So how temporary is temporary?

I've worked on several jobs that have occasionally required a temporary solution simply to get a machine working. The onus has always been to get a permanent repair/solution in place as soon as possible. That said, the number of temporary solutions that have simply had to stay in place until it breaks again would probably be a list far longer than my arm. The main problem was as ever that some other breakdown always took precedent and so many jobs became fire fighting exercises and planned maintenance took a back seat as cost benefits and bean counters reduced maintenance departments due to the lack of problems only to realise after a few months why there were so few problems...
BBC.

Some of the "most vulnerable" Syrian refugees will be temporarily resettled in the UK, Deputy PM Nick Clegg says.
He said girls and women who had been victims of or were at risk of sexual violence, torture victims, and elderly and disabled people would get priority.
This meant the coalition was ensuring Britain's "long and proud tradition of providing refuge" lived on, he said.
The government expects the number of refugees accepted to be in the hundreds but has not set a specific target.
The UK's resettlement programme is to be separate from the ongoing UN High Commissioner for Refugees scheme which has seen Germany commit to admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees and France take 500.

The BBC understands the refugees will be given temporary visas allowing them to stay for at least three years.

I'm sure some out there are thinking great, more useless mouths to feed, but according to various treaties the UK is obliged to take in some refugees. It could be argued that we should never have signed any such thing, but that's the state of play.
My problem stems from the temporary nature if the visas, as I rather expect in three years time most will be allowed permanent residency and won't be turfed out as the Human Rights Act will be used to prevent this (Watch this space)
Despite the bleatings of Clegg and his Lib Dems as well as the Labour Party, I feel absolutely no moral responsibility for the victims of the Syrian civil war, but unfortunately if Labour and the Lib Dems pushed it, they possibly could (and would) open the floodgates, after all, Labour have form for uncontrolled access to the UK.
Hopefully this will be the end of it, but I have my doubts, if the leftards can't get us fighting for the revolting barbarians in Syria, they'll settle for us taking in their useless mouths.

Well they would wouldn't they

Seems our EU overlords aren't particularly happy about credit ratings particularly after France, Italy, Spain, Portugal along with Cyprus. Austria, Malta, Slovakia, and Slovenia all had their credit ratings dropped a notch or two. This has to be particularly galling for the French (or should that be Gauling) who believed that the UK should have had its credit rating dropped before them, though I don't think they quite grasp how the UK economy works with a pound able to be devalued or revalued to deal with market fluctuations unlike the Euro which is locked into the strongest economy (Germany) and does not allow individual nations to devalue or default.
BBC.

The EU's top economic official has criticised a decision by Standard and Poor's to downgrade the credit ratings of nine eurozone countries.
Economic affairs commissioner Olli Rehn said the move was "inconsistent" as the eurozone was taking "decisive action" to end the debt crisis.
Other senior European officials have also hit out the move.
The downgrade - which included stripping France of its top AAA rating - was announced on Friday.
Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal were cut two notches, with the latter two given "junk" ratings. Germany kept its AAA rating.

The thing that EU officials are forgetting is that you cannot buck the market and for every action there will be a reaction. As certain Eurozone countries took on more debt during boom years than they could pay back once their economies slowed. Those concerns led investors to demand astronomically high yields or interest rates to lend money to countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal, eventually forcing those three to seek bailout loans, rather than rely on market financing. This situation has come home to roost as the markets realise that  some of the Eurozone countries cannot be trusted to pay back a loan because they're a poor credit risk due to overspending on their account. What Standard and Poor have done is looked at the economies of the affected countries and decided that there's a possibility that any bonds issued or loans taken might not be repaid at their full value, hence any monies loaned to that group will now have higher interest charges as they are a greater risk. This affects their ability to run their countries with the ruinous overspend on various things such as pensions, infrastructure etc. In a sense it's a way of saying you aren't doing enough, you can't be trusted.
As for the UK, well we're well enough off outside the Eurozone, though there's a possibility we'll be dragged under if it goes under, if only because our politicians don't quite grasp economic realities either. But at the moment our credit rating is safe enough, we may even get a boost as investors seek the security of British bonds.
What it does mean is that the Euro as such is doomed, it may survive as a Northern European currency, but sooner or later the Southern European states along with France and Ireland might just have to be cut loose to default on their debts. That's why they got downgraded, the market is rarely wrong about these things and is self correcting.
John Ward at The Slog explains exactly why it's happening.

We already give too much.

I am sick and tired of politicians of all parties deciding that they can just dip into taxpayers pockets and taxpayers goodwill to help fund problems abroad that likely don't concern us or can be resolved by other means.
Sky.

Rich countries are failing to contribute to an international emergency fund leaving the world "dangerously unprepared" for future disasters, the International Development Secretary has warned.
Andrew Mitchell said the United Nations' disaster response funding system is expected to be left severely underfunded.
Mr Mitchell's warning comes after a wave of large-scale disasters over the last year, including famine in the Horn of Africa, the Japan tsunami, the New Zealand earthquake and floods in Pakistan and the Philippines.
Growing numbers of people living in vulnerable areas means the number of those affected by major tragedies is expected to increase in future, he added.
The Government is giving £20m to the Central Emergency Response Fund (Cerf) next year, in addition to £40m already pledged, and has called on the international community to "wake up" to the challenge ahead.
It said many rich countries wait until a disaster strikes before responding, which means critical emergency first response work could be put at risk.
The fund - set up following the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami to provide a coordinated international response - is expected to have a shortfall of £45m next year.

It rather looks like the main contributor at the moment is the UK government with £20 million this year on top of £40 million already pledged, yet there is a £45 million shortfall. Which rather suggests someone (that being the UK taxpayer) are being taken for mugs again by a government determined to keep spending our income on something that could easily be covered by charitable giving at home and not involuntarily filched from our pockets by politicians who clearly don't have a clue as to how the money might be spent by the bureaucrats running it. No I don't accept the premise that somehow or other a co-ordinated response will be better than a patchquilt response either, I've seen far too many cases of government aid going to the wrong areas, terrorist groups and various other ne'er-do-wells to trust a co-ordinated response group who are far too likely to be doing far too well for themselves at doing well.
Charity begins at home when it comes to government spending (or it should) any spending on international aid should be done by direct appeal to the public and we'll see just which causes actually appeal, if any.

A lot to answer for?

According to iDave Cameron, Pakistan has a lot to answer for, I can think of one or two things iDave might care to answer for as well.

Express.

PAKISTAN will have 'lots of questions' to answer surrounding the hiding place of the world's most wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden, Prime minister David Cameron announced today.

The Prime minister said that the country would face a tough questioning over the hiding place of Osama Bin Laden, who was  killed in a special forces raid in Pakistan.

David Cameron said the mission by the Americans and the subsequent death of the Al Qaeda leader had been 'justified, lawful and right'.

Mr Cameron added that although  Pakistan's political leadership claimed to be fighting terrorism he warned that there could be a 'flaming great row' with the country over the death. 

Yes, there are quite a few questions that the world could and should be asking Pakistan over Osama Bin Laden, however I don't think Cameron quite understands the position he's in. After all he was the one who okayed a £650 million pound giveaway to the country, gave them vital military secrets and who then offended most of the UK by apologising for something we didn't do!

Mail.

David Cameron vowed to hand hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money plus vital military secrets to Pakistan yesterday to make amends for offending the Muslim nation last year.
The Prime Minister pledged to invest £650million in Pakistani schools at a time when the education budget at home is being cut.
Britain is also to give highly sensitive military technology to combat roadside bombs to the Pakistani security services, which are widely blamed for funding and arming the Taliban.
Mr Cameron defended the payments, saying it was ‘in our interest’ to help Pakistan.
He said: ‘If Pakistan is a success we’ll have a good friend to trade and invest and deal with.
The Prime Minister sought to blame the British Empire for the situation in Kashmir which has been a running sore in Pakistan’s relations with India since partition in 1947.

So, we're giving away cash to a country harbouring one of the most wanted men in the world. We're giving aid to the security services of said country who were protecting (according to Wikileaks) the most wanted man in the world and who would probably help the Taliban with the knowledge rather than us. Plus the idiot blamed us for the problems in Kashmir caused by the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh who ran that province who decided to stay in India despite a majority of Muslims in that province.
If I were Cameron, I'd be keeping my big fat mouth shut and hoping that nobody in the MSM will bring this up. Because if there's any such thing as justice in this world it will come back to drag him screaming into the night of failed Tory leaders. It probably won't but I'll shed no tears when the men in grey suits finally do for that odious little turncoat!

Ah, seems the MSM have noticed.

All good (and not so good) things come to an end.

So the special relationship is over, that being the one between the UK and USA. Not too surprising, was a bit obvious that Barrack Obama was no Anglophile and his refusal to support us over the Falklands even to the extent of sending Clinton to talk to the Argentinian president during the latest spat.

BBC.

The UK government needs to be "less deferential" towards the US and more willing to say no to Washington, a group of MPs have said.

The Commons Foreign Affairs committee also said it was wrong to speak of "the special relationship" with the US, as it was fostering other alliances.
However, the MPs did agree that the link between the countries was "profound and valuable".
The Foreign Office said the two nations share a "unique" bond.
The committee said the phrase "the special relationship" did not reflect the "modern" Anglo-American relationship.
It was originally coined more than 60 years ago by Winston Churchill.

It was always more convenient for the USA and they always looked after their interests first (Suez) and using us as landing strip one and forward rocket base. So, if it has to end (not that it was really there) so be it, now would be a good time to disengage from their global hegemony anyway and start to become self reliant and a great trading nation again, rather than be seen as one of their lackeys. Doesn't mean we wont be friends, just no longer allies and no longer interested in their military misadventures.

About time

One of the mysteries of foreign aid is where it goes and how it's used. For instance we donate millions to India, yet they can spend £50 million on an unmanned moonshot. We even give foreign aid to China one of the worlds largest economies.

Guardian.

A shakeup of Britain's £9.1bn overseas aid budget would be launched by a Conservative government to cut funding to more prosperous developing nations, notably China, and boost it to the poorest, especially those in the Commonwealth.

In the biggest change at the Department for International Development since it was created by Labour in 1997, the Tories would bring in outsiders to review all 102 countries funded by Britain.

David Cameron has pledged to maintain spending on overseas aid as he delivers on his commitment to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of Britain's gross national income (GNI) on aid by 2013.

But the Tories make clear that they would adopt a different approach to Labour by cutting the £50m annual aid grant to China and targeting resources on poorer countries in the Commonwealth.

In a Guardian interview, the shadow international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, outlined a five-point plan to tackle the "colossal discrepancies of opportunity and wealth" in the world. He pledged to review spending in all 102 developing countries funded by Britain with a view to cutting the overall numbers. Mitchell, who pledges to publish details of all DfID funding on its website, said: "I suspect that we will reduce the number ... We would narrow the focus as part of making it sharper and less scattergun."

First bit I don't understand is why the U.N. say we have to spend 0.7% of our GNI on foreign aid must be something our idiot government signed up too as part of the U.N's quest for ever greater bribes for dictators in 3rd world hell holes.
Second part is that I'm a great believer in charity beginning at home, £9.1 billion would be a splendid boost to infrastructure building of road and rail links or even housing improvements, certainly it would be nice to see it spent on the UK rather than abroad, even tax cuts for industries taking on workers would be a start.
Taking back our sovereignty from the EU and getting back the £6.4 billion a year we pay them would be a big help too, after all it's just another form of foreign aid.
Imagine what the country could do with £15 billion a year being spent on it.

Now I imagine some of the aid does go to good works and I'm sure that in some countries it's vital, however we're in a recession, people are losing jobs, the government is printing money like there's no tomorrow just to pay for its own costs (hello Zimbabwe here we come) and there will be a final reckoning soon when the UK loses its AAA credit rating on the world markets and the chickens come home to roost. That money could and should be used for UK interests, not foreign aid and not bribes to various corrupt regimes in the world.
We can't afford it, not any more.

Breaking the law

Lot of screaming in the media about Akmal Shaikh who was executed in China today for drug smuggling. I have a great deal of sympathy for his friends and family who have put up a major campaign to try and have his sentence commuted.
However I have little or no sympathy for Akmal Shaikh who smuggled drugs into a country where they have the death sentence for smuggling drugs. I also discount the mental illness aspect too, the man had bipolar disorder and whilst this is a mental illness it's not a debilitating one with regard to intelligence. He may have been in a fantasy world, but would still have known when on the opposing cycle that what he was doing was very wrong.
If you break the laws of a country that you are visiting then you have to face that countries legal system if caught, Shaikh had been found with more than 4kg of heroin, and being caught with 50g of heroin was enough for the death penalty under Chinese law. Now Shaikh might not have known about the death penalty but he certainly would have known that if caught he'd face justice.
Now a lot of people are criticising the Chinese government for their laws, but that's the system they have, it's harsh, but it followed their rules and Shaikh was found bang to rights by them. It's not as if he'd broken some quaint byelaw either, drug smuggling is a worldwide offence and China takes it as seriously as any modern country, that their law still has the death sentence for such offences may be upsetting to certain western sensibilities, but it's still China's law and that has to be respected.

It should also serve as a warning to any other would be drug smugglers to China too.

A not so Nobel effort.

I'm fairly sure this is degrading the Peace Prize and you would think they'd have learned from the debacle surrounding Yasser Arafat that giving a Nobel Peace Prize to political opportunists is a waste of time.

US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to strengthen international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.
There were a record 205 nominations for this year's prize. Zimbabwe's prime minister and a Chinese dissident had been among the favourites.
The laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.
"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Well he has certainly captured the worlds attention, though many like me wonder if negotiating away nuclear weapons will actually work, I mean as long as North Korea (where any USA President has zero influence) has them, then someone else will need them just in case there is nuclear blackmail to be had. So the whole thing seems merely a sop to the wet lefties to keep them onboard whilst his health reform bill flounders and his popularity levels nosedive in the face of an increasing public hostility in the States.

The problem with nuclear weapons is that the tin is now open and they can't be stuffed back in it. Plus negotiations only work with civilised nations and on a basis for trust (or fear of consequences), there will always be the sneaking suspicion that somewhere somehow somebody has one that's not on the grid.
Now I do wish for a peaceful world, don't get me wrong, however if you want peace, you don't start by weakening your options, particularly when some of your opponents don't give a damn if you give up your nukes as they are going to get them anyway. In diplomatic terms, the maxim "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" is still the way to deal with potential threats.

The other thing that bothers me is that he seems to be getting a prize for trying, to me it looks like the liberal leftist "there are no losers" dogma taken to the pinnacle of idiocy. He hasn't achieved anything for Gods sake, just spread a little good will with no tangible results other than leaving Poland and the Czech republic with no missile shield. Yes talks on nuclear reduction might be a good thing, but please, no prize till it's been done, not because you've got a dialogue going.

I might be missing the point totally (not for the first time) but to me the Nobel Peace Prize should go to someone who has achieved something that has stood the test of time and is not actively prosecuting 2 wars. Mind you, they gave one to Arafat, Al Gore and the idiot who came up with the Sunshine Policy. Compared to that giving one to someone who hasn't actually done anything seems almost an improvement.

BTW Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel peace Prize in 1936.

H/T to Mr Eugenides for this Link