Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The choice between heating and eating: Marf gives her take
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The choice between heating and eating: Marf gives her take
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://tinyurl.com/qgudjdf
However, Dave isn't a particularly good politician or tactician and it seems like number 10 is full of the same lame duck ideas. That they have been outmanoeuvred by John Major is disappointing. Lynton Crosby needs to earn his crust, forget about immigration, concentrate on the issues that affect people's pockets.
Is that your excuse?
I can only imagine the type of person who would allow their child to be operated on by an unqualified surgeon.
And yet here, in Britain today, we have parents queuing up for their children to be educated by a teacher who may be flagrantly without a PGCE.
Monsters.
I don't see the difference really . My daughter (year 4) benefited greatly from having an author come around to her school and taking aside kids who showed an interest in creative writing and mentoring them throughout the year. The author was not a teacher and not qualified but did far more for my daughter's creative writing than the normal English lesson doen by a qualified teacher. A good mix is ideal to me for both primary and secondary schools
Ah, you're one of those nutty pseudo-Keynesian debt deniers I read about? - the debt's going up a bit less fast, it's time to spend, spend! Tsk.
That's a joke. But there's a more serious point. It's a curious feature of today's politics that Conservatives feel they've proved they're jolly austere so can move on to discuss tax cuts, while Labour tries to find ways to do popular things that don't cost money (the price freeze is a good example). The push to bring down the debt (sic) level at all costs has just evaporated.
Nick
The heavy grunt of reducing the debt/deficit has probably passed: at least for the short term.
Sales of bank shares will see the headline debt figure (PSND) and the debt to GDP ratio tumble.
On the deficit, current growth rates are already showing government revenues accelerate - currently 8.3% up on this year - whereas government expenditure growth is below the rate of inflation - currently 2.4% up. Even the troublesome 'variable costs' such as social benefits and interest payments are now under control - up 1.1% and 1.2% respectively.
On the cash side, 'non-recurring' special revenues (principally BoE entrepreneurial income) and asset sales (e.g. Royal Mail, Bank Shares), which do not affect Public Sector Net Borrowing figures for accounting policy reasons, are significantly lowering the Central Government Net Cash Requirement (i.e. the actual amount the government needs to borrow). So actual borrowing needs are considerably lower than the accrued Net Borrowing figures shown in the National Accounts.
The media reported the £1.1 bn reduction in PSNB in September 2013 but the real story was buried deeper in the ONS bulletin:
The central government net cash requirement for the 2013/14 year to date was £39.7 billion, £12.4 billion, or 23.8%, lower than the same period in 2012/13.
And the reductions in net cash requirements are accelerating by the month: September saw an £8.5 bn reduction alone.
[to be continued...]
[... continued]
And, setting aside Central Government borrowing needs, the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement - which includes the intervened banks - is even fancier: a £43.4 bn surplus compared to a £22.6 bn surplus last year.
Now before another richard storms in and cries "foul", I accept that the government is still spending more than it is receiving and therefore there remains an underlying deficit and continued need to borrow. Not though the £1 borrowed for every £4 pounds spent by your Mrs Rochester, but still a worrying £1 borrowed for every £6 spent.
This means that there still needs to be more fiscal consolidation or 'austerity' (i.e. tax rises and spending cuts) to balance the books. But what George is doing by finding money down the back of the sofa is buying himself and the country time and flexibility. The underlying deficit will naturally fall as growth is sustained (tax revenues will rise and variable costs, e.g. out of work benefits etc, will fall). This reduces the requirement for further radical surgery: further tax rises and spending cuts can be gradually applied in gentler steps. And George has much greater flexibility in being able to respond to urgent political needs (e.g. rejigging green taxes on energy bills).
This is "near perfect" master strategy at work. In the circumstances I recommend your immediate defection to the security of a blue future.
Did you suggest that the girl become a hairdresser?
The broader picture here is that the Conservatives appear to have no answer to Miliband's forensic opportunism and statist populism. There are some clever Labour researchers who are taking a forensic approach in identifying aspects of Govt policy on which either Labour can find common cause with the LDs or on which any response from the Govt will result in ministers either defending the unpopular or not readily explicable or playing to "Nasty Tory" stereotypes.
And so we have a proposed freeze on energy prices, which any thoughtful person will see is bad policy, but which requires the Govt to appear to side with energy companies at the same moment as they increase prices; we see criticism of the increase in "unqualified" teachers, which is designed to force the Govt to defend "unqualified" teachers, which is counterintuitive to the casual listener; and we see a manufactured cost of living "crisis" (I am not doubting that some people are finding it very tough, but it is no crisis) which the Cons seem to have accepted because the alternative - arguing that things aren't that bad - would look heartless.
For a long time Cameron has been like a boxer who knows he has the measure of his opponant and has been content to watch the weakling flail around the ring, even at the expense of being caught by the odd stinging jab. But he's been sitting back too long and he's no longer counter-punching with conviction. He needs a change of pace, to get back on the front foot and come out punching. And various other sporting metaphors.
I have sensed for a while that the Tories are waiting for the economic recovery to be well established in the minds of the public before moving into campaign mode. That's an understandable strategy. But while they are waiting Labour are redefining the terms of the next debate. Having badly mismanaged public finances when in power and been comprehensively proven wrong on the economy since the last election, Labour should be easy to pick apart. But they are being ably and cunningly led and the Tories do not seem alert to the danger.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
Details to follow.
"In 2009, Ofgem dropped the investigation into Scottish Power and SSE, the owner of Southern Electric, after concluding that the chances of a successful prosecution were “low”. The companies strongly deny breaking any rules."
Of course education, energy, payday lenders, etc are important strands of peoples' wellbeing and livelihood but on the big 'un, on the economy, and despite knobhead Hutton's protestations, the Cons have won and everyone knows it.
And so all the details about individual policies will be over-ridden, in the ballot box, by the overwhelmingly persuasive question: are we going to let those Labour numpties in to ruin the economy again? To which the answer will be: No.
Expect this theme to emerge shortly from Lynton.
It is to switch though Cameron is rather running out of options quickly!
Even today, a switch to the lowest cost provider would yield more savings than the complete removal of green taxes or any marxist intervention in the market, whether through price controls or windfall tax.
But you miss the purpose of Sir John's intervention. It was not intended to be a recommended strategy but a last resort threat to the energy supply industry on 'co-ordinated' price rises. If all suppliers raise their prices by roughly the same amount, then the prima facie case for there being an uncompetitive industry is strengthened. This both increases the justification for a windfall tax and, more importantly, for a Competition Commission review of industry pricing.
Remember that Sir John only suggested a windfall tax as a means of recovering additional amounts the government may have to pay out this winter in fuel allowances to protect the vulnerable. This linkage is important and should be held in mind as the energy price saga progresses towards its 4th December denouement.
If we are going to impose retrospective taxes on windfalls; i would be keen to see one on turnover (harder to offshore) on internet companies. As well as gaining income for the govt it counters the advantage that these companies have in avoiding UK taxes.
What's more worrying, though, is the pig-ignorance of the original Sky story (see tim's helpful excerpt upthread):
http://news.sky.com/story/1159110/royal-mail-undervalued-by-up-to-6bn
21 banks pitched for the assignment. Most of the content of those pitches will have been stuff about how wonderful they are, but they'll have given a very rough initial valuation, based on limited information in the public domain. Those valuations will have varied a lot - some above, some below the final £4.1bn enterprise value at launch. So what? Picking on the highest out of 21 very early indicative valuations is barmy.
http://news.sky.com/story/1159191/royal-mail-sale-union-demands-cable-quits
So they tried the old approach of "promise them the earth... manage their expectations down once we have the job". Think of it like the reverse of the builder sucking his teeth, shaking his head and saying 'Well, we could do it mate, ... but it'll cost you' when you suggest the smallest change to an agreed contract.
Oh, and would you advocate that the taxpayer should subsidise them next year if profits fall to, say, £1bn? If not, why not? You're presumably not suggesting that investors should invest on the basis that they take all the risk of things going wrong, but don't get the benefit if things go well?
So much more pleasurable to see Storm models rather than politicians.
Is the girl on the right a 'Gypsy' blonde?
As far as Specialist training goes, this should be preceeded by simulator training and be well supervised in order to get good results.
Unqualified teachers can also be trained on the job, and the issue with these is also the quality of supervision. It is noteworthy that the supervision and oversight of the Derby free school identified the problems and remedial measures are being applied. The system works.
The parents of the revised free school may not be happy when the Labour party tries to close it down!
It amazes me Loaded hasn't snapped her up.
Seriously.
As you know, I'm not an anti-business person, but when there is a clear case of companies taking the taxpayer and consumers for a ride (as in the case of energy, and as someone mentioned previously, internet companies) measures should be introduced to combat it. The profit motive exists in energy to spur investment, but in the last few years, investment has decreased as profits have risen, all the while prices have shot up.
Now I'm not in favour of a price freeze as I have said enough times, but it is a policy that strikes at the very heart of the anger people have with energy companies, and if Dave and George think like you then I'm afraid they are on a hiding to nothing, at least on this subject. A windfall tax to fund a fuel duty freeze would be enough to placate consumers and nullify the argument. Energy companies who spend x% of their balance sheet on investment in new energy generation can be exempted. Since so little is spent, I very much doubt there would be many exemptions from the 6 majors.
Fact, not fiction.
http://www.jantoo.com/cartoons/lowres/034/03400108_low.jpg
Louise Joyce Ellman (born 14 November 1945) is a British Labour Co-operative politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Liverpool Riverside since 1997. In parliament she is Chair of the Transport Select Committee and a member of the Liaison Committee.
That's a surprise. Another Labour Party chair of a Commons Select Committee issues tweet in support of Labour Party policy.
17 January 2009: "Miliband told how he believed the Government had taken the right position on Thursday over a third runway [i.e. approving it]"
31 Oct 2011: "Plans for Heathrow’s third runway were scrapped by the Coalition within days of taking office and Ms Eagle said that Labour would not resurrect the proposals if it won the next election. "
23 September 2013: "Labour is not ruling out supporting a bigger Heathrow but it is likely to demand convincing evidence that extra noise and pollution can be sufficiently mitigated."
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/01/ed-miliband-defends-government-over.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8860268/Labour-drops-backing-for-Heathrow-third-runway.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leader-ed-miliband-warns-airports-chief-over-extra-heathrow-runways-8834677.html
Ed Miliband on #Grangemouth: "I've spoken to Unite and I think they understand the gravity of this situation"
Took him long enough to work up that Unite went forth and multiplied job loses big enough to haemorrhage votes in Scotland.
I'm very happy to admit I'm wrong if someone can actually indicate what exactly these excess profits are and how they reach that conclusion, but in the absence of any figures justifying the statement, it just looks like mindless scapegoating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24655826
Now, what was someone saying about pointless Cameron stunts?
I'm concerned about another Heathrow runway, mainly because I'm not sure that it's future-proof enough, that the alleged improvements to the existing infrastructure will not be met, and that within another 10-20 years we will need further expansion on an increasingly constrained site.
But I'm willing to see what the Airports Commission throws up. It's a shame Labour did not start that process earlier ...
Perhaps we need a DNA test.
June of this year.
http://www.uswitch.com/gas-electricity/news/2013/06/20/70-of-consumers-overcharged-on-a-household-bills/
http://news.sky.com/story/1159119/clegg-stokes-twitter-spat-with-lord-sugar
UK and Scottish Governments need to do everything they can to protect jobs and an important national asset at Grangemouth.
Nothing to do with us gov - not our fault, no way Unite screwed things up - OMG Labour will haemorrhage votes across Scotland...Blame SNP, Blame Coalition, Blame Cameron, Blame Clegg...what was that Len - it's a victory for Unite - complete closure of the plant...
Excellent!
"Roger, one assumes that you were taught by unqualified teachers at Millfield back in the day
Is that your excuse?"
I was and yes it is. I could have been a physicist!
We should have a Windfall Tax Commission or a Monopolies We Didn't Catch Until It Was Too Late Commission or something to decide which industries are taking the piss and how much to tax them for it.
This could be rolled out to cover all businesses and individual taxpayers too.
Dave needs an answer, to not have one, the position he is in at the moment, will undo all of the solid work that the government have achieved on the economy. A windfall tax to fund a fuel duty freeze is the logical political and economic answer as it stops inflation rising and helps people with the cost of living. The best part is that announcing it now, after the energy companies have locked in price rises means that there is little to no recourse for them.
Steve Hilton would know the answer but would Lynton Crosby?
And only a few weeks after Ed threatened them with a price cap.
The best thing about it is that Dave is suddenly a man of the people, taxing rich energy companies to help Mondeo man with filling up the tank. It blunts all of the accusations of being remote from people's needs as well since fuel duty relief and keeping the cost of petrol down is one of the biggest concerns for people.
"Why the return of growth doesn't prove that Balls was wrong
The shadow chancellor never said that there would be no recovery, only that it would be painfully slow. And he was right."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/why-return-growth-doesnt-prove-balls-was-wrong
Except......
"Ed Balls: 'Lost decade' for economy looms if George Osborne fails to act
Shadow chancellor warns of Japanese-style stagnation without plan for jobs and growth"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/28/ed-balls-george-osborne-economy
Given the size of our debt and our deficit I think Osborne would like more inflation not less. Hell they're printing enough money these days and that has to wash out in inflation.
As bosses and union leaders resume talks over Grangemouth petrochemical plant, an old sore is in danger of reopening on Friday when the owner is due to publish its report on the initial cause of the dispute: the behaviour of Stephen Deans.
Ineos, the plant’s owner, alleges that Mr Deans – a Grangemouth employee for 20 years, chairman of Unite in Scotland and head of the Falkirk constituency Labour party – made “inappropriate use of company resources” to conduct union business.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5406b854-3ca9-11e3-a8c4-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2ieXZk7H4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk
Take Centrica [British Gas], figures for each of the past four years (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) - this of course includes the non-UK business:
Turnover: £21.9bn, £22.4bn, £22.8bn, £23.9bn
Profit before tax: £1.0bn, £2.8bn, £1.3bn, £2.4bn
Tax (mainly UK corporation tax): £0.3bn, £0.9bn, £0.8bn, £1.2bn
Profit after tax: £0.8bn, £1.9bn, £0.4bn, £1.2bn
Capital expenditure (excluding acquisitions): £0.6bn, £0.5bn, £0.8bn, £1.8bn
I don't recall Ed Miliband, or anyone else, saying shareholders should be compensated for the reduction in profits in 2011, nor is the increase in 2012 anything out of the ordinary. There's no windfall, and the profits are not excessive at all compared with sales or capital employed. What's more, they've been trying to invest more in the UK - in shale gas, for example. They also wanted to invest in gas storage but couldn't justify the investment partly because of regulatory uncertainty.
It's a good, solid, unexciting utility business, making regular but not excessive profits in a highly regulated market and operating internationally, paying a dividend which is well in line with international peers, employing a lot of people in the UK, and paying a lot of tax in the UK.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=CNA:LN&dataset=cashFlow&period=A¤cy=native
As for the price increases, yes of course they rise pretty much together - they're all subject to much the same wholesale prices and taxes, and in a competitive market prices tend to converge for commodity products.
"John Swinney and Alistair Carmichael are giving a clear show of solidarity here, showing that neither the governments in London or Edinburgh have lost hope that the plant can be rescued.
In a brief Q&A session, Swinney says that it's clear that the petrochemical site can only be saved if unions and management can reach a deal. He also says there has been "clear acceptance" of the Ineos plan by Unite.
Asked what they said to Ineos today, Carmichael says that these are not new discussions -- politicians have been talking about the site's future for some time. "
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/24/grangemouth-rescue-talks-chinese-manufacturing-picks-up-live
How different, very different from Lamont, Watson.....
Lab 1.16
SNP 3
LD 50
Any other 50
good question for an intellectual version of Family Fortunes. I can imagine Less Dennis asking it to a teams of Milibands versus Hitchins for example
More information can be found at the link below. Note the questions at the bottom, and ask how accurate the self-reporting on them may be.
http://www.uswitch.com/media-centre/2013/06/seven-in-ten-consumers-overcharged-on-household-bills-in-the-past-year/
Crosby would no doubt describe the tomatoes as Italian c--ts and order chips instead