Personally I think Electric, Gas & Water should be free (subsidised by Govt) up to a certain amount a month for all people. Does that make me a socialist?
Price controls only work with rationing. True anywhere and true here with NHS and Education, roads - and much more besides that the Government (ANY Government) screws up whilst in No 10.
So the only sane solution is LESS government.
How about ending ALL 'free' State support for those paying higher rate taxes, in exchange for a much higher starting rate of tax?
So HRT pay for their own (private) health insurance and also pay the cost of a school place - charged out by the Head at whatever he thinks the market will bear. Throw in some subsidy (ie education vouchers) and allow all such costs to be tax-deductible and you're getting the State out of the absurdly inefficient merry-go-round that constitutes 'free' State provision.
Next stage is to raise the Personal Allowance to median/average wages and extend the principle there too - you no longer pay tax, until your earn over the regional average, BUT you pay your own (tax-deductible) way for the education and health care of your family.
If you have no children, you're quids in, and if you struggle to pay the fees, doubtless you could borrow to fund it AND there would be scholarships to the better (ie more expensive) schools, so you'd have a great incentive to push your child to do well in the entrance exams.
Net result might well be that the cost t the nation of education and health was (slightly) higher than today - though I very much doubt that - but the benefit to the individual of having no tax below £20k and (say) 10% to £40k, then 20% to £80k (etc) - would be massive.
And, in addition, it would cut State spending by something approaching the £200 billion pa necessary (before the tax reliefs, so the net saving to the Exchequer would be perhaps half that) if we are to start running a Budget surplus once again.
No modern politician is prepared to be radical and small-State, though Millibland has shown he's prepared to be The Great Leader of a pure neo-Marxist 'Labour' Party.
For a while I've been telling my parents to sell their ISA utility shares and diversify overseas.
Their response was "but utility shares are safe and always produce a good income", hopefully they'll start listening to me now.
To be fair, companies like Centrica are international and quite well diversified themselves, so no need to panic. They'll be able to scale back on investment in their UK businesses and look for opportunities elsewhere.
What I'm doing is just gradually moving either to overseas markets, or to UK-quoted companies which are not dependent on the UK economy - which is a large proportion of the FTSE100, of course.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
A shopping mall not only wipes out shopping streets, it makes a perfect terrorist fortress, near impossible to assault."
That's because all shopping malls have no enormous windows for shops to showcase their wares. The one near me also has a moat and an oubliette (a.k.a. Kidzone).
3) To shut British factories by increasing their fuel bills
The detail I have seen on this policy is that it will apply to business fuel bills too.
If the price freeze is to apply to business use as well then the energy companies will simply cut the supply when the marginal cost of energy production rises above its selling price.
In which case British factories will shut all the sooner.
If EdM really wants an energy price freeze but no power cuts then he'll have to build a bunch of power stations and subsidise them with taxpayers money.
In which case people will still end up paying more but via taxation rather than through their energy bills.
What we're facing now is the inevitable consequence of Labour's failure to invest in energy infrastructure before 2010.
Remarkable to listen to R5 news and clips from Ed's speech (missed due to golfing call of nature) first we had McBride seeking absolution for his misdeeds in the bunker, now we have the former Minister of Energy admitting things have been allowed to be wrong in the UK power market for too long.
Well done for owning up but crikey, one does worry about his competence if it's taken him this long to spot the supposed problem in his own area?
You'll find that the real meat of the "use it or lose it" proposal to bring long term derelict land back into use
The problem with this idealistic view of a very complex situation is that the criteria under which decisions are to be made will be subject to intense legal debate and challenge.
It will see a lot of time and money being spent on lawyers and court cases - and very little house building.
I am all for building new houses - affordable houses. I am not for increasing the income of lawyers.
As ever with Miliband - bold headline, unworkable detail.
Does Labour not have a policy unit that looks into the actual way their ideas might be implemented? Apparently not.
Did Ed say anything about how labour would cut the defecit?
not sure Labour have much interest in that.
spend baby spend.
Osborne is spending more than Labour did, never forget that. (once you've understood it in the first place of course, big proviso)
Incorrect, tim. Osborne is spending less than Brown in current money. See this chart. Familiar?
Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change £ bn % | £ bn % | % % ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
I think that members of the metropolitan media elite who love to sneer at Mr Miliband may be missing the point. Now, gibes will probably go down well in Notting Hill and Islington, but I dare say that in Wigan, Blackburn, and even in Swindon, they'll be getting the point – that Mr Miliband is a politician who is on their side.
You'll find that the real meat of the "use it or lose it" proposal to bring long term derelict land back into use will lie in a new power to allow local authorities to tax the landowner who chooses to do nothing in those circumstances. In response, landowners will either decide to proceed with development or avoid further continuing taxes by selling the land at a loss to someone else willing to develop it. The practice of derelict sites changing hands time and time again between speculators, whilst nothing happens, will cease. Powers to exercise compulsory purchase won't really be needed because it won't get as far as that - the need to avoid the new taxes will do the job.
And that's very welcome news for those of us living in neighbourhoods which for years have been blighted by such derelict sites. And of course it will stimulate the housing market at a net benefit to the taxpayer by stimulating the supply of land, compared with Osborne's policy of stoking up a housing demand bubble at taxpayers expense.
Personally I think Electric, Gas & Water should be free (subsidised by Govt) up to a certain amount a month for all people. Does that make me a socialist?
"No that makes you a....!!"
Would be good for us too. I wouldn't have arguments with the Missus, who likes to have the heating on and the doors open in winter.
That is is a sensible idea or not is another matter entirely.
What we're facing now is the inevitable consequence of Labour's failure to invest in energy infrastructure before 2010
What Ed Miliband is facing now is the inevitable consequence of Ed Miliband's failure to invest in energy infrastructure whilst he was Energy Minister.....
Energy. Pensions. Hospitals. Bank regulation.
The list goes on and on. Labour left all the important actions unresolved. They have forfeited any right to be taken seriously as a party of "government".
Miliband's flagship policy announced in today's conference speech to freeze gas and electricity prices was no doubt good populist stuff – but it is crazy economics which, if imposed, will end up doing a great deal of damage to these shores. My guess is he'll be forced to drop it before the election, for one of the main factors driving up energy prices is the government's own green agenda, which Milliband was largely responsible for during his period as Energy Secretary.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
"A Miliband administration, we can now be sure, would have appalling consequences for the economy and undo the limited, hesitant progress of the past few years. "
@ITVLauraK: Labour sources say price freeze would be legal as there is evidence of overcharging but law firm tells us there 'are some issues'
My instinct is that the energy market is one that won't have the same issues that others do when it comes to price caps. On the other hand, energy companies will be queuing up to challenge it.
There are always details on how it'll be implemented, consultations, and so on, who is affected, and so forth, which will be open to timely judicial review. For a temporary measure the delaying tactics may make it unworkable.
The sun’s been shining in Brighton, Labour is ahead in the polls, new policies are at last being produced, so this should have been a good week for Ed Miliband. Instead, I found myself being collared by a Shadow Cabinet minister, determined to explain to me how the Labour leader could be ousted as early as next spring.
If Labour is behind the Tories in the polls by then – which could easily happen as the economy recovers – my informant predicts an uprising by Labour MPs against Miliband. It doesn’t matter how arcane the rules are for ousting a Labour leader; if he loses the confidence of, say, 100 MPs, he’ll have to go.
This Shadow Cabinet minister has done the maths. There are currently more supporters in the Andy Burnham camp than the 23 who gave him their first preference in the 2010 leadership election. Add to that the Ed Balls/Yvette Cooper camp, the disaffected Blairites and the disaffected Lefties, and it’s not hard to see how that figure could be reached.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Indeed, all fart and no follow-through. Nice banana though.
3) To shut British factories by increasing their fuel bills
The detail I have seen on this policy is that it will apply to business fuel bills too.
If the price freeze is to apply to business use as well then the energy companies will simply cut the supply when the marginal cost of energy production rises above its selling price.
In which case British factories will shut all the sooner.
If EdM really wants an energy price freeze but no power cuts then he'll have to build a bunch of power stations and subsidise them with taxpayers money.
In which case people will still end up paying more but via taxation rather than through their energy bills.
What we're facing now is the inevitable consequence of Labour's failure to invest in energy infrastructure before 2010.
As I said earlier, you cannot have a price freeze and continuity of supply without government subsidy. It will be interesting to see how Miliband et al try to finesse the news that they will be giving large wads of taxpayer money to the energy companies so that they can continue to pay out dividends to shareholders.
The windfall tax in reverse. How times have changed.
@ITVLauraK: Labour sources say price freeze would be legal as there is evidence of overcharging but law firm tells us there 'are some issues'
If there's been overcharging, then that is a massive failure by OFGEM. Perhaps Labour should have got regulation right when they passed the Utilities Act 2000, the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002, the Energy Act 2004, the Energy Act 2008 or the Energy Act 2010.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
3) To shut British factories by increasing their fuel bills
The detail I have seen on this policy is that it will apply to business fuel bills too.
If the price freeze is to apply to business use as well then the energy companies will simply cut the supply when the marginal cost of energy production rises above its selling price.
In which case British factories will shut all the sooner.
If EdM really wants an energy price freeze but no power cuts then he'll have to build a bunch of power stations and subsidise them with taxpayers money.
In which case people will still end up paying more but via taxation rather than through their energy bills.
What we're facing now is the inevitable consequence of Labour's failure to invest in energy infrastructure before 2010.
As I said earlier, you cannot have a price freeze and continuity of supply without government subsidy. It will be interesting to see how Miliband et al try to finesse the news that they will be giving large wads of taxpayer money to the energy companies so that they can continue to pay out dividends to shareholders.
The windfall tax in reverse. How times have changed.
Handouts to millionaires! They save more than the working man as they heat and light their mansions. Surely a price freeze should be means-tested, no?
While Ed struggles to give the impression he has any understanding of economics or of what's needed to run an economy, the last of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee doubters recants:
David Miles, an external member of the MPC and generally regarded as the most cautious of the BoE rate setters, confessed to his confidence in the economy today in a speech given in Newcastle:
"I am 'now more confident that we are on path to recovery than at any time since I joined the MPC in the first part of 2009".
Miles, estimating that annual growth is currently between 2.5% and 3.5% each year, said that this was:
"a more optimistic position than I took a few months ago when I believed that resuming asset purchases was warranted";
and that,
"the recent rise in activity and confidence has the potential – I believe – to be sustainable and self-confirming". .
It does all rather make Ed's efforts in Brighton somewhat irrelevant.
Tories going bonkers in support of energy monopolies and land banking.
Labour troll going tedious and forgeting that English-taxpayers have already forked-out for Gormless McBruin's EDF-employed brother's cleaning expenses. What say you Wee-Timmy...?
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
There are currently more supporters in the Andy Burnham camp than the 23 who gave him their first preference in the 2010 leadership election. Add to that the Ed Balls/Yvette Cooper camp, the disaffected Blairites and the disaffected Lefties, and it’s not hard to see how that figure could be reached.
But there is exactly the problem. They not only need to agree that Ed is useless, they also need to agree to act at the same time and in concert. Since they definitely don't agree on who should replace him, that seems near-impossible.
@StewartWood: IMF: to reduce housing bubble risk the UK "should consider fiscal disincentives for holding land without development" http://t.co/gFQ4C69cbk
Osborne wants the bubble though, that's the big dividing line
More ignorance, tim.
House prices are far more sensitive to the availability and cost of mortgage finance than they are to the availability of new housing stock.
And confiscation of property is not a "fiscal disincentive" in any ordinary meaning of the phrase. Even Olivier Blancmange has sufficient English language skills to understand that.
But there is exactly the problem. They not only need to agree that Ed is useless, they also need to agree to act at the same time and in concert. Since they definitely don't agree on who should replace him, that seems near-impossible.
It's the prisoners' dilemma. If you think Ed as leader is going to tank badly enough to lose you your seat, it is in your interest to act before the election. The Rudd/Hail Mary play. If you think you might just hang on, wiser to let Ed crash and burn then get someone better.
Will local councils and other public bodies which have land suitable for development but don't develop it also lose their land?
Or will we see one branch of government fining another branch of government for leaving land undeveloped?
I dare say they'd be able to pass the subsequent cost onto taxpayers.
You're nitpicking at the fine detail in an apparent attempt to avoid seeing the wood from the trees. I suspect that if someone offered you a free unseen £10 note you would reject it given the risk that the edges might be a bit worn.
But to answer your question, I assume that the answer would be yes, although it doesn't have to be. It's hardly a showstopper. Local authorities pay business rates on properties they own, for example.
BTW this is not dissimilar to the proposal in the Barker Review of 2004 to introduce land value taxation on long term derelict land. It's been explored quite thoroughly over the years.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
Yes, ar.
His brother Ed.
Don't be silly Avery.
DM, despite his defeat, is still generally regarded as better than EdM.
Whereas in reality DM is a cowardly, complacent, money grabbing incompetant.
EdM at least has some guts and a willingness to 'give it a go'.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
But there is exactly the problem. They not only need to agree that Ed is useless, they also need to agree to act at the same time and in concert. Since they definitely don't agree on who should replace him, that seems near-impossible.
It's the prisoners' dilemma. If you think Ed as leader is going to tank badly enough to lose you your seat, it is in your interest to act before the election. The Rudd/Hail Mary play. If you think you might just hang on, wiser to let Ed crash and burn then get someone better.
But all the polling data suggests that LAB is going to win seats not lose them.
You sound a like the trader in the story above who spent millons of dollars backing Romney.
Labour want to burden 16 year olds with the vote. Most won't even have taken their GCSEs yet they're being asked to help determine who runs the country.
But there is exactly the problem. They not only need to agree that Ed is useless, they also need to agree to act at the same time and in concert. Since they definitely don't agree on who should replace him, that seems near-impossible.
It's the prisoners' dilemma. If you think Ed as leader is going to tank badly enough to lose you your seat, it is in your interest to act before the election. The Rudd/Hail Mary play. If you think you might just hang on, wiser to let Ed crash and burn then get someone better.
But all the polling data suggests that LAB is going to win seats not lose them.
You sound a like the trader in the story above who spent millons of dollars backing Romney.
Mike, the original point already had the proviso that the polls weren't favourable to Ed in this hypothetical situation.
Agreed on David Laws. The accolades paid to him when he resigned from a job he'd been doing for about eleven days had me shaking my head.
David Davis at least did something with his life before he entered politics and had the integrity to walk out on the Cameroons. He's not someone you'd want to rely on but that's better than being a bootlicker.
But all the polling data suggests that LAB is going to win seats not lose them.
You sound a like the trader in the story above who spent millons of dollars backing Romney.
From the article that started this discussion...
If Labour is behind the Tories in the polls by then – which could easily happen as the economy recovers – my informant predicts an uprising by Labour MPs against Miliband.
Nobody is suggesting Miliband will be ousted this week.
"Venezuelans are suffering a chronic shortage of loo roll. That’s harmful to public health as well as personal dignity and it illustrates, in microcosm, the flaw in socialist economics. When a government fixes prices below market-clearing levels, it creates shortages. Venezuela has done this with a number of consumer staples. Though the country has benefited for years from high oil prices, its people lack basic goods."
" Ed Miliband likes to show that young people are behind him. A few months ago he had young people stationed behind him when he gave a speech launching his local election campaign in Ipswich. The young people weren’t from Ipswich. They were party members. They’d been brought in specially, by train."
Did they remove any evidence of first class travel for the photo ops?
BTW this is not dissimilar to the proposal in the Barker Review of 2004 to introduce land value taxation on long term derelict land. It's been explored quite thoroughly over the years.
It's not, though. Ed specifically said "either use the land or lose the land". For once, he was clear and didn't speak wonk-babble.
Of course it might well be that this is a load of cobblers and he didn't actually mean what he said.
Letting towns such as Stevenage and Basildon expand will mean picking fights with councils in places such as Hertfordshire and Essex which mostly don't like new houses. Building new towns is an order of magnitude harder. There are certain locations it could work: Lord Adonis, who is leading Labour’s economic review, suggests Ebbsfleet, where there is lots of brownfield land and where the High Speed One rail link could whisk commuters into central London quickly. But it would take 1950s style leadership, with compulsory purchase of land and vast up-front government investment.
And the question is, is the Labour Party ready for it?
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
Yes, ar.
His brother Ed.
Don't be silly Avery.
DM, despite his defeat, is still generally regarded as better than EdM.
Whereas in reality DM is a cowardly, complacent, money grabbing incompetant.
EdM at least has some guts and a willingness to 'give it a go'.
ar
You are suffering from the perverse British habit of rooting for the underdog.
@joncraig: Breaking news! Police have arrived at LBC studio next to Sky News office in Brighton Centre to speak to Iain Dale re that seafront incident.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
Yes, ar.
His brother Ed.
Don't be silly Avery.
DM, despite his defeat, is still generally regarded as better than EdM.
Whereas in reality DM is a cowardly, complacent, money grabbing incompetant.
EdM at least has some guts and a willingness to 'give it a go'.
Its like in football or cricket, when someone isn't in the team they become a better player
I get the feeling that Young Militwunt wants but two energy suppliers, both of which he can control the inputs and outputs of: A nationalied 'Grauniad-Systems' and 'Al-Beeb Energy'. No wonder Hortence is spinning-a-line on the thread below....
In short, Cameron never seriously asked them to. As the subsequent vote on Syria has shown, he isn't interested in getting down and dirty in the commons, and has no-one in his team capable of doing it for him. It's a significant flaw.
BTW this is not dissimilar to the proposal in the Barker Review of 2004 to introduce land value taxation on long term derelict land. It's been explored quite thoroughly over the years.
It's not, though. Ed specifically said "either use the land or lose the land". For once, he was clear and didn't speak wonk-babble.
Of course it might well be that this is a load of cobblers and he didn't actually mean what he said.
Just the act of gaining planning permission allows the owner of the land to acquire an additional ( intangible ) asset. This enhancement of value is solely due to the planning permission.
The planning permission could easily be time limited - and not building in time, could perfectly reasonably, make the owner subject to fines.
After all, the permission was granted for a social necessity [ i.e. some people would live there ] and not just for speculative gain.
Has Ed just delivered the longest suicide note in history?
Iain Martin thinks this was the most Left-wing speech we've heard from a party leader in several decades and he's right. We have to go back to 1983, when Michael Foot was leader of the Labour Party, to find Labour espousing policies like these. Indeed, the word "like" in that sentence may be redundant. A brief perusal of Labour's 1983 manifesto reveals that nearly all the policies announced by Miliband this afternoon were advocated by Labour 40 years ago.
Below is a list of Labour's new policies, with direct quotes from the party's 1983 manifesto in brackets:
Anthony Albanese takes a clear lead over Bill Shorten in the first polls for the new ALP leader to be decided next month Morgan has good news for Anthony Albanese, who is favoured over Bill Shorten 41% to 23% among all voters, 46% to 32% among Labor voters, 38% to 18% among Coalition voters and 48% to 12% among Greens voters. The gap is widest and narrowest and Albanese and Shorten’s respective home states of New South Wales and Victoria. The qualitative findings here are unusually interesting: “Electors who preferred Anthony Albanese often mentioned Shorten’s role in the demise of former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, Shorten’s strong links to the unions, and also his links to the Governor-General as well as Albanese’s better policy expertise, experience and personality.”
• Essential finds Tony Abbott with similarly modest leads as preferred prime minister over both Albanese (37-31) and Shorten (37-32).
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
Yes, ar.
His brother Ed.
Don't be silly Avery.
DM, despite his defeat, is still generally regarded as better than EdM.
Whereas in reality DM is a cowardly, complacent, money grabbing incompetant.
EdM at least has some guts and a willingness to 'give it a go'.
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
Yes, ar.
His brother Ed.
Don't be silly Avery.
DM, despite his defeat, is still generally regarded as better than EdM.
Whereas in reality DM is a cowardly, complacent, money grabbing incompetant.
EdM at least has some guts and a willingness to 'give it a go'.
ar
You are suffering from the perverse British habit of rooting for the underdog.
Labour want to burden 16 year olds with the vote. Most won't even have taken their GCSEs yet they're being asked to help determine who runs the country.
But they will be old enough to die for their country !
Miss Plato, the economic problems of Venezuela may lead to Maldonado's significant backing getting pulled. With the drivers' market the way it is that could finish off his career in F1.
I really honestly wonder if Ed has lost the election today. He is going to be monstered for this promise to fix energy prices and the multitude of failures of such a policy around the world and throughout time.
Having done the buddah thing for 3 years this is a really extraordinary thing to come out of the cave with. I think he has really blown it. What was wrong with nasty tories, bedroom tax, cuts, cuts cuts yah boo etc etc. It would have done.
I don't think Neil Kinnock would have made this mistake. Maybe Michael Foot.
Labour want to burden 16 year olds with the vote. Most won't even have taken their GCSEs yet they're being asked to help determine who runs the country.
But they will be old enough to die for their country !
Isn't the whole idea to get them to vote Labour, Surby?
The trouble with Ed Milliband is that he is a stabber. He stabs at this policy, he stabs at that policy all to no avail. Oh; and he stabbed his brother. Now that was a policy!
Come on. Why should EdM have stood aside for his brother? By that reasoning David Miliband was at fault for for running against Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
Agreed on all points.
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
Yes, ar.
His brother Ed.
Don't be silly Avery.
DM, despite his defeat, is still generally regarded as better than EdM.
Whereas in reality DM is a cowardly, complacent, money grabbing incompetant.
EdM at least has some guts and a willingness to 'give it a go'.
ar
You are suffering from the perverse British habit of rooting for the underdog.
Just the act of gaining planning permission allows the owner of the land to acquire an additional ( intangible ) asset. This enhancement of value is solely due to the planning permission.
The planning permission could easily be time limited - and not building in time, could perfectly reasonably, make the owner subject to fines.
After all, the permission was granted for a social necessity [ i.e. some people would live there ] and not just for speculative gain.
As I pointed out that isn't what Ed proposed, but, either way, it's utterly barmy, as well as Orwellian.
I appreciate that Labour supporters, and apparently Ed Miliband, don't have the faintest clue how the world works, but take it from me: if you want companies and businessmen to build houses, they'll first have to apply for planning permission, and you certainly won't incentivise them by the prospect that doing so might open them up to the risk either of fines, or of having their property confiscated, if the business case changes and they are unable to go ahead with the development in the timescale they hoped.
All that would happen is that everyone would sit on the land without applying for planning permission, awaiting the return of sane government. Less housebuilding, not more.
The "use it or lose it" proposal was first floated by Miliband back in June. The pre-briefing for the speech then made it clear enough that that proposal encompassed options ranging from taxes on developers to compulsory purchase, the latter as a last resort.
That is remarkably similar to the pre-briefing given to the Independent last night, the key part of which was: "Developers who sit on “land banks” would be hit by a “use it or lose it” law. Councils could impose escalating fees to give them an incentive to build on sites with planning permission, backed up by new compulsory purchase powers if they still hoard the land."
In 2005, Brown gave away market-sensitive information about the budget, but no one noticed
According to McBride, a broadsheet newspaper got hold of a photograph showing Brown's notes in his trademark black marker on an official document. The notes revealed what the new borrowing figures would be. When he heard, Brown intended to resign until McBride solved the problem by telling the journalist that the figures were not correct. (In fact they were near-perfect approximations.)
Just the act of gaining planning permission allows the owner of the land to acquire an additional ( intangible ) asset. This enhancement of value is solely due to the planning permission.
The planning permission could easily be time limited - and not building in time, could perfectly reasonably, make the owner subject to fines.
After all, the permission was granted for a social necessity [ i.e. some people would live there ] and not just for speculative gain.
As I pointed out that isn't what Ed proposed, but, either way, it's utterly barmy, as well as Orwellian.
I appreciate that Labour supporters, and apparently Ed Miliband, don't have the faintest clue how the world works, but take it from me: if you want companies and businessmen to build houses, they'll first have to apply for planning permission, and you certainly won't incentivise them by the prospect that doing so might open them up to the risk either of fines, or of having their property confiscated, if the business case changes and they are unable to go ahead with the development in the timescale they hoped.
All that would happen is that everyone would sit on the land without applying for planning permission, awaiting the return of sane government. Less housebuilding, not more.
EdM's disincentives to build power stations are even worse, and far more important, than his disincentives to build houses.
The number of students being accepted at UK universities rose slightly this year compared with last year.
Data from the admissions service, Ucas, shows 445,820 UK and European Union students had been accepted on to degree courses 28 days after A-level results.
This is up from 408,480 at the same point last year, but slightly down on 2011, the final year before tuition fees rose, when the figure was 465,070.
Interesting definition of "slightly", but we are basically at the stage before big increase in tuition fees. I would love my wages to raise at that "slight" rate every year.
"The point about price controls is that they create shortages. This is because by keeping prices artificially low, demand is increased to the point where supply can no longer keep up. Where demand is inelastic, as with energy or food, a slightly different effect is observed, though the outcome – shortages – is still the same. Suppliers simply refuse to produce for the assigned price. This effect was quite commonly observed in the US during the Nixon price controls of the 1970s, when supermarket shelves were left half filled.
" If you didn’t manage to catch Ed Miliband’s speech at Labour conference, it went a bit like this. Friends: if you didn’t manage to catch Ed Miliband’s speech at Labour conference… it went a bit like this.
It was repetitive, friends. Friends: it was repetitive. He’d settled on two key phrases: “Britain can do better than this” and “A race to the top”. And do you know what he did? I’ll tell you what he did. He repeated the two key phrases. He repeated the two key phrases throughout the speech. Again and again – and again and again. Friends: that’s what Ed Miliband did.
But do you know what else Ed Miliband did? Friends, I’ll tell you. Ed Miliband said the Tories didn’t care about people in the north. The Tories didn’t care about people in the north because the Tories thought people in the north didn’t matter. But friends, people in the north did matter. Because people in the north were – as Ed Miliband said, loudly, getting very worked up about it – “Our friends! Our neighbours! They are HEROES OF BRITAIN!”
"The good news is that Mr Miliband has provided ample ammunition for anyone wanting evidence that Labour is regressing to its statist, socialist past. When, in talking about what to do with developers sitting on unused land, he said "use it or lose it", it won't be just the Tories picking themselves off the floor. It is hard to imagine Tony Blair saying the same. Countering populism is always tricky, but I'm not sure Labour wants to be on the side of land confiscation." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100237742/it-would-be-easy-to-dismiss-ed-miliband-as-a-bug-eyed-socialist-but-the-tories-should-be-wary/
Worth noting that Balls has stated that Labour will remove higher rate tax relief for pensions, when elected.
Re energy prices: Labour's proposal will be popular. It will take skill to deal with it. Having a lot of energy companies saying that they should be entitled to keep on raising prices otherwise the lights will go out is not the way to do it. It sounds like blackmail. Energy companies are probably about as unpopular as bankers these days.
However silly in practice it may turn out to be, it is good politics.
On planning permission, currently if you don't use your planning permission within a certain time frame, it lapses. Perhaps that time frame should be made shorter and/or the rules on using it made stricter. So the principle of disincentivising hoarding is a good one. Of course the devil is in the detail.
But I think that a lot of the responses on here forget how this will look to the average Jo, who will give this about 20 seconds and see that Labour are promising to freeze energy prices and think "Good-oh".
That's a good article by brogan, but lets face it, how many voters under 45 have any idea what 'regressing to a statist, socialist past' actually means??
The topic story as posted is meaningless and uninteresting. Daftperson does daft thing. However there's much more to this. USD4m is a small drop in the ocean if you think that money might influence a presidential election. If there's a cliffhanger the uninterested may just become interested.
It's a dismal outlook when the fortunes of certain firms depend so much on who is elected. The prime examples I think fall in Labour's ambit. Gordo's uncountable billions on worthless ships that just happen to be built in his constituency is the obvious example. (By the way, we have all now agreed that Gordon Brown is the lowest of the low haven't we?)
But they will be old enough to die for their country !
Only an eejit would believe that sixteen year-olds die for The Crown anymore. Cronie signed us up to Security Council Resolution 1261 (although there is evidence of the 1997-2010 Government sending 'children' into combat). But you are not an eejit are you Surby...?
Socialism is not what Miliband proposed. Socialism would be about nationalisation of the energy companies . Now that would have been more honest and brave so that when the lights go out or taxes rise Miliband could only blame himself. As it is Labour will not do this but prefer to blame the ills on private companies (and hope not many connect the fact that ownership of these easy targets is by nearly everyone through pension and insurance policies
That's a good article by brogan, but lets face it, how many voters under 45 have any idea what 'regressing to a statist, socialist past' actually means??
Voters will merely have to look across the Channel to witness a statist , socialist present being inflicted on the French by Miliband's ideological twin , nanetto Hollande.
@Cyclefree - I think he didn't mean he'd abolish higher-rate relief (if he did, it would be grossly unfair for entrepreneurs, who often have long periods of low income, not that that is likely to be of concern to him). What I think he means is that tax relief would be restricted on the 45% band ("restricting pension tax relief for the very highest earners"):
That sounds relatively academic, actually - anyone earning that much is likely to be up against the £50K annual limit / £1.25m pot limit anyway. Of course, the fear would be that this is just the first step, and anyway we need to stop fiddling with pensions.
I was told by someone who claims to know that a builder could make a start on a development putting in the drains or whatever but not completing the project in a timely way claiming market factors, thus avoiding any potential sanction.
Comments
"No that makes you a....!!"
True anywhere and true here with NHS and Education, roads - and much more besides that the Government (ANY Government) screws up whilst in No 10.
So the only sane solution is LESS government.
How about ending ALL 'free' State support for those paying higher rate taxes, in exchange for a much higher starting rate of tax?
So HRT pay for their own (private) health insurance and also pay the cost of a school place - charged out by the Head at whatever he thinks the market will bear. Throw in some subsidy (ie education vouchers) and allow all such costs to be tax-deductible and you're getting the State out of the absurdly inefficient merry-go-round that constitutes 'free' State provision.
Next stage is to raise the Personal Allowance to median/average wages and extend the principle there too - you no longer pay tax, until your earn over the regional average, BUT you pay your own (tax-deductible) way for the education and health care of your family.
If you have no children, you're quids in, and if you struggle to pay the fees, doubtless you could borrow to fund it AND there would be scholarships to the better (ie more expensive) schools, so you'd have a great incentive to push your child to do well in the entrance exams.
Net result might well be that the cost t the nation of education and health was (slightly) higher than today - though I very much doubt that - but the benefit to the individual of having no tax below £20k and (say) 10% to £40k, then 20% to £80k (etc) - would be massive.
And, in addition, it would cut State spending by something approaching the £200 billion pa necessary (before the tax reliefs, so the net saving to the Exchequer would be perhaps half that) if we are to start running a Budget surplus once again.
No modern politician is prepared to be radical and small-State, though Millibland has shown he's prepared to be The Great Leader of a pure neo-Marxist 'Labour' Party.
@tnewtondunn: Copyright: The Sun (you read it with us 1st)... RT @Kevin_Maguire: Red Ed is back today.
What I'm doing is just gradually moving either to overseas markets, or to UK-quoted companies which are not dependent on the UK economy - which is a large proportion of the FTSE100, of course.
In which case British factories will shut all the sooner.
If EdM really wants an energy price freeze but no power cuts then he'll have to build a bunch of power stations and subsidise them with taxpayers money.
In which case people will still end up paying more but via taxation rather than through their energy bills.
What we're facing now is the inevitable consequence of Labour's failure to invest in energy infrastructure before 2010.
Well done for owning up but crikey, one does worry about his competence if it's taken him this long to spot the supposed problem in his own area?
How peculiar.
It will see a lot of time and money being spent on lawyers and court cases - and very little house building.
I am all for building new houses - affordable houses. I am not for increasing the income of lawyers.
As ever with Miliband - bold headline, unworkable detail.
Does Labour not have a policy unit that looks into the actual way their ideas might be implemented? Apparently not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100237750/ed-miliband-gave-a-virtuoso-performance-a-socialist-speech-perhaps-but-thats-his-job/
Or will we see one branch of government fining another branch of government for leaving land undeveloped?
I dare say they'd be able to pass the subsequent cost onto taxpayers.
That is is a sensible idea or not is another matter entirely.
Energy. Pensions. Hospitals. Bank regulation.
The list goes on and on. Labour left all the important actions unresolved. They have forfeited any right to be taken seriously as a party of "government".
"don't believe Mr Miliband will win or will challenge it in court (And think they'll win)."
That's OK . Ed would have won by then and Dan Hodges will have written his article about why is Ed being PM is bad for Ed.
DavidM squandered several chances to act against the inept Brown in the 2007-2010 and acted feebly or ignored. He wasn't leadership material in my view.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10331267/Ed-Miliband-has-shown-he-knows-nothing-about-business-or-the-economy.html
"A Miliband administration, we can now be sure, would have appalling consequences for the economy and undo the limited, hesitant progress of the past few years. "
Same old Labour.
There are always details on how it'll be implemented, consultations, and so on, who is affected, and so forth, which will be open to timely judicial review. For a temporary measure the delaying tactics may make it unworkable.
The windfall tax in reverse. How times have changed.
Hodges has surely speculatively written that article already?
Has there ever been a more overrated politiican than David Miliband.
While Ed struggles to give the impression he has any understanding of economics or of what's needed to run an economy, the last of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee doubters recants:
David Miles, an external member of the MPC and generally regarded as the most cautious of the BoE rate setters, confessed to his confidence in the economy today in a speech given in Newcastle:
"I am 'now more confident that we are on path to recovery than at any time since I joined the MPC in the first part of 2009".
Miles, estimating that annual growth is currently between 2.5% and 3.5% each year, said that this was:
"a more optimistic position than I took a few months ago when I believed that resuming asset purchases was warranted";
and that,
"the recent rise in activity and confidence has the potential – I believe – to be sustainable and self-confirming". .
It does all rather make Ed's efforts in Brighton somewhat irrelevant.
It must be something in the name David.
Whether they could force him out is a more tricky matter - but the mutterings will grow and grow and his position will remain in question.
And how can the country vote for a Leader who does not have the support of his own party?
His brother Ed.
“No more talk of Super Peak fares, meaning your season ticket wouldn’t even be valid on every train.
No more stretching peak time, when it’s actually about stretching profits.
No more confusing tickets, but the exact time you can use it printed on the ticket.
No more inflexibility when you book in advance, so you can’t get the next train – even when it’s empty.
And if you do have the wrong ticket on the train, take off the price you’ve already paid from the cost of a new one.
No more single and return journeys costing the same. Not just in one pilot area after 2015, as the government plans, but across the network.
No more charging more at the ticket office than online, just to provide another excuse to close them.
No more rip offs at ticket machines, but a new legal right to be offered the cheapest fare regardless of how or where you buy a ticket.
No more inflation-busting increases in the cost of leaving your car at the station, when it’s just another way to clobber commuters.
No more ripping people off with internet charges, just because you can’t afford to travel First Class.”
The problems of privatisation have mostly been in finding the right incentives for long term investment, meaning trains people have to stand on.
This is just a list of unmanageable grumbles.
But for the first time since 1992 (apparently) the CAC report has been defeated by a card vote this morning
It's yours now. Buy your own Nespresso machine.
House prices are far more sensitive to the availability and cost of mortgage finance than they are to the availability of new housing stock.
And confiscation of property is not a "fiscal disincentive" in any ordinary meaning of the phrase. Even Olivier Blancmange has sufficient English language skills to understand that.
You wouldn't fancy spending your time in a more classy manner would you ?
Hanging around with Premiership footballers would be one possibility.
Or perhaps you could have your travels made into a reality program on a downmarket tv station.
Will local councils and other public bodies which have land suitable for development but don't develop it also lose their land?
Or will we see one branch of government fining another branch of government for leaving land undeveloped?
I dare say they'd be able to pass the subsequent cost onto taxpayers.
You're nitpicking at the fine detail in an apparent attempt to avoid seeing the wood from the trees. I suspect that if someone offered you a free unseen £10 note you would reject it given the risk that the edges might be a bit worn.
But to answer your question, I assume that the answer would be yes, although it doesn't have to be. It's hardly a showstopper. Local authorities pay business rates on properties they own, for example.
BTW this is not dissimilar to the proposal in the Barker Review of 2004 to introduce land value taxation on long term derelict land. It's been explored quite thoroughly over the years.
DM, despite his defeat, is still generally regarded as better than EdM.
Whereas in reality DM is a cowardly, complacent, money grabbing incompetant.
EdM at least has some guts and a willingness to 'give it a go'.
You sound a like the trader in the story above who spent millons of dollars backing Romney.
David Davis at least did something with his life before he entered politics and had the integrity to walk out on the Cameroons. He's not someone you'd want to rely on but that's better than being a bootlicker.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/blogs/oliver-kamm/article3877219.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10331879/Sketch-Ed-Milibands-repeat-prescription.html
Amongst lots of goodies
" Ed Miliband likes to show that young people are behind him. A few months ago he had young people stationed behind him when he gave a speech launching his local election campaign in Ipswich. The young people weren’t from Ipswich. They were party members. They’d been brought in specially, by train."
Did they remove any evidence of first class travel for the photo ops?
Of course it might well be that this is a load of cobblers and he didn't actually mean what he said.
You are suffering from the perverse British habit of rooting for the underdog.
Never mistake a bark for a bite.
Miss Plato, is that the old story, or has the shortage of toilet paper recurred?
In weirdly related news, a Venezuelan politician followed me on Twitter yesterday.
You'd get a few Telegraph blogs about how crap this country has become and given how widespread the PB community is you could get to meet some of us.
In short, Cameron never seriously asked them to. As the subsequent vote on Syria has shown, he isn't interested in getting down and dirty in the commons, and has no-one in his team capable of doing it for him. It's a significant flaw.
The planning permission could easily be time limited - and not building in time, could perfectly reasonably, make the owner subject to fines.
After all, the permission was granted for a social necessity [ i.e. some people would live there ] and not just for speculative gain.
Morgan has good news for Anthony Albanese, who is favoured over Bill Shorten 41% to 23% among all voters, 46% to 32% among Labor voters, 38% to 18% among Coalition voters and 48% to 12% among Greens voters. The gap is widest and narrowest and Albanese and Shorten’s respective home states of New South Wales and Victoria. The qualitative findings here are unusually interesting: “Electors who preferred Anthony Albanese often mentioned Shorten’s role in the demise of former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, Shorten’s strong links to the unions, and also his links to the Governor-General as well as Albanese’s better policy expertise, experience and personality.”
• Essential finds Tony Abbott with similarly modest leads as preferred prime minister over both Albanese (37-31) and Shorten (37-32).
Meanwhile the first leadership debate has taken place between the two men
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/albanese-shorten-debate-over-labor-leadership/4978860
I'm sure others here will know for certain but it was my understanding that soldiers don't serve on the front line until they're 18.
Having done the buddah thing for 3 years this is a really extraordinary thing to come out of the cave with. I think he has really blown it. What was wrong with nasty tories, bedroom tax, cuts, cuts cuts yah boo etc etc. It would have done.
I don't think Neil Kinnock would have made this mistake. Maybe Michael Foot.
I appreciate that Labour supporters, and apparently Ed Miliband, don't have the faintest clue how the world works, but take it from me: if you want companies and businessmen to build houses, they'll first have to apply for planning permission, and you certainly won't incentivise them by the prospect that doing so might open them up to the risk either of fines, or of having their property confiscated, if the business case changes and they are unable to go ahead with the development in the timescale they hoped.
All that would happen is that everyone would sit on the land without applying for planning permission, awaiting the return of sane government. Less housebuilding, not more.
Usually the votes at 16 thing relates to some of them leaving school to work at that age.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/labour-steals-march-tories-vowing-punish-land-hoarding
That is remarkably similar to the pre-briefing given to the Independent last night, the key part of which was:
"Developers who sit on “land banks” would be hit by a “use it or lose it” law. Councils could impose escalating fees to give them an incentive to build on sites with planning permission, backed up by new compulsory purchase powers if they still hoard the land."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-conference-labour-will-build-200000-homes-a-year-by-2020-says-ed-miliband-8835593.html
According to McBride, a broadsheet newspaper got hold of a photograph showing Brown's notes in his trademark black marker on an official document. The notes revealed what the new borrowing figures would be. When he heard, Brown intended to resign until McBride solved the problem by telling the journalist that the figures were not correct. (In fact they were near-perfect approximations.)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2013/sep/24/damian-mcbride-10-things-book-labour
Just imagine where we would be if Gordon had actually gone through with resigning.
Even as a tory poster, this talk of suicide notes is surely very, very premature.
Reading some of the comments on the thread, its like Ed is 6 points behind in the polls, not six points ahead.
Many voters have no experience of socialism. Either being ranged against it in the form of soviet russia, or living under it as in the 70s.
Data from the admissions service, Ucas, shows 445,820 UK and European Union students had been accepted on to degree courses 28 days after A-level results.
This is up from 408,480 at the same point last year, but slightly down on 2011, the final year before tuition fees rose, when the figure was 465,070.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24231367
Interesting definition of "slightly", but we are basically at the stage before big increase in tuition fees. I would love my wages to raise at that "slight" rate every year.
"The point about price controls is that they create shortages. This is because by keeping prices artificially low, demand is increased to the point where supply can no longer keep up. Where demand is inelastic, as with energy or food, a slightly different effect is observed, though the outcome – shortages – is still the same. Suppliers simply refuse to produce for the assigned price. This effect was quite commonly observed in the US during the Nixon price controls of the 1970s, when supermarket shelves were left half filled.
Price controls will ultimately only end up stifling both consumer choice and growth. Red Ed, is I fear, just reverting to type. Unbelievably, he still doesn't seem to get that you cannot have rising pay and living standards without wealth creation and growth. These are things you cannot legislate for – by freezing prices, or confiscating unused land. They have to be earned." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100025613/ed-milibands-speech-summarised-get-out-the-flares-its-back-to-the-seventies/
You know those electricity solar panels?
the ones you can install on your roof if its south facing?? giving you all the leccy you want for 30-years?
Suddenly ten grand a pop doesn;t seem so expensive after all.
It was repetitive, friends. Friends: it was repetitive. He’d settled on two key phrases: “Britain can do better than this” and “A race to the top”. And do you know what he did? I’ll tell you what he did. He repeated the two key phrases. He repeated the two key phrases throughout the speech. Again and again – and again and again. Friends: that’s what Ed Miliband did.
But do you know what else Ed Miliband did? Friends, I’ll tell you. Ed Miliband said the Tories didn’t care about people in the north. The Tories didn’t care about people in the north because the Tories thought people in the north didn’t matter. But friends, people in the north did matter. Because people in the north were – as Ed Miliband said, loudly, getting very worked up about it – “Our friends! Our neighbours! They are HEROES OF BRITAIN!”
That’s right, friends. Simply living in the north makes you a hero. A hero of Britain. Well done, people in the north. Well done for living in the north. Ed Miliband appreciates your sacrifice. He doesn’t know how you do it. >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10331879/Sketch-Ed-Milibands-repeat-prescription.html
Extraordinary that he settled the paper bill first.
Re energy prices: Labour's proposal will be popular. It will take skill to deal with it. Having a lot of energy companies saying that they should be entitled to keep on raising prices otherwise the lights will go out is not the way to do it. It sounds like blackmail. Energy companies are probably about as unpopular as bankers these days.
However silly in practice it may turn out to be, it is good politics.
On planning permission, currently if you don't use your planning permission within a certain time frame, it lapses. Perhaps that time frame should be made shorter and/or the rules on using it made stricter. So the principle of disincentivising hoarding is a good one. Of course the devil is in the detail.
But I think that a lot of the responses on here forget how this will look to the average Jo, who will give this about 20 seconds and see that Labour are promising to freeze energy prices and think "Good-oh".
That's a good article by brogan, but lets face it, how many voters under 45 have any idea what 'regressing to a statist, socialist past' actually means??
It's a dismal outlook when the fortunes of certain firms depend so much on who is elected. The prime examples I think fall in Labour's ambit. Gordo's uncountable billions on worthless ships that just happen to be built in his constituency is the obvious example. (By the way, we have all now agreed that Gordon Brown is the lowest of the low haven't we?)
The energy companies, who the electorate hate for charging too much?
The Tories taking the side of the energy companies?
The Tory media, who were going to monster him anyway?
I guess some prefer that people rather than prices freeze.
“Air travel and driving costs to soar under Labour plan to curb global warming
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband warned of rising fuel prices as he outlined Labour’s bid to move Britain on to a low carbon economy.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199129/Higher-energy-bills-inevitable-warns-Climate-Change-Secretary-Ed-Miliband.html
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/2296522/labour-reiterates-pledge-to-cut-higher-rate-pensions-tax-relief
That sounds relatively academic, actually - anyone earning that much is likely to be up against the £50K annual limit / £1.25m pot limit anyway. Of course, the fear would be that this is just the first step, and anyway we need to stop fiddling with pensions.