament adjourn several times during the parliamentary year. These holiday periods are known as recesses and they usually occur at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun.'

How can she be doing the 25,000 miles if she is not going to need to make the 288 return trips to London. She doesn't need to be there for anything like amount of time- due to the holidays. And lets factor into this the time when she doesn't have to make a return trip that day because she's staying in the 'flat'. So where are all these miles that she using to claim £8,123 on Members travel. Travelling around her 'constituency' Mid-Bedfordshire? I've never seen her.

Comments

I'm worried as well but about something slightly different. The UK's competitiveness in the underwear market. After all, China is churning out underwear on an industrial scale! If we are to compete in any way, the Government must look to make sure that we recover our underwear competitiveness.

Hopefully this (humorous?) example serves to illustrate that there is no need to compete with China on anything. If China enjoys a comparative, or absolute advantage, in the production of underwear or science graduates then we should buy them from their. In turn they will buy into what we have advantages in- e.g Teen Big Brother or the insurance industry.

After all if there is a shortage of science graduates, then their price-their pay-will increase. Students, who seek high incomes, will respond to this increase and will be inclined to take up these courses. In a free market, skills shortages should soon be eliminated. Only when the 'planning urge' overcomes out great leaders do we risk permanent shortages or surpluses.

A good example of this would be, ironically, in science degrees. The government generously subsidies science degrees(like all degrees). Students pay under half of the full cost but receive over half the benefits. This is an incentive to British students to become scientists, leading to what is almost certainly a surplus of British scientists. Following the rules of supply and demand, it explains why science graduates, in general, receive relatively little pay.

Those who lobby for state support of their industry, be they French farmers, US steel makers or British scientist can claim to be the backbone of the nation, the foundation of the future or vital to the global competitiveness. But this is a strange argument. If what they produce is so valuable then why can they not find a buyer at an unsubsidised market price?

I am indebted to Jamie Whyte, author of Bad Thoughts:A guide to clear thinking in writing this.

Comments

2. To look cool...

3. As I believe that there are instances within the world that could be corrected by different practises.

4. Because my mate got it and I wanted to comment(read 'rinse') his God-awful ideas.

Comments