The Telegraph never lets you down
Here.
But hang ON! The BBC gives us a clue as to what is going on. The girl in the photo in
this news story actually seems to be using her blonde hair to take the exam!
Labels: newspapers
The Guardian of 1909 reporting Saturday's news
I quite like the
style, though I don't think they've really captured 1909 newspaper reporting very accurately. Funny though.
Labels: newspapers
We told you this would happen
A letter in today's Guardian (in a collection responding to Martin Kettle's review of
Nick Cohen's book:
The dimension Martin Kettle entirely ignores is the economic one. Britain now is a profoundly unequal society. However, nationalisation proved in the end to have been a failure in extending democratic advance, and the cooperative movement has never really take off . But without economic democracy political democracy has no muscle.
All power to Alan Johnson as he tries to steer a new course, and Billy Bragg as he tries to gather the scattered remnants of a forgotten national identity. But it will take more than Bragg's exhortation, and Johnson's efforts to ensure that history is properly taught, to revive the ideals which have animated the lives of those of us who still call ourselves socialists.
Wendy Mantle
London
Does she mean Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson, or Alan Johnson, the Cabinet Minister and Trade Unionist? I'm genuinely not sure - in a way Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson is the more obvious candidate, given I wasn't aware Alan Johnson was trying to steer a new course. But then again he is the Education Minister, at least presumably for a few more weeks until John Reid resigns, and so he would be in a position to 'ensure history is properly taught' (or at least attempt that). But then again Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson is a co-founder (with Nick Cohen) of the
Euston Declaration and is a lecturer, so it might be him.
This confusion was easily avoided, and we did say so.
Labels: Decent Left, newspapers, Nick Cohen
In today's Telegraph
"Cost of Living hits 15-year high", is obviously not correct - they mean the rate of price increases. You could argue the cost of living has hit an all-time high, but that too is not right if you think about it, as we can buy a lot more stuff than we could in 1066. So really,
"Cost of Living hits all-time low" is the correct headline, assuming growth wasn't negative last month.
Ian McEwan
claims to have found a long-lost brother. I'd say check the acknowledgements carefully.
Labels: newspapers
Very useless facts, no. 12323
When did
The Times first mention Britain's most recent Prime Ministers?
Jim Callaghan - January 11th, 1946
Margaret Thatcher - June 29th, 1959
John Major - July 24th, 1970
Tony Blair - March 23rd, 1979
So although it took Jim 30 years from Times' first mention to PM, John 20 years, Maggie just under 20 years, and Tony just 18 years. Gordon meanwhile was there in 1970, so I conclude his career has been a failure.
Labels: newspapers
Should the BBC pay itself the going rate for adverts?
I don't understand this
piece in the Telegraph - or maybe I've missed the joke. The BBC paying itself for advertising wouldn't raise any net income. It would be the equivalent of the Italian village where the only living was made by doing in each's other washing.
Labels: newspapers, TV
The Top Dog Index
Despite my predictions, the Henry 'Scoop' Jackson Society haven't come up with this yet, so I've made a stab. The idea is twofold - first, to try to justify their famous statement, that Britain was 'unquestionably the world's second most important power', and second, to provide an index for global power comparable to what the World Economic Forum's
Global Competitive Index does for, er, global competitiveness. So far I've concentated on hard power, ie military spending, but I've also included economic power in that (though not trade yet, which I might include in soft power - you can't expect consistency, I'm afraid).
As I'm pretty sure the World Economic Forum knows, you can just about get any result you want in these things by choosing your inputs, and as importantly, your weightings. I've gone for seven categories - Population, GDP, PPP GDP, Military Spending, No. of troops, Aircraft Carriers, and UN SC permanent membership. Clearly there is some overlap here - GDP for instance with population, but also things like troops and military spending. But hey-ho. The weightings I began with are 18% for population, 30% for GDP, 5% for PPP GDP, 15% for troops, 25% for military spending, 5% for aircraft carriers and 2% for UNSC membership.
Of the seven categories the US scores highest for four categories, China two, and all Permanent Members in one. For each category I take each country's ratio of the highest value, and then multiply it by the weighting. So for GDP, for instance, the US has the highest at $13.26bn, and Lebanon's is $0.022bn, so Lebanon's score is 0.22/13.26 which equals 0.2% of the US level, and then for both the US and Lebanon it is multiplied by the 30% weighting for that category. These are then summed across the categories to give a total score out of 100.
Anyway, drum roll (note the category scores are before weighting...
Top Dog Index | Country | Pop. | GDP | PPP | Troops | Mil. Ex | A/C | UN | TOTAL |
| United States | 23% | 100% | 100% | 63% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 80.58 |
| China | 100% | 19% | 81% | 100% | 16% | 0% | 100% | 48.77 |
| India | 85% | 6% | 30% | 59% | 4% | 8% | 0% | 28.82 |
| Russia | 11% | 7% | 13% | 46% | 28% | 8% | 100% | 21.17 |
| Japan | 10% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 17.15 |
| United Kingdom | 5% | 18% | 15% | 8% | 9% | 17% | 100% | 13.31 |
| France | 5% | 17% | 15% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 100% | 12.95 |
| Germany | 6% | 22% | 20% | 13% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 12.25 |
| Italy | 4% | 14% | 13% | 10% | 5% | 8% | 0% | 8.93 |
| Korea | 4% | 7% | 8% | 30% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 8.65 |
| Brazil | 14% | 7% | 13% | 13% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 8.18 |
| Pakistan | 12% | 1% | 3% | 27% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 6.91 |
| Indonesia | 17% | 3% | 8% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6.41 |
| Turkey | 6% | 3% | 5% | 23% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 6.09 |
| Spain | 3% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 5.76 |
| Iran | 5% | 2% | 5% | 24% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 5.68 |
| Mexico | 8% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 5.31 |
Pretty damn exciting, eh? Anyway on the current hard-power version of the "
Top Dog" index, I'm afraid, at least for the H'S'JS, that the UK is not 2nd, at least not 'unquestionably'. The United States is the clear leader, with 81%, followed by China, 49%, then India, 29%, Russia, 21%, Japan 17%, then us, on a respectable 13%, slightly higher than France and Germany. Italy just pips Korea and Brazil.
Update: In response to Nick's comments, I've changed it about a bit, lowering population, adding a Nuke's column (you can see the weights at the top of the table)
Top Dog Index | Weight | 13 | 30 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 100.00 |
| Name | Pop | GDP | PPP | Troops | Mil.Ex | A/C | Nukes | UN | Total |
| United States | 23% | 100% | 100% | 63% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 86.28 |
| China | 100% | 19% | 81% | 100% | 16% | 0% | 100% | 100% | 48.77 |
| India | 85% | 6% | 30% | 59% | 4% | 8% | 100% | 0% | 31.65 |
| Russia | 11% | 7% | 13% | 46% | 28% | 8% | 100% | 100% | 28.33 |
| United Kingdom | 5% | 18% | 15% | 8% | 9% | 17% | 100% | 100% | 22.66 |
| France | 5% | 17% | 15% | 11% | 9% | 8% | 100% | 100% | 22.13 |
| Japan | 10% | 34% | 31% | 11% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 16.13 |
| Pakistan | 12% | 1% | 3% | 27% | 1% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 14.95 |
| Israel | 1% | 1% | 1% | 7% | 2% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 11.64 |
| Germany | 6% | 22% | 20% | 13% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 11.31 |
| Italy | 4% | 14% | 13% | 10% | 5% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 8.20 |
| Korea | 4% | 7% | 8% | 30% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 6.94 |
| Brazil | 14% | 7% | 13% | 13% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 6.84 |
| Spain | 3% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 5.21 |
| Indonesia | 17% | 3% | 8% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.86 |
| Turkey | 6% | 3% | 5% | 23% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.67 |
| Mexico | 8% | 6% | 9% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.47 |
Labels: defence, economics, England, newspapers, Nukes, politics
World of Books
Rather
amusing piece in the Sunday Times on bad literary goings-on.
Labels: England, newspapers
A new breed of super-efficient aircraft - nearly 100mpg!
This is a little unfair as The Times is hardly The Telegraph when it comes to statistical accuracy, and it's obvious what they mean here, but Tim's a very successful blogger and he does lots of this sort of stuff. Mmm, yes I am desperate. Click on the adverts - I have a tornadoed house to rebuild!
Aircraft use an average of four litres of fuel per 100km. But the next generation, including the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787, will use just under three litres per 100km.
Labels: economics, environment, newspapers
