Wednesday 15 April 2015

Cheryls_nan

If you like Cheryl's Birthday, try this

When I saw the now famous Cheryl's Birthday problem, it reminded me of this one.  It's a few years old (the woman might have been Cheryl's grandmother), but has stood the test of time:
 
A travelling salesman rings a doorbell; woman answers.
 
Salesman: Good morning, madam. I'm selling children's books. Do you have any children and what ages are they?
 
Woman: I have three.  The product of their ages is 36.
 
Salesman: I can't work out their ages from that; tell me more.
 
Woman: The sum of their ages equals the number of the house next door.
 
Salesman [who can see whether the houses go up in odds/evens or up one side and down the other, but doesn't know which side next door she means]:  I still can't work out the ages.
 
Woman: The eldest plays the piano.
 
Salesman: Now I can work out their ages.
 
So what are the ages of the three children?
 
 


cellar


Meanwhile down in the cellar

With election day fast approaching, there are still plenty of people saying “I haven't decided which way to vote yet”, so here are some thoughts. All parties spend a lot of time telling us about details of their policies, just as people spend a lot of time on the everyday parts of their homes: the curtains and soft furnishings are what we all see. It's only rarely that someone pops down to the bottom layer to check the foundations; but it's important to know that what's there is strong enough to hold the whole thing up. So – a quick look down at the foundations, for the busy person in a hurry without delving into economic theory and without insulting your intelligence by talking down.

The most basic question is “What is the State for?”. Well I warned you it was fundamental: I'm asking why do we (the country, the County, the parish Council)- do public administration at all.

Conservatives (and some other politicians of the “right”) - will answer that the State exists only to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. For example it's neither desirable nor practical to have a private group of citizens assemble their own army in defence of the land, but private enterprise is always the most desirable way. Therefore the State should do as little as possible and hold as little wealth-resource as possible. Private is good because the possibility of your efforts and money investments making you very rich should be encouragement enough to make you work well.

Socialists (and the more so the further to the political “left” we look) - will answer to the contrary: that the State should do as much as possible. State ownership of industry is to be preferred over private. Public is good because ultimate control of production and management is in the hands of people who are looking after the Country's good as a whole.

An economy runs like an engine: fuel goes in (investments, people doing work, natural resources…) and useful stuff comes out (profits made, students taught, roads & houses built, people's health maintained, goods exported…)*. An economy is strongest and runs best when it's well-tuned to the best mix of public and private enterprise as appropriate, not one extreme or the other. That is the Liberal Democrats' starting point. Whatever follows is the detail.

With a strong economy we can have a fair society. That's why the Lib-Dem banner says Stronger Economy first, then Fairer Society.



* I promised no economic theory, no insult to the intelligence, by now, BBC Horizon would have given you a sweep-shot of a hand writing equations on a wipe-board and perhaps an explosion!

FREE!


FREE!

What a happy word FREE is! On the grand scale there's the classic news photo of Nelson Mandela striding into the sunshine with a smile; at the other end it might be just a smile on a shopper's face on finding an extra 33% of detergent in a bottle (“enough for six more washes!”). So free means happy-me, free is good. OK then, what about all those free schools that David Cameron has promised us if we let him? (Did I say promised or threatened to inflict upon us just then?) Anyway, moving swiftly on… Free in this case means free from some of those irksome little restrictions that Local Authority schools have to abide by, such as insisting that teachers have actual teaching qualifications, or following the National Curriculum. They are not claiming to be free in the money sense: they are to be paid for by the taxpaying public.

Perhaps inflicted upon us would be the right thing to say is going on. Let me explain: Why is it that proposed schools quietly disappear? Oh yes they do. When a planning application for 300 new houses near Gunvil Hall to the South-west of Wymondham was first discussed, the idea was suggested that part of the plan would include a new school. After the plans have bounced between South Norfolk and the developers a couple of times, when Wymondham Town Councillors saw the latest version with a space where the school was, I asked “What has happened to the proposed school?” I was told that the developers asked the County Council for details and were told that a new school was not needed in that area; it’s within cycling distance of both Wymondham College and Wymondham High. (No, I don’t know either how that squares with the need for primary school places, but heigh-ho!) Instead of building a school, the developers’ PR told me they were advised, perhaps they could either leave a space or build a community building that potentially could be used for a free school. That is a clear example of Tories preparing the ground for more cuts in services, more movement towards their dogmatism. It's not exactly privatisation, but it is less local control pretending to be more, less money for Local Authority education where we need more. I am yet to be shown even one single tiny benefit of free schools, other than to County Councils who want to shed responsibility for excellence in education.