WhirledView

In Tribute to John Charles Dyer (November 22, 1948 – November 21, 2013)

By Patricia H Kushlis and Patricia Lee Sharpe

With great sadness, we must report that our UK correspondent John Charles Dyer died on November 21, 2013 in Lytham, St. Anne’s, a village next to England’s Irish Sea just a day short of his 65^th birthday, after a several month struggle against aggressive brain cancer.

John’s political astuteness and analysis, his wit and way with words, his voice of conscience for the underrepresented and his ability to explain UK politics to a foreign audience made John’s weekly WV commentaries significant parts of this blog’s voice.  So too, did his lighter travel posts in which he transported us by bus, rail, car and foot to less visited places in the UK and the US through personal stories and glorious photographs.

His posts are part of this blog’s permanent archives and will remain an important part of WV.  They are accessible through the following link: http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/john-c-dyer/

He described himself on WhirledView as follows:    John C. Dyer, UK correspondent Public Policy "wonk" with over 34 years public service experience, over 17 as state level policy counsel, legislative advocate and analyst.  Writer.  Poet.  Dual citizen relocated to UK 2010.

What John did not say is that throughout his lengthy public service career he was Chief Counsel to the California Department of Food and Agriculture from April, 2004 through August, 2007, and prior to that he was a counsel for the department from July, 1996. This special expertise is reflected in the first two posts he wrote for WhirledView. Entitled “How Is Water Like Booze” they appeared on February 11 and 18, 2010 and placed in perspective the contents of a feature in the Economist on water problems in California’s heartland. 

His poetry was published in Poetry Cornwall while he was living in Florida before relocating to the UK – another ambition achieved.  

John Dyer grew up and was educated in California’s Central Valley – he graduated from the University of Pacific’s Raymond College and McGeorge Law School - but he was also a dual citizen, had traveled extensively in the UK prior to relocating there and, in truth, always had a foot on both sides of the Atlantic.  His all too short marriage to Victoria Buchan brought him much love, caring and a special safe haven for the last three and one-half years of his too short life.  So did his close relationship with Ed and Jessica Dyer, his two children, and grandchildren Rickie Surber and Haley Dyer.   

 May he rest in peace.  We will sorely miss him.    

(Photos of John Dyer by Victoria Buchan, of Victoria and John by Jessica Dyer and of the gull over the Irish Sea by John C. Dyer.)

There’s an Asterisk in that “Nascent Economic Recovery”

By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent 

18 May 2013.  The theme du jour seems to be “nascent economic recovery.”  That phrase popped up everywhere late April, accompanied by analyses of economic indicators allegedly supporting the theme.  15 May 2013 the Bank of England became the latest, projecting a “modest” but “sustained” recovery for the UK. 

It would be very welcome if true.  Everyone hopes for the best. No one hopes for the worst. No one enjoys debunking hope. No one wants to bring the economy down by "talking the economy down."  

Nor do we want to fool ourselves. 

Read the fine print  

Commentators seem to rely at least partially on a recent ONS estimate of GDP. ONS estimated the economy grew 0.3% in the First Quarter of 2013 over the previous Quarter and 0.4% over the same Quarter in 2012.  But there’s an asterisk for those estimates.  

“...  this estimate is [based on] around 44% of the total required [information] ... [ONS had] good information for the first two months ... [and an] estimate for the third month which takes account of early returns to the monthly business survey ... [ONS had] between 30-50% at this point ... [Therefore the] estimate .... [is] subject to revisions ... typically small (around 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points ... .”  

A lowering by 0.2 would change growth to 0.1% over last Quarter of 2012 and 0.2% over the prior year.  Nor is this asterisk the only caution.  The final estimate will be based on what actually happened during the quarter.  ONS has already published reports in May that cannot be fairly read to indicate growth. 

Fact check 

You can’t rely on headlines.

Take for example a 10 May release from the Office of National Statistics concerning first quarter 2013 construction.  According to the BBC the headline implication was, “Construction data suggests UK avoided a double-dip.”   Unless one read the ONS report itself one would not know ONS characterized the data as showing construction during the first quarter was at its lowest level since 1998.  

As it happened, the story did not receive a lot of coverage. Originally scheduled to come out Monday it came out instead on on “Take out the Trash” Friday.  

The same day provided another example. ONS released reports on the trade balance between the UK and the Europe and also the UK and non European countries. BBC dwelt on the increase in trade with non European countries.  As to trade with Europe, BBC characterized that as “flat,” again “suggesting” no double dip last year. 

This is what ONS actually reported about trade with Europe: 

“There is an increase of 31.8 per cent in the trade gap, the difference between UK imports from the EU and exports to the EU. This is the biggest increase in the trade gap in recent years. This difference is now £6.1 billion.”  

Then there was manufacturing and production. BBC described this as “industrial output beat forecasts.”  It did -- from February to March of this year -- but year-on-year -- according to ONS -- both figures were lower March 2013 than March 2012, which was lower than March 2011. As an ONS graph makes plain, while there were multiple ups and downs over the last 2 years, the slope of the curve has been down throughout. 

The final example is employment. ONS released its report 15 May 2013. BBC focused on a 15,000 increase in the unemployment rate while noting a 43,000 decrease “in employment.”  In an online piece BBC noted these statistics aren’t consistent with a picture of a recovering economy. But even this piece did not note the very first thing ONS wrote  -- the rate of of working age adults actually in work fell. 

I call attention to this statistic regularly.  It's not the same as the number of unemployed. It's far more significant in that it puts employment in context. The population grows. The need for new jobs grows, a fact often glossed over in discussions of increases in the absolute number of people in work.  As documented previously, the rate of working age adults actually in work declined steadily during 2008-2013.

BBC also noted total pay rises were at lowest levels since 2009. But BBC did not mention regular pay rises were at the lowest level since comparable records began (2001).   

15 May 2013 BBC News at 1 led with the Bank of England forecast.  BBC News at 6 did mention regular pay rises declined, but folded that information into the tail end of its coverage of the Bank of England’s forecast without highlighting rises were at the lowest level since 2001. 

BBC's online piece did not offset the employment news with the Bank of England forecast. The piece painted a fairly bleak picture. But unless you went to the ONS site and looked up the actual ONS report, you would not know even from this piece how seriously ONS itself rated the employment developments it tracked.  

Don’t bet your children’s future on hopeful pronouncements 

The indicators raise serious red flags concerning both the final First Quarter GDP estimate and the Bank of England’s optimism. It’s understandable why one might prefer good news, why one might search for “green shoots” in all those brown stalks. But before you bet your children’s future on hopeful pronouncements, fact check the headlines for yourself. ONS publishes its own take on its own statistics, readily available on line. That take speaks volumes. 

 

What do the 2 May local election results tell us?

By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent

3 May 2010. This week the UK demonstrated one old political maxim - all politics is local -- and one new one -- all spin is national.   

In yesterday's local elections Conservatives and Liberal Democrats suffered significant losses.

Now for the spin.

Conservatives, who lost most, “got the message.”  And the message? The Conservatives are right, of course. The electorate want what Conservatives are doing. The electorate are just “impatient” for it. Never mind the losses, the government just needs to do a better job messaging. Time to put UKIP under "scrutiny."    

Pundits had a field day. The only thing better than egg on a politician's face is a story of dramatic political change.  

Their "big story” was UKIP’s performance 

UKIP did well and better than predicted.  It certainly is a story that should be told. UKIP’s share averaged 25 percent, a substantial increase from last year's 7% in national polls or the 13% reported in the Sun poll this morning. 

More importantly, there are now four Stallions in the corral with the mares. 

UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, claims a “C-change” in UK politics.  Many pundits agree. Others say it could be the start of something big. Maybe they'll prove right. But maybe it's overcompensation for not taking UKIP seriously enough in the past. 

I agree most with Channel 4’s Gary Gibbon. Gibbon said the one thing clear to him is there's increased potential for a hung Parliament.  

But there was another story

The progressive Labour and Green Parties also made gains. In fact, at 291, Labour picked up more than twice as many seats as UKIP.  Green also gained.  But the story commentators told was Labour disappointing expectations by some measure or another.  

BBC further turned speculation into news. BBC reported their projection of what the results would have been nationally if it had been a national election, which it wasn't, and if  UKIP's share remained constant, which is dubious, as if this projection was somehow news.  BBC ignored Chuka Umunna's point that most of yesterday’s races were in previously Conservative jurisdictions.  How does one turn a gain twice UKIPs in previously Conservative jurisdictions into a Labour disappointment? If UKIP’s victory was a potential C-change, it seems more than odd that results nearly twice as large only disappointed.  

Why is this important? 

This is important because politcos and the electorate now consider the election's political and policy implications.  

Commentators who only the day before failed to predict the outcome spent the entire day today telling the public what those implications are.  Some argued Parties will have to shift to the Right. Others argued that at the very least Parties will have to address UKIP’s focal issues differently.  Many questioned whether one could consider Labour a true contender to take power in 2015.  While Labour’s success rose throughout the day the story line remained essentially unchanged.   

Premature

It seems premature to me to come to such conclusions.  

Did the UK's Triple Dip "escape" signal a "healing" economy?

By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent 

25 April 2013.  It’s official. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates the UK avoided the dreaded Triple Dip Recession -- at least for the first quarter of 2013. Based on 44% of the “required output determination” ONS estimates the UK grew 0.3% the first Quarter of 2013 over the last Quarter of 2012 and .4% over the first Quarter of 2012. The usual suspects celebrated the news as vindication of the Chancellor’s Plan A. But a cross section of economists and independent think tanks remain skeptical.  

The skeptics include me.  In this piece I will suggest a perspective I think more consistent with observable reality.  The theme is, absolute numbers grow, but their value diminishes.   

Consider Exchange Rate 

I regularly convert US dollars into UK pounds. I’ve become very aware of the impact of fluctuating rates on the value of the converted currency.  

In a prior FOI request I asked ONS how they account for these fluctuating rates in their estimates. ONS informed me they don’t, but they do adjust for inflation.  I've asked ONS to confirm that is the case with the last figures.   

From the perspective of one who makes and spends his or her money in the UK the impact of exchange may appear less important than inflation or subsumed in its calculation.  But when one must consider what it will cost in outside currency (an asset) to buy pounds (a commodity), it's an important consideration and an indicator of the strength of the UK economy.  Moreover, in the end, I as a consumer must still buy at inflating prices -- and pay taxes -- with pounds of fluctuating value.   

So I regularly ask, what will it cost in US dollars to buy £4,000 for the month’s living expenses. I also regularly ask the trends and whether the timing’s best to take care of a US obligation rather than convert dollars into pounds to spend in the UK. That is in its small way just what transnational investors and businesses do when they make investment decisions.  

Based on this experience I decided to look at the ONS headline figures through the prism of the exchange rates. I asked, what did it cost in US dollars to buy £4,000 per month in each of the quarters ONS compared.  

The detailed work sheet can be found here Download Exchange Rate Worksheet . 

Briefly, it cost me $650 more to buy £12,000 pounds during the last Quarter of 2012 than it did during the first Quarter 2013 and $241 more during the first Quarter of 2012 than the first Quarter of 2013.  Restated another way, the £12,000 for first Quarter 2013 was of lesser dollar value than either of the comparison Quarters. The drop in value was 3.4% and 1.3% respectively.  While the absolute numbers grew .3% and .4% respectively their value relative to the dollar shrank.  

Does that put the .3% and .4% GDP growth figures into a different perspective?  

Employment 

Where else have we seen an increase in absolute numbers but a contraction in their value? Employment.  Between 2008 and 2012 the net number of persons estimated employed at least one hour per week for pay increased 402,000, but the percentage of working age adults actually working for pay shrank from 59.6% in 2008 to 58.7% at the end of 2012.   Moreover the majority of new employment was part time, for which the average wage was £155 per week.  

US Gun Control, a non British British issue

By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent 

18 Apr 2012. Last night the gun lobby defeated even the least intrusive of the measures US President Obama sought to enact into law in the wake of a tsunami of gun violence. I regret that nothing could get past the gun lobby but I am not surprised.  

Here in the UK the British of all political persuasions watch with slack jawed horror and utter disbelief.  I have been hard pressed to explain it.  

To control or not to control 

I myself did not favour gun control per se. I favoured reasonable time, place, manner of storage and discharge of ammunition.  

But it is clear now that even my different approach would itself be a non starter. Even were the gun lobby to entertain any control legislation from any President they clearly aren’t going to do so from President Obama. It’s personal. 

I did not favour gun control per se because 1) I knew it had no chance and 2) I, unlike many who support gun control, am uncomfortable with the argument the second amendment was only ever intended to provide for a militia for the common defence in a time before a strong national military.  It is an appeal for a liberal cause to a conservative principle of interpretation with which I have heartburn. 

The principle of interpretation is important 

It may be historically true that the framers were only thinking of their circumstances at the time, but for a good 150 years the Constitution has been interpreted by the preponderance of distinguished jurists in light of the mores of their time not the framer’s time. The law is said to be “living” not static. In the past 50 or so years a competing principle of interpretation arose as conservatives sought to limit “social engineering” and “activist” judges who allegedly “make” the law instead of interpreting it.  Proponents of original intent argue the Constitution should be interpreted in line with what the framers were thinking at the time in the absence of more recent amendment.  

I am a living law kind of guy. But I am also a stare decisis kind of guy. I  think you can’t have your judicial interpretation cake and eat it too. If I apply original intent to the second amendment to limit its weight to providing a militia for the common defence I feel compelled to apply it to “cruel and unusual punishment.” Visa versa, if I apply living law to “cruel and unusual” punishment I think I must do so with the second amendment. Whatever the historical original intent the second amendment has come to protect private ownership of guns.  

The Householder’s Purse, a Legend of the Fall

By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent 

10 April 2013.   As all the world already knows, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is dead.  Today, the Speaker recalled the House of Commons to special session to pay tribute to the late Prime Minister.  

It was in-of-itself a befittingly and ironically controversial decision. Each MP is now able to claim £3,750 in expenses they would not have been able to claim had the House of Commons only waited until Monday. The funeral isn’t until the 17th. Reputedly the Speaker balked at the idea.

Memories of a Legend  

As reflected in news coverage, the parties reportedly celebrating her death and the discussion in the Commons today, memories of the late Prime Minister’s career are as vivid and divisive today as Mrs. Thatcher was during her tenure as Prime Minister. Critics think Cameron seeks to milk Mother Margaret for all she's worth but if that's the idea it is a risky strategy.  Mother Margaret's fans don't always see Cameron as her heir, enemies do. Resurfacing the cult of Margaret Thatcher may well benefit UKIP and Labour far more than Cameron.

Margaret Thatcher the person will be missed by those who loved her.  But, some who claim to miss her now shunned her for years. As one friend, Lord Tebbit said today in the House of Lords that he regretted leaving his friend to her friends. She was swept from office not by the electorate but by her colleagues.  

Another Tory politician this week claimed Thatcher “had to break a few eggs” in reference to the shutting down or privatization of whole industries at a severe cost to those the industries employed. Presumably, this was “necessary” in order to make omelets for her friends. For me, I count relatives among the eggs she cracked for their omelet. But I don't want to be a hypocrite. I've broken eggs too.

Prime Minister Cameron says Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saved the nation and made it "great" again.  One wonders about his definitions of save and great, but the verdict on the late Prime Minister now belongs to history and historians not politicians. Her legacy may well be written by China.  

Her least debatable impact may be as the person who most framed political and economic debate ever since. Perhaps the mark of her impact is, no opposition leader since has managed to escape that framework.  It is that framework that concerns me now.  

The Householder’s Handbag 

Margaret Thatcher famously "handbagged" Europe. She also handbags us today. George Osborne and David Cameron remain constrained by one PR gimmick in particular we owe to the late Prime Minister-- the Householder’s Purse analogy. “Any householder knows,” so the analogy goes, “you can’t spend money when there’s no money in the purse.”  It was the government’s mantra as it first sought to sell austerity to the public.

Social Security, a growing problem

By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent 

5 April 2013. Politics often seems to come in two phrases. The first is, “Me, I want.” The second is, “Mine, you can’t have.”  They are the alligators in all the swamps the dedicated hope to drain. They infest every public policy issue. They handicap every effort to face facts and effectively respond. Social Security is one such public policy issue where fundamental facts present difficult questions for every side in the debate. 

Is it Social Security or is it Welfare 

It is “Black April” in the UK.  The Coalition implements several “reforms.”  Some argue these reforms dismantle social security rather than reform it, penalizing the poorest and most vulnerable for the reckless gambling of the richest and most protected.  Others argue the reforms improve the system, making it fairer.  They call the system “welfare” not “social security.”  They describe the system as a safety net not social insurance and its benefits as "dole." They say the dole entraps. It undercuts the self confident, self reliance essential to earn one's way in the world.   

But the language of unbridled hate undergirds many proponents' arguments. Many, especially the Chancellor, divide the UK into “aspirational strivers” -- the good guys --- and “work shy shirkers” -- the bad guys -- who hide “with the blinds drawn” while the good guys go to work to not only “earn their way in the world” but also support the shirker.   It should not be that one can do better on benefits than in work, an argument made by comparing the extreme end of benefits in London to the lowest wage earners throughout the country. The Coalition argues they still provide for the "deserving" poor but in so arguing create yet another divisive distinction separating countrymen.  

While they say they provide for the most vulnerable, what they actually do is cut both the eligibility and the support the eligible receive. They give little. They more than take that away with a multitude of cuts.  They argue they make work pay, but they have done nothing to increase individual wages, benefits or hours of employment. They only made benefits hurt more severely than the lowest paid work.   

In rhetoric and design it is a naked appeal to “Mine, you can’t have.”  

I am on the other side of this argument. I am committed to social security as an expression of the social responsibility fundamental to a functioning society.   But I, like others who hold my view, struggle with the question, how are you going to pay for it.  

Channeling My Father for Easter

By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent

30 March 2013. Lytham St Annes, Lancashire.

Easter was one of my two favourite days once upon a very long time ago in a place now 7,500 miles far, far away.  Contemplating Easter as it approaches, I can hear my father turning cartwheels in my head, but not in a good way. He's not happy. Not happy at all. 

Easter

Easter Sunday churches across the United Kingdom and the United States heave with families feeling their way around a sometimes unaccustomed environment. Young women in fine hats join the regulars, the older women wearing Lavender. Men sport polished shoes & pressed suits, stretching necks discomforted by the tightness of neckties last worn Christmas service.  The old regulars wear no tie at all. Both the regulars and the Christmas and Easter crowd eye each other maybe with just a little judgment (kept to themselves of course).

The faithful gather in plain wooden structures or in remarkable, richly adorned palaces called Cathedrals. They sway, singing the old hymns, performing the old, corporate rituals. Some smile those utterly vacuous, vacant smiles which more accurately imitate a drug ecstasy than a religious experience. Some plumb the depth of Easter's meaning with earnest contemplation. All churches smell of abundant flowers & orris root perfume. The social halls echo to the sounds of children eagerly anticipating Easter egg hunts & Chocolate bunnies.

All is joy & warm fuzzies ... except ...

... except for the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable, the widow, the “demobbed” (newly separated) soldier, the debtor, the redundant (laid off), the homeless, the mother without a husband and the children who would be without any food this Easter but for overworked food banks.  These languish willfully unseen by officialdom, disconsolate and feeling abandoned by their neighbours, many of whom, this Easter, stuff the pews. 

A host of draconian new measures go into affect in the United Kingdom the day after Easter. In the past benefits recipients were relieved from Council tax (a local property tax paid by the resident not necessarily the owner). Not as of April 1. As of April 1 they will also pay a penalty if they have a "spare" room, dubbed the bedroom tax. While inflation rises their grants are now capped below inflation. They are forced to accept any work that presents itself including without further compensation or suffer draconian sanctions. 680,000 thus far have been. The list goes on and on of the changes to welfare that grow the food banks, children on the streets, suicides and hate crimes against the disabled, but not the promised way out of "the welfare trap" to almost any.