Phoney Outrage at RBS bonus

Hypocrisy knows no depths at the (still yet to apologise) Labour Party.

It was Gordon (I have ended Boom and Bust) Brown and Alistair Darling who brought in Stephen Hester to be the CEO of RBS, in succession to the Labour-honoured but then disgraced, Sir Fred Goodwin.

It was these two who agreed and signed off on the compensation package for Hester.

Now we have cheap point scoring by Ed Miliband and his jolly band of overpaid media supporters saying it is a 'disgrace' and the government should intervene, etc..  I won't go into Labour's complete lack of success whenever it 'intervenes' as that would take toooo long. 

However, it is interesting to see only politicos, and most (all??) of those never having held down a real job, criticising the payout.  I guess their lack of understanding of contractual matters is to be expected - they seem to be pathologically unable to keep their election promises, after all.


My advice to Stephen Hester - tell the board that 'no, I want my full contractual entitlement, £1.6 million or thereabouts,  I want it in cash, oh and given the unprofessional way that you and the major shareholder handle bank affairs and most particularly my confidential compensation issues, I consider that I have been constructively dismissed - see you at the tribunal, where I will seek full compensation!'

Then Vince and George can figure out how they will get any banker of stature to take on the poisoned chalice that is RBS CEO and while they ponder, watch the share price of RBS spiral downwards and with it the taxpayer's 'investment'.

As you would expect with politicians, hypocrisy is leaking from Labour and finding a home with Lib Dem Jeremy Browne.  He talks of

"There's a question of honour. Even if there's a contractual opportunity for him to have a bonus it doesn't mean he has to accept it."

And exactly what is teh question of honour?

Mr Browne said Mr Hester was paid more in three days than a soldier serving in Afghanistan received in a year.
"He should reflect on that. He is effectively a public servant in a bank which is almost completely owned by us the taxpayers," he said.
"He needs to think like a public servant who has a duty to his country, not just his own wealth." 

Are we also going to see all Premier League footballers having their compensation packages attacked, as well?  What about newsreaders, the Director General of the biased BBC? union leaders like Brendan Barber and Bob Crowe? GPs and Council Leaderss?  Maybe fatous MPs and junior ministers?
 
AS for Boris - well he has an election coming up.  I think he will come to regret his short term opportunistic sound bite.  As an aside, I really can't understand what he is doing in Davos though.  Same applies to Ed M.

Scotland - My View

My heart hopes that the Scots vote to stay in the United Kingdom  - we have a lot of shared history and I believe we are better and stronger, together.

My head says, while I do think we are stronger together, the important thing is to make the decision and then implement whatever that tells us!

Why will it take so long to hold a referendum?

Labour was elected to be the majority party in the UK Parliament, in May 1997,  By September of that year the referendum that established the Scottish parliament was held.  So around 4 months!  The Scottish parliament was up and running by May 1999 or within 2 years

Salmond and the SNP say they prefer a simple In or Out question.  Since they are in charge, in Edinburgh and they reckon they have a mandate, why wouldn't they just go ahead and get this done?

Why would it take 2 1/2 years to get that simple thing done?  Are they going to hand write the ballot papers?  That may keep some folks employed but surely that wouldn't reflect well on Scotland's efficiency!

Scrap metal solutions - You read it here first.

In my earlier blog:
 http://thismakesmemadyoutoo.blogspot.com/2012/01/cash-for-scrap-act-now.html

I proposed that the way to address scrap metal theft and the threat it poses to both safety and memorials for our fallen soldiers was to require payment in methods other than cash and photo proof of identity.

Now the Transport Select Committee seems to agree with me.

Anyone trying to sell scrap metal should have to prove their identity, a group of MPs has said.

The Transport Select Committee also said the government should test a ban on cash payments for scrap to try to tackle the problem of metal theft.
Thefts from railways caused disruption to 3.8 million passengers last year and cost more than £16m.
Rail Minister Norman Baker said it was considering new legislation to regulate the scrap metal industry.
The metal recycling industry is worth about £5.6bn and employs almost 8,000 people in the UK.
But there are concerns about the number of illegal sites and about dealers prepared to accept metal in return for cash without any information about its origins.
Aggravated trespass The transport committee said the government must act with "more urgency" to tackle the problem and made a number of suggestions:

• create a new offence of aggravated trespass on the railway to help deter cable thieves
• give more powers to police to inspect both registered and unregistered scrap metal yards
• reform the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 to require anyone selling metal to provide proof of identity before a transaction can take place
• test the use of cashless trading in the scrap metal 

To members of any of the Houses of Parliament Committees, I will continue to post on this site and you can use my common sense approach to problem solving, free of charge!!

Scotland - After much thought - procrastination

Can you believe the nerve of Alex Salmond?

He has had how many years - 30 or more? - to ponder and decide on the question he thinks should be asked regarding independence for Scotland.

He says that he wants the question to be:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? 

But because he is such a sweetie he wants to consult on this to ask Scottish voters if they think the Scottish parliament should have more powers.

Now the wily Alex knows full well that greater powers for the Scottish parliament are not within the remit of any referendum set by the self-same Scottish parliament.  He knows that such powers rest with the parliament of the United Kingdom.  He also knows that the granting of additional powers to Scotland would need to be discussed in a UK framework, affecting, as such would, the whole of the UK.

How would his nationalist colleagues in Northern Ireland and Wales feel about Scotland getting additional powers and they not?  The Welsh First Minister has already voiced his concern

How would the English feel about Scotland getting more and more powers while still 'sticking their oar' into English business?

Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies know that won't fly.  So...

They hope to stir up the pot so that anti-English and anti-Westminster feeling, in Scotland, rises at what they will portray as 'Westminster interference in the legitimate aspirations of a sovereign nation and people, etc.'

I trust that the Scots, not usually considered gullible fools, will see through his charade and political posturing and will understand that the only question they can be asked is In or Out and then they take their own decision.

Salmond also now wants to hold the referendum in autumn 2014 "on the same terms as any Scottish election, to the same standards and with the same guarantee of fairness"

He then goes on to say that the Scottish government proposed to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds for this vote.

Usually the gap between saying one thing - same terms as any Scottish election - that is, franchise at 18 - and then  saying something very different - extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds - takes longer than a sentence or two but not for Alex and the SNP!

So dear reader, what is your view?

Simple Yes or No question?

Multiple choice?  If this then the referendum has to include the rest of the UK and be run by the government of the UK since it affects all of its constituent parts.

What constitutes a majority?  If the turnout is 75% and of these 53% vote for Independence and 47% vote against, would Scotland get Independence?  Bear in mind that with figures like that it would mean that of the possible electorate 60% either voted no or by abstaining could be considered to have voted for the status quo = No to independence.  As usual the devil will be in the detail  

Opponents of Welfare Cap and Arsenal

Great to see former Archbishop of Canterbury speaking out and attacking those bishops that oppose the proposed cap on welfare benefits.

Writing in the Daily Mail, as quoted by the biased BBC, he said:

The bishops cannot lay claim to the moral high-ground.  Considering that the system they are defending can mean some families are be able to claim a total £50,000 a year in welfare benefits, the bishops must have known that popular opinion was against them, including that of many hard-working, hard-pressed churchgoers.


The sheer scale of our public debt - which hit £1 trillion yesterday - is the greatest moral scandal facing Britain today. If we can't get the deficit under control and begin paying back this debt, we will be mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.


Lord Carey praised the efforts of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith - whom he called a "committed Christian" - to overhaul a benefits system which, at its worst, "rewards fecklessness and irresponsibility".
He argued the cost of benefits was "increasingly stoking social division" among the "squeezed middle, who feel resentment at the 'handouts' given to the long-term unemployed".
And he said the welfare system, originally designed to tackle "want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness", had become an "industry of gargantuan proportions which is fuelling those very vices and impoverishing us all"

We have heard nothing further from the revolting Lib Dems nor from the flip-flopping Labour Party.  From the former I sense their comments and votes can be put down to posturing and from the latter, since they both support and oppose the cap, what else could we expect?

For Your Information - Lord George Carey is a lifelong Arsenal supporter, which is presumably why his great  intelligence leads him to come to the right conclusion regarding the welfare cap.  Now we just need him to see what he can do to get us a defence, in the transfer window!

English Bishops - questions to answer

An amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill, that is currently winding its way through Parliament, was passed in the House of Lords, last night.  This amendment, was tabled by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and was supported by other bishops, Labour peers, so-called cross bench peers (said to be independents) and Liberal Democrat peers. The amendment sought to exclude Child Benefit (a universal welfare benefit paid to all parents of children), from the total benefits cap of £26,000 that the government is seeking to set.

£26,000,  is the average gross pay of a UK worker - i.e. before taxes and national insurance (social security) are deducted!

One of the main reasons for a high cap is that 'Housing Benefit' is included.  This is where the rent for housing welfare claimants is also paid as part of their welfare package.  In certain parts of the UK, (particularly London and the South East)  this rent can run into more than  £1,000 (in some cases up to £2,000) per week.

Labour is in such a mess that it is not difficult to understand their peers voting for the measure and opposing the Government.  The Labour Party say they support a cap but don't want to hurt vulnerable people!  The reason they say they support the cap is that poll evidence shows that there is overwhelming public support for a cap on benefits.  So Labour saying two opposite things at once is to be expected.

The Lib Dem peers showed that their idea of participating in a coalition differs from what any sane or normal person would consider as right.  Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said that the Bill, in its current form was 'totally unacceptable'.  So we can presumably expect more whining and disloyalty from that quarter.

The Bishops used to be called 'the Conservative Party at prayer'.  That was a very long time ago.  Some of them, having ditched God and the Holy Trinity have now also been joined by others and moved wholeheartedly to the Labour Party!

The Bishops represent the Church of England

• The same CofE that is a very large landowner in the UK.  
• The same CofE that  rents out a very large number of properties to private tenants and charges them market rents.  
• The same CofE that is said to pay the average parish vicar considerably less than the average UK salary of £26,000

Given that attendance at CofE services runs at less than 2% of the population it is not really a surprise that the they are so out of touch with how the UK people think. 

Surely now is the time for this irrelevance to be dis-established and put on the same footing as the other religions in the UK?

1. How can the Bishops fly in the face of overwhelming public opinion?
2. Will they and the Church Commissioners, use their ample resources to fill the gap that their actions have the potential to create?
3. Will they declare how much they receive in rents from tenants that are in receipt of housing benefit?

This week's YouGov poll, in the Sunday Times, showed that among the public, 88% of Conservative supporters, 69% of Labour supporters and 66% of Lib Dem supporters, support a cap on benefits.  Overall, the support for a cap was 76%, with just 9% opposing..

The same poll  found that 59% believe that the cap should be  £26,000 or less and 36% think it should be less than £20,000

The UK Sunday Times reported this week, on a family from Somalia that arrived in Britain, three years ago and have never worked.  They initially lived in Coventry, in the West Midlands, where house rentals are much less expensive than in the South East but then wanted to move to London 'to be nearer their extended family.'  So they were re-housed in the very chic and up-market West Hampstead suburb, in a six bedroom property, which is estimated to cost around £4,800 a month to rent.  This is the rent that is then paid as housing benefit on top of all of the other benefits that they receive  

Housing Benefit has increased, from the 2008/9 figure of  £15.6 billion to £20.5 billion in 2010/11 an increase of 31% - this when property values have declined! 

We are being taken for a ride and paying a very heavy price for the dubious privilege and the UK Bishops support our pockets being picked! 

Do remember!  The cap is at the level of Average UK wage.  Somebody on the Average UK wage, would simply not be able to live at the same standard as someone on the cap, let alone someone claiming more than the cap.  Now you can see why work doesn't pay!

Thatcher the Serial Killer

I quote below a letter published in this week's Grantham Journal. Friday 20 January.

Councillor Ray Wootten obviously supports the idea of having a statue to Thatcher in spite of the very considerable body of opinion that is opposed to it.
Cllr Wootten says: “Whatever your political views of Margaret Thatcher...she did come from Grantham. We need to capitalise on that.”
This is a bit like councillors from Bingley say, or Gorton, arguing that no matter what you might think about Peter Sutcliffe or Myra Hindley, their places of birth should capitalise on the fact that they came from there.
The atrocities of Sutcliffe and Hindley pale into insignificance compared with those perpetrated under Thatcher’s watch.
People would be rightly outraged if statues of Sutcliffe and Hindley appeared in their home towns, and the notion of having a statue to Thatcher in Grantham is even more outrageous.

I don't care what or where your political sympathies lie, how can any sane mind, compare Margaret Thatcher with the horrors that were visited on their victims, by Sutcliffe and Hindley?  To me that takes an incredibly  warped viewpoint.

If you agree, send a letter to the Grantham Journal.

I have to ask, why would any respectable publication even print such vile rubbish? 

Green hypocrisy on energy

The BBC reports:

Green energy campaigners are attempting to block new nuclear power stations in the UK by complaining to the European Commission that government plans contravene EU competition regulations.

They say financial rules for nuclear operators include subsidies that have not been approved by the commission.
These include capping of liability for accidents, which they say at least halves the cost of nuclear electricity.

The government says it is confident that policies do not provide subsidies.
The complaint, by the Energy Fair group, also says that the UK's carbon floor price and feed-in tarriffs amount to state aid for the nuclear industry.

Now consider this.  These same Green energy campaigners are NOT blocking the subsidy that is provided to Wind Farms nor are they blocking the subsidy provided to Solar Panel installations.  This is in spite of the fact that both of these supposedly green policies are in fact not 'green'.

Both of these energy forms require that back-up generating capacity is available and online ALL THE TIME because of the intermittent and therefore unreliable nature of the energy that they produce.  i.e. you have to have a coal, gas, oil or nuclear powered station churning out electricity because wind might not blow or it is night-time!

Hypocrisy is a word that immediately springs to mind when considering the energy 'policy' of the Greens.

Chris Huhne and the climate change acolytes at the DECC are pushing an agenda that will push-up home energy costs while really doing next to nothing to actually reduce our fossil fuel dependency.  They know that wind turbines operate, at best, at less than 30% of capacity


The UK Green Party Manifesto at the last election (2010) had as a stated policy:

We will stop using coal,oil and nuclear power

I think that when they say we, they actually mean ALL of us.  You have been warned!

Incidentally, if you google Energy Fair, there doesn't seem to be such an organisation!?!?  So who is it that is working with a firm of German lawyers? 

UK Defence cuts - Quick quiz

Two numbers

189,560

85,730

Which do you think is the number of Active UK Armed Forces personnel and which is the number of Civil Servants employed at the Ministry of Defence,

Media reports suggest that:

• The British Army has more Generals than active Challenger Tanks
• The Royal Navy has more Admirals (Full, Rear and Vice) than commissioned ships

In cuts that have been made to address the straitened financial situation in which the UK now finds itself, which is exacerbated by financial skullduggery by the previous administration, where do you think that the cuts are falling hardest?

• On front line personnel 
• On support personnel 
• On the officer class 
• On MOD civil servants

Talking of the previous administration, please recall that these are the same people who sent troops into combat zones, ill and under-equipped having committed forces on dubious grounds.

Defence cuts? 

• Bring our troops home and let them stay home unless we need them to go somewhere to defend British interests.  Back from Afghanistan, Cyprus, Germany anywhere that isn't a British Overseas Territory (so not the Falklands)
• Make reductions first, in the MOD among the civil servants - instead of 1 Active military person to 0.45 Civil Servants, bring this down to 1:0.2 (so reduce civil servant numbers by 48,000)
• Reduce the number of senior officers, Admirals, Generals, Air Chief Marshall and such ranks - far less 'chiefs' allows for better equipped and managed 'indians'

The first number above is current armed forces personnel.  The second number is the number of civil servants employed at the MOD.  Does anybody think we would have such a ratio if we were engaged in a direct shooting war?  

Private sector pay

We are just entering the period when financial institutions declare their 2011 corporate earnings and in many cases the 'bonus pool' that will be shared among their employees.

Following the bail-out of RBS, Lloyds and HBOS, the retail and investment banks now fall into two camps.  Part state-owned (see earlier) and those others institutions such as HSBC, Barclays JP Morgan, CitiCorp and Goldman Sachs, which received zero bail-out funding from the UK government  - we will call these latter type - private institutions.

We can expect lots of the usual froth from commentators about 'excessive' bank bonuses and how the 'government ought to do something about it'.

So what can the government do?

Well in the case of the part state-owned RBS, Lloyds and HBOS, they can use the shareholdings, that they hold on behalf of the UK people, to limit the amounts of payouts.  These could be limited to those that are required to meet contractual obligations - some people have bonuses built into their contracts of employment and if they meet certain targets, then legally, these must be paid - and they can then limit other payouts to zero or to certain pay grades etc., however, they and the other shareholders see fit.

In the case of the private institutions, it is really none of the business of government to interfere in how the shareholders (otherwise known as owners) spend the income of their company.

If the government wants to affect such private sector bonus payouts, it could do so through the tax system (as I have proposed, on an earlier blog) but it cannot and should not dictate to private companies on the remuneration that they give to any of their workers.

If the government wants to set the tone around pay restraint, then maybe they should concentrate on the areas which are within its span of control................

So, set a cap on the pay of anyone employed by a public organisation.  So local authority executives, civil servants, military chiefs, ministers, BBC executives, etc.  My suggestion would be around  £100,000 per year.  Many private sector companies have re-organisations and require personnel to re-apply for their role, so do the same with all of the above - get them to re-apply for their job but at a reduced rate of maximum £100,000.  Oh, and let's make the maximum include taxpayer contributions to pension funds.

That might start to sound a little more like 'we are all in this together' in action!

Welfare Reform - long overdue

So the bleeding stumps and wheelchairs are being trailed around Westminster to try to garner sympathy and opposition to the long overdue reforms of UK welfare programmes, that are under discussion.  I think that these are entirely misplaced.  The genuinely disabled will not see their benefit cut.  Those abusing the title 'disabled' do need to fear the reforms.

When you read this you may think I want to abolish DLA and Incapacity Benefit and ESA - I don't.  I do want people to be rigorously assessed and then if they are found to be eligible for benefit, to be given it and if they are not eligible, then they don't get it. 

This gravy train needs to stop because we simply cannot afford it.   Money that is taken by those assessed as ineligible is money that can be spent on genuine needs, including that of the real disabled.

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was introduced, by the Conservatives, in 1992.  At that time, around 1.1 million people were eligible for the allowance.  At May 2011, 3.2 million people were claiming the allowance.  An almost 200% increase.  Perhaps some of that increase, you decide how much, is due to an aging population (the pensioner population has increased by 10% or just over a million, in the last ten years)  and some to an increasing population (it grew by around 4.5 million or 8% in the period).

My suspicion though, is that the very significant part of this increase can be traced to the fact that until very recently, claimants for this allowance were not independently medically tested.  For some people, there has just been a paper based assessment  - Maybe you say on the claim form that you have a certain condition and the government takes your word for it!

Government statistics suggest that most claims were assessed based on checking with the claimant's GP (GP as in General Practitioner and certainly not a specialist!) 46%, information on the form (see above) 16%, ringing up a carer, an astonishing 32%.  This leaves around 6% where the claimant was assessed by by a specialist for the purpose of the claim. 

Yes, that's right - just 6% are assessed by a specialist in what is being claimed for!

DLA now costs the taxpayer more than  £12.3 BILLION a year

Fit for work tests for the 1.5 million people that claim Incapacity Benefit and its successor Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)  have been underway for some months.  Figures published in July 2011 showed that of those assessed, 39% were deemed fit for work, immediately and 17% could consider working, with the right help.

Indeed, of the more than 1.3 million people assessed, just 88,700 people were found to be completely unfit for work!

Interestingly, one in three of those due for assessment dropped out of the application process.

Incapacity Benefit and ESA costs the taxpayer around £8.7 BILLION a year.  This includes, based on Department of Work and Pensions figures, £24.2 million for sufferers of 'dizziness and giddiness' and around £2 million for those nursing haemorrhoids!

In ten years of Labour mis-rule the number of people receiving sickness handouts for more than 5 years rose 20 fold.  In May 1997, 68,000 claimants had been in receipt of incapacity benefit for five years or more.  By May 2006, the figure had soared to almost 1.5 million.

Abu Qatada - Solutions

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Abu Qatada cannot be deported from the UK because 'information, probably, obtained under torture' will be used against him, if he is re-tried, for terrorism offences, in Jordan, where he was already tried and found guilty, in-absentia, for terrorist offences.

Some ways forward

The court has made clear that if the UK obtained an assurance from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture would not be used against Abu Qatada at trial, there would be nothing to stop his deportation.

So the UK can obtain such an assurance and deport him.

Or

The UK can arrest him based on his seemingly inciting comments made in the past and then deport him based on these?

Or

The UK can put him on a plane to Jordan and then face whatever censure the European Court imposes and either settle or pay any fines or tell the European Court that we simply don't recognise this judgement as it goes against our sovereign rights.  End of!

Or
The UK can put him on a plane to Israel or Palestine and let him go to Bethlehem, which is his birthplace (and isn't in Jordan!)

Or
I don't suppose we could request the countries of the judges that passed this ruling, to take their turn to house him and his family, in their country? 

Whatever,

Abu Qatada and his stated dependents must be denied any and all UK state support - no welfare benefits, no legal aid, NOTHING

If Abu Qatada is released into the UK community, then place him under 24/7 surveillance and overtly so.  Have uniformed officers follow him and his family at every turn and be positioned outside his home all the time.  Also,  have his telephones and Internet monitored and require cell phone companies to turn-over details of all calls he receives.

We must make life extremely difficult for the man that former Home Secretary, David Blunkett describes as 'extremely dangerous'.


Immediately deport all other terrorist suspects who have appeals to the Law Lords or the European Court of Human Rights.  Then deal with the consequences - what will the Law Lords or ECHR do, send in their troops?  Tell them to go to the hell where these terrorists will end up!  This shouldn't be a party political issue.  This is about common sense and decency versus the liberals and legal establishment that have no concept of how their weaknesses imperil our country.

Labour, Cuts and the Unions

Labour is apparently in conflict with its trade union backers because it has now 'apparently' come out in support of public expenditure cuts and 'endorses' public sector pay restraint and goes further and suggests that public sector workers might take pay cuts to prevent job losses.

Labour now 'apparently' supports public expenditure cuts.  However, in certain of its confused and conflicting statements it still maintains that the cuts being implemented, against Labour's opposition, by the Coalition, are too deep and too fast.  That sounds like trying to be both pro and anti cuts.

Interviewed on the biased BBC, by Nick Robinson, Ed Miliband was asked

QUESTION: "Some people think this is curious because it gives you an excuse to say: 'Well we oppose this cut', only to say a few weeks later, 'actually we back it, we've got to live with it'."
ANSWER: "No, it's not about backing the cuts that are being made. We don't want these cuts to be being made. It's not in the interests, for example, of safety on our streets to be having the speed of cuts we're seeing in policing. Or in the interests of the economy to have the overall pace of cuts - that's why we say too far and too fast.

Make your own mind up as to whether Labour back or oppose the cuts and then let Ed know what he should say!


Labour 'endorse' pay restraint.  Well maybe the leader and Shadow Chancellor now do

Ed Miliband recently said:

It's a hard choice, but when you are faced with the choice between protecting jobs or saying the money should go into pay rises I think it's right to protect jobs," he said.

"In the end there's no easy choices in government... I think is absolutely right that we say we've got to prioritise employment."

Several Labour MPs have reportedly criticised the move, among them Austin Mitchell, who supposedly called it 'barmy' and accused Mr Miliband of "weakness".

Mr Miliband said Mr Mitchell was "wrong", adding: "We are absolutely determined that Labour shows we would be fiscally credible in government."

I can't help think that this is a smokescreen and the following backs up my thoughts.

Labour suggests that public sector workers might take pay cuts to save jobs.

I believe this is a cynical attempt to encourage the public sector to hunker down and weather out the economic storm that we are facing.  This is in the mistaken belief that doing so will be temporary and will be lifted when (if,?) Labour returns to power.  The Labour leadership (and their union counterparts) know full well that the country simply cannot afford and will not be able to afford the public sector to ever get anywhere near as big as it was under Labour. 

I am sorry to all those 'diversity officers' out there, and  all the other low-value adding but oh so right on and nice to have positions which get in the way of people living their lives and taking responsibility for their own lives, but you need to find a new career - the country cannot afford to employ your services and pay from the public purse.   


Call me cynical but I can't help but feel that the bluster from the unions is manufactured.  Leaked letters?  Public letters to The Guardian.  I smell an orchestrated campaign.  Goes something like this:

• Labour needs to build economic credibility with the Public.
• Labour to public back cuts because Public endorse and see necessity for cuts.
• Labour to endorse pay restraint in public sector because the Public think that the public sector should share the pain and have been cossetted by Labour.
• Labour endorse 'negotiated' deals that see public sector pay cuts to 'protect' jobs.
• Unions to express outrage, publicly, with letters to the press and privately, with letters that get leaked.
• Cue the two Eds standing firm and saying we have to be responsible and economically credible and then saying things which undermine their earlier stance (the latter is unintended but neither Ed really want to upset their union backers)

Ed Balls, Labour and the S word

Sorry really does seem to be the hardest word for Labour!

Ed Balls is now saying that Labour supports a pay freeze for Public Sector workers and won't seek to reverse expenditure cuts.

On Public Sector pay he said:

It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue through this parliament. Labour cannot duck that reality and won't. There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down.
I know there will be some people in the trade union movement and the Labour party who will think of course Labour has got to oppose that pay restraint in 2014 and 2015. That is something we cannot do, should not do and will not do.

And on the expenditures cuts he said:

My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that.

There was some additional waffle and some luke-warm support for the other Ed but nowhere does he say Labour was again wrong on the economic issues - nowhere.  I have scoured the leftist blogs (its okay I was wearing disposable gloves so I don't think anything rubbed-off) - but nowhere do I see the S word.

As I said earlier, Labour can apologise for the 1848 Irish potato famine, they can apologise for the UK's role in the slave trade but economic failure, failure to adequately regulate the banking sector  - nothing to say sorry for, according to their leftist vision. 

Ed Balls was at the very heart of the incompetency that was Labour's economic 'policy'.  Not on the periphery, he was an economics advisor to Gordon Brown (sorry for using such bad language) and  then he became a government minster, all the while, being one of Gordon's inner cabal. 

Labour supporters must be in a whirl - how can the cuts be wrong one minute (per the 2 Eds) and suddenly ok the next.  Same for the pay freeze.  Flip-Flopping in Westminster used to be confined to MPs and their second homes but now Ed Balls has brought this into a core area of Labour policy.

Can I expect them to support my campaign to get Grantham to properly recognize Margaret Thatcher?

Breast Implants - again - The GMC role

Please don't think I am fixated on breasts.  Its the implants I am talking about.  And I am not fixated on those, either!

Where is the illustrious General Medical Council or the army of ambulance-chasing lawyers, in all of this?

Surely the plastic surgeons who fitted (installed?) these implants have a duty of care to their patients?  Following on from this, if they abdicate this responsibility then wouldn't that put them in breach of medical ethics?  (Or for plastic surgeons, is ethics a place you path thru on the way to thuffolk? -sorry, couldn't resist)

Why isn't the GMC, jumping up and threatening all of these surgeons with disciplinary hearings which could lead to a loss of license to practice?  And doing so as a matter of urgency?

After all, the GMC are always quick to get in front of the media when someone in Government suggests that a GP or a precious consultant should maybe be paid a little less  or work a little more (weekends, maybe?).  GPs earn more than £60,000 a year with  very many earning more than £100,000 a year.  Who knows what these plastic surgeons are earning.

Maybe this is an area where the government should impose regulation.  Patently, self-regulation isn't working!

Where too, are all those ambulance chasers?  Do they maybe share a 'lodge' with their professional colleagues and don't want to upset them?  Why are they not advertising on daytime TV?

Maybe it is all because the biased-BBC and ITV seem to have decided that the clearing up of this problem is the responsibility of the taxpayer funded NHS?

All I see on the TV slots about this, is a government spokesperson and then a private plastic surgery patient.  The latter are NEVER challenged on why I should put my hand in my pocket because their vanity operation has the potential to go wrong.  Why should funding be diverted from the care of the elderly or cancer patients (the list goes on) to remove and then replace (because the latter is also demanded) something that these individuals undertook themselves, for their own selfish benefit?

Corporate responsibility in the shape of some (not all) of the plastic surgeons,  seems to have fled the scene. 

Where is the personal responsibility in this?

If I buy anything, from a private supplier, let's say a car, the contract is between me and the company.  The UK government isn't in the picture (and really that's the way I want it).  If the brakes are faulty or the gearbox doesn't function I go back to the car dealer or maybe the manufacturer.  I don't go to HM Government or the Ministry of Transport!

What have we come to?

Scotland, Debt and Ratings

The recent action by Standard & Poor's, to downgrade the sovereign debt of certain EU countries prompts me to look at the ratings of all EU members.

Getting accurate data on UK GDP, by region has proven difficult but the Scottish Government reckoned that in 2009 it was £143.8 Billion, which is around 10% of the total UK economy.

Making the, I believe reasonable assumption that an independent Scotland would take on its share of the National Debt relative to its position in the UK economy, would suggest a debt level of £114.9 Billion.  This would still equate to 80% of GDP.

As to ratings.  Only time will tell but I offer Finland and Portugal as possible guides.

Finland
The population is 5.3 Million - close to the Scottish 5.2 million.  The GDP is  .£149.6 Billion

Word of warning though.  It achieves a AAA rating mainly because its public sector deficit 2.5% and its Public Debt is 48%.

Portugal 


The population is 10.6 Million.  The GDP is  £143.3 Billion which is close to that of Scotland..

Word of warning though.  It achieves a BB Junk bond rating mainly because its public sector deficit 9.1% and its Public Debt is 93%.

It is difficult to estimate what would be the Public Sector deficit of an independent Scotland and current data doesn't support analysis because National Debt is considered 'national' and not apportioned to the constituent parts of the Union.

It would probably be wrong to infer that because, according to the Scottish Office GERS report, Scottish Tax Revenue is  £48.1 Billion and Expenditure is £62.1 Billion, that an independent Scotland would run a Public Sector deficit of £14.0 Billion or 29%

I don't think it would be too far fetched though to say that the Scottish sacred cow, that is the public sector would have to be reduced.

Oh! I don't say that the rump UK credit rating would automatically survive as AAA post Scottish independence.  Frankly I think we are fortunate to still have ours, today but given the socialist history of Scotland and a large consensus towards welfare and public spending, I suspect that a post independent Scotland government would be obliged, in the interim at least, to continue on its already unaffordable spending pathway. 

Member States
	GDP Sterling in Billions	Public Debt as % of GDP	Deficit 2010	S&P Rating
Germany	£2,074.0	83%	-3.3%	AAA
France	£1,604.2	82%	-7.0%	AA+
United Kingdom	£1,408.2	80%	-10.4%	AAA
Scotland including N Sea Oil  Estimate	£143.8	80%		???
UK Without Scotland   Delta between Eurostat and Scottish Gov.	£1,264.0	80%		???
Italy	£1,285.5	119%	-4.6%	BBB+
Spain	£882.0	60%	-9.2%	A
Netherlands	£490.9	63%	-5.4%	AAA
Poland	£294.1	55%	-7.9%	A
Belgium	£292.9	97%	-4.1%	AA
Sweden	£287.7	40%	0.0%	AAA
Austria	£236.1	72%	-4.6%	AA+
Denmark	£194.2	44%	-2.7%	AAA
Greece	£191.0	143%	-10.5%	BB Junk
Finland	£149.6	48%	-2.5%	AAA
Portugal	£143.3	93%	-9.1%	BB Junk
Ireland	£127.8	96%	-32.4%	BBB+
Czech Republic	£120.4	39%	-4.7%	AA
Romania	£101.2	31%	-6.1%	BB+
Hungary	£81.7	80%	-4.2%	BB+
Slovakia	£54.7	41%	-7.9%	A
Luxembourg	£34.5	18%	-1.7%	AAA
Bulgaria	£29.9	16%	-3.2%	BBB+
Slovenia	£29.9		-5.6%	A+
Lithuania	£22.8	34%	-7.1%	BBB+
Latvia	£14.9	45%	-7.7%	BB+
Cyprus	£14.5	61%	-5.3%	BB+
Estonia	£12.0	7%	1.0%	AA-
Malta	£5.2	68%	-3.6%	A-
GDP, Debt and Deficits based on information from Eurostat
Scotland GDP is based on Scottish Government estimate as of 2009. - Wikipedia
Scotland Debt is based on Total UK debt of		£1,126.5	80% of UK GDP
Multiplied by Scotland share of UK GDP		10.2%
Equals		£114.9
Relative to GDP stays at		80%
Something to ponder and comment?

Shetland independence, all that oil and Norway

I seem to recall that way back in the early devolution vote - 1978 - the Shetland Isles (and Orkney) voted very much against devolution.  The general feeling was something like, if we are not to be governed by Westminster, as part of the United Kingdom, then we would rather be on our own than governed by Edinburgh.  At the time there was also some mention of Shetland re-joining up with Norway!!

Now, if they were to vote similarly in any independence referendum, would the SNP consider offering them independence from Scotland?  (Maybe same for Orkney and Hebrides?)

Would the SNP allow Shetland to remain part of the UK?

Or.  Would the presence of all that Shetland oil mean self-determination only goes so far?

Wikipedia suggests that Shetland is pledged to the Scottish crown, which now rests on Queen Elizabeth's head......

"Oh what a tangled web we weave......."

Comments response

Trust it is acceptable to respond en-masse.

Thank you for your the civility of your comments - nice to know we can talk about issues without degenerating into name-calling or abusive language.

I can agree that if the question is a simple Yes or No one, then this could be put solely to the Scots electorate.  However, if the question is expanded to include anything else - such as 'Devo-Max' then that wouldn't be acceptable - the position is fundamentally altered.  Such a question would alter the whole dynamic.  Then the UK electorate would need to be involved.

I do find it interesting to note that the SNP claim that they promised a referendum on independence and yet they now claim to want to obfuscate the issue by adding 'devo-max' in as a choice.  The latter is apparently because 'un-named' others are clamouring for it! 

If they have any kind of mandate around independence, it can really only be for the Yes/No question.

I also worry that the result of a more than 2 part question will 'muddy the waters'.

Say the choice and results are as follows:

Yes   33%
No  33%
Devo-Max 34%

What could we deduce about this?

Anti-independence supporters would say 67% of people voted against independence.

Pro-independence supporters would say that 67% voted in favour of the dissolution of the status quo.

The latest poster, indicated that the SNP want independence and there are many people in Scotland that want it as well.  So Alex and the SNP, let's give them that simple choice.

I have spoken on these blogs as to how an economic split could be effected and to my mind that is a reasonable position.  Leave all of the 'subsidized' or 'not subsidized' arguments to one side as it seems that, anything that comes from statisticians or economists can be used to support any argument.

On Scottish funding, I hold to the view that the use of the Barnett Formula is unfair to the English and must be eliminated and a fairer system, more closely reflecting populations be deployed.

Final point - what do the SNP hope to gain by suddenly enfranchising 16 and 17 year old's for the independence vote?  Okay, so they figure that this demographic may be more pro-independence but why stop at 16?  Do they plan to extend this franchise for all time and all votes?  Other than Brazil, Nicaragua and Cuba, I can't find any other countries where the franchise goes to 16 year olds.  North Korea and Sudan do extend to 17 year olds

Miliband re-launch sensation

Bet the title caught you by surprise.  Miliband and sensation in the same sentence.  The so-called re-launch might just as easily have passed you by, what with Tesco knocking 30p off of a dozen eggs and still giving Club Points!!  (Just kidding!)

Seriously though.

I would have expected any statement from Ed to have started:

"We are sorry."

"Let me say that again.  We are VERY sorry."

"We got it spectacularly wrong on Public Spending.  We were way too arrogant and conceited when we said we have abolished 'boom and bust' - I was there and I know how we strutted around!"

"We were wrong (boy that is a difficult phrase, to say!) to focus on unaffordable spending and not impose adequate regulation on the banking sector"

"Equally, myself and my other Ed have been wrong to keep on banging on about not making cuts and spending our way out of the recession."

"As a fair-minded member of the media or public, you know I couldn't just get elected and then ditch all these sacred cows, overnight.  Didn't you?  You must have expected me to show some deference to the union chaps that were kind enough to elect me."

"So now I am going to follow David's lead (Cameron that is, not my brother) and try to get people focused on 'responsible capitalism' (got a nice ring to it, don't you think?).  Of course there will be times I will over-step the mark and damage a business or two, but who will really notice? We can always blame that on the policies of the last government (Note to self - should I really say that?) "

"Some are saying that by now my poll ratings should be turning upwards.  Well to them I say, we are three years into this downturn, if the economy can't turn up, why do you expect me to?  I know some would say that with such a gloomy picture, Labour should look to be in a better position but how can I help it if The Guardian can't increase it's readership?!  After all we did for them, with thousands of pages of jobs and stuff - ungrateful, if you ask me!  Same for all those public sector workers - we gave them everything - okay much of it on other people's money but still..... "

Just why does Labour have a problem saying sorry for its mistakes?  It said sorry for Slavery, for the Irish Famine but can't find it in themselves to say sorry for their failings.

We have all heard the expression 'a labour of love'.  Now we know that Labour is the same as Love - it means you never have to say sorry!

Scotland and Salmond

It must be terrible for wee Alex Salmond!
He has huffed and he has puffed and he has tried to bring down the Union but for all his bluster we can now see him for what he is - a calculating politician rather than a Scottish patriot.

He wants all of the trappings of being 'El Presidente' but is scared to let go of the apron (and purse) strings of the Union.

He wonders:

"Who will pay, if my independence ploy becomes a folly?  What happens if I upset the neighbors and then when I ask to borrow a wee cup of sugar, they say, 'no more, you borrowed from us, too many times in the past and then just snub us and bad mouth us '? "

"What happens if the ungrateful and unforgiving Scots wake-up and say 'Hold on a minute, we have swapped shared governance  by the 'Brits' and Westminster, to domination by the Germans and French - didn't we fight wars against them, to avoid being ruled by Bonaparte and Adolf?'"

"How, when I know, 100% for sure, that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster, can I gracefully and face-savingly  back-down?  What words can I use to deflect the Scots from knowing that the accursed Westminster parliament have seen through my plan?  That the public schoolboy running the show is not the easy push-over I took him for"

"I don't think I can win a straight Yes or No question, so how do I 'pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate' and get them to back me going for 'Devo-Max', when it seems that only my party and the Greens, want it and at the same time hold on to my 'Freedom for Scotland' credentials?"

If it wasn't for the fact that he is a politician, I might feel some sympathy for him.  But no!  I will reserve that sympathy for the decent Scots that he has deceived and led-up a garden path, never intending to get to the end.

Who was it said?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

Sir Walter Scot, methinks!

HS2, NIMBYs and France

Given the Government's decision to go ahead with the HS2, would it be too much to ask that we follow the example of the French.

That is, we get the thing done as a national priority and not just through to Birmingham but on to Manchester and Leeds. 

One of the things I admire about the French is that once they decide, at a national level, on a grand projet, they get on with it.  According to reports, the legislation for the initial phase, through to Birmingham, won't come before parliament before 2014. 

Honestly!  It would be quicker to get a referendum on Scottish independence!

Wherever and whatever route is used, someone will be affected and so will someone's view.  Sorry (not really though) but that's the price of progress and I really think we do need to progress.

Some of the opposition to the proposal suggest that the current congestion on trains could be eased if more carriages were added to existing trains and platforms extended.  Well let's do that as well.  The indications or proposal suggests that the first phase won't be complete before 2026, anyway!

I am really not sure I understand why it will take 14 years to build a railway line and yet we got the whole London Olympics site built in less than 7 years!

Let's get this done and done now.

Cameron and Co need to put the national interest before party interest and tell the constituencies through which the line goes, this is the way it is!

One further point though.  It is my understanding that one reason the French manage to get their grand projet through is that they don't penny-pinch on compensation and they accommodate those that they effect - so build under-passes for farmers etc.  In other words they buy-off a lot of the moaners!

Scotland again - Some Clarity?

The Secretary of State for Scotland - Michael Moore -  is to clarify the legal position as regards a referendum on Scottish independence.

Since the power to change the constitutional status of Scotland is a retained power, the legal situation can only be changed by the parliament of the UK - i.e. the one at Westminster.  Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies must know this.  So why all of the bluster about Westminster interference?

I retain the view that the SNP and particularly the wily Alex, both want their cake and to eat it.  They want 'devo max' where they get control of all matters of policy within Scotland while having no responsibility for paying for it.  So they (or the Scottish Parliament) set a spending policy and the cost of this, short of any locally raised taxation, is borne by the UK government and taxpayer.

They want to have a power out of all proportion to their contribution to the UK economy and the UK population.

If they want to look at or have the Scottish electorate look at 'devo-max'  then the rest of the UK must be consulted.  How can they or any sane person think it is right for the Scots electorate to have the right to write a cheque for the rest of the UK economy and people, to pay?

Blogs and comment boards are buzzing since David Cameron's announcement.  I will try and address the various themes here.

Who votes on the Union?
This falls into those that say, only Scotland should vote on the matter versus those that say since it affects the UK, both sides of the border should be consulted.
In some respects I suppose it depends on what is the question.  If it is a simple In or Out then I can have some sympathy with just the Scots electorate being consulted for their advisory position.

If though, the question is wider and looks for greater powers for the Scottish executive, then both sides need to be consulted.

Assuming an In or Out question, whatever the response, the issue still rests with Westminster for action and not Edinburgh.  Clearly that is the legal position.

Who votes?  
This would be the relevant electorate according to the rules usually prevailing in the UK.  If it is a referendum only in Scotland then those resident in Scottish constituencies and eligible to vote, would be entitled to vote - no expatriate Scots, no exclusion of non 'Scots' (whatever that means).  Simple - if you are legally on the electoral register in a Scottish constituency, then you can vote.  Same rules would apply for a UK-wide referendum.


Scottish economy 1
There has been much to and fro on the sustainability of an independent Scottish economy.  I suspect that they would struggle and living standards would decline and both personal and corporate taxes would rise.

I am sure that much will be made of this during the referendum campaign and that we will all be confused and really none the wiser - those so called 'independent' economists will likely have an 'axe to grind' and their own agenda but I guess we may get a reasonable sense of how the Scottish economy might make out.

One point that I hope is addressed, is the relocation, if there is a vote for independence, of the UK government offices that are currently located in Scotland - the central tax offices etc.


Scottish Economy 2
The rules surrounding the UK oilfields are governed by International law and so they will need to be followed.  How to apportion the relevant share of National Debt is somewhat more complex as I doubt this can easily be identified as being for Scottish purposes or for UK purposes.  I would expect that this would need to be proportioned on relative shares of the national UK economy.
This would also need to apply to pension liabilities for civil servants employed in Scotland.

For shares in the nationalized banks, these would be shared on the same basis.  I don't subscribe to the view that the UK should be compensated by an independent Scotland for the bail-out of RBS or HBOS.  What happened when we were in the Union was for the benefit of all of us.   We must start from a point in time and go forward, not go back over  300+ years of history.  

Scotland and the EU
There seems to be an assumption that Scotland will, upon 'independence' automatically be a member of the EU.  I would be interested to hear why people think this is so.  I would suggest that if the independence vote succeeds, then the UK probably ceases to exist and both the UK rump (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and newly independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU. 

This would likely require that both adopt the Euro currency, assuming it still exists at that time.   So in some ways, a referendum on Scottish independence might give all UK citizens the long-denied referendum on EU membership!

I would guess something similar for the UN and the UK's permanent seat on the Security Council would apply and indeed the Commonwealth.

Afterwards
What happens if Scotland is given a vote on a straight In or Out question and the answer is to stay In?  I don't see this as the demise of the SNP but believe that you might see a re-alignment in Scotland with perhaps something less polarized along the left-socialist axis.

If the answer is No, I would hope that having had the referendum and had an answer, the issue could be put to bed for a reasonable period of time  - 25-30 years as a minimum.

Comment
Feel free to comment - I will publish all, whether you agree with me or not, except those that are abusive or use foul language.

Scotland and Independence

Some of you will have read my previous posts about the fear that surrounds Alex Salmond and the SNP,  (fear of calling a referendum) and their trying to squeeze ever more concessions out of the UK government.  This on top of the excessive funding that Scotland already receives.

Well, seems like someone is finally listening.  The timing of the referendum is being discussed by the UK government as well as the question to be posed.

Salmond and Co. want a three choice option.  Something like:

Do you want complete independence for Scotland and a break with the United Kingdom or do you want greater powers for the Scottish Assembly?

• Yes, complete independence
• No, remain part of the United Kingdom
• Greater powers for the Scottish Assembly but remain part of the UK

The SNP and fellow travelers think that when faced with such a choice, they will get what they really want - Greater Powers. 

I believe that they know they will not get a majority Yes (what would be a majority?  More than 50% of the eligible voters (that is those registered to vote in Scotland) or more than 50% of those that bother to vote?)  

Getting Greater Powers is what they really want as this way they can strut and preen themselves as leaders without needing to face the full economic consequences of their actions - i.e. they will demand that the English continue to subsidize them.

As I said earlier, I think that the English should also be asked for their opinion or view. 

I think the question on both sides of the border should be:
                   Do you want Scotland to remain a member country of the United Kingdom?

• Yes
• No

A majority would be when 50% plus 1 vote of those eligible to vote is met.

The referendum needn't be binding ( I am not sure any referendum is binding on the UK Government) but this would give a sense of English  and Scottish feelings.on the matter. 


Also, whatever the outcome, the Barnett formula must go and the subsidy to Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) must end.   This needs to happen before the March Budget.

Then we can see if they can afford free university education and prescriptions etc.