[Re: Trade and tech are the solution to the world’s food crisis, yesterday]
Nick Schulz is correct. It’s vital that we don’t let international development policy get captured by groups with no interest in the development of poor, rural economies. This is why it’s so worrying that the government emphasises its commitment to spend more money on aid projects over its supposedly equal commitment to freedom of trade. Without free trade, gains from aid will prove unsustainable.
Greenpeace is able to exert such control over government policy because it is well-funded by taxpayer subsidies.
Schools for profit
[Re: Incentives must be the foundation of a revolution in British education, Monday] This article makes an interesting, and fairly convincing, case for the injection of profit motives into school. I’m not totally convinced, however. I did a degree in economics, and I appreciate the role that market forces play in ensuring competitiveness. But I don’t think that trying to keep costs as low as possible, while maximising revenue, is a particularly sensible way to run a school. Schools should be like greenhouses, not battery farms. It’s not about churning out chickens for profit, but ensuring that children are given the right skills to thrive in work and life. Of course, I’m being idealistic.
I’m just back from Beijing, and the euro is no longer the sole topic of conversation. QE and the fiscal cliff are now major issues.
Francois Hollande is ruining the French economy through taxation. Don’t forget Labour want to do the same thing in Britain.
It’s vital that the government doesn’t raise business rates next year, despite yesterday’s inflation figures.
Well done Theresa May on the right Gary McKinnon decision. And also to @JanisSharp for her heroic efforts to protect her son.