Jump to content
The Education Forum

john birchall

Members
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by john birchall

  1. The next election in UK could be as little as one year away. With Blair unpopular and Howard beginning to make the Tories look a creditable opposition the fight for power could be an interesting. Normally, a sturdy economy means election success for those in office but in 1964 and 1997 the government lost even though the economy was growing. So, what might determine the result in 2005 or 2006? My ideas are as follows: Letter from an Economist – 9th February 2004. In a week such as that which has just passed one is tempted to look more closely at trust and how it has been significantly reduced in what is loosely called ‘public life’ during recent years. But I will resist such a temptation and stay within my brief, which is a look at certain economic events and pass my opinion on their derivation, impact etc. However, before proceeding I would like to note my sadness at the passing of one who greatly influenced me when I was first showing an interest in economics and political affairs. Norman Shrapnel was for many years the leading political writer of the Manchester Guardian. His grasp of the events that surrounded those walking the corridors of power and his eloquence have seldom been surpassed. Not only did he write accurate and witty descriptions of the events of Westminster but he often doubled as theatre correspondent, where he gained a reputation as one that could cruelly deflate the egos of those attempting to produce a less than perfect rendition of a particular play. In later life he turned to writing books, of which his critique of the 1970’s is perhaps the most interesting to read. But back to matters contemporary. For the first time in my life and therefore in the majority of readers a Labour Government is presiding over a tranquil economy. A look at any of our daily papers shows us fascinated by Hutton, romps in the jungle and the next purchase of Chelsea FC. Very few column inches or TV ‘idiot board’ scripts are given over to the economy and how we feel about ‘the pound in our pockets’. It has long been thought wise to keep the economy out of the public debate, so allowing the ‘man in the street’ to assume the government of the day is competent and then who ever is in power will continue to muster enough public support to win the next election. A look at UK Plc shows low interest rates, relatively even levels of employment (with the exception of the cluster areas we all know will never see maximum employment in the foreseeable future) Yet those who research such things do point to a healthy economy not always winning the incumbent party the next election. In 1964 Hulme lost to Wilson and Blair arrived in Downing Street despite all Ken Clarke’s careful management of the economy. However, a closer look at these seminal elections shows that other issues were central to voting patterns. In 1964 Harold Wilson looked out at a discredited Tory party. They had served for thirteen years and presided over the birth of the consumer age. Yet, their occasional moral misdemeanour left the public tired with the antics of those many considered to be ‘born to lead’ and with The Beatles, Carnaby Street and all the trimmings of the permissive age very much to the forefront Wilson entered Downing Street. In 1997 John Major sat at the centre of power and was considered by many to be a decent man (Edwina Currie was still deliberating whether to tell all about their affair) who had been unfortunate in his choice of political allies. The cloud of Black Wednesday and the intent dislike of all things ‘European’ within a section of his party had left him mortally wounded and the British electorate plus our ‘first past the post’ system of voting dealt him a cruel end. So, as an economist I sit and look at a plethora of reasonable numbers and wonder if Tony Blair will become the first Labour Prime Minister to preside over three consecutive parliaments. Before looking at the troubles currently taxing the minds of the residents of 10 Downing Street we need to look back at the two eras I briefly described above. In the 60’s many did see us as falling behind Europe and that our leadership was out of touch with the reality of everyday life in this country. In the late 90’s the backlash of those tired by stories of sleaze and corruption meant that whatever numbers came from The Treasury the opinion polls looked bad for the Conservatives. It is interesting to note that the election results of both 1997 and 2001 bore a very close resemblance to the opinion polls published eighteen months before polling day. If we were to repeat such a trend then Mr Blair is in trouble and it is rumoured that some of his advisers are suggesting that he sit tight until the very end of his legal term in office. A 2005 election now looks increasingly unlikely. Why then can a government who appears to have managed the economy with considerable care be in such difficulties with the very people who have benefited from such a well-balanced stewardship? Our first port of call is the economy, which as ever is very much dependent on the US for its success or failure. As recent ‘Letters’ have suggested all is not totally well with things in the US and the continued uncertainty about the accuracy of facts that lay behind the decision to go to war may yet cause ripples in Wall Street and elsewhere. Further a field the miracle that is China might just slowdown a little but all forecasts suggest continued world growth until early 2006 and maybe even beyond. However, now personal vanity and insecurity has to enter our equation. What would happen if Tony Blair, known to be one who likes to be liked felt that Gordon Brown was getting too much credit for clawing back a lead the Tories may now have in the polls? But Blair is a realist and he knows that he is wounded but not defeated. If he took out his spite on Brown it would serve little purpose. So, what are the prospects for a third Blair term? Once again I feel that economics may yet be the decided and not WMD’s or a sudden burst of rational thinking from Michael Howard. UK Plc has always shown two fundamental weaknesses, these are low productivity and an inclination to use debt to finance consumption – and not just of consumer durables. The latter is a growing concern as debt is becoming just a way of life and too many people now expect high levels of consumption and find any thoughts of being frugal alien to their way of life. It seems very unlikely that efficiency will feature high on the list of voter preferences in the election of either 2005 or 6. However, with short term interest rates continuing to rise it will be interesting to see how large-scale debt and falling house prices impact on the very people Blair needs to keep his large majority. Michael Howard has already asked the Prime Minister to resign, though his choice of an allotment from which to make such a request might have been unwise. In reality he needs gross misfortune, blatant stupidity (and the failure to listen to the clinical analysis of Robin Cook might yet enter this category) and some old promises not materialising in order that they can really hope to dent the Labour control of the House of Commons. The arrival of a global slide in economic confidence seems to be a very optimistic wish and the meeting of the most powerful Ministers of Finance in the world ended with a statement that they see the very opposite taking place. No, unless the public does decide that a conversation involving battle field weapons heard by two in the room must also have been registered by the Prime Minister it looks as though 2005 or 2006 will not be a repeat of 1964 or 1997. Yet, as we know as economists a sudden drop in house based wealth and an increase in unemployment might just be enough to blow the result off course. It seems that Mr Blair, or his successor is set for a third term and Mr Howard will have to keep the Tory bedrock vote without resorting to some of William Haigh’s extreme threats of an economic armageddon. Then of course, there are the European Elections later in the year and local government..............
  2. Letter from an Economist – 2nd February 2004. This week I was invited to speak to some young people on the topic of conflict. The invitation came from someone wanting me to add a contemporary dimension to their thoughts during Holocaust Week. As a small child my father suggested to me that I watch a series called ‘Valiant Years’. It was an unashamed tribute to the career of Winston Churchill during the Second World War but during one of the later episodes the BBC showed footage of the Warsaw Ghetto and its destruction and the freeing of those who had survived the horrors of some of the concentration camps. The look on the emaciated faces of those who had survived as they stared through the barbed wire fencing introduced me to the potential for hideous cruelty that can appear within our species. By using this recollection from my own experiences it made me aware that for those listening to my talk the attempted extermination of one race, or ethnic group by another was really little more than an entry in their history books. Events of sixty years ago are to this generation what the pictures of the Great War were to me. I looked at them with the detachment of someone needing to learn the facts and produce the subsequent homework. Seldom did I appreciate the sheer waste of human life that the futility of the events I recorded held within them. With this fact firmly established in my mind I returned to the task of relating disparate events to the theme of my talk. I knew that for me the Holocaust came to mean much more to me when, in 1989, I attended the last meeting of those who had been sent out of Germany by their parents in 1939. Thousands of children had left with little more than a suitcase and had travelled to the UK and USA. I was one of just a handful of Gentiles in The Royal Festival Hall on a Sunday morning in July. Individuals recalled their experiences and as these terrible stories were related to us so members of the audience nodded, or softly mentioned that a particular story was similar to theirs. As the morning evolved so my emotions were stretched almost to breaking point and I came to realise one tragic fact. It was that all of these elderly people never saw any of their relatives alive again. We all know their fate. They wrestled with their age, the need to try and understand why such events had taken place and just what epitaph they would leave behind them. My audience sat attentively as I developed the main theme of my talk, namely that such events did not end with the defeat of the Nazis in 1945. Amongst my friends I am fortunate to include people who have worked for Medicine Sans Frontier and other agencies in such trouble spots as the former Yugoslavia, Sudan and East Timor. Others I know have served as EU Directors of Humanitarian Aid in some of the most notorious wars to have inflicted Africa and Southern America. Each of them can recall countless incidents that though not on the same scale as the Holocaust remind us of what we are capable of when our thin veneer of civilisation is removed. Though this introduction of more contemporary names and places possibly helped those gathered in front of me to relate to the talk I was giving I still felt that to assist young minds to focus on just what all of us could be capable of doing I needed to speak from personal experience. So, I moved onto my own first hand experience of what can take place when one group of individuals loses respect for the sanctity of human life. In the summer of 2001 I visited Freetown, in Sierra Leone, West Africa. On a warm but humid day I stood in front of what had once been my home. It was a burnt-out ruin, with slogans painted on most of the sections of wall that remained. This rather unpretentious building had been selected because it was associated with Europeans and they in turn had supported the government. Saddened by the waste of somewhere to which I could actually relate I wandered off into the crowded streets of the ‘East End’ of this bustling city. Once I had been one of just three European who lived in that part of town. I had walked around the area in complete safety and considered many of the local residents to be friends. As I walked along the crowded streets I noted that a considerable number of houses had been burned down but not in any apparent order. Why was this I asked? Oh the rebels knew who they were looking for and only ‘torched’ their homes came the reply of the elderly man I had asked. By ‘torching’ the locals meant that the houses were set alight with the occupants still inside. An examination of several houses showed me the obvious signs that human beings had indeed met a terrible death within those walls. The majority of those who tried to escape such a hideous inferno were shot as they emerged into the daylight. Others were merely captured and then had their limbs hacked off. This showed to all who witnessed both the event and its aftermath the power of their attackers and just what might happen if they ever returned. The next day I visited a home for children who had suffered this terrible fate and saw some as young as three with only one arm or leg. By now my audience was sitting rather quietly and I moved onto what I felt their generation needed to be aware of. In a very minor role I had been involved in what is called ‘conflict resolution’. I put to them three main characteristics that had become apparent to me as I reflected on my experiences. These were: * that the presence of nationalism is seldom a healthy factor within a country. It seems to lead to part of the population believing that they are truly superior to others and that can enforce their ways on those that they come into contact with * that the human failing of needing someone to blame for whatever problems they and their community were suffering tended to lead to the emergence of groups being treated as the single cause of such difficulties * that intolerance of the beliefs and cultural characteristics of others often leads to increased tension between groups and can have tragic consequences I noted to my audience that those I have met who have committed such atrocities are ordinary people, just like you and me and that they never expected to carry out such actions. Naturally, they blamed others for the causes of their actions. They also hid behind the excuses of ‘acting under orders, or not actually being the person who directly carried out the acts’. I concluded by suggesting that all of us cannot ignore the fact that apathy was also a primary cause of actions that left us all feeling ashamed of what our fellow human beings have done. Those who eventually do carry out barbarous acts do send out clear messages before they actually commit the actions that horrify us all. It is our failure to note these and respond to them that contribute to the carnage that so often occupies our television screens and newspapers. Alas, as we remember the terrible events of sixty years ago we also have to be aware that in the years that have elapsed since they were committed similar atrocities have arisen. It rests with those of the age I was addressing to be aware of our past mistakes and to resolve to try and find ways of ensuring that such events do not arise again. I am a realist and accept that one talk to a group of young people will not eradicate extreme violence but at least they are now aware that such atrocities do occur in their times and not just in history books. John Birchall john_birchall@bsc.biblio.net www.johnbirchall-economist.net
  3. Each week I produce a Letter from an Economist. It is published in various parts of the world. This week I have turned my attention to food and political power. It might encourage some inter changes of ideas. Best wishes, John www.johnbirchall-economist.net Letter from an Economist – 26th January 2004. Food for thought?’ ‘ Whatever ones political opinions the coming week will be one of enormous importance in the life of the Blair Experiment. It might even be that the Bush Administration feels some of the draught from the Kelly Report, as Democrat candidates begin to question the grounds on which the Commander in Chief took the US people and its army to war. Despite the focus on Westminster and maybe Washington I thought that the matter of food and how much we eat would be a topic worth analysing this week. We all know that to lose weight we have to eat less and exercise more. When addressing the first part of this somewhat obvious statement we have to ask ‘eat less of what’ and if the WHO and other nutritionists are to be believed that means ‘sugars’. Alas, some of the US food giants seem to be in disagreement with this statement. In a special report produced by both the WHO and FAO that was published last spring the combined wisdom of the two bodies suggested that governments in developed economies should produce a strategy for improving the health of their citizens. The focus of such a strategy should be to both encourage less consumption of sugars and develop well-publicised ways of introducing the electorate to healthier life styles. One might have thought that the US Health Department would applaud such a report but it issued a 28 page critique of the document. Its criticisms focused on it lacking transparency and scientific authenticity. Such was the ferocity of the attack made on the report that some observers wondered if the authors had been working to a different agenda – that of the high-calories, high profit making soda, chips and fast food giants that contribute much to the political process in the US. So powerful is this lobby that the proposals of the report have been downgraded and will not be binding if accepted by the WHO General Council in May. Obesity is now a global epidemic with estimates of one billion people being significantly overweight. In all but the poorest countries obesity and its consequences is overtaking malnutrition as the major health problem of this generation. Diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, coronary failures and certain forms of cancer are all known to be more prevalent in economies where high calorie intake is now a significant health issue. With calorie filled snacks almost impossible to avoid the application of a healthy eating programme is very difficult in a large number of developed economies. The food industry pointed to poor scientific research and conclusions as being a major fault of the WHO/FAO Report. Yet it suggested such radical changes in diet as eating more fruit and vegetables and limiting the intake of fats and sugars. Such proposals first began to appear in government literature as far back as the 1950’s. One recommendation in the report that raised the temperature of reactions was that people should limit ‘free’ sugars. This category includes products that have sugar added to those where we probably do not expect to be eating sugar e.g. mayonnaise and peanut butter. The WHO suggested an upper limit of 100 calories per product from added sugars. This is broadly in line with the US Agriculture Department’s recommendation that a daily intake of 2200 calories should contain no more than 12 teaspoons of sugar. Current estimates in the US put this at over 20 teaspoons per day per person. Added sugars made up 11% of the calories intake of someone living in the US in the 1970’s but that has now reached 16% and is rising. The food industry is very anxious about all this talk to cut sugars in such products as soft drinks and certain fast foods. One pressure group which is financed by the food and drink industry lobbied that the US Administration to think carefully about the real value of contributing its annual payment to the WHO of $406 million. Some of us will remember the defence mounted by the tobacco industry in response to the cancer correlation that first appeared nearly forty years ago. To this day the major cigarette manufacturers have yet to accept a proven connection between their products and the various diseases science links with them. Within Congress some Senators, often known as the Sweetener Caucus, called for the Administration to push for less promotion of such reports by the WHO and questioned the adverse publicity now being levelled against those who produce the corn syrups, vegetable fats and sugar products that so many young people consume. It seems that the Bush Administration has accepted the word of the food industry and paid little attention to the section of the industry that tries to develop more ‘forward-thinking’ products. For some the scenario that appears in this all too brief analysis of what science considered to be a responsible report is a symptom of the global power of some corporations. They wonder why bird flu has suddenly appeared in economies that few even thought of as producers of chicken meat. Indeed, one wonders if many UK citizens knew that 10% of chicken consumed in the UK originated from Thailand. Some are asking if pressure on costs and the need to deliver ‘just-in-time’ mean that risks are being taken with the very food that we eat. Surely it is time for the consumer to begin to ask some serious questions about what they eat! How is it prepared, what does it contain and do we safe guard those producing the products at standards we would expect for ourselves? Clinton said ‘it’s the economy you fool’ when addressing his team in the 1992 Presidential Elections, well it might just be time for other subjects to consider just where and when the economy enters their lives and especially their stomachs!
  4. John you have touched on a difficult topic within what is widely known as macroeconomics. Research suggests that the marginal rate of income tax paid by those who are considered 'rich' seldom reaches the levels Dennis Healey called for when he wanted to squeeze money from the wealthier residents of UK. In reality those who would fall into the top brackets will engage someone to navigate through loopholes. Put simply their fee must be less, one imagines considerably less than the potential tax liability. Each move to tighten tax legislation seems to breed even more devious tax lawyers and advisers. As you rightly say the really rich do not even live here for more than 180 days a year as that makes them a UK resident and liable for earned income to be taxed at our rates. I imagine Beckham is owned by a leasing company, as an asset and leased to Real Madrid. Such a company will doubtless not be registered in Spain and will pay their costly image builder via an account in Zurich - indeed, I wonder where his earnings for all other activities than football are registered?. One thing I have learnt from working in various developing economies is that those who acquire riches seldom fancy sharing them. I also feel that Blair is accepting the mantle of post Thatcher with an air of resignation (not yet literally) in that he inherited a country that will not accept extra taxes. The Liberal Democrats always talk about them but know that their representation at Westminster will never force a coalition partner to accept this proposal as one that will ensure some form of power sharing. Howard is just waiting for Kelly and tuition fees to die down and the 'stealth tax' war will burst into action - just in time for the local and European elections. It's a dirty game politics and its exponents seldom intend to score an own goal over tax proposals. Best wishes, John
  5. Like the correspondents I too hoped for a more transparent system of government when I first became interested in politics. Even if we allow for it then being a 'simpler era' in which to live I can only submit my disappointment with the antics of politicians on both sides of the 'pond'. Listening to John Kerry speak of the 'interest groups' was interesting, as Republicans normally accuse the Democrats of being run by interest groups! Perhaps the latter tend to be people-bsed, whilst the former are now obviously driven by profits and regime control. In the UK we seem to have gone from the 'Patrician' style of one nation Tory (perhaps Douglas Hurd was the last of these?) to full-time members of parliament - many of whom are little more than market boys. They need to make as much money as they can before either their constituency or the electorate at large decide they can go and be directors of privatised industries. Alas, the traditional Labour MP, who was mainly driven by a desire to see a fairer society is now in decline. The newer arrivals seem to lack principles and a background that knew just what it was to be a wage earner in one of the big industries. The new breed know that compliance with party policies and the machinery that drives them is the only way to climb the greasy pole of politics. If we add to these observations on changes in both society and personality 24 hour media coverage and its need to 'create' news then those now thinking about what kind of society they want for the future will face little that really excites or inspires them. Just where are the Benns, Powells, Shinwells etc? The main parties now fight for the middle ground and the magic number of 44% of the electorate which gains them a working majority in Parliament. Their 'spin' machines distort information and has even lied to itself e.g the Blairs and the Bristol flats. The arrival of the Euro means that governments have less room within which to manipulate economies via the levers of macro policy and global trade means that if one is not efficient, productive and competitive then maintaining current standards of living becomes increasingly difficult. None of us can hide from some of the blame of creating a political syatem in which increasing numbers are not interested in. The general populace has also altered its core values - hence we demand better public services but will not pay more in tax. Those of us charged with teaching the coming generations can only hope we can inspire them to have some sense of public service and an awareness of society - alas, I feel less than confident that I for one can encourage able young minds to enter politics. The lure of money, which affords them not only high levels of current materialism but the chance to actually save for a reasonable pension and engage in selective private health care provision is too great for the majority I teach. I just wonder if those of us who opposed Vietnam, felt saddened when Heath won in 1970 etc will be the last of the breed that wanted genuine change and was prepared to both work and pay for it? John Birchall www.johnbirchall-economist.net
  6. There is a FREE ezine produced by the European Parliament. It can subscribed to at: ezine-request@list.eureporter.co.uk It provides an interesting insight into the workings and deliberations of the European Parliament. John Birchall
  7. An informative, though naturally rather one-sided account of UK's love affair with the Euro! Plenty of interesting reasons why the pound should not be surrendered. on harriet@no-euro.com John Birchall
  8. This informative and useful FREE publication can be obtained by contacting: www.wbweek@worldbank.org Full of information that seldom enters the public domain. John Birchall
  9. Colleagues might like to visit the Economics section of the forum and look at: A short economic hsitory on England - an attempt to put into simple language what has led to this smal island being some successful in terms of trade A short economic history of the world post WW2- an attempt to trace how events shaped the economics of post 1945. It would be nice if we could liase when the chance allows. John Birchall
  10. Colleagues might like to look at the Economics section of the forum and note: (a) The Letter from an Economist - its looks at topical economic and political issues ( A short economic hsitory on England © A brief economic hsitory od post WW2 world. It would be nice if we could liase whenever possible. John Birchall
  11. Colleagues might like to visit the Economics section of the forum and look at our link to Letter from an Economist. The edition of 24th November looks back at 22nd November 1963 and tries to analyse what has happened since to the US. Not history but practical observations based on events! John Birchall www.johnbirchall-economist.net/letters/html
  12. Yes, its always a risk looking at JFK and what might have happened. On the economics section we publish a weekly Letter from an Economist. The edition of 24th Novemebr looks back over the forry years since Kennedy's death. John Birchall
  13. This world famous newspaper offers a FREE internet version. It can be obtained by calling nytdirect@nytimes.com Each day they publish Open Editorials ( OP-Eds) which are always interesting to read. Paul Krugman (Princeton) produces a wekly op-ed and this is usually controversial. John
  14. This organisation produces a FREE weekly newsletter. It can be obtained by contacting: Jessica.Bridges-Palmer@ neweconomics.org Each edition contains alternatives strategies for growth and development. John
  15. Why not log onto the EU's Virtual School and look at its Economics and Business Section? Whilst visiting look at: Links - here you will find direct links to many multinational institutions, including most UN agencies. Resources - where an excellent presentation on the Chinese economy can be found. Therer are also presentations on the Single Market and the European Parliament In the classroom - where direct links exist to the Enlargement programme and Regional Aid. All are excellent resources for use in classrooms. www.eun.org and then click on Virtual School. They welcome participation in their Forums. John
  16. This young Swedish economist is interesting to read, especiialy on globalisation. One may not agree with all he states but it makes you think! He recently had a documentary shown on Channel 4. Find him on www.johannorberg.net
  17. I'll look it up and be back to you. It was this set and the UK ec hists that I wanted to use to build cross curriculum co-operation bewteen Ec and Hist Depts on VS. Best wishes, John
  18. For those teaching development studies this resource might be useful. It is a varied range of articles, lectures and links relating to the world's poorest country. As time passes so it will grow in size. A sub-section concentrates on primary health care and the use of teachers and children as peer educators. Once again look on http://www.johnbirchall-economist.net/ and this time Sierra Leone.
  19. Another attempt to allow students of economics and related subjects to appreciate the economic changes that have taken place in recent decades. It is divided into four parts. Though I cannot analyse its use in UK it does feature on the reading lists of several US universities.
  20. A five part economic history of England. Written in simple language it allows those studying economics, or related subjects to appreciate just where their economy comes from. Go to http://www.johnbirchall-economist.net/ and look under recent articles etc.
  21. Go to http://www.johnbirchall-economist.net/ and read recent editions. The next ramble will centre on our lack of awarness of just what is Iraq and how its economic history has influenced ours.
  22. John Birchall I have taught for many years the two subjects that feature in this section of the forum. For a number of years I was a Principal and Chief Examiner at A level. Over the years I have written a number of books and various artciles etc. More recently I developed a large part of bized into what was, at the time, the largest Business Education site within the EU. I sit on the panel of the Virtual Schools Economic and Business section and write a number of the features. I also present INSET Days and speak at student conferences. Within the EU I am working on developing co-operation and collaboration between teachers of my two subjects and I regularly address colleagues within member countries. To stimulate debate within my subjects I write a weekly Letter from an Economist, which appears on my own site, the EU Virtual School and across Africa. It is also to appear on several national portals within the EU and elsewhere in the world. My recent writing engagements have centred on Triplealearning, the first web-based learning programme in the UK. My other interests centre on development issues and I am engaged in number of projects in Africa. You might like to look at www.triplealearning.co.uk, or www.johnbirchall-economist.net or www.virtual school/economics and business. john_birchall@bsc.biblio.net
×
×
  • Create New...