According to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204520204577249080648933136.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Chinese specialist are urging major reforms in state run business. The biggest opponent?-- the Chinese Communist Party. China is an interesting clash between communist regime and a gradual move towards market based economy. In the spirit of this gradual change experts have constructed a plan in order to make minor victories that will get the ball rolling towards tearing apart some of the state run businesses.
My first reaction to this was surprise. I knew that China had been making minor changes in their economy, but this change would seem to be very out of character. I believe, however, this initial reaction is not misled. The Communist party in charge of the People's Republic of China may be willing to make minor changes, but definitely won't completely change or erode economic philosophies at the heart of their regime's beliefs. So, I don't see a bright future for these recommendations. Although some of the most minor ones will probably be accepted, the fundamental ideas that are being suggested will be brushed away. If enough support is gathered behind the ideas the government will probably restrict freedom of expression and recentralize for a brief period as they have been doing periodically as more and more opposition towards the communist party grows, no matter how minuscule.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Scottish Independance: Pulling Big Sway in the UK
Cameron has been getting more and more publicity recently. Though this is not necessarily a good thing. With recent breakdowns within his leadership there may be a vote coming up soon to restructure parliament. Given that Cameron doesn't want to lose his seat in parliament he is going to need to create some sort of plan to secure his seat. This plan will most likely have a central issue addressing the devolution of power down to Scotland. Top Scottish officials have proposed the "devo plus" which, as the name suggests, is a plan for devolution of power to Scotland. Meanwhile, Cameron also has to worry about his plans to create new mayors and introduce more localism "fit for the 21st century." With many domestic policies clogging up his agenda he will need the votes from the Scottish people to aid him in upcoming votes. I believe he is going to be forced into accepting at least portions of the "devo plus" if he is to reform the Tory party and maintain his position he will have to make some concessions to Scotland.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
U.K. current event: Osborne Goofs.
In response to "Tory tax U-turn: Married couples 'will NOT get break in next month's budget' " by Jill Reilly, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100032/Tax-breaks-married-couples-ruled-Osborne-sparking-anger-Conservative-MPs.html,) it is hard to make a decision. As a short overview Osborne, a conservative MP, supported and passed a budget that doesn't contain tax breaks for married couples, something most UK citizens and the Tories (conservatives) want.
On the one hand, which actually played out, denying this measure to provide tax breaks to married couples gets rid of the current political issue of what is a married couple and whether 2 men or 2 women may be a married pair. Finally, this budget decision could result in equality among pairs and lonely people.
However, there is a lot more to be considered here. Osborne is a conservative and this decision is very much a liberal one. So, Osborne just made a major political mistake. Additionally, most people will, at some point, be married and given the fact that England has been dwindling behind other countries recently supporting marriage may be something they should look into to possibly boost the number of births and thereby, the scale of the country. Finally, all other European countries have similar budget appropriations in terms of taxes to aid married couples and failing to join the other countries can be seen as a failure to proceed and progress.
In the end I think that Osborne really goofed. Politicians should generally never agree with their enemies because it shows political indifference. Additionally, I believe a small tax break for married couples would be important for the progress and development in the UK.
On the one hand, which actually played out, denying this measure to provide tax breaks to married couples gets rid of the current political issue of what is a married couple and whether 2 men or 2 women may be a married pair. Finally, this budget decision could result in equality among pairs and lonely people.
However, there is a lot more to be considered here. Osborne is a conservative and this decision is very much a liberal one. So, Osborne just made a major political mistake. Additionally, most people will, at some point, be married and given the fact that England has been dwindling behind other countries recently supporting marriage may be something they should look into to possibly boost the number of births and thereby, the scale of the country. Finally, all other European countries have similar budget appropriations in terms of taxes to aid married couples and failing to join the other countries can be seen as a failure to proceed and progress.
In the end I think that Osborne really goofed. Politicians should generally never agree with their enemies because it shows political indifference. Additionally, I believe a small tax break for married couples would be important for the progress and development in the UK.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Response to: NHS reforms still does not get support <-Top News in the UK
http://topnews.co.uk/218646-nhs-reforms-still-does-not-get-support
The linked article by Mahendra Bahal reflects a major bill regarding the health sector in the United Kingdoms. The bill not only seems to have a great deal of importance in the Health Sector, but also in the political as most people, even those that would benefit from the bill, oppose it fiercely. The college of General Practitioners even sent a letter to the Prime Minister declaring their outright opposition.
The Prime Minister in the United Kingdoms has received some troubles in passing laws as of late and could be taken as an ineffective prime minister. Certainly this opposition from his intended beneficiaries couldn't help his chances at staying in office at all.
The UK legal system is very interesting to me as a U.S. System. The Parliamentary System based upon previous rulings and traditions rather than formally written laws such as the U.S. constitution is very versatile to say the least. This versatility even allows for the easy replacements of Prime Ministers at any time should public support diminish and the Minister proves to be ineffective. This is easily contrasted with the strict 4 year terms of the presidency and 8 year total cap on years in office.
So, these recent developments could indicate a possible loss of support for the Prime Minister. This would of course lead to the possibility of new elections to replace the current one. It will be interesting to see how all this will play out. What will the Prime Minister do to keep his claim in office? How will his enemies respond to him?
The linked article by Mahendra Bahal reflects a major bill regarding the health sector in the United Kingdoms. The bill not only seems to have a great deal of importance in the Health Sector, but also in the political as most people, even those that would benefit from the bill, oppose it fiercely. The college of General Practitioners even sent a letter to the Prime Minister declaring their outright opposition.
The Prime Minister in the United Kingdoms has received some troubles in passing laws as of late and could be taken as an ineffective prime minister. Certainly this opposition from his intended beneficiaries couldn't help his chances at staying in office at all.
The UK legal system is very interesting to me as a U.S. System. The Parliamentary System based upon previous rulings and traditions rather than formally written laws such as the U.S. constitution is very versatile to say the least. This versatility even allows for the easy replacements of Prime Ministers at any time should public support diminish and the Minister proves to be ineffective. This is easily contrasted with the strict 4 year terms of the presidency and 8 year total cap on years in office.
So, these recent developments could indicate a possible loss of support for the Prime Minister. This would of course lead to the possibility of new elections to replace the current one. It will be interesting to see how all this will play out. What will the Prime Minister do to keep his claim in office? How will his enemies respond to him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)