"Of course, the EU wouldn’t want a trade war. But it would be in a far better position to withstand one than Britain because its economy is six times as big. The EU’s exports to the UK may be large, but they amount to only 2.5 percent of its GDP. Britain’s exports to the EU amount to 14 percent of its GDP. If London tried to play hardball, it would probably be sent packing."
"Asked about Labour's plan for price freeze if it is elected in 2015, Sir John said "Ed Miliband's heart was in the right place but his head has gone walkabout"."
Solid borrowing figures but the stamp duty yield rise must be worrying Carney and then more sensible parts of the Treasury. Annual deficit on course for around £105bn by my maths. A very solid figure and I'm sure Osborne will add the Lloyd's and APF gains to get that figure under £100bn for the December statement.
Major really is an idiot, anyone could see that the government were probably going to announce a 10% windfall tax on energy companies and bung it onto the tax free allowanve or use it to cancel the fuel duty rise as he said in the conference speech. Honestly the vanity of some people is beyond belief. Major has now either taken this policy off the table or just blown it because Labour will sieze it as a reactiveove if it is announced.
As the dispute at Grangemouth escalates and the Scottish Government now seek a possible new buyer, we welcomed Chinese investment into a new generation of UK nuclear power just as energy companies have started pushing up prices. Throw in the focus now on green taxation and how its influencing our energy bills, and we might now be underestimating just how much these combined developments are now undermining Ed Miliband's post GE energy price fix con. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband is now busy trying to grab onto John Major's coattails with a demand for an emergency winter windfall tax on the energy companies profits. What could possible go wrong for our new consumer watch dog?
''The new owners of the Coop Bank could call in Ed and Ed and ask how they intend to repay their indebtedness, failing which call in Labour's overdraft and borrowings.''
According to the Indie, labour actually made money in the last year, and debt and assets are about equal.
Labour isn't really in a weak position as a going concern, but its arguably in a very weak position to spend.
How much new debt will the new bankers (Led by US hedge funds) allow labour to incur for 2015?
''The new owners of the Coop Bank could call in Ed and Ed and ask how they intend to repay their indebtedness, failing which call in Labour's overdraft and borrowings.''
According to the Indie, labour actually made money in the last year, and debt and assets are about equal.
Labour isn't really in a weak position as a going concern, but its arguably in a very weak position to spend.
How much new debt will the new bankers (Led by US hedge funds) allow labour to incur for 2015?
Unlike the Conservative Party , Labour have no indebtedness , as you say they had net Income of around £ 3 million last year and ended the year with £ 5 million in the bank . This is going to continue as long as they remain in opposition and continue to receive masses of Short and other public money . The problems will not come unless they win the next GE and lose most of that Income .
I'm hoping not to have to explain this for much longer, but hands up which PB Tories do not understand the very simple politics of this?
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10's entire energy prices strategy is not to not engage on Ed Mili's ground, talk growth instead. John Major has blown that to pieces.
Which marvellous changes to Offgem did Ed implement in his time as Energy secretary ?
Tomorrows PMQs, Miliband uses Major to whack the out of touch PM round the head repeatedly.
Unless, of course, Major is trailing what may appear in Osborne's Autumn Statement.....
Well if Osborne was considering it it'll look even more reactive now.
Indeed. I think the Tories undestimate how infuriated people are by the energy companies. My husband, who has no time at all for Labour (or the Tories, for that matter), would happily see the Chief Executives of all the energy companies hung, drawn and quartered.......
I think the Tories have played it wrong over the energy companies. Ed Miliband touched a nerve and got the narrative going his way. Well done him, that's what opposition leaders are meant to do.
Instead of attacking and denouncing Ed M in response (leaving themselves open as a party on the side of big business and not the bill payers) the Tories should've looked interested, agreed something needs to be done (after all, bills are extraordinarily high compared to ten years ago) and asked Ed M exactly how he planned to carry out the policy*.
*I have no doubt the policy is unworkable. The energy companies will prevail in the end. I fear big business has government by the throat.
Sir John gave a glimpse of a Tory Party I could almost vote for. Hard-nosed and pragmatic, but not the Nasty Party it has once again become.
It is quite possible that John Major's intervention in the energy prices debate is wholly accidental and motivated by a long suppressed desire for personal revenge.
It is also possible - I would say probable - that his intervention has been cleared in advance by No 10/11 and forms part of a plausibly deniable government tactic.
Cameron's line on the energy prices issue to date has been to encourage customers to switch sources of supply to reduce their bills. Whilst this advice is justifiable on the basis that it encourages a competition drivers in the industry, it needs to deliver more if it is to be effective in countering Miliband price freeze intervention.
And switching can only deliver "more" if some energy suppliers (probably from the big six rather than just the niche or marginal players) decide to pursue market share at the expense of margins by holding down their prices and promoting their service on price differential.
Winners in industry price wars tend to be the operators with the lowest cost base and highest volumes, who are often also the market leaders. In supermarket terms these are "pile it high and sell it cheap" merchants , say Tesco in the 1980s.
Cameron's tactics may be to divide and rule on energy prices: to create the conditions whereby one or more of the big six opt to restrain prices and compete aggressively for market share. In this scenario a plausible but unofficial 'threat' to the industry of a retrospective tax imposte may be just what's needed. And who better to launch such a threat than a former Conservative Prime Minister?
No 10 can welcome the constructive suggestion then and then deny it is a current plan, but the industry will not be fooled. The message is clear: show that you are capable of functioning as players in a competitive market or face the consequences.
Although a government should more properly address a suspected pricing cartel by means of a Competition Commission inquiry, the option of a more immediate and painful tax imposte may be more effective as a short term threat.
"“At the moment I do not see how it can be in any way acceptable that with energy prices rising broadly 4 pc in terms of costs that the price for the consumer should rise by 9 to 10 per cent. “I do not regard that as acceptable at all by the energy companies.”
I'll give you that one, I never imagined for one minute that a British Prime Minister would deliberately withold the evidence he and his Cabinet Secretary had for three months despite knowing it cast serious doubt on the police log.
I don't think anyone on here predicted that a sitting PM could do that.
The funny thing is, that the more one sees of the police's actions, the more one could believe that they themselves withheld CCTV evidence. Is that why you're so desperate to pin any blame on others?
The problem for Unite and wee Eck is that INEOS does not need Grangemouth, but that Grangemouth needs INEOS.
The $43 billion global chemicals business is already investing in the Far East and really just requires petroleum products as a feedstock for its chemical business (its core business). If importing those petroleum products is cheaper than making them and gives INEOS more flexibility then that is what they will do.
Winners in industry price wars tend to be the operators with the lowest cost base and highest volumes, who are often also the market leaders. In supermarket terms these are "pile it high and sell it cheap" merchants , say Tesco in the 1980s.
The problem is that the process of signing up new customers and arranging for them to switch from their previous supplier is expensive for the energy companies, so any energy company going for market share will massively increase their cost base.
This is the opposite to the idealised market scenario, where going for market share leads to a virtuous circle of improved efficiency due to larger scale, enabling lower prices, increasing the advantage over competitors.
Sir John gave a glimpse of a Tory Party I could almost vote for. Hard-nosed and pragmatic, but not the Nasty Party it has once again become.
Well done, Sir John, Well done, indeed.
[incoherent twaddle clipped]
What about the wider point though.
Why have your Party become such a bunch of thoroughly unpleasant Rightwing ideologue arseholes that can't win elections, instead of a decent and almost likeable centrist pragmatist party that might?
I'll give you that one, I never imagined for one minute that a British Prime Minister would deliberately withold the evidence he and his Cabinet Secretary had for three months despite knowing it cast serious doubt on the police log.
I don't think anyone on here predicted that a sitting PM could do that.
The funny thing is, that the more one see's how the police acted, the more one could believe that they themselves witheld CCTV evidence. Is that what you're so desperate to pin any blame on others?
They could hardly withhold the CCTV that Cameron and Heywood possessed could they. But you're right to equate the two, both have obstructed deliberately it seems.
You really think CCTV at such a sensitive site is recorded on an old VHS machine in Dave's office, and not across servers at multiple sites elsewhere ? Ha Ha Ha.
Worth noting that this announcement will occur before PMQ's tomorrow. And while Ed Miliband tweets about Major's press gallery appearance, I cannot find him making any reference to the very worrying developments at Grangemouth, or the dispute between INEOS and Unite. The Falkirk Labour/Unite scandal continues to have ramifications, and the current Leader of the Labour party remains silent.
"Operator Ineos will tell workers at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) on Wednesday if the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland will close down permanently, it said in a statement."
Dr the Honourable Tristram I've got a PhD from Cambridge you know Hunt has had his homework marked by Fact Check:
"In 2010, 2,200 teachers at these schools were unqualified. In 2012, 5,300 were the same (a '141%' increase).
But these schools have greatly increased in number in recent years. In 2010 they employed 22,800 FTE teachers between them. In 2012 they employed all of 121,000 FTE teachers. So as a proportion of all FTE teachers in these schools, the prevalence of unqualified FTE teachers has actually shrunk from 10% in 2010 to 4.4% in 2012.
So the shadow education secretary's apparently dramatic increase looks less impressive when you consider what's really going on."
Worth noting that this announcement will occur before PMQ's tomorrow. And while Ed Miliband tweets about Major's press gallery appearance, I cannot find him making any reference to the very worrying developments at Grangemouth, or the dispute between INEOS and Unite. The Falkirk Labour/Unite scandal continues to have ramifications, and the current Leader of the Labour party remains silent.
"Operator Ineos will tell workers at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) on Wednesday if the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland will close down permanently, it said in a statement."
Worth noting that this announcement will occur before PMQ's tomorrow. And while Ed Miliband tweets about Major's press gallery appearance, I cannot find him making any reference to the very worrying developments at Grangemouth, or the dispute between INEOS and Unite. The Falkirk Labour/Unite scandal continues to have ramifications, and the current Leader of the Labour party remains silent.
"Operator Ineos will tell workers at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) on Wednesday if the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland will close down permanently, it said in a statement."
Alex Forrest @_alexforrest Apparently McDonald's involvement in promoting local elex in Denmark to prevent 'low' turnout of 2009 - 65.8%! Imagine so high in UK.
Regular readers may recall that there was some discussion of the Central England Temperature (CET) earlier in the year, following the remarkably cold start to the year, particularly in March. However, since July the weather has tended to be a lot warmer than usual, and the anomaly for the year to date is now a mere -0.09C.
Note: In July I began to knit a scarf with the colours determined by each days CET value, so I have a particular interest.
Per Guardian: Iain Martin says Cameron got Major to make comments re energy companies.
I seem to recall someone in the know saying a few years ago that Cameron literally speaks to Major every 2 or 3 days - he consults Major on everything of significance.
And never forget it was Major who destroyed Brown in 2007 when Brown went to Afghanistan during the Conservative Conference - ultimately Cameron is only PM because of Major.
Worth noting that this announcement will occur before PMQ's tomorrow. And while Ed Miliband tweets about Major's press gallery appearance, I cannot find him making any reference to the very worrying developments at Grangemouth, or the dispute between INEOS and Unite. The Falkirk Labour/Unite scandal continues to have ramifications, and the current Leader of the Labour party remains silent.
"Operator Ineos will tell workers at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) on Wednesday if the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland will close down permanently, it said in a statement."
"Drew Smith MSP, the shadow justice secretary, was on the picket line at Grangemouth, along with senior Edinburgh Labour councillor Cammy Day.
Shadow health secretary Neil Findlay also tweeted his support."
You think Cameron wants to position himself with a Billionaire on a yacht who has just closed an oil refinery?
Only in PB Toryworld would that make sense.
So its not Unite that's closed the refinery?
Ed supports the strike?
Oh yes, 'Falkirk is a non-story'!
Cameron and Billionaire, even the chinless fops aren't that stupid.
Labour in favour of the strike - evidently they are that stupid.
"Another MP said: “Lamont has lost control of her front bench and is not willing to hold a sensible line. I imagine Ed Miliband will not be best pleased, given that as a rule at Westminster we don’t support strikes.”
Kind of proves my earlier point. The modern Tory Party always pick the wrong fights, stand up for the wrong people, look nasty. It needn't be that way, as Sir John has reminded us.
Kind of proves my earlier point. The modern Tory Party always pick the wrong fights, stand up for the wrong people, look nasty. It needn't be that way, as Sir John has reminded us.
Sheer hatred of anything to do with trade unionists, it's Pavlovian and predictable
But how many votes could be in it for a modern Tory Party that didn't despise and consistently attack trade unions (amongst many other things). They've gone mad.
Kind of proves my earlier point. The modern Tory Party always pick the wrong fights, stand up for the wrong people, look nasty. It needn't be that way, as Sir John has reminded us.
Sheer hatred of anything to do with trade unionists, it's Pavlovian and predictable
Since PetroChina own half the refinery, you can have great fun blaming 'Them Chinese' if it's shut down permanently.
Because its potentially a serious infrastructure issue which may have ramifications for the economy, the Dunfermline by-election and the Scottish independence debate?
Oh, you're Labour - so none of that matters - just narrow party advantage and protection of Unite who may have just lost 1,300 members their jobs....
If there is an announcement by INEOS that sees Grangemouth shut down completely, its going to be very bad news for Scotland. But it really does leave Ed Miliband in a very sticky wicket at PMQ's. If he raises the issue, it could rebound on him if he takes the Unite line, or fails to do so. It also runs the risk of the whole Labour/Falkirk/Unite scandal coming up. On the other hand, a failure by Ed Miliband to raise the issue if he is intent on banging on about energy prices and scoring petty points using Major would look terrible for him with Unite and Scottish Labour supporters. And if its left to a Scottish backbench Labour MP to raise the issue, then it makes Ed Miliband look very cowardly and very weak as result.
Worth noting that this announcement will occur before PMQ's tomorrow. And while Ed Miliband tweets about Major's press gallery appearance, I cannot find him making any reference to the very worrying developments at Grangemouth, or the dispute between INEOS and Unite. The Falkirk Labour/Unite scandal continues to have ramifications, and the current Leader of the Labour party remains silent.
"Operator Ineos will tell workers at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) on Wednesday if the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland will close down permanently, it said in a statement."
Worth noting that this announcement will occur before PMQ's tomorrow. And while Ed Miliband tweets about Major's press gallery appearance, I cannot find him making any reference to the very worrying developments at Grangemouth, or the dispute between INEOS and Unite. The Falkirk Labour/Unite scandal continues to have ramifications, and the current Leader of the Labour party remains silent.
"Operator Ineos will tell workers at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) on Wednesday if the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland will close down permanently, it said in a statement."
@Phil-Us-Blues-ROberts-Troll-LoL - You do realize that the 'nasty party' comments by May referred to the perception by some of the last Conservative (ie John Major's) government 1992-97?
"“When David Miliband made his suggestions about energy some weeks ago…” he began. “Oh dear, what a bad mistake to make… Well, whichever Miliband it is. I think the latest incarnation is Ed…” The Labour leader’s heart was “in the right place”, Sir John conceded with damning gentleness, but “his head has gone walkabout”.
Unfair to blame Unite at Grangemouth. It's tjheir job to negotiate on behalf of the members
Yes, but it's not their job to overplay their hand with catastrophic effects for their members and the local (indeed wider) economy, especially since the initial row was about Falkirk for reasons which will only be comprehensible to those knowledgeable about the Byzantine shenanigans of Scottish Labour and union politics.
Whether they have overplayed their hand or not remains to be seen, but it's looking pretty dangerous from the outside.
Worth noting that this announcement will occur before PMQ's tomorrow. And while Ed Miliband tweets about Major's press gallery appearance, I cannot find him making any reference to the very worrying developments at Grangemouth, or the dispute between INEOS and Unite. The Falkirk Labour/Unite scandal continues to have ramifications, and the current Leader of the Labour party remains silent.
"Operator Ineos will tell workers at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) on Wednesday if the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland will close down permanently, it said in a statement."
You may be right on this one - it certainly potentially blunts Miliband's attack on energy, which otherwise would have been open season given Major's intervention today. That said Miliband tends to attack better in a packed 18-yard box than in front of an open goal, so we shall see.
Winners in industry price wars tend to be the operators with the lowest cost base and highest volumes, who are often also the market leaders. In supermarket terms these are "pile it high and sell it cheap" merchants , say Tesco in the 1980s.
The problem is that the process of signing up new customers and arranging for them to switch from their previous supplier is expensive for the energy companies, so any energy company going for market share will massively increase their cost base.
This is the opposite to the idealised market scenario, where going for market share leads to a virtuous circle of improved efficiency due to larger scale, enabling lower prices, increasing the advantage over competitors.
You are right that customer acquisition costs will be a major factor in deciding a price strategy but they will not necessarily add to the permanent cost base. Provided switching doesn't become so widespread and frequent that suppliers are left with no chance of recovering acquisition costs in the subsequent supply of service, price competition to increase market share will remain viable.
The domestic energy supply market will never be perfect as the commodity it sells is subject to a whole chain of interventions by governments and the suppliers only have control over around 40% of the end user price. But that doesn't mean governments shouldn't try to optimise free market competition where it can.
I am very much in favour of the coalition government referring the industry to the Competition Commission as this is the proper forum and process for resolving prima facie concerns or allegations that the market is not functioning competitively.
In the interim the best course of action for a government is to encourage as much competition as possible, which makes Cameron pushing the switching option the right tactic for current circumstances.
"On Tony Blair: 'After politics I had ambitions, I had hoped given what had happened during my years in Downing Street, to be appointed a peace envoy to Brussels. Sadly I forgot to invade Europe, and so the invitation never came
"The two sides have been embroiled in a bitter dispute for weeks, initially over the treatment of Unite convenor Stephen Deans, who was involved in the row over a selection of a Labour candidate in Falkirk, where he is chairman of the constituency party.
He was suspended, then reinstated, and is facing an internal investigation, which is due to report on Friday.
The dispute has since widened to the future of the entire site, with Ineos warning it will close without fresh investment and changes to pensions and other terms and conditions."
"On Tony Blair: 'After politics I had ambitions, I had hoped given what had happened during my years in Downing Street, to be appointed a peace envoy to Brussels. Sadly I forgot to invade Europe, and so the invitation never came
@BBCNormanS: Labour reject Sir John Major's call for a windfall tax on the energy companies
Oh really? That doesn't make sense. It rather blunts any attacks Ed can make tomorrow on energy. Dave can intimate he is looking at John Major's fine suggestion of a windfall tax to help fund the fuel duty freeze "to help with the cost of living". Seems like a strange decision to reject something Labour originally came up with in the 90's.
Sir John is still struggling to understand that the anti-Tory vote is more intelligently organised than the pro Tory one? Diddums.
Regardless of allegiances, constituencies should be roughly equal in size. I assume the boundary commission will get another shot at it after the next election.
A Conservative MP told a one-legged drug addict in a wheelchair begging outside Parliament to 'get a job'
Alan Bastard is back
As was pointed out to you last night what actually happened was he offered help to get the man training. Why lie? There's enough stuff from both sides to criticize legitimately, without lying and making yourself look silly.
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
Like unions my job is to advise people in their disputes. Like Unions that will sometimes involve giving people advice that they don't really want to hear. Like Unions it is part of my job to make sure that my interests and those of my clients do not conflict.
It appears that the dispute that has brought matters to a head started because disciplinary action was taken against a union official who was seeking to become the Parliamentary candidate for Falkirk and wanted to work on this on company time using company facilities.
Even when these parties were dragged into the court of public opinion on the media the union kept going on about this official rather than the crisis the plant employing 1300 of their members was facing.
It is entirely possible that things would have come to this anyway. There clearly are major economic issues at Grangemouth and it is by no means obvious that they are solveable. But the idiocy of the Union taking people out on strike and causing a shut down of complex plant in such a scenario where one of their officials had been misbehaving is hard to forgive. They had a duty to speak truth to their members and try and persuade them what was possible in the same way as the same union did so successfully in the car industry a few years ago.
Unions are not wicked but some people are stupid. This is a major economic blow for Scotland and they have done not nearly enough to try and avoid it. As I say, it may have happened anyway but they have been a part of the problem, not a part of any solution.
OT When Dave Lee Travis is found not guilty I hope he can find someone to sue the ass off. Unfortunately I don't think there will be anyone. The police and assorted ne'er do wells will just slip back under the floorboards
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
So you are happy for people to pay high tax, just not you. Your income is beyond the dreams of the vast majority of the UK population, yet you still whine. What would you be like if you where actually as hard done by as you think you are?
The windfall tax is going to be partially spent in setting up a gov.uk "comment is free" type blog where you can whine about marginal tax rates forever and a day.... as can tim
Noone will give a monkeys toss on the new website, just as they don't when you whine about it on PB.
"Ed Miliband has put Labour on notice for a “big fight” with Fleet Street ahead of the general election, telling supporters that the newspapers are “less powerful now than they were”...."
The windfall tax is going to be partially spent in setting up a gov.uk "comment is free" type blog where you can whine about marginal tax rates forever and a day.... as can tim
Noone will give a monkeys toss on the new website, just as they don't when you whine about it on PB.
You might want to direct that post at Antifrank - who brought the topic up. Saddened asked me a direct question so I did him the courtesy of answering it.
Strange, too, that the party of Mrs T no longer cares about the pound in people's pockets.
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
Raymond Blanc can open up a food bank for you.
We're still waiting for your intellectual justification for 66% marginal rates. Go ahead
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
So you are happy for people to pay high tax, just not you. Your income is beyond the dreams of the vast majority of the UK population, yet you still whine. What would you be like if you where actually as hard done by as you think you are?
Sounds like the politics of envy - families in London on our income are not rich, nothing like it. And marginal rates of 60-70p are a massive disincentive to work harder, as you would know if you understood the first thing about economics.
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
On your last quid.
But he pays more tax £ and probably % wise than you.
The windfall tax is going to be partially spent in setting up a gov.uk "comment is free" type blog where you can whine about marginal tax rates forever and a day.... as can tim
Noone will give a monkeys toss on the new website, just as they don't when you whine about it on PB.
You might want to direct that post at Antifrank - who brought the topic up. Saddened asked me a direct question so I did him the courtesy of answering it.
Strange, too, that the party of Mrs T no longer cares about the pound in people's pockets.
It's amazing to me that I can remain so angry about certain things without getting burned out as I normally would, but this plebgate stuff just goes on and on, it's worse than the energy companies - at least we expect them to screw us over.
A great quote:
But the Police and Crime Commissioner for one of the forces concerned accused friends of the ex-minister of "baying for blood" over the affair.
Warwickshire PCC Ron Ball said Mr Mitchell and his supporters should have accepted the Police Federation's apology.
Yes indeed, why would anyone not think a mere apology, which was dragged out after months and months and doesn't even seem particularly credible, was enough? Oh wait, either they've apologised for accidentally ensuring (or at the least contributing to the event) that he got fired by 'misrepresenting' his comments and calling for him to resign, or they've yet to admit what seems bleeding obvious, that several officers out and out lied and called on him to resign, because they had an ax to grind with the government (the last bit is conjecture, admittedly, but the balls out lying is provably correct, whatever their motivation for doing so).
Even if they 'had not planned to mislead the public' they bloody well did do so, which directly contributed to a senior government figure losing his job! To make a deliberately silly comparison, If someone accidentally handballs a ball on the line and prevents a goal, it should still be a penalty if the referee spots it happening; intentions aside, it has a major impact on the game and is against the rules.
Bobajob, I understand its called leftieswhine.gov.uk.
I hope you enjoy it. Did you complain when Gordon took away the 10p band(conned the elec torate) or sold our gold for two mites or when Prezza wasted billions whilst playing croquet and shagging one of his staff, if you didn't, leftieswhine.gov.uk is just for you.
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
So you are happy for people to pay high tax, just not you. Your income is beyond the dreams of the vast majority of the UK population, yet you still whine. What would you be like if you where actually as hard done by as you think you are?
Sounds like the politics of envy - families in London on our income are not rich, nothing like it. And marginal rates of 60-70p are a massive disincentive to work harder, as you would know if you understood the first thing about economics.
what's your opinion on the fifty pence top tax rate? Is it a good thing to have been dropped?
Contrast Eds balls of steel with the cowering posh lads grovelling to the powerful in all areas of British life
(that's the subtext anyway)
I don't want politicians fighting with the press. Nor do I want them toadying to it. I want politicians who accept and understand that in a liberal democracy free speech is essential and that that will mean that the press will write things which they will not like.
What we have now are politicians who - either through appeasement or bullying/regulation - are seeking to control the press and what they say. Neither are good.
Labour became insanely authoritarian during its time in government. It shows no sign - under Milliband - of understanding why that was a bad thing, let alone changing. This, for me anyway, is one reason why I cannot bring myself to vote Labour. A more genuinely liberal Labour party might well get my vote. But we do not have - alas - such a Labour party.
As for John Major, what fun to read his speech. I particularly liked this phrase: "politicians should protect people not institutions". That should be tattoo'ed on the forehead of every actual and aspiring politician.
What a wonderful idea! We could send them round leafy suburbs emblazoned with the words:
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
"Two homes - no kids? Make your sanctimony pay!" (No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
Shouldn't someone of the left such as yourself be happy about progressive taxation? You know those who have more pay more to help the poor. Or is higher tax only progressive when paid by someone else?
It's regressive - I pay a substantially higher rate than billionaires (and Antifrank)
Raymond Blanc can open up a food bank for you.
We're still waiting for your intellectual justification for 66% marginal rates. Go ahead
Shouldn't you be asking Bobajob out for dinner?
Probably more fruitful than expecting any sort of substantive post from you.
Why do you think 66% marginal rates are a good thing, in your own words
I wish I was paying a 66% marginal tax rate , I would be much wealthier and better off than I am now !!!
"I don't know. But I do know that all those people who complained about them (the go home vans) have multiplied the reach of the original advertising many times."
It was not an advertising campaign but a PR one and though it multiplied the exposure of the message which in an ad campaign would be a benefit as a PR campaign it was a disaster .
It actually achieved the unusual result of diminishing the reputation of those it was meant to enhance. Namely the Tory Party and made them look mean nasty and petty.
Had it been the work of a reputable PR company like Shandwick you wouldn't be able to move for the bodies of sacked personnel
Comments
Indeed.
Major really is an idiot, anyone could see that the government were probably going to announce a 10% windfall tax on energy companies and bung it onto the tax free allowanve or use it to cancel the fuel duty rise as he said in the conference speech. Honestly the vanity of some people is beyond belief. Major has now either taken this policy off the table or just blown it because Labour will sieze it as a reactiveove if it is announced.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 12m
Major says Miliband is out of his depth: "his heart is in the right place, but not his head"
According to the Indie, labour actually made money in the last year, and debt and assets are about equal.
Labour isn't really in a weak position as a going concern, but its arguably in a very weak position to spend.
How much new debt will the new bankers (Led by US hedge funds) allow labour to incur for 2015?
Double dip
deficit down 11/12
deficit down 12/13
4 wrongs don;t make a right..
Its the stinking hypocrisy that is objectionable.
Instead of attacking and denouncing Ed M in response (leaving themselves open as a party on the side of big business and not the bill payers) the Tories should've looked interested, agreed something needs to be done (after all, bills are extraordinarily high compared to ten years ago) and asked Ed M exactly how he planned to carry out the policy*.
*I have no doubt the policy is unworkable. The energy companies will prevail in the end. I fear big business has government by the throat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24625559
Does he mean ex SPADS, PPE graduates, ex researchers, and others who climbed the greasy pole in their late 20s?
It is also possible - I would say probable - that his intervention has been cleared in advance by No 10/11 and forms part of a plausibly deniable government tactic.
Cameron's line on the energy prices issue to date has been to encourage customers to switch sources of supply to reduce their bills. Whilst this advice is justifiable on the basis that it encourages a competition drivers in the industry, it needs to deliver more if it is to be effective in countering Miliband price freeze intervention.
And switching can only deliver "more" if some energy suppliers (probably from the big six rather than just the niche or marginal players) decide to pursue market share at the expense of margins by holding down their prices and promoting their service on price differential.
Winners in industry price wars tend to be the operators with the lowest cost base and highest volumes, who are often also the market leaders. In supermarket terms these are "pile it high and sell it cheap" merchants , say Tesco in the 1980s.
Cameron's tactics may be to divide and rule on energy prices: to create the conditions whereby one or more of the big six opt to restrain prices and compete aggressively for market share. In this scenario a plausible but unofficial 'threat' to the industry of a retrospective tax imposte may be just what's needed. And who better to launch such a threat than a former Conservative Prime Minister?
No 10 can welcome the constructive suggestion then and then deny it is a current plan, but the industry will not be fooled. The message is clear: show that you are capable of functioning as players in a competitive market or face the consequences.
Although a government should more properly address a suspected pricing cartel by means of a Competition Commission inquiry, the option of a more immediate and painful tax imposte may be more effective as a short term threat.
Well done, Sir John, Well done, indeed.
Hur hur hur
Titter.
The funny thing is, that the more one sees of the police's actions, the more one could believe that they themselves withheld CCTV evidence. Is that why you're so desperate to pin any blame on others?
The problem for Unite and wee Eck is that INEOS does not need Grangemouth, but that Grangemouth needs INEOS.
The $43 billion global chemicals business is already investing in the Far East and really just requires petroleum products as a feedstock for its chemical business (its core business). If importing those petroleum products is cheaper than making them and gives INEOS more flexibility then that is what they will do.
This is the opposite to the idealised market scenario, where going for market share leads to a virtuous circle of improved efficiency due to larger scale, enabling lower prices, increasing the advantage over competitors.
What about the wider point though.
Why have your Party become such a bunch of thoroughly unpleasant Rightwing ideologue arseholes that can't win elections, instead of a decent and almost likeable centrist pragmatist party that might?
You posted on here that you tried to place a bet on this selection : Gove next out of the cabinet.
Declare your interest.
The Scotsman - Grangemouth: Labour row reheated by dispute
Dr the Honourable Tristram I've got a PhD from Cambridge you know Hunt
has had his homework marked by Fact Check:
"In 2010, 2,200 teachers at these schools were unqualified. In 2012, 5,300 were the same (a '141%' increase).
But these schools have greatly increased in number in recent years. In 2010 they employed 22,800 FTE teachers between them. In 2012 they employed all of 121,000 FTE teachers. So as a proportion of all FTE teachers in these schools, the prevalence of unqualified FTE teachers has actually shrunk from 10% in 2010 to 4.4% in 2012.
So the shadow education secretary's apparently dramatic increase looks less impressive when you consider what's really going on."
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/unqualified_teachers_and_free_schools-29246
"Drew Smith MSP, the shadow justice secretary, was on the picket line at Grangemouth, along with senior Edinburgh Labour councillor Cammy Day.
Shadow health secretary Neil Findlay also tweeted his support."
Ed supports the strike?
Oh yes, 'Falkirk is a non-story'!
Apparently McDonald's involvement in promoting local elex in Denmark to prevent 'low' turnout of 2009 - 65.8%! Imagine so high in UK.
Note: In July I began to knit a scarf with the colours determined by each days CET value, so I have a particular interest.
I seem to recall someone in the know saying a few years ago that Cameron literally speaks to Major every 2 or 3 days - he consults Major on everything of significance.
And never forget it was Major who destroyed Brown in 2007 when Brown went to Afghanistan during the Conservative Conference - ultimately Cameron is only PM because of Major.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/22/bbcs-lord-patten-and-tony-hall-questioned-by-culture-committee-politics-live-blog
"Another MP said: “Lamont has lost control of her front bench and is not willing to hold a sensible line. I imagine Ed Miliband will not be best pleased, given that as a rule at Westminster we don’t support strikes.”
Remember what happened three weeks ago when YouGov included Farage in the list of "Best PM" options. He got 9% and Cameron slipped 8.
I thought they were 'all up' for such things.
EDIT:
Beaten by Mike
It won't damage Labour.
Kind of proves my earlier point. The modern Tory Party always pick the wrong fights, stand up for the wrong people, look nasty. It needn't be that way, as Sir John has reminded us.
Or something.
Thanks. Funnily enough I was mulling such a strategy this morning.
Oh, you're Labour - so none of that matters - just narrow party advantage and protection of Unite who may have just lost 1,300 members their jobs....
Or they do support the strike.....which would be interesting....
Many of the workers are against the company's offer, and they must know what's at stake.
"“When David Miliband made his suggestions about energy some weeks ago…” he began. “Oh dear, what a bad mistake to make… Well, whichever Miliband it is. I think the latest incarnation is Ed…” The Labour leader’s heart was “in the right place”, Sir John conceded with damning gentleness, but “his head has gone walkabout”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10397484/Sketch-Sir-John-Major-from-grey-to-red.html
They gave out the bullets....
Whether they have overplayed their hand or not remains to be seen, but it's looking pretty dangerous from the outside.
The domestic energy supply market will never be perfect as the commodity it sells is subject to a whole chain of interventions by governments and the suppliers only have control over around 40% of the end user price. But that doesn't mean governments shouldn't try to optimise free market competition where it can.
I am very much in favour of the coalition government referring the industry to the Competition Commission as this is the proper forum and process for resolving prima facie concerns or allegations that the market is not functioning competitively.
In the interim the best course of action for a government is to encourage as much competition as possible, which makes Cameron pushing the switching option the right tactic for current circumstances.
"On Tony Blair: 'After politics I had ambitions, I had hoped given what had happened during my years in Downing Street, to be appointed a peace envoy to Brussels. Sadly I forgot to invade Europe, and so the invitation never came
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2471752/John-Major-Osborne-impose-emergency-tax-energy-firms-help-people-stay-warm-winter.html#ixzz2iTDRPsoe
"The two sides have been embroiled in a bitter dispute for weeks, initially over the treatment of Unite convenor Stephen Deans, who was involved in the row over a selection of a Labour candidate in Falkirk, where he is chairman of the constituency party.
He was suspended, then reinstated, and is facing an internal investigation, which is due to report on Friday.
The dispute has since widened to the future of the entire site, with Ineos warning it will close without fresh investment and changes to pensions and other terms and conditions."
"And partly of course this is the constituency boundaries. They are frankly an anti-democratic disgrace.
In 1997 – a date I recall very well – the Tories got 31 per cent of the vote and 165 seats.
In 2010, Labour got 29 per cent of the vote and 258 seats.
Fewer votes, and 93 more seats.
Frankly that’s more like Tammany Hall than a functioning democracy.
And Labour have feasted of this parody for five elections, and in a fit of the sulks the Liberal Democrats have vote to extend it."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2471752/John-Major-Osborne-impose-emergency-tax-energy-firms-help-people-stay-warm-winter.html#ixzz2iTDpk79b
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/labours-unwise-unquestioning-support-of-unite-grangemouth-strike/
He doesn't seem to be happy about Unite's role, and he is hardly a friend of the Tories.
"MIDDLE CLASS PARENTS - STOP WHINGING NOW"
Alan Bastard is back
I'm sure he's been mentioned in despatches here in the past...
(No win, no fee corporate lawyers)
*funding Ozzy's latest mad cap scheme
It appears that the dispute that has brought matters to a head started because disciplinary action was taken against a union official who was seeking to become the Parliamentary candidate for Falkirk and wanted to work on this on company time using company facilities.
Even when these parties were dragged into the court of public opinion on the media the union kept going on about this official rather than the crisis the plant employing 1300 of their members was facing.
It is entirely possible that things would have come to this anyway. There clearly are major economic issues at Grangemouth and it is by no means obvious that they are solveable. But the idiocy of the Union taking people out on strike and causing a shut down of complex plant in such a scenario where one of their officials had been misbehaving is hard to forgive. They had a duty to speak truth to their members and try and persuade them what was possible in the same way as the same union did so successfully in the car industry a few years ago.
Unions are not wicked but some people are stupid. This is a major economic blow for Scotland and they have done not nearly enough to try and avoid it. As I say, it may have happened anyway but they have been a part of the problem, not a part of any solution.
I have always thought of Major as a dumb commie wannabe and now the proof.
Gawd 'elp us all.
The windfall tax is going to be partially spent in setting up a gov.uk "comment is free" type blog where you can whine about marginal tax rates forever and a day.... as can tim
Noone will give a monkeys toss on the new website, just as they don't when you whine about it on PB.
"Ed Miliband has put Labour on notice for a “big fight” with Fleet Street ahead of the general election, telling supporters that the newspapers are “less powerful now than they were”...."
Strange, too, that the party of Mrs T no longer cares about the pound in people's pockets.
On your last quid.
But he pays more tax £ and probably % wise than you.
Dry your eyes.
A great quote:
But the Police and Crime Commissioner for one of the forces concerned accused friends of the ex-minister of "baying for blood" over the affair.
Warwickshire PCC Ron Ball said Mr Mitchell and his supporters should have accepted the Police Federation's apology.
Yes indeed, why would anyone not think a mere apology, which was dragged out after months and months and doesn't even seem particularly credible, was enough? Oh wait, either they've apologised for accidentally ensuring (or at the least contributing to the event) that he got fired by 'misrepresenting' his comments and calling for him to resign, or they've yet to admit what seems bleeding obvious, that several officers out and out lied and called on him to resign, because they had an ax to grind with the government (the last bit is conjecture, admittedly, but the balls out lying is provably correct, whatever their motivation for doing so).
Even if they 'had not planned to mislead the public' they bloody well did do so, which directly contributed to a senior government figure losing his job! To make a deliberately silly comparison, If someone accidentally handballs a ball on the line and prevents a goal, it should still be a penalty if the referee spots it happening; intentions aside, it has a major impact on the game and is against the rules.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24627319
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24615491
I hope you enjoy it. Did you complain when Gordon took away the 10p band(conned the elec torate) or sold our gold for two mites or when Prezza wasted billions whilst playing croquet and shagging one of his staff, if you didn't, leftieswhine.gov.uk is just for you.
What we have now are politicians who - either through appeasement or bullying/regulation - are seeking to control the press and what they say. Neither are good.
Labour became insanely authoritarian during its time in government. It shows no sign - under Milliband - of understanding why that was a bad thing, let alone changing. This, for me anyway, is one reason why I cannot bring myself to vote Labour. A more genuinely liberal Labour party might well get my vote. But we do not have - alas - such a Labour party.
As for John Major, what fun to read his speech. I particularly liked this phrase: "politicians should protect people not institutions". That should be tattoo'ed on the forehead of every actual and aspiring politician.
"I don't know. But I do know that all those people who complained about them (the go home vans) have multiplied the reach of the original advertising many times."
It was not an advertising campaign but a PR one and though it multiplied the exposure of the message which in an ad campaign would be a benefit as a PR campaign it was a disaster .
It actually achieved the unusual result of diminishing the reputation of those it was meant to enhance. Namely the Tory Party and made them look mean nasty and petty.
Had it been the work of a reputable PR company like Shandwick you wouldn't be able to move for the bodies of sacked personnel