Doctors on Strike

The BMA are meeting to decide whether to strike or not, for the first time since 1975.

This is based on a ballot that the union for doctors (that's what it is not some 'professional body') held amongst its 130,000 members.  The subject of their ire is them having to contribute more to their gold-plated pension funds

They are so incensed that barely 35% could be bothered to vote.  Of that 2/3 were in favour of industrial action - by quick math that means that around 24% are in favour of going on strike or some kind of work to rule. 

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the BMA's leadership position.  This position essentially translates as the NHS is fine and efficient, doesn't need fixing, we want more money and we want to keep more of it but of course we always put the patients first, (unless it interferes with our other (more personal) aims!)

We must wait and see what a strike would mean .

• Strike - No hospital or GP cover?  How would that square with the Hippocratic Oath?
• No weekend work?  Most GPs don't do that anyway but they, along with Students are the least militant group with just 55% of those bothering to vote, being in favour of some kind of industrial action .  Consultants in A&E are pretty rare birds at the weekends, as well
• Emergency Service only? Around 45% of Consultants and the same level of Staff Grade/Speciality Doctors support this.  

If it does come to some industrial action , one wonders what the Labour Party (such keen advocates of short waiting lists (in theory anyway) and union rights) will do - support the BMA or support the austerity measures?  Because that's what this is about - it isn't about 'saving the NHS' - it is about adjusting pension provisions and making them more equitable and closer to what the country can afford. 

Think about it, where do you think the money for those gold plated pensions comes from - Yes, you're right - the NHS budget.  So less money contributed from doctors and other health workers means less money spent on front line care.

Incidentally,
One of the questions in the initial ballot, related to what would be the result of the current proposals.  Would they make you bring your retirement age forward, draw pension earlier, neither or not applicable?  Among those under 30 years of age, 20.5% said it would cause them to bring their retirement forward.  I can't work out what that means.  Pensions are so good that they can retire VERY early or they didn't understand the question.  Must be something else because either response is scary!

 

Scotland's debt to England

In the late 1600s, independent Scotland sought to address the economic decline which it was suffering by emulating the English and establishing an overseas empire.

They sought to create a colony called New Caledonia in what is now Panama.  They raised funds to do so and these funds were estimated to account for between 20 and 25% of the monetary wealth of Scotland.

The Darien Scheme, as it became know failed, terribly.

The indebtedness of whole swathes of Scottish society (not just tribal chiefs and wealthy merchants!) pushed Scotland to seeking a political and monetary union with England and the formation of the United Kingdom. 

This was completed in 1707.  Part of the agreement was that the Scottish pound was subsumed into the Pound Sterling with a fixed value of 1 shilling (5 Pence).  Additionally, Scotland was granted £398,085 from the English exchequer.

That £400,000 grant which staved off national bankruptcy, for Scotland would, if compounded by a conservative 5% per annum, now be equivalent to £1.16 Trillion. 

Some Scots would say, ' Aye but England has taken all of our oil money' (no doubt adding epithets before the word England). 

However, since 1968, the sum total of all taxes raised against the oil and gas industry, in the whole of the UK, totals to  £158 billion.  Assuming all of this was ascribed to Scotland (which it absolutely shouldn't be!), then this would still leave Scotland owing £1 Trillion to England - an amount, funnily enough which is the same as the UK National Debt!.

So, Alex and the people of Scotland - Can we have our money back?

Not all of it, of course. 

Scotland has contributed to the Union in so many ways and for that, credit should be given

Alexander Fleming
James Watt
James Napier
John Logie Baird
David Livingstone
Andrew Carnegie
Robert Burns
Arthur Conan Doyle
Ian Rankin
Queen Elizabeth, the Queen's Mother

Among many, many others including the many people that have served the Union both within the UK and throughout the British Empire in the military and civil service as well as commerce and all other forms of endeavor.

How much credit, for this contribution? 

Honestly, it's hard to calculate and put a value on the contribution that these folks made to the success of the United Kingdom.  leave alone then having to make deductions from the sum arrived at for Scotland's giving the UK, people like Gordon Brown ( I won't mention those awful Hogmanay celebrations with the White Heather Club, as Scots and English alike, suffered that!)

So, let's work up a number and then 'Wee eck' and his merry band of supporters can settle up.

Incidentally, would the financial crisis in the Irish Republic, have anything to do with the silence in the demands for unification, from Adams, McGuinness and the other Nationalist terrorists?

Quite from Wales too.  The valleys may have once been green and may be getting back to that condition, but the 'green, green grass' of independence doesn't look so appealing in these cold and harsh economic times.

Alex, Please send the cheque, guaranteed by a solvent international bank, and make it payable to The People of England - c/o HM Treasury'.  You don't have to sign it, from an ungrateful Scot, we will know who it came from, but please do sign and date it!  Since you insist on dragging out the referendum debate you have plenty of time to get the funds in place!

Michel Roux Junior - WorkFare hero

Returning to Workfare.

If you get the opportunity, do watch BBC's This Week on iPlayer.  I summarize the piece by Michelin-starred chef, Michel Roux.

Scene:  Busy kitchen - camera on person washing up - Surprise, it's top chef, Michel Roux!

MR:  This is where I started and worked for first year.  This taught me respect.
Kids nowadays want instant success and this served on a plate.  They forget that MR, Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay all had to work hard to achieve their success.

They (kids) would rather be sat on benefits.

MR has taken on dozens of apprentices and they work for him for two years.

MR always looks for work experience - and it doesn't matter what it is - on a CV.

Work experience is not slave labour it gives kids valuable life skills and any work experience is invaluable.

MR believes there is an attitude problem and that is why jobs go to immigrants!  Skill training includes 'getting off your backside'.

MR - Work experience can never take over from full time employees.

On the same piece, former government minister and politician, Michael Portillo pointed out that 10% of Americans start their working life 'flipping hamburgers' and the whole process of this type of work experience builds confidence.  He also wondered why it was that in England, it is rare to see an English waiter and yet in Spain all waiters are Spanish.  Some people think waiting on tables is beneath them?

MR (having hoped to have got kids off of their backsides) goes on to say that what kids need is tough love and maybe a kick-up the backside!  

I wonder if that is why they don't want to get off it?

Workfare is voluntary.  My view is that after a six month period on benefits it should be compulsory.   If they don't undertake (and stick with a programme) then benefits are reduced and eventually eliminated (within a further 6 months)

This isn't slavery - check your history books - how many slaves got paid for their labour?  How many enjoyed taxpayer provided (and often subsidized), housing?  Free healthcare, education, etc.?

This has been proven to work - in the USA for one - and needs to be more widely adopted, here.



 

Workfare is fair and Win/Win

There is a lot of fuss, generated it seems mainly by the 'Occupy Movement' fellow travelers and some elements of the media.

Main proposition is that getting people to undertake work placements for major organizations, like supermarkets, and they do not get paid a wage, just their unemployment benefits is akin to 'slave labour' and boosts the profits of these retail giants.

Consider.
Cost to the taxpayer is unchanged.  Though might decrease if a permanent job is awarded.
Cost to unemployed  is nil - they get reimbursed expenses plus they get work experience on their CV and get into a 'work habit'
Cost to organization - There will be some but maybe offset by the fruits of the labour?

Benefit to Taxpayer = Higher profits for organizations means higher taxes.

Win:Win

Oh and 'slave labour'  - those who use that to describe shelf stacking in 21st Century Britain show their absolute ignorance of what constitutes slavery and no respect for those unfortunates who did and, in some countries still do, experience real slavery.

A closer analogy to slavery is that imposed on working people who are forced to pay ever higher levels of taxation!

Ice Cream Custard or Cream?

Which do you prefer on dessert?

Hot dessert must be Custard but if none available, then Ice Cream

Pies or puddings that get served cold, such as lemon Meringue or Summer Fruit Brulee or even fruit  - Double or Single Cream.

I am sure that there is a science behind this!

What about you ?

Ed Balls and Tax

The 'Shadow' Chancellor, Labour's Ed Balls, has proposed some ideas for the upcoming UK budget.

• A 2.5% cut in VAT or
• A 3% cut in income tax, for a year or
• Higher tax credits or
• Bringing forward the increase in tax free pay

Each proposal would cost £12 Billion.

He is only proposing to do one of these (I think).

The idea is that any of these would provide a boost to the economy by putting money into the pockets of lower earners and they would then spend it, etc.

The last proposal 'bringing forward the increase in tax free pay' is pure mischief making.  He knows it is Coalition policy.  He knows that it is something that is close to the heart for the Lib Dem members of the coalition and so just seeks to sow some division!

Higher Tax credits?  I can't help but feel that we need less welfare dependency - a whole lot less - and this doesn't do it.  People should get to keep more of their money not have to pay it into the government coffers and then be given it back!

3% cut in income tax for a year.  A short term boost but, it might then lead to a permanent cut.  I can just imagine, 12 months after this has been implemented, that Balls would be saying ' the removal of this time-bound policy, would lead to a flight of confidence from the economy...............'  In my view taxes should be cut and then stay cut!

A 2.5% cut in VAT - Make it 5% and make it permanent.  Enshrine in law that the maximum permitted VAT can be 15% and can only be increased by way of a referendum!  Also, remove VAT completely from energy costs.  This latter is trapping many people in 'fuel poverty'.

My budget ideas

1. Scrap the minimum wage for those under 25
2. Undertake a complete review of all HS&E legislation with a report due back within 6 months.  Starting point is  that all legislation should be scrapped.  Any that are found necessary to be maintained, must be fully costed as to the economic impact for the country.
3. Apply same process to Equality legislation with a view to capping compensation levels at £100,000 and equalizing cap for all forms of  discrimination. 
4. Remove the 50% income tax level
5. Reduce the entry level income tax rate from 20% to 15%
6. Reduce the new high income tax rate, from 40% to 35%.  So we have two levels 15% and 35%.
7. Cut Employer NI contributions, on all new employees hired after budget date to zero for first three years
8. Plan to incorporate personal employee NI contributions into Income Tax inside of  a couple of years and cap at 10%
9. Increase personal tax free allowance to £15,000
10. Means test supplementary payments to pensioners.  Rich OAPs do not need the Winter Fuel allowance, etc..  However, any money saved, from a 2011 baseline cost, should then go to the remaining pensioners.  We're all in this together! 

How to fund this?

• Dramatically cut back and restrict salary levels at the top of all publicly funded organizations.
• Treat MPs the same as other tax payers - they must pay taxes on expenses.
• Undertake a complete review of all Quangos with a report due back within 6 months.  Starting point is that all should be scrapped.  Any that are said to be necessary to be maintained, must be fully costed as to the economic impact for the country and the results published.  Then hold a referendum and a number (say something less than 50) selected to be retained.  People get to vote on say, 5 of however many and the top 50, in vote terms, stay, the rest get closed.
• Relative to the above (and, I know pre-judging) implement a hiring freeze on all Quangos.
• Reduce funding for Wales, NI and Scotland, equivalent to the amount that they subsidize university education and health care compared to that which applies in England - that is, set a level playing field!
• Cut Corporation tax by 10% and give a 5 year tax-free holiday to any new manufacturing company that establishes and manufactures in the UK.

I am sure I can think of more and I will return to this, shortly.

The balance - do like Ed Balls always says Borrow.  I think though that the stimulating effect would reduce the actual borrowing need.

Child asylum seekers share £1 Million Compensation

Around 40 'child' asylum seekers who arrived in the UK without papers and were judged by immigration officers to be adults and thus held in adult detention centres have received £1 million in compensation.  A further £1 million was paid to the British lawyers who fought their case.

How do these sums get calculated?  That £1 million averages out at £25,000 each!  How, on the one hand, can we be told that in their home countries, families survive on less than US$1 a day and then give such a huge sum as compensation.  Were they mis-treated while in detention (no claims lodged so I suspect not!0. 

This sum equates to a very significant lifestyle change being made available to these 'children' and their families.

Oh, and remember.  They arrived without papers and so the immigration officers had to make a judgement.

Madness doesn't come close.

 

Abu Qatada - Deport the family

The UK government is getting tied in knots by the ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that the UK cannot deport a man who has been labelled as 'extremely dangerous' because, Jordan, the country to which we want to deport him, may have used torture to procure evidence leading to convictions. and might 'probably' (their words) do so in his case.

I will come back to that in a moment but surely we can just go ahead and deport his family?  There seems to be limited information available on their 'origin' but if they are not born in Britain, why can't we deport them?

I have voiced concern about the ECHR ruling before, on this blog. How can judges dictate issues affecting the national security of the UK and against the express wishes of the UK's legally elected government? 

Just as importantly, how can we let them do so?  The first duty of a government must be to protect its people!  That isn't a party political issue, that is first principles.

I am afraid that as regards torture being used on extremists, I may be in a minority.  My view is that with Al Qaeda terrorists (as earlier with those from the IRA and UDA) then the 'normal' rules need to be suspended.  These people do not play by the same rules as us.  Imagine playing football and the opposing team were playing rugby!  While we are nicely following the FA rule book, our opponents are picking up the ball and battering us down on the way to scoring their idea of a goal!  What is almost as galling is we then have apologists who use legal manoeuvres to try to get us to accept this mis-application of the rules.  Usually at the tax-payers expense!!

I do appreciate that it is a slippery road down which to travel but frankly, we grant these people the freedoms of a civilized world  that they would remove as soon as they possibly could, at the same time as they seek to extinguish the lives of ordinary people around the world.    

Jordan is the country to which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada (though he seems to have been born in Palestine!).  Jordan isn't part of Europe and doesn't have to kow-tow to political judges who think they should not only rule on law but actually make it.  So Jordan, rightly says that we don't need lectures on law and what is right from Europeans!

The ECHR ruling is patently wrong.  It sets out 'acceptable' standards of future behavior which no government can predict or control and then ties the hands of the UK government because of those very lack of control!

However, last time I looked, the UK was still a sovereign nation and the UK government was elected by its people, not judges in Strasbourg.  So the UK government must do the right thing and protect its people by deporting Abu Qatada.  And start by deporting his family.

Incidentally, who funds Abu Qatada's family?  Who funds his legal challenges?  MY expectation of an answer is that in both cases, it is the UK taxpayer.

Enough!!

University Fees - Sense prevails

Think about the message we are getting from politicians of all hues. 

We need to reduce debt and the deficit and until we get our national finances back into shape, we must cut public services. 

Now consider that if you as an individual take this message on board, you will be reducing your credit card debt and mortgage etc.

Having thought about this, then try and square it with a policy which penalizes you if you reduce part of your debt.

That is the policy that was being proposed by the Lib-Dems and their hero - Vince Cable.  University graduates would be penalized if they paid back the tuition loans that they took out by having to pay extra!!  Trust me, I am not making this up!

 Thankfully common sense seems to be surfacing and word is that this policy will be thrown into the rubbish bin, where it belongs.

Write to your MP and let them know it is important that it stays in the bin.

Cash handout or more QE

Just recently, the Bank of England issued a further £50 billion of money in what is known as Quantitative Easing.  As far as I can ascertain this is the BofE simply printing money.  The BofE then used this money to buy debt issued by the Government.

As a means of stimulating the economy, I don't see it.  Much of the money that the government raises, in this way, then gets spent on the inefficient Public Sector part of the economy.

As an alternative, would it not be better if every taxpayer received a one-off payment of £1,500 to £2,000 through their pay packet?

I am sure that were such a step taken, then some would be used to pay down personal debt and some would be saved but I am confident that a sizable portion of any such payment would get into circulation in the general economy - in other words, people will spend it.

What do you think?

 

Wind Farms - subsidy madness - hidden Green tax

I have written here before of the lunacy surrounding the UK Government's Green policy.  The policy that pretends that it is 'green' to allow almost unfettered building of onshore and offshore wind farms, even though they will never make any meaningful contribution to the UK's energy needs and, critically, always require fossil fuel or nuclear back-up to supplement those times when the wind doesn't blow or blows too much.

The Sunday Telegraph has reported the following:
Company and Country                          Projected Annual
                                                             subsidy in £million
Vattenfall from Sweden                             £139.9 million
Dong from Denmark                                 £110.5 million
Scottish Power (Spanish owned)               £  97.7 million
Statkraft from Norway                              £  85.3 million
RWE from Germany                                 £  74.3 million
E.ON from Germany                                £  67.6 million
Centrica  from UK                                    £ 56.7 million
SSE from UK                                           £ 54.3 million
Fred Olsen from Norway                          £ 35.7 million
Falck                                                        £ 31.8 million

Total for these 10                                     £753.8 million

The next 5 wind farmers share in a subsidy of £96 million, and so the Top 15 owners receive an annual subsidy of £850 million.  Yes, £850 million a year, every year!

This subsidy is funded by all energy users through monthly gas and electricity bills.  That is, part of the reason we are seeing almost ever higher utility bills, is not because of the wholesale price of oil or natural gas but because this silent green tax is being collected by our energy suppliers and then handed over to the above companies.

The above subsidy does not take account that to reach the government's target of renewable participation in the energy mix,  the volume of wind turbines will need to be a further 3-4 times those already installed.

Don't blame the companies - give them a guaranteed source of revenue and, like any commercial organisation, they will run the numbers and see that it not only makes sense to build these wind farms, it makes VERY good sense.

Oh, and the subsidy on offshore wind farms is double that which is on onshore wind farms.

Please feel free to comment but whatever you do, get onto your MP.  This stealth tax will choke us and our children more surely than any CO2 emissions.

Police and The Sun

Shouldn't all of us be disturbed at the way the Metropolitan Police are handling the investigations about possible wrong-doing at The Sun.

Assigning 170 officers?  More than covered the PanAm-Lockerbie investigation, apparently.

Dawn raids (which get leaked to the press!)? 

These aren't armed killers or dangerous terrorists - they journalists, for heavens sake.

I don't read The Sun and frankly much of what I have heard about its reporting style I find distasteful but as their former political editor has said, where is the proportionality? 

There are killers and muggers and rapists sitting at home tonight and there are 170 less policemen concerned or involved with tracking them down.  What's to stop them going out and doing it again - well 170 less officers for a start!

Abu Qatada is about to be released onto our streets and instead of gathering evidence to put him away or get him out of our way, 170 of the police are otherwise engaged.


Incidentally, given that some of the accusations that are floating around, talk of bribes or improper payments  to police officers, how can any UK police force really lead the investigation?

Oh, and those other newspapers and TV News smiling so smugly at the fate of The Sun, look to yourselves and your house.  Sure that you have never paid a policeman for a lead or a tip?  Or bough a civil servant an expensive dinner, to get the low-down on a story?  No?  Sorry, simply don't believe you.

I do believe that criminal investigations should be pursued.  I do believe that journalists should be treated just like anyone else before the law and that includes being presumed innocent until tried and found otherwise.

I have to question why it seems to be the senior people at The Sun that are being arrested.  I really can't believe that they were the ones, personally passing over the 'brown envelopes', rather than the actual 'reporter'.

This whole episode leaves me with a sense of unease as to where we might end up as regards 'control' of the media (and yes I mean media and not just the printed press) and I also include social media as being at risk.

Worrying times!  And then there is the happenings in Greece!

Ferguson is right

Always hard to admit that the manager of Manchester United is right but as regards Luis Suarez, he is bang on the money when he says that Suarez is a "disgrace to Liverpool Football Club."  He went on to say. "He should not be allowed to play for Liverpool again. He could have caused a riot."

The response from Liverpool FC was typically one of being in denial.

Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish said in an interview: "I think you're bang out of order to blame Luis Suarez for anything that happened here today."

It is clear to me, at least, that LFC and Suarez do not accept the disciplinary charges that were brought against Suarez.  They lodged a bundle of papers, unsuccessfully but they didn't appeal the verdict.  I surmise because the evidence was overwhelming that they saw no chance of an appeal succeeding (after all 'the FA Committee is stuffed with LFC haters, always is, stands to reason, etc.' )


What chance two new charges, from an FA that seems to have remembered some anatomy and found its backbone, one for Suarez and one for Dalglish of bringing the game into disrepute?

Liverpool have plenty of history - both as a football club and, frankly as a a city.  It is always someone else's fault.  'We are scousers and we can do no wrong'  Those that died at Hillsborough crushed by their own team's supporters and those that died at Heysel would beg to differ, if they still had a voice.

I hear that they will shortly re-name the River Mersey to the River Nile, because that is the place wherein LFC spend most of their time.

Oh, and those charges - don't hold your breath!

BBC Twisted Priorities

Syrian bombardment of civilians in Homs
Continuing Euro crisis in Greece
Capello resigns as England Manager

Pick the lead story on BBC 10 o'clock news.

Yes, that's right Capello resigning.  Good to see that the biased BBC has its priorities set right.  Bet Hester wishes this had happened a few weeks ago!

Your Choice - National Interest or Political Opportunism

Which would you choose, if you were a politician?  Go for the quick soundbite and a 30 second slot on the Six O'clock news or do what's right, in the interest of your country?

Consider:

You are a finance minister and there is a global banking crisis with confidence in the whole economic system, on a knife edge.  The Finance Sector is a major component of your country's economy.  The largest bank in your country faces insolvency and this would have a catastrophic effect on the whole financial system.  A major contribution to this particular local  situation is that this bank over-stretched itself with an overseas acquisition but you worry that the light and 'hands-off' regulatory systems, that you allowed to exist, might also be a contributory factor.  

So you inject a very significant sum of taxpayer money, into the bank and take a substantial shareholding.  You decide that it would be best if the semi (largely) state-owned bank be managed at arms length rather than become part of any ministerial portfolio, though you do push for the exit of the bank's CEO.  You put in place such an arrangement for the management of the taxpayers investment.  You, along with the bank's board, negotiate with a suitably qualified banking executive.  Someone not caught up in the immediate crisis but who 'made his bones' in banking.  You agree contractual terms and set targets etc. and then step back.

Get into your personal Tardis

Now Fast Forward 2 years


You are in opposition.  The recent election sees the electorate lay a charge of economic mis-management, at your party's door and they kick you out of office.  However, they are swayed by the charm and rhetoric of a smaller party and so the election result is that this minor party gains a seat at the big table and participates in the coalition government that is formed.


Back into your personal Tardis

Fast Forward 2 years

In spite of the government initiating austerity cuts, your party is languishing in the polls and many lay this at the door of your lacklustre leader.   The earlier mentioned banking executive is making good progress at the bank and achieving the targets that are set for him, by the Board of Directors.  Under the terms and conditions of the contract of employment, which you and your colleagues either directly negotiated or approved, he is entitled to a performance related bonus.  The government that succeeded yours, imposed a blanket ban on large cash bonuses and so the bulk of his bonus must be in shares that vest over a period of term.  Technically that may be a breach of his contractual terms but he doesn't complain - he is in it for the long run.

Do you as an opposition MP or Shadow Cabinet Minister throw hypocrisy to the wind and use the compensation package that your party agreed to, when in power, as a stick to beat the recently elected government, or do you support the individual that you selected and find the words to placate the mob whose fury has been whipped-up by a sensationalising media?

Consider also.

You are part of the newly elected government.  The majority political philosophy is founded on the support of trade and business and less intervention from government in the business sphere. 

Given the above scenario, do you
Support the executive and say that his compensation is a matter for the Board of Directors? Pointing out, as you do so,  that the employment contract was negotiated by the previous administration.  Also that by forcing boards to ignore legal contracts we bring into question the foundations on which our society is built!

Do you throw the executive to the baying mob, pressure him into forgoing the bonus, while at the same time pointing out that the employment contract was agreed by the previous administration, etc..  At the same time ignoring the risk to your party's and your country's reputation.


Now

• Answer this as if you were a UK Labour politician
• 
  
• Answer this as if you were a UK Conservative politician
• 
  
• Answer this if you were a UK Lib Dem Politician 

and finally

• Answer this if you are just a decent UK citizen, who, maybe doesn't understand the complexities of the financial system nor why all of these bankers seem to get such large salaries and bonuses, but think it is important that the UK doesn't get a reputation as a place where contracts are agreed and then ignored.  In short, someone with decency and a moral code that isn't swayed by the slightest of political breezes.

Political pygmies - whither the Tories and the guilty ones

What on earth is happening to the UK's politicians?

The MPs expenses scandal demonstrated that many of them had a decidedly dodgy moral compass as regards what to claim or not claim.  I include those that didn't actually break the rules but who certainly broke the spirit of them, with their judiciously timed 'flip-flopping' on main residence and those who claimed.

I guess that I hoped that such weakness was restricted to them pursuing financial gain, at the taxpayers expense.  I thought that at least they would still have some principles.  Or at least the intelligence to understand what a globalized economy means.

But no!  In recent months and getting louder in recent weeks we have heard politician after politician stand up and berate the leaders of global businesses about 'excess' (pots and kettles come to mind!) and attack people (Hester, for example) regardless of the job they are doing and who they are doing it for.

Exactly what business is it, of any UK politician to stick his or her nose into the running of a privately owned business.  This isn't Soviet Russia!  These are not state-owned enterprises (which, incidentally, regularly rewarded failure!).  These are private businesses, owned by shareholders and institutions and managed by employee executives who, just like all employees have contracts of employment laying out their legal terms and conditions of employment and, controlled by a Board of Directors, that are elected by the owners of the company.

I have spoken here before of the rank hypocrisy of politicians.

None greater than that coming from the Labour front bench, who negotiated Stephen Hester's contract of employment, when they hired him to clean up the mess, that was RBS.  A mess to which they and the FSA and Bank of England were also contributors.  (Note also, these culprits have kept their gongs!)

I don't expect too much clear water between Labour and the Lib Dems on business as economic illiteracy and ignorance of how businesses work, runs throughout their effectively common 'policy' (if that is the right word for a bunch of ill-thought out and half-baked ideas, developed in a drunken student union bar)

However, surely we would expect Conservative politicians to have an understanding of the damage that is being done to UK PLC.  Surely someone understands that when government ministers are involved in pushing an argument that legal contracts should be ignored, this sends the most possibly wrong message?

Where are the Conservatives that have the courage or spine to stand-up and say ENOUGH!

Heavens!  The election is likely three years away!   

Instead, we have MPs joining the ignorant mob.  That is, when they can be torn away from the critically important issue of the name of a beer being sold in the House of Commons.  Pygmies is maybe too grand a word for such people.

If politicians think that getting growth in the UK economy is going to come from forcing companies to consider exactly just why the headquarters of their global business is based in such an unfriendly business environment, then they just show how out of touch they really are (bit like during the expenses scandals!)


If politicians think, as Labour's Liam Byrne apparently does, that banks (including privately owned ones) should be forced to loan to business, then there really is little long term hope.

When the lunatics take over the asylum, you can at least expect that they have the experience to know how that place works.  This shower of spineless MPs don't even have that!

If you care for the future of the UK (and its economy) tell your MP to grow a backbone and do what is right for the UK and not just for tomorrow's headline!

Hunhe gone - Time for a new 'policy'

Farewell Chris Huhne.  Can't comment on the case, of course (that might be considered perverting the course of justice!) but let's look at the state of UK energy policy, for which his former department is, in large part, responsible.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is very busy promoting the installation of renewable energy sources so as to help the UK reach its self-imposed target of a reduction in carbon emissions (30% of renewables and 40% of low carbon content in electricity by 2020).

They are furthering this aim, which no other industrialised nation is following, by subsidizing renewable energy sources, including Wind Power and Solar Power.

The latter programme took something of a blow last October when the Government announced, with very short notice, that they were halving the level of Feed in Tariff that would be able.  Cue panic from the 'greens' and  the Solar Power installers and a legal challenge which they won (so the reduction delayed).  The Solar Power installers spoke of there being 25,000 jobs at risk because of the government's action.  (Note:  The Solar Power industry employs a total of 25,000 people! - No scare-mongering there then!)

Wind Power projects have been heavily subsidized and generating capacity coming online, has  grown considerably in recent years and this is scheduled to continue and further accelerate in coming years, however, even with this massive and very expensive programme, renewable energy sources will struggle to reach government targets.

Cost of the Wind Power subsidy? There are widely conflicting numbers ranging from  £4-600 up to £1-1,200 per year for each and every family.  It is possible that the variation in the total cost of the subsidy is due to what is and isn't included and so the upper limit may include all energy subsidies.

I have written previously of the dilemma that Wind and Solar power sources produce.  That is, there is a requirement for fossil fuel back-up capacity to cover for the vagaries of the environment.

• Solar Power produces nothing at night!  
• Wind turbines produce nothing when the wind speed is less than 2.5 metres per second (around 5.5 MPH)  and must be switched off when the wind speed is greater than 25 metres per second (around 55 MPH) 

 Per Wikipedia:

On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of April, 2011, the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which also created more hydroelectricity than normal. The grid became overloaded and a transmission fault in the system "meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be cut". Wind farms operators "were paid £900,000 by the National Grid to disconnect their turbines for one night because the electricity was not needed". A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), described this situation as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was needed, adding: "In future we need greater electrical energy storage facilities and greater interconnection with our EU neighbours so that excess energy supplies can be sold or bought where required."

Wikipedia . on the subject of standby capacity continues to inform:

There is some dispute over the necessary amount of reserve or backup required to support the large-scale use of wind energy due to the variable nature of its supply. In a 2008 submission to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, E.ON UK argued that it is necessary to have up to 80–90% backup. National Grid which has responsibility for balancing the grid reported in June 2009 that the electricity distribution grid could cope with on-off wind energy without spending a lot on backup, but only by rationing electricity at peak times using a so-called "smart grid", developing increased energy storage technology and increasing interconnection with the rest of Europe. In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica  told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind.

No one from the 'Green' lobby, seems prepared to comment on how the promotion of Wind and Solar Power can be seen as 'green' when they require such a high level of back-up supply capacity requirement.  Remember that these back-up stations can't just be switched on and off like an electric kettle, to meed the fluctuations in supply from these unreliable sources. 


This same 'Green' lobby is then opposed to the construction of these new fossil fuel power stations (e.g. Kingsnorth) and is strongly opposed the the greenest energy source - Nuclear Power.  Currently Nuclear power accounts for around 18 to 20% of UK needs.  Today this represents around 3 times the volumes  of what Wind and Solar Power are expected to contribute by  2020.

To me it is indisputable that by 2020 and indeed, 2050, we will continue to have a very heavy reliance on Gas, Oil and Coal for the production of energy in the UK.  For me it then follows on, that the focus should be on finding ways to 'capture' the carbon that is produced, rather than this being released into the environment.  I would suggest that this is where any energy subsidy should be directed rather than into inefficient (wind power typically operates at around 20 to 25% of capacity) and expensive  forms of renewable energy.

I would also suggest that, just as in America, the UK should quickly get engaged in the production of Shale Gas (personal interest already declared) and reduce our growing reliance on imported gas.

I welcome comments and particularly from 'Greens' so they can better help me understand the conflict between renewables that must be backed-up with fossil fuels.  
 

UK Foreign Aid

A couple of recent news stories force me to return to this subject.

India, is a significant recipient of UK overseas aid or 'development aid' as UK Aid minister Alan Duncan chooses to call it.
 
William Hague has just completed a visit to Somalia and will shortly chair an international summit on that country, in London.

India first!
Consider, the UK is giving aid to India of something like £295 Million a year  and Alan Duncan insists that in three Indian states, there is more people in poverty and poor health, than in the whole of Sub Sahara Africa.  I won't dispute this 'statistic'. 

I do wonder though why, the priorities of the Indian Government include spending money on

• Nuclear arms 
• An Indian space programme 
• Somewhere between £6- 10 billion on jet fighters (probably from France, who give around £18 million a year in aid!)
• Etc.

Clearly, India, as it has become the 10th largest economy in the world,  is in some kind of transition from a poor country to a rich one (someone said it has more billionaires than the UK) and being independent are free to set their own priorities.

Somalia
This is a failed state.  They have not had anything resembling a functioning government for many years, following yet more years of civil war.  The country has a well funded militant Islamic organisation which wants to create some kind of caliphate and Sharia rule in that country.  Additionally, 'pirates' operate as a threat to international shipping lanes.

The UK, working with NATO, patrols offshore waters and is addressing the 'pirate' issue.

My expectation of the upcoming summit is that fine words will be spoken and then more aid promised ( doubt to be spent, if and when paid over,  on Presidential palaces and jets) and then the various ministers will head back to their own countries and tell their own people, what wonderful people they are because they think of the poor Somalis!

Summary

Why then is the UK getting involved in this part of Africa?   Where is the strategic interest to the UK.?  Would we consider sending in troops to bolster the fledgling 'national' government or maybe arming them? 

Take note that the USA, which got a very 'bloody nose' when it tried to intervene in Somalia is very much on the sidelines.  Maybe they have no stomach to see more US blood and lives lost in a country that doesn't want or like them?  Or maybe their view is, we have problems of our own and we will concentrate on those!

Why do we send money to India, when it seems well able, if it were to adjust its priorities, to meet the UK aid value, many times over?

Alan Duncan says that it is right to not link Aid and Trade but doesn't bother to explain why.  Why shouldn't we expect some quid pro quo?  We help them as a friend, so why wouldn't they do business with us, as a friend?  Why wouldn't they look at who helps them MOST and say, these are our better friends?


He goes on to say (on biased BBC Question Time) something to the effect " UK overseas aid represents around 1% of government spending (or GDP, he wasn't clear).   (To the audience he says) If you were down to your last  £100 surely you would spare a £1 for the poor and starving? 

Most people reasonably can see and agree to passing over that £1

However, change the question a little and say 

If you were down to your last  £100 , would you spare a £1 for the poor and needy in the UK or those Overseas?  I would expect that the answer would be heavily in favour of  spending it at home.

At a time when the UK is in economic crisis, the major focus of this government should be on increasing growth and employment, in the UK.  Not subsidizing French arms exports or India's Space race aspirations nor getting involved in countries where we are not liked and are only tolerated so long as we hand over money! 

Focus on the Economy and Growth! 

Not worrying about an erroneous knighthood or a bankers bonus

Focus on the Economy and Growth! 



 

Red Ed's Class War but not on RMT bonus

Speaking at Prime Minister's Question Time, Labour leader Ed Miliband said:

I think we've now heard it all. Because he says that the class war against the bankers is going to be led by him and his cabinet of millionaires. I don't think it's going to wash.

'Class War' doesn't that have a real retro ring to it?  

So, the taste of blood from the dis-honourable hounding of Stephen Hester and the de-knighting (or is it mistering?) of Fred Goodwin has emboldened Red Ed to show his true Marxist colours.

While this would have pleased his deceased Marxist father, this will surely be a cause for great concern to all but the most extreme left wing of his party.  Many die-hard Labourites might talk of 'class war' and want to re-instate Clause 4 but the realists within, know that the UK electorate and particularly that of England have no stomach or affinity for 'red in tooth and claw Socialism'.

These die-hard  Labourites would include Bob Crow, leader of the RMT union.  This union, which represents workers on the London Underground railway, has rejected an additional bonus award of £500, for drivers, which is on top of an earlier bonus award of £1,200 for working during the Summer Olympics, because those on leave or off work wouldn't get it. 

Yes, that's right!   They get a bonus of £1,200 for doing their job.  Not extra, just their job.  Then the Tube drivers are offered an additional £500 for doing their job.  However, the union rejects this because those that aren't doing their job because they are off work or sick, won't be getting a 'just doing your job' bonus! 

That's the unreal world to which 13 years of Labour maladministration has brought us!

Say what you like about those greedy bankers, they don't get a bonus for just turning up at work, they have to actually meet some targets as well!

I posited earlier that this declaration of 'class war' will cause concern for Labour politicians but dear reader, have no expectation that they will actually stand-up and denounce Red Ed.  This, after all, is the party that still can't apologise for turning a blessed economic inheritance in 1997 into the economic disaster that we saw in 2010 and with which the Coalition government are now grappling and through which we are all suffering.  They will prattle on about the global economic crisis, which I seem to recall that Gordon ' I abolished boom and bust' Brown claimed to have single-handedly defeated, but the roots of Labour's economic mismanagement were fed by their addiction to ever higher State spending.  The UK economy was in trouble and overspending long before the economic house of cards started to collapse.

How do you think that Red Ed's declaration of Class War will sit with brother David?

Writing in the leftist New Statesman magazine David opines:

The weaknesses of the “big society” should not blind us to the policy and political dead end of the “Big State”. The public won’t vote for the prescription that central government is the cure for all ills for the good reason that it isn’t.

 The more charitable observers suggest that this is David helpfully suggesting that Labour should get its head out of a particular orifice and the past, and re-think its obsession with 'Nannyism'. 

Ed though, has other thoughts.  His direction is back to those heady days of Spend, Spend, Spend and Tax, Tax, Tax, to the time when policies could be launched off the cuff at a nice tete a tete lunch with a journalist ally and then consultants engaged to flesh out the details etc. and never mind about the cost!  To those days when The Guardian would make a Sunday supplement thump on the doormat, in the middle of the week, when it contained all of those pages of public sector job ads.

Ed needs to be careful though.  In my view, the electorate have come to see through the policy of spending money that we haven't got.  Not all the way, but they are looking at it and saying - it doesn't add up.  Also, there are only so many bankers on which he can feast, who after that, will satisfy his bloodlust?

Have a nice day and try not to worry, I don't think Ed will last 'til 2015 and the next election!
 

Sir Fred Goodwin - more hypocrisy

So, an obscure committee of civil servants have recommended that Sir Fred Goodwin, of RBS fame, be stripped of the knighthood he was awarded by the last government.  This 'de-knighting' was confirmed by  The Queen.

Goodwin was awarded the knighthood, in 2004 for 'services to banking'.  Nothing he did since then has been found to be criminal - nothing!  Crass?  Insensitive?  Arrogant?  Self-serving?  He seems to be guilty of all of these things but none are a criminal offence.

As stated above, Goodwin received his honour for 'services to banking'.  The committee did not disclose if it found that those 'services to banking' to have been wrong, in some way.

So let's for a moment, leave aside opinion on the honours system and ask why he is stripped of the gong?  The only conclusion I can reach is that it is because it is expedient and panders to the baying mob.  I don't think anyone is fooled that this is a civil service committee which is operating independent of the government.  This has the grubby hands of politicians, all over it!

Contrast his treatment with that of

• Lord Archer - Jailed for perjury
• Lord Taylor - Jailed for fraudulently claiming more than £24K in expenses.
• Lord Hanningfield - jailed for fraudulently claiming more than £30K in expenses.
• Baroness Uddin - SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £125K in expenses.
• Lord Paul  - (One of Britain's richest men) SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £42K in expenses. 
• Lord Bhatia - SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £27K in expenses.

All have retained their honours.

I don't like hypocrisy but do the politicians have to be so blatant about it?

Now turn to who it was that ennobled Goodwin - Step forward 'the people's tribune' the defender of the 'working class - The Labour Party!   At that time, that would mean Blair and Brown.  Since Tony was waging his dodgy war with Iraq (cast of thousands, including ill-equipped British troops), one comes to the conclusion that the domestic maestro, Gordon 'I have banished boom and bust' Brown, was the sponsor of the award.  No doubt assisted by other members of the Tartanocracy, including Wily Alex Salmond.

You will scour the media in vain for any of them to now be defending Goodwin.  The only supporter I saw with the decency and courage to speak out was Sir Jackie Stewart, apparently, a family friend of Goodwin.

Of course Goodwin and his team brought RBS to the brink of disaster (some would say beyond).  However, he did not single-handedly cause the economic crisis (but see below).

• Then Senator Obama (and others) was a big proponent, in the US of reckless lending which became known as the sub-prime mortgage market.  
• Gordon Brown and leaders throughout Europe continued to borrow money and increase debt levels to unsustainable levels, without any assistance from Goodwin!
• The people of Europe and the USA continued to borrow and borrow and then spend money that wasn't theirs.
• Some banks, including RBS, were dealing in financial instruments of which they really knew very little, at the end of the day.
• Some financial institutions, just like some countries became over-leveraged and their shareholders paid the price (and in some cases, like RBS, they were bailed out)

So the mob has its victim but just like the Hester bonus - at what long term price to the UK?