The only large space I can see near to Heathrow for runways 3 and 4 is Windsor Great Park. Is this the Select Committee's preferred location for Heathrow's expansion?
I don't think that's the current plan, but you may be onto something. A lot of the infrastructure is already built - here's a picture of the runway leading down to the terminal building. Also note the circular radar tower to the left of the terminal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windsor_German_wiki_GNU-Martin_Morgenstern.jpg
Late to the party but I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet - the Beeb business page is reporting that the ONS have revised a component such that the -0.1% growth that produced the double-dip last year will come out at flat for the quarter. So not just no triple-dip but no double-dip either. Nothing to crow about of course - the difference is marginal and the real activity on the ground is of course unchanged anyway; it's the measurement that's changed - and a revision one way could be reversed as well. Even so, potentially significant in terms of the political argument.
"Another day, another deranged report on the future of Heathrow. This time it is the Transport Select Committee suggesting that London's main airport be extended to four (four!) runways, doubling the airport's size and blighting the lives of millions of people who live in West London.
Forget the various horse racing scandals. We must ask: were the members of the select committee doped? Or is it just that they wrote their report without looking at a map? It is – once again from the current political class – the sheer lack of ambition and vision that it is so depressing.
Extending Heathrow rather than looking for a proper long-term solution is simply corporatist defeatism. As though all the airline industry has to do is launch another of its interminable public affairs campaigns and the country will roll over."
Would be interesting to see how 10! terminals at Heathrow would work, if they doubled the size of it....
The only large space I can see near to Heathrow for runways 3 and 4 is Windsor Great Park. Is this the Select Committee's preferred location for Heathrow's expansion?
Much the best solution to the Heathrow expansion problem would be to adapt Boris's plans by using an existing island.
Over the last few days the obvious candidate has made its voice heard.
Flatten the Isle of Thanet and expand Manston International Airport to the edges of its white cliffs.
The local population could be re-located ooop North.
I don't think that's the current plan, but you may be onto something. A lot of the infrastructure is already built - here's a picture of the runway leading down to the terminal building. Also note the circular radar tower to the left of the terminal.
Looks like there might be a problem with the local wildlife disturbing landings, though.
It was you, the person who put money in the bank, who was being rescued, not the bankers.
Yes, it is absolutely staggering, and very worrying, that the vast majority of the population don't seem to understand this.
We've even had people here argue, apparently in all seriousness, that Brown should have let RBS and Lloyds go bust. That would have wiped out some enormous proportion - I'd guess up to half - of all the businesses in the UK.
If you can't let banks go bust then they shouldn't be private companies.
I wouldn't have thought it would be impossible to find a way of managing their bankruptcy that didn't bring the rest of the economy down with it, but if that is the case then the only alternative is for the state to run banking
Hence the phrase 'too big to fail'. The goal should be to have banks that are small enough that their failure cannot cause a system-wide disaster.
The problem is that that is very difficult. Consider the following problem:
Halifax Bank of Sub-Prime Mortgages (HBSPM) gets into financial trouble thanks to falling house prices. The bank goes into insolvency. Now, depositors cannot withdraw money - why? because the bank may not have enough money to repay them. All creditors need to be treated equally. This would frighten anyone at the Abbey Bank who sees people unable to withdraw money from HBSPM. So, they rush to withdraw deposits 'just to be safe'. Of course, their withdrawl of deposits from the bank will lead to its funding costs spiralling. Now Abbey Bank is bust too.
And their are interconnect problems too. Let's say you bank at HBSPM, and your mortgage is with Abbey Bank. Now you can't get to your savings to pay your mortgage. And the business customers of HBSPM are unable to pay their employees.
Banking is a tough industry to regulate because the modern economy is so dependent on it. I'm not sure that state ownership of the banks is a good idea (see Slovenia for what happens when the banks are owned and controlled by the government). We need tough regulation, strong capital ratios, and some combination of CoCo bonds (i.e. debt that can be converted to equity) and possibly compulsory shareholder bail-ins (as was the case in the US 100 years ago).
Late to the party but I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet - the Beeb business page is reporting that the ONS have revised a component such that the -0.1% growth that produced the double-dip last year will come out at flat for the quarter. So not just no triple-dip but no double-dip either. Nothing to crow about of course - the difference is marginal and the real activity on the ground is of course unchanged anyway; it's the measurement that's changed - and a revision one way could be reversed as well. Even so, potentially significant in terms of the political argument.
I did see that but it frankly just demonstrated to me the completely childish way that we debate economic policy. If the revisal is made as expected we will have had a very bad Q4 in 2011, a flat Q1 and then a poor Q2. Trying to say that is not a "dip" is absurd. We really need to get away from this 2 consecutive quarters nonsense, it really doesn't help.
Thanks for that info. It certainly supports your view, but from an initial browse and a little thought I do have some doubts, particularly over economic recovery and other factors.
I'll peruse and ponder more over the weekend.
If you believe the OfGem report you should buy Summer 2015 electricity futures - they are currently at £54/MWh. That's a stunning 40pence more than the current baseload price.
That's finance; I know absolutely nothing about finance. :-)
It's a question of probabilities. The OFGEM report states that there is a 1 in 12 chance of customers being disconnected in 2015/2016; not a certainty. In my mind that is far too great a risk, particularly given the assumptions in the base case they present. Then again, by nature I'm a cautious soul.
From an initial perusal, the docs you sent paint a different picture.
I think this comes down to the question of what probability is acceptable. So perhaps the pertinent questions are:
1) what, in your opinion, is the probability of customers being disconnected in 2015/16 due to supply shortages? 2) what is an acceptable probability of such an occurrence?
I wouldn't have thought it would be impossible to find a way of managing their bankruptcy that didn't bring the rest of the economy down with it,
It's not impossible. For smaller banks you coerce or encourage a bigger competitor to take them over (Barings was sorted in a weekend). For larger banks, you do what Darling and Brown did - the state steps in as a guarantor or takes over the bank directly (the practical effect is much the same). In either case the shareholders (quite rightly) get wiped out - a painful memory in my case!
Whether these banks should have been allowed to get so big in the first place is another matter - Brown was warned in 1997 by Peter Lilley about the disaster he was storing up by setting up a system where no-one was actually responsible for prudential supervision. But, once the crisis occurred, there was zero choice: they had to be rescued.
"Another day, another deranged report on the future of Heathrow. This time it is the Transport Select Committee suggesting that London's main airport be extended to four (four!) runways, doubling the airport's size and blighting the lives of millions of people who live in West London.
Forget the various horse racing scandals. We must ask: were the members of the select committee doped? Or is it just that they wrote their report without looking at a map? It is – once again from the current political class – the sheer lack of ambition and vision that it is so depressing.
Extending Heathrow rather than looking for a proper long-term solution is simply corporatist defeatism. As though all the airline industry has to do is launch another of its interminable public affairs campaigns and the country will roll over."
Would be interesting to see how 10! terminals at Heathrow would work, if they doubled the size of it....
The only large space I can see near to Heathrow for runways 3 and 4 is Windsor Great Park. Is this the Select Committee's preferred location for Heathrow's expansion?
Much the best solution to the Heathrow expansion problem would be to adapt Boris's plans to use an existing island.
Over the last few days the obvious candidate has made its voice heard.
Flatten the Isle of Thanet and expand Manston International Airport to the edges of its white cliffs.
The local population could be re-located ooop North.
That'll teach the kippers.
Surely Mr Pole we should make better use of existing infrastructure ? If we flattened all those crumbling school buildings between Slough and Windsor we could expand the runways quite easily. We could just move the pupils to Thanet where they might learn more aboutreal life.
I don't think that's the current plan, but you may be onto something. A lot of the infrastructure is already built - here's a picture of the runway leading down to the terminal building. Also note the circular radar tower to the left of the terminal.
Looks like there might be a problem with the local wildlife disturbing landings, though.
"Ladies! Nick and Dave are fighting over you again: or, why Mumsnet runs Britain"
"The No 10 media operation is practically regarded as a nuisance caller by some women’s magazines, so frequently do the PM’s spinners call up editors offering facetime with Dave. "
Given the current 'issues' MS are having with people not liking the layout of windows 8, we'll probably be having the taskbar well into the 22nd century!!
In a reflection of changing mores, the Supreme Court has given a broad hint this week that would-be tax avoiders can expect no help from the courts if their plans go awry, because tax avoidance is a bad thing:
"Had mistake been raised in Futter there would have been an issue of some importance as to whether the Court should assist in extricating claimants from a tax-avoidance scheme which had gone wrong. The scheme adopted by Mr Futter was by no means at the extreme of artificiality (compare for instance, that in Abacus Trust Co (Isle of Man) v NSPCC [2001] STC 1344) but it was hardly an exercise in good citizenship. In some cases of artificial tax avoidance the court might think it right to refuse relief, either on the ground that such claimants, acting on supposedly expert advice, must be taken to have accepted the risk that the scheme would prove ineffective, or on the ground that discretionary relief should Page 51 be refused on grounds of public policy. Since the seminal decision of the House of Lords in WT Ramsay Ltd v IRC [1982] AC 300 there has been an increasingly strong and general recognition that artificial tax avoidance is a social evil which puts an unfair burden on the shoulders of those who do not adopt such measures. But it is unnecessary to consider that further on these appeals." (para 135)
Haha, hilarious! Should have been done on purpose. But, why is the state pandering to a section of the community? Tim and others reckon we don't pander to them.
Likewise The Matrix was vulnerable to an old SSH exploit from 2001. I guess no matter how advanced your civilization there's always one damn thing you forget to upgrade.
Ref banking. The experience of state-owned industries across the board is that the governance and decision-making of banks would be a great deal worse were they in the public sector, as all sorts of special interests get special treatment.
The best the state can do - and if done correctly, it's enough - is to regulate effectively, both in terms of ensuring market competitiveness and ensuring that banks don't take excessive risks, either individually or systemically. The problem is that far too many regulators didn't regulate effectively.
There is the wider issue whereby banks will tend towards laxer regulatory regimes but that's only one attraction and it can run directly against reputation for stability so while the threat exists, it's easy to exaggerate.
It was you, the person who put money in the bank, who was being rescued, not the bankers.
Yes, it is absolutely staggering, and very worrying, that the vast majority of the population don't seem to understand this.
We've even had people here argue, apparently in all seriousness, that Brown should have let RBS and Lloyds go bust. That would have wiped out some enormous proportion - I'd guess up to half - of all the businesses in the UK.
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut, but we could have quickly come out the other side, instead of wasting years hoping that the losses could be magicked away and subverting our entire economic policy.
Thanks for that info. It certainly supports your view, but from an initial browse and a little thought I do have some doubts, particularly over economic recovery and other factors.
I'll peruse and ponder more over the weekend.
If you believe the OfGem report you should buy Summer 2015 electricity futures - they are currently at £54/MWh. That's a stunning 40pence more than the current baseload price.
That's finance; I know absolutely nothing about finance. :-)
It's a question of probabilities. The OFGEM report states that there is a 1 in 12 chance of customers being disconnected in 2015/2016; not a certainty. In my mind that is far too great a risk, particularly given the assumptions in the base case they present. Then again, by nature I'm a cautious soul.
From an initial perusal, the docs you sent paint a different picture.
I think this comes down to the question of what probability is acceptable. So perhaps the pertinent questions are:
1) what, in your opinion, is the probability of customers being disconnected in 2015/16 due to supply shortages? 2) what is an acceptable probability of such an occurrence?
1. I'd guess quite a lot less than 2%. I'd point out that electricity networks usually have quite a bit more slack than we think, and that maintenance windows can be pushed back. I'd also point out that there are a number of industrial plants with co-generation facilities. When electricity prices are low, they buy from the grid; when they are higher they generate their own power; and when they are really high, they stop doing their regular business and just sell power into the grid.
2. That rather depends on the business, doesn't it? If I were in - say - the aluminium smelting business I would much rather have power only availably 90% of the time, but to pay - say - 5p kw/h than have it guarateed 100%, but pay 9p kw/h. Cheap power would be more important to me than security of supply, because at higher electricity prices I'm not profitable. A hospital, on the other hand, would have a different view.
If we want to build lots of new power plants that are going to have very low utilisation rates, then we'll have to accept higher power prices, and that means that we'll be saying goodbye to energy intensive businesses.
I say, free up the planning process, and let the market decide :-)
It was you, the person who put money in the bank, who was being rescued, not the bankers.
Yes, it is absolutely staggering, and very worrying, that the vast majority of the population don't seem to understand this.
We've even had people here argue, apparently in all seriousness, that Brown should have let RBS and Lloyds go bust. That would have wiped out some enormous proportion - I'd guess up to half - of all the businesses in the UK.
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut, but we could have quickly come out the other side, instead of wasting years hoping that the losses could be magicked away and subverting our entire economic policy.
Are you the senior Eurozone negotiator responsible for sorting out Cyprus???
"Another day, another deranged report on the future of Heathrow. This time it is the Transport Select Committee suggesting that London's main airport be extended to four (four!) runways, doubling the airport's size and blighting the lives of millions of people who live in West London.
Forget the various horse racing scandals. We must ask: were the members of the select committee doped? Or is it just that they wrote their report without looking at a map? It is – once again from the current political class – the sheer lack of ambition and vision that it is so depressing.
Extending Heathrow rather than looking for a proper long-term solution is simply corporatist defeatism. As though all the airline industry has to do is launch another of its interminable public affairs campaigns and the country will roll over."
Would be interesting to see how 10! terminals at Heathrow would work, if they doubled the size of it....
The only large space I can see near to Heathrow for runways 3 and 4 is Windsor Great Park. Is this the Select Committee's preferred location for Heathrow's expansion?
Much the best solution to the Heathrow expansion problem would be to adapt Boris's plans to use an existing island.
Over the last few days the obvious candidate has made its voice heard.
Flatten the Isle of Thanet and expand Manston International Airport to the edges of its white cliffs.
The local population could be re-located ooop North.
That'll teach the kippers.
Surely Mr Pole we should make better use of existing infrastructure ? If we flattened all those crumbling school buildings between Slough and Windsor we could expand the runways quite easily. We could just move the pupils to Thanet where they might learn more aboutreal life.
What you may not know, Mr. Brooke, is that I spent two thirds of each year between the ages of 7 and 12 as a pupil at a school on the Isle of Thanet.
On the rare occasions we were let outside its walls, dressed in tweed caps and overcoats and marching in a crocodile of pairs, we certainly learnt about real life.
It was always a place fifty years before its time. It smelt of cabbages then, its local farming crop. All that will have changed is that a whiff of kippers will have been added to the olfactory mix.
Time to call in the bulldozers.
As for raising the environs of Eton, have you considered the impact it may have on poor Charles?
I disagree. Thatcher's success was founded entirely on two enormous pieces of luck - that the SDP split from Labour and that Galtieri invaded the Falklands. Neither of these events was predictable and neither was brought about by Thatcher herself but she benefited hugely from both.
Henry G's analysis is correct IMO - it's quite possible that Ed M will win a solid majority on less than 35% of the vote if UKIP's support at the general election comes anywhere near the percentage they achieved last week.
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut,.
And how exactly would the millions of people who bank with them have paid their bills in the months it took to sort out the administration, or the hundreds of thousands of companies who bank with them paid salaries or suppliers?
It's not a question of a 'haircut', it's the entire economy stopping dead, with millions of people's lives destroyed.
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut,.
And how exactly would the millions of people who bank with them have paid their bills in the months it took to sort out the administration, or the hundreds of thousands of companies who bank with them paid salaries or suppliers?
It's not a question of a 'haircut', it's the entire economy stopping dead, with millions of people's lives destroyed.
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut,.
And how exactly would the millions of people who bank with them have paid their bills in the months it took to sort out the administration, or the hundreds of thousands of companies who bank with them paid salaries or suppliers?
It's not a question of a 'haircut', it's the entire economy stopping dead, with millions of people's lives destroyed.
Companies still operate under administration...
If your bank was in administration would you: (a) withdraw all your money so as to avoid being haircut; or (b) leave it in there for the good of the country?
It was you, the person who put money in the bank, who was being rescued, not the bankers.
Yes, it is absolutely staggering, and very worrying, that the vast majority of the population don't seem to understand this.
We've even had people here argue, apparently in all seriousness, that Brown should have let RBS and Lloyds go bust. That would have wiped out some enormous proportion - I'd guess up to half - of all the businesses in the UK.
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut, but we could have quickly come out the other side, instead of wasting years hoping that the losses could be magicked away and subverting our entire economic policy.
Are you the senior Eurozone negotiator responsible for sorting out Cyprus???
I sense the government have an opportunity in the potential bankruptcy of Co-op. A bank that is so close to Labour going bankrupt. A bank with no investment division (a pure retail bank) going bankrupt should provide ample opportunity for the government to redraw the battle lines over banking.
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut,.
And how exactly would the millions of people who bank with them have paid their bills in the months it took to sort out the administration, or the hundreds of thousands of companies who bank with them paid salaries or suppliers?
It's not a question of a 'haircut', it's the entire economy stopping dead, with millions of people's lives destroyed.
Companies still operate under administration...
They still operate, but with major limitations on repaying any creditors (i.e. depositors, when it comes to banks). Given that depositors aren't secured on a pool of segregated collateral, doesn't that meam that a bank would effectively grind to a halt in the ways discussed? Genuine question: I know a little bit about administration/insolvency rules but not any particular special practice that would apply to banks.
"If the Candy Brothers and their ilk cannot repay the money, then the bank is bust. And they cannot repay you. It's not a question of rescuing bankers, it's a question of rescuing depositors. It was you, the person who put money in the bank, who was being rescued, not the bankers."
This is rubbish. If agent A is unable to repay agent B, and you are concerned about agent B not getting their money, then the most efficient course of action is to give money to agent B. Not to pay agent A the money plus a healthy extra sum to pay extraordinarily high salaries.
"If the Candy Brothers and their ilk cannot repay the money, then the bank is bust. And they cannot repay you. It's not a question of rescuing bankers, it's a question of rescuing depositors. It was you, the person who put money in the bank, who was being rescued, not the bankers."
This is rubbish. If agent A is unable to repay agent B, and you are concerned about agent B not getting their money, then the most efficient course of action is to give money to agent B. Not to pay agent A the money plus a healthy extra sum to pay extraordinarily high salaries.
@Socrates. You lent the money to the Candy Brothers. Royal Bank of Scotland was just a thin layer of equity in the middle.
How would you propose that RBS repays you if they make bad loans and lose all the money?
Brown should have let RBS and HBOS go into some form of administration. (And never encouraged the shotgun wedding with Lloyds). Yes, depositors would have taken a haircut,.
And how exactly would the millions of people who bank with them have paid their bills in the months it took to sort out the administration, or the hundreds of thousands of companies who bank with them paid salaries or suppliers?
It's not a question of a 'haircut', it's the entire economy stopping dead, with millions of people's lives destroyed.
Companies still operate under administration...
They still operate, but with major limitations on repaying any creditors (i.e. depositors, when it comes to banks). Given that depositors aren't secured on a pool of segregated collateral, doesn't that meam that a bank would effectively grind to a halt in the ways discussed? Genuine question: I know a little bit about administration/insolvency rules but not any particular special practice that would apply to banks.
Exactly: no-one would deposit money into a bank in administration, and everybody would seek to withdraw their cash. So it's hard to see how they could continue to work under any normal meaning of the word 'work'.
Thanks for that info. It certainly supports your view, but from an initial browse and a little thought I do have some doubts, particularly over economic recovery and other factors.
I'll peruse and ponder more over the weekend.
If you believe the OfGem report you should buy Summer 2015 electricity futures - they are currently at £54/MWh. That's a stunning 40pence more than the current baseload price.
That's finance; I know absolutely nothing about finance. :-)
It's a question of probabilities. The OFGEM report states that there is a 1 in 12 chance of customers being disconnected in 2015/2016; not a certainty. In my mind that is far too great a risk, particularly given the assumptions in the base case they present. Then again, by nature I'm a cautious soul.
From an initial perusal, the docs you sent paint a different picture.
I think this comes down to the question of what probability is acceptable. So perhaps the pertinent questions are:
1) what, in your opinion, is the probability of customers being disconnected in 2015/16 due to supply shortages? 2) what is an acceptable probability of such an occurrence?
1. I'd guess quite a lot less than 2%. I'd point out that electricity networks usually have quite a bit more slack than we think, and that maintenance windows can be pushed back. I'd also point out that there are a number of industrial plants with co-generation facilities. When electricity prices are low, they buy from the grid; when they are higher they generate their own power; and when they are really high, they stop doing their regular business and just sell power into the grid.
2. That rather depends on the business, doesn't it? If I were in - say - the aluminium smelting business I would much rather have power only availably 90% of the time, but to pay - say - 5p kw/h than have it guarateed 100%, but pay 9p kw/h. Cheap power would be more important to me than security of supply, because at higher electricity prices I'm not profitable. A hospital, on the other hand, would have a different view.
If we want to build lots of new power plants that are going to have very low utilisation rates, then we'll have to accept higher power prices, and that means that we'll be saying goodbye to energy intensive businesses.
I say, free up the planning process, and let the market decide :-)
Interesting answers, thanks, especially in relation to industrial cogeneration.
Of course, with the closure of the Derwent Plant (which I will always call Spondon C), there is one less industrial cogeneration effort. I knew that plant fairly intimately, for my sins.
Courtaulds Spondon (for the older readers, British Celanese), RIP.
"Countries can do much together to improve our economies. We are not powerless victims of global forces - but can be masters of our own destiny.
"We have shown political will to tackle problems at home - and I believe the UK is further along that road than many. Now we can together show the political will to nurture global economic recovery.
"We have more in common than separates us. The G7 can be a catalyst for collective action to the benefit of all."
Citoyen Hollande and I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange last seen quietly taking copious notes at Hartwell House.
"If the Candy Brothers and their ilk cannot repay the money, then the bank is bust. And they cannot repay you. It's not a question of rescuing bankers, it's a question of rescuing depositors. It was you, the person who put money in the bank, who was being rescued, not the bankers."
This is rubbish. If agent A is unable to repay agent B, and you are concerned about agent B not getting their money, then the most efficient course of action is to give money to agent B. Not to pay agent A the money plus a healthy extra sum to pay extraordinarily high salaries.
@Socrates. You lent the money to the Candy Brothers. Royal Bank of Scotland was just a thin layer of equity in the middle.
How would you propose that RBS repays you if they make bad loans and lose all the money?
This is ridiculous. RBS acted as a dealer not a broker. In a sensible system, if the government wishes to protect me, it should guarantee my deposit and pay me back directly should the bank get into trouble. If the government doesn't wish to protect me, then it should let me take the hit for parking too much money with RBS.
Now I appreciate that the banks are too large so the government was left in a crappy position. But a sensible system should mean banks over a certain size facing more stringent requirements, either through higher tax rates or higher capital requirements.
I sense the government have an opportunity in the potential bankruptcy of Co-op. A bank that is so close to Labour going bankrupt. A bank with no investment division (a pure retail bank) going bankrupt should provide ample opportunity for the government to redraw the battle lines over banking.
Surely if Labour were to repay their overdraft it would help shore up the bank and help the poor wee depositors ?
Surely if Labour were to repay their overdraft it would help shore up the bank and help the poor wee depositors ?
I was thinking more along the lines of showing that it was not the investment banks in London that destroyed the economy but the much more "benign" retail banks that made the huge losses which caused the crash in 2008/9.
Have either of them broken cover on the Coop yet, or are they studiously hiding from the cameras (while Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are leading International debate and "saving the World")?
For anyone interested in the effects of withdrawing from Europe, today's 'More or less' on Radio 4 had a quick discussion in the first ten minutes of the program.
It should prove interesting listening for BenM, Sunil and others.
The conclusion: Clegg's claim of 3 million job losses was right within an order of magnitude!, given caveats, and it is impossible to tell the economic effect of leaving due to the assumptions that have to be made.
Have either of them broken cover on the Coop yet, or are they studiously hiding from the cameras (while Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are leading International debate and "saving the World")?
Last seen in a queue of depositors outside the Cornhill Co-operative Bank branch.
They were waving their Co-op Labour Party Visa Cards at the doorman in the hope of being allowed to jump the queue.
For anyone interested in the effects of withdrawing from Europe, today's 'More or less' on Radio 4 had a quick discussion in the first ten minutes of the program.
It should prove interesting listening for BenM, Sunil and others.
The conclusion: Clegg's claim of 3 million job losses was right within an order of magnitude!, given caveats, and it is impossible to tell the economic effect of leaving due to the assumptions that have to be made.
It also covers the military suicides issue that may explode next week.
That has to be one of the most misleading programmes I have heard in a long time.
The expert they used to assess the pros and cons of withdrawal and the validity of the numbers was Professor Iain Begg of the LSE European Institute.
I may have missed it but I certainly didn't notice anyone on the programme pointing out that Begg is a vehemently pro EU and sits on the advisory council of the Federal Trust which campaigns for a the UK to be part of a federal Europe.
Asking him to adjudicate on the question of the cost of British withdrawal would be like asking Ed Miliband to adjudicate on the best party to govern Britain.
That has to be one of the most misleading programmes I have heard in a long time.
The expert they used to assess the pros and cons of withdrawal and the validity of the numbers was Professor Iain Begg of the LSE European Institute.
I may have missed it but I certainly didn't notice anyone on the programme pointing out that Begg is a vehemently pro EU and sits on the advisory council of the Federal Trust which campaigns for a the UK to be part of a federal Europe.
Asking him to adjudicate on the question of the cost of British withdrawal would be like asking Ed Miliband to adjudicate on the best party to govern Britain.
Once again the BBC should be utterly ashamed.
Fair and balanced with only one contributor, clearly.
O/T - Have any of you been to the Maldvies? Looking for a good place to stay...any tips?
Cheapest and perhaps quietest time to go is first two weeks in January. Like Seat T, I was entertained there and it all depends on the depth of your pocket and degree of seclusion you require. Dry season is November to March, rainy from May to September, but it is warm rain but could upset snorkeling and scuba diving.
For anyone interested in the effects of withdrawing from Europe, today's 'More or less' on Radio 4 had a quick discussion in the first ten minutes of the program.
It should prove interesting listening for BenM, Sunil and others.
The conclusion: Clegg's claim of 3 million job losses was right within an order of magnitude!, given caveats, and it is impossible to tell the economic effect of leaving due to the assumptions that have to be made.
It also covers the military suicides issue that may explode next week.
That has to be one of the most misleading programmes I have heard in a long time.
The expert they used to assess the pros and cons of withdrawal and the validity of the numbers was Professor Iain Begg of the LSE European Institute.
I may have missed it but I certainly didn't notice anyone on the programme pointing out that Begg is a vehemently pro EU and sits on the advisory council of the Federal Trust which campaigns for a the UK to be part of a federal Europe.
Asking him to adjudicate on the question of the cost of British withdrawal would be like asking Ed Miliband to adjudicate on the best party to govern Britain.
Once again the BBC should be utterly ashamed.
I noted that, but Begg did admit that he was (partly) responsible for the 3 million jobs figure. To his credit he did say that he had come up with it years (a decade?) ago, and that it was very vague, to within an order of magnitude. He also mentioned that there were many other factors and variables at play. he did seem rather obsessed with the car industry, though.
All in all I think it was a reasonable program, if only because it showed the uncertainty that lies behind any figures given by the pro- or anti- camp.
At the end of the day, the result of any referendum will lie in the hearts, rather than the minds, of the voters. Basically because they will be bombarded with such contradictory and unverifiable information. It'll end up being a matter of what the voter wants to believe, with a heady mixture of fear built in.
The same will doubtless be true for the Scottish Independence referendum.
"All this leads to the conclusion that a big Spanish debt restructuring is inevitable. Spanish sovereign bond yields have fallen sharply since announcement of the European Central Bank's "outright monetary transactions" programme. The ECB has promised to print money without limit to counter the speculators. But in the end, no amount of liquidity can cover up for an underlying problem with solvency."
Rather than the public school clique controlling the party, they may stand more of a chance of winning majorities.
Ah, tim. Robert Halfon.
Educated at Sir Roger Cholmeley's School at Highgate (aka Highgate School), another public school.
An interesting article nonetheless.
I am not sure I see the connection between Tesco's decision to divest its US subsidiary and the closure of a distribution centre in Harlow.
And there are always two sides to every story of this nature. The sad story of those affected and the political story of the benefits of labour market flexibility.
Halfon's article is good constituency stuff but how much of it is rhetoric and how much real grievance is difficult to judge without the full facts and Tesco's response. I don't know the local circumstances but I would expect Tesco, as a large well resourced corporate, to be much more sympathetic to and compliant with anti-discrimination and displacement support policies than smaller employers.
I note Halfon was Olly Letwin's 'Chief of Staff'. He will have learnt a lot about how to serve workers interests under Old Etonian tutelage.
No doubt the NS article will get him a meeting with a key executive at Tesco and if there have been abuses they will be corrected quickly to much acclaim in the local Harlow press.
FPTP does favour the Conservatives over all other parties except Labour, who benefit most of all. AV would probably have helped the Conservatives in certain seats, but it would also have helped Labour and the Lib Dems in other seats, so I can understand why the party opposed it (even if I voted in favour - just to shake things up a bit).
Regional top ups in an upper house are the way to go...
But anyway, Ed was lucky to be the only mainstream opposition leader. Was...as he's squandered the advantage he had.
Rather than the public school clique controlling the party, they may stand more of a chance of winning majorities.
Ah, tim. Robert Halfon.
Educated at Sir Roger Cholmeley's School at Highgate (aka Highgate School), another public school.
An interesting article nonetheless.
I am not sure I see the connection between Tesco's decision to divest its US subsidiary and the closure of a distribution centre in Harlow.
And there are always two sides to every story of this nature. The sad story of those affected and the political story of the benefits of labour market flexibility.
Halfon's article is good constituency stuff but how much of it is rhetoric and how much real grievance is difficult to judge without the facts and Tesco's response. I don't know the local circumstances but I would expect Tesco, as a large well resourced corporate, to be much more sympathetic to and compliant with anti-discrimination and displacement support policies than smaller employers.
I note Halfon was Olly Letwin's 'Chief of Staff'. He will have learnt a lot about how to serve workers interests under Old Etonian tutelage.
No doubt the NS article will get him a meeting with a key executive at Tesco and if there have been abuses they will be corrected quickly to much acclaim in the local Harlow press.
In terms of different rates of pay for the same work, that's certainly true (and pretty common across call centres at least).
@AndyJS The Supreme Court's comments came in the context of whether the court should exercise judicial discretionary powers (and Parliament has never issued edicts in this particular area that were relevant to how this case should be decided). The courts have to exercise their discretionary powers based on something, and views of public morality are as good a reason as any to take into account. Why not?
Indeed, the Supreme Court in the same judgment said the following (on a different point):
"The court cannot decide the issue of what is unconscionable by an elaborate set of rules. It must consider in the round the existence of a distinct mistake (as compared with total ignorance or disappointed expectations), its degree of centrality to the transaction in question and the seriousness of its consequences, and make an evaluative judgment whether it would be unconscionable, or unjust, to leave the mistake uncorrected. The court may and must form a judgment about the justice of the case."
This strikes me as good law, good in practice and common sense. Not that the Supreme Court need my blessing for their decisions.
He's also got some bonkers views on homeopathy. It's just such a surprise these days when you see a Tory MP connected to an issue effecting people who work and belong to a trade union.
The state subsidies for supermarkets have always struck me as market distortion, closing down high street shops and moving jobs outside doesn't seem to be a legitimate use of taxpayers bungs.
Government bungs to industry?
'Less than a year later, the Trade and Industry Secretary authorised the controversial decision to lend administrators £6.5million to keep the plant going for a week in the run-up to the May 2005 general election.
o/t - Paddy Power have UKIP at 6/4 to win the most MEPs at the Euros next year, Will Hill have Labour at 6/4 to win the most votes in that election (I dont see too much risk of a wrong winner result tbh).
In a strange sort of way it suits UKIP not to have any MPs because it helps to keep that feeling of grievance going which is one of the main selling points for their potential supporters. Also it means they're automatically exempt from Westminster scandals like expenses.
South Thanet at 8/1 looks the best bet of those listed.
I'd hesitate to bet on anything for which someone knows or will know the outcome for a certainty. If PP accept significant stakes, that's Farage's deposit paid for. No law against insider knowledge in betting.
Speaking of knowledge, I'm going to Beijing and Shanghai next month. I try not to spend more than £90-£100/night on hotels and I'm not at all fussy or sensitive to noise, but I do want good wifi and would like international optins at breakfast. Any recommendations? not sure where my meetings are so anywhere fairly central is OK.
He's also got some bonkers views on homeopathy. It's just such a surprise these days when you see a Tory MP connected to an issue effecting people who work and belong to a trade union.
The state subsidies for supermarkets have always struck me as market distortion, closing down high street shops and moving jobs outside doesn't seem to be a legitimate use of taxpayers bungs.
Both points valid.
The Tory party is enriched by having MPs who are active in trade unions and questioning the grant of subsidies to supermarkets makes sense.
My cynicism was driven more by the intent of the article. Was Halfon really trying to change the Conservative Party's labour market policies or was he using the NS to gain visibility for his role as constituency MP?
The simple answer is both, but where is the weight applied?
On supermarket subsidies the answer will be speed and ease of implementation. A scheme taken up by Tescos will have more effect, more quickly and at lower cost than any equivalent initiative targetted at small independents. Still makes sense to question the inertia of adminstrators though and to assess the impact of such discrimination.
In a strange sort of way it suits UKIP not to have any MPs because it helps to keep that feeling of grievance going which is one of the main selling points for their potential supporters.
Is that like the Lib Dems are aiming to have no MPs after the next election, so they can get back to their "protest party" roots?
I noted that, but Begg did admit that he was (partly) responsible for the 3 million jobs figure. To his credit he did say that he had come up with it years (a decade?) ago, and that it was very vague, to within an order of magnitude. He also mentioned that there were many other factors and variables at play. he did seem rather obsessed with the car industry, though.
All in all I think it was a reasonable program, if only because it showed the uncertainty that lies behind any figures given by the pro- or anti- camp.
At the end of the day, the result of any referendum will lie in the hearts, rather than the minds, of the voters. Basically because they will be bombarded with such contradictory and unverifiable information. It'll end up being a matter of what the voter wants to believe, with a heady mixture of fear built in.
The same will doubtless be true for the Scottish Independence referendum.
So in effect on a programme that is supposed to be about having an unbiased look at the numbers people are quoting on various issues, the person who came up with an utterly unrealistic argument a decade ago based purely on his own political viewpoint was asked to adjudicate on whether or not those numbers were valid. No one else was asked to give an alternative opinion because the programme is supposed to be about unbiased assessments and no mention was made of the fact that this man is still an active Europhile who wants to see Britain as part of a federal EU.
How on earth is that in any way supposed to advance the discussion or help people to understand who is being honest about the relative cost of staying or leaving?
As I said it is was a thoroughly dishonest programme.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windsor_German_wiki_GNU-Martin_Morgenstern.jpg
The theatrical version of the Motion Picture was a bit bad, for the revised Director's Edition improved the film a lot.
I am not even sure it was that good
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/film-review-star-trek-into-darkness--jj-abrams-starfleet-return-will-underwhelm-even-the-trekkies-8609801.html
[NB don't take cocaine].
[NB2 don't eat sick either].
Over the last few days the obvious candidate has made its voice heard.
Flatten the Isle of Thanet and expand Manston International Airport to the edges of its white cliffs.
The local population could be re-located ooop North.
That'll teach the kippers.
The problem is that that is very difficult. Consider the following problem:
Halifax Bank of Sub-Prime Mortgages (HBSPM) gets into financial trouble thanks to falling house prices. The bank goes into insolvency. Now, depositors cannot withdraw money - why? because the bank may not have enough money to repay them. All creditors need to be treated equally. This would frighten anyone at the Abbey Bank who sees people unable to withdraw money from HBSPM. So, they rush to withdraw deposits 'just to be safe'. Of course, their withdrawl of deposits from the bank will lead to its funding costs spiralling. Now Abbey Bank is bust too.
And their are interconnect problems too. Let's say you bank at HBSPM, and your mortgage is with Abbey Bank. Now you can't get to your savings to pay your mortgage. And the business customers of HBSPM are unable to pay their employees.
Banking is a tough industry to regulate because the modern economy is so dependent on it. I'm not sure that state ownership of the banks is a good idea (see Slovenia for what happens when the banks are owned and controlled by the government). We need tough regulation, strong capital ratios, and some combination of CoCo bonds (i.e. debt that can be converted to equity) and possibly compulsory shareholder bail-ins (as was the case in the US 100 years ago).
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/01/29/david-herdson-asks-how-many-tories-will-vote-yes/
It's a question of probabilities. The OFGEM report states that there is a 1 in 12 chance of customers being disconnected in 2015/2016; not a certainty. In my mind that is far too great a risk, particularly given the assumptions in the base case they present. Then again, by nature I'm a cautious soul.
From an initial perusal, the docs you sent paint a different picture.
I think this comes down to the question of what probability is acceptable. So perhaps the pertinent questions are:
1) what, in your opinion, is the probability of customers being disconnected in 2015/16 due to supply shortages?
2) what is an acceptable probability of such an occurrence?
That alone makes it the best Star Trek movie,
This link is NSFW or if your Wife/Girlfriend/Mistress is in the vicinity
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/03/21/new-star-trek-poster-is-your-reward-for-not-ogling-alice-eve-in-her-underwear/
Whether these banks should have been allowed to get so big in the first place is another matter - Brown was warned in 1997 by Peter Lilley about the disaster he was storing up by setting up a system where no-one was actually responsible for prudential supervision. But, once the crisis occurred, there was zero choice: they had to be rescued.
And on that note, I'm off to see Into Darkness, again.
(If you hadn't guessed, Mrs J does read PB...)
;-)
http://cinemavine.com/someone-forgot-to-hide-the-taskbar-in-prometheus/
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0089_Judgment.pdf
"Had mistake been raised in Futter there would have been an issue of some importance as to whether the Court should assist in extricating claimants from a tax-avoidance scheme which had gone wrong. The scheme adopted by Mr Futter was by no means at the extreme of artificiality (compare for instance, that in Abacus Trust Co (Isle of Man) v NSPCC [2001] STC 1344) but it was hardly an exercise in good citizenship. In some cases of artificial tax avoidance the court might think it right to refuse relief, either on the ground that such claimants, acting on supposedly expert advice, must be taken to have accepted the risk that the scheme would prove ineffective, or on the ground that discretionary relief should
Page 51 be refused on grounds of public policy. Since the seminal decision of the House of Lords in WT Ramsay Ltd v IRC [1982] AC 300 there has been an increasingly strong and general recognition that artificial tax avoidance is a social evil which puts an unfair burden on the shoulders of those who do not adopt such measures. But it is unnecessary to consider that further on these appeals." (para 135)
You begin to wonder if GAAR is really necessary. I suspect the insurance premiums of tax accountants just went up another notch.
That said, it is extremely hard to disagree with the reasoning or the sentiment of the Judgment.
The best the state can do - and if done correctly, it's enough - is to regulate effectively, both in terms of ensuring market competitiveness and ensuring that banks don't take excessive risks, either individually or systemically. The problem is that far too many regulators didn't regulate effectively.
There is the wider issue whereby banks will tend towards laxer regulatory regimes but that's only one attraction and it can run directly against reputation for stability so while the threat exists, it's easy to exaggerate.
A DNA test found the burger contained between 10 and 50% pork.
TSE.
Can we commission a similar test on PB threads?
I have my concerns.
Barnsley Central at 250/1 and temporarily change your name by deed poll?
2. That rather depends on the business, doesn't it? If I were in - say - the aluminium smelting business I would much rather have power only availably 90% of the time, but to pay - say - 5p kw/h than have it guarateed 100%, but pay 9p kw/h. Cheap power would be more important to me than security of supply, because at higher electricity prices I'm not profitable. A hospital, on the other hand, would have a different view.
If we want to build lots of new power plants that are going to have very low utilisation rates, then we'll have to accept higher power prices, and that means that we'll be saying goodbye to energy intensive businesses.
I say, free up the planning process, and let the market decide :-)
On the rare occasions we were let outside its walls, dressed in tweed caps and overcoats and marching in a crocodile of pairs, we certainly learnt about real life.
It was always a place fifty years before its time. It smelt of cabbages then, its local farming crop. All that will have changed is that a whiff of kippers will have been added to the olfactory mix.
Time to call in the bulldozers.
As for raising the environs of Eton, have you considered the impact it may have on poor Charles?
True conservatives protect their heritage.
Henry G's analysis is correct IMO - it's quite possible that Ed M will win a solid majority on less than 35% of the vote if UKIP's support at the general election comes anywhere near the percentage they achieved last week.
It's not a question of a 'haircut', it's the entire economy stopping dead, with millions of people's lives destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6LC-olw9Q
I think he is the Williams of Williams and Glenn.
This is rubbish. If agent A is unable to repay agent B, and you are concerned about agent B not getting their money, then the most efficient course of action is to give money to agent B. Not to pay agent A the money plus a healthy extra sum to pay extraordinarily high salaries.
So did he sell you? :-)
(Waits to get hit)
How would you propose that RBS repays you if they make bad loans and lose all the money?
Of course, with the closure of the Derwent Plant (which I will always call Spondon C), there is one less industrial cogeneration effort. I knew that plant fairly intimately, for my sins.
Courtaulds Spondon (for the older readers, British Celanese), RIP.
"Countries can do much together to improve our economies. We are not powerless victims of global forces - but can be masters of our own destiny.
"We have shown political will to tackle problems at home - and I believe the UK is further along that road than many. Now we can together show the political will to nurture global economic recovery.
"We have more in common than separates us. The G7 can be a catalyst for collective action to the benefit of all."
Citoyen Hollande and I'll-Ave-Another Blancmange last seen quietly taking copious notes at Hartwell House.
Now I appreciate that the banks are too large so the government was left in a crappy position. But a sensible system should mean banks over a certain size facing more stringent requirements, either through higher tax rates or higher capital requirements.
@TelegraphNews: There was no UK double dip recession, ONS data suggests http://soa.li/W7awCnO
@KristoferKeane
My understanding is entire SNP group on Argyll & Bute Council now suspended from the party
Spawned by the double dipsticks, EdM & EdB.
Wrong. Every time.
It should prove interesting listening for BenM, Sunil and others.
The conclusion: Clegg's claim of 3 million job losses was right within an order of magnitude!, given caveats, and it is impossible to tell the economic effect of leaving due to the assumptions that have to be made.
It is available as a Podcast at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s8vvv
It also covers the military suicides issue that may explode next week.
They were waving their Co-op Labour Party Visa Cards at the doorman in the hope of being allowed to jump the queue.
Sad.
The expert they used to assess the pros and cons of withdrawal and the validity of the numbers was Professor Iain Begg of the LSE European Institute.
I may have missed it but I certainly didn't notice anyone on the programme pointing out that Begg is a vehemently pro EU and sits on the advisory council of the Federal Trust which campaigns for a the UK to be part of a federal Europe.
Asking him to adjudicate on the question of the cost of British withdrawal would be like asking Ed Miliband to adjudicate on the best party to govern Britain.
Once again the BBC should be utterly ashamed.
Of course on the other hand if he can't win with those advantages he'll quickly become one of the most forgotten leaders in British political history.
I don't think it should be the Supreme Court's job to moralise. Their remit is to strictly apply the law as decreed by Parliament.
ID:
CDU/CSU: 40%
SPD: 27%
Green: 14%
Linke: 6%
FDP: 5%
AfD: 3%
Others: 5%
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
Dry season is November to March, rainy from May to September, but it is warm rain but could upset snorkeling and scuba diving.
All in all I think it was a reasonable program, if only because it showed the uncertainty that lies behind any figures given by the pro- or anti- camp.
At the end of the day, the result of any referendum will lie in the hearts, rather than the minds, of the voters. Basically because they will be bombarded with such contradictory and unverifiable information. It'll end up being a matter of what the voter wants to believe, with a heady mixture of fear built in.
The same will doubtless be true for the Scottish Independence referendum.
Least remembered I could accept...
/pedant off
What about clawing back payments to political parties ?
rEd hiding from the Coop story.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100024476/spain-is-officially-insolvent-get-your-money-out-while-you-still-can/
"All this leads to the conclusion that a big Spanish debt restructuring is inevitable. Spanish sovereign bond yields have fallen sharply since announcement of the European Central Bank's "outright monetary transactions" programme. The ECB has promised to print money without limit to counter the speculators. But in the end, no amount of liquidity can cover up for an underlying problem with solvency."
Educated at Sir Roger Cholmeley's School at Highgate (aka Highgate School), another public school.
An interesting article nonetheless.
I am not sure I see the connection between Tesco's decision to divest its US subsidiary and the closure of a distribution centre in Harlow.
And there are always two sides to every story of this nature. The sad story of those affected and the political story of the benefits of labour market flexibility.
Halfon's article is good constituency stuff but how much of it is rhetoric and how much real grievance is difficult to judge without the full facts and Tesco's response. I don't know the local circumstances but I would expect Tesco, as a large well resourced corporate, to be much more sympathetic to and compliant with anti-discrimination and displacement support policies than smaller employers.
I note Halfon was Olly Letwin's 'Chief of Staff'. He will have learnt a lot about how to serve workers interests under Old Etonian tutelage.
No doubt the NS article will get him a meeting with a key executive at Tesco and if there have been abuses they will be corrected quickly to much acclaim in the local Harlow press.
Regional top ups in an upper house are the way to go...
But anyway, Ed was lucky to be the only mainstream opposition leader. Was...as he's squandered the advantage he had.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-22379415
Seven men jailed, up to 100 young children abused (some as young as 13), including being sold and trafficked for sex.
Horrific.
Will this be as important as the Spad story that brought Gove down ?
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/stoptheunionbashing
Indeed, the Supreme Court in the same judgment said the following (on a different point):
"The court cannot decide the issue of what is unconscionable by an elaborate set of rules. It must consider in the round the existence of a distinct mistake (as compared with total ignorance or disappointed expectations), its degree of centrality to the transaction in question and the seriousness of its consequences, and make an evaluative judgment whether it would be unconscionable, or unjust, to leave the mistake uncorrected. The court may and must form a judgment about the justice of the case."
This strikes me as good law, good in practice and common sense. Not that the Supreme Court need my blessing for their decisions.
'Less than a year later, the Trade and Industry Secretary authorised the controversial decision to lend administrators £6.5million to keep the plant going for a week in the run-up to the May 2005 general election.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212803/MG-Rover-Labours-role-car-firms-demise.html#ixzz2SuR8wJCy
"Construction data suggests UK avoided double-dip"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22484394
I expect Ed Balls in a studio anytime soon.....
"Right now it looks as though the UK has not formally been in recession since the summer of 2009"
The only recession Labour have been going on about is their own.
Speaking of knowledge, I'm going to Beijing and Shanghai next month. I try not to spend more than £90-£100/night on hotels and I'm not at all fussy or sensitive to noise, but I do want good wifi and would like international optins at breakfast. Any recommendations? not sure where my meetings are so anywhere fairly central is OK.
The Tory party is enriched by having MPs who are active in trade unions and questioning the grant of subsidies to supermarkets makes sense.
My cynicism was driven more by the intent of the article. Was Halfon really trying to change the Conservative Party's labour market policies or was he using the NS to gain visibility for his role as constituency MP?
The simple answer is both, but where is the weight applied?
On supermarket subsidies the answer will be speed and ease of implementation. A scheme taken up by Tescos will have more effect, more quickly and at lower cost than any equivalent initiative targetted at small independents. Still makes sense to question the inertia of adminstrators though and to assess the impact of such discrimination.
How on earth is that in any way supposed to advance the discussion or help people to understand who is being honest about the relative cost of staying or leaving?
As I said it is was a thoroughly dishonest programme.