"Heathrow faces fines for chaos" was the headline in the Sunday Times 26.12.10. Apparently the government is to bring in new legislation that will allow airports to be fined tens of millions of pounds for disrupting passengers' travel.
Has the government gone completely off it's trolley? Does it think that the airport operators have any control whatsoever on the amount of snow dumped on their runways or the weight of ice forming on their planes? Of course they don't. And you can bet your life that none of these "fines" will find their way back to the passengers who have been disrupted. The government has just come up with one more creative wheeze to get more money for nothing and increase costs for everybody else. If the airports are fined large amounts they will obviously have to pass on the costs to the travelling public, thus reducing the numbers who can afford to fly and increasing the dissatisfaction of those who are trying to fly but cannot because of the snow.
The government is supposed to represent the people - and I can't see many of the thinking public supporting this idea. But if they are daft enough to bring in this legislation, it is only fair (in line with their "equality" agenda) to bring in similar legislation granting tax rebates to everyone who has their travel disrupted by their failure to keep the roads clear. Or is it a cardinal sin if you can't swan off on holiday abroad but not if you can't manage to get to the shops to buy food? This government has a very weird sense of priorities!
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Creative Accountancy
Many years ago I met my friend for the first time after leaving school. I had gone to university and he had gone straight out to find a job. I asked him what he was doing now and he replied "Creative Accountancy". An ordinary accountant, it seemed, did the more mundane monetary tasks, while a Creative Accountant was ....... well ...... more creative. It seemed to me just like a new or more polite term for "fiddling the figures".
Well those currently in office at the Treasury must be well qualified in Creative Accountancy. They have invented a new term to make a large reduction in grant sound like a reduction of less than half the real amount! The trouble is, as no one has heard of this term before, they have to explain it, and once they have done that it becomes obvious to all what a devious brood they all are.
The executives of Follyville have just been told what their government grant will be next year. It would appear that the grant for 2011-12 has been reduced by 6% (as a percentage of "Revenue Spending Power"). On enquiry, this new term is explained as "the government grant + the amount of Council Tax they are expected to collect". You don't need to be very qualified in maths to realise that they are "fiddling the figures" on a massive scale to try and hide the fact that the real reduction in grant is actually 15.5%. No wonder politicians get a bad name!
Well those currently in office at the Treasury must be well qualified in Creative Accountancy. They have invented a new term to make a large reduction in grant sound like a reduction of less than half the real amount! The trouble is, as no one has heard of this term before, they have to explain it, and once they have done that it becomes obvious to all what a devious brood they all are.
The executives of Follyville have just been told what their government grant will be next year. It would appear that the grant for 2011-12 has been reduced by 6% (as a percentage of "Revenue Spending Power"). On enquiry, this new term is explained as "the government grant + the amount of Council Tax they are expected to collect". You don't need to be very qualified in maths to realise that they are "fiddling the figures" on a massive scale to try and hide the fact that the real reduction in grant is actually 15.5%. No wonder politicians get a bad name!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)