Origin North West

This week saw three announcements from the coalition. One that seemed to be badly handled, one that doesn’t offer obvious benefits and one  that seems understandable and reasonable. 

Building Schools for the Future has laudable ideals even if the schools seem over designed and therefore expensive. In reality this programme was almost certainly going to get some cut backs or delays. However it seems the list of schools that are to be cut or delayed, which presumably was put together by a long standing team, contained errors and seems to have been presented as a cancellation when in reality it is presumably more of a delay or perhaps subject to other change. Such as the change enabling new schools started by new entrants or academies could make this programme redundant. Can’t say it is intuitively fully convincing, although at the moment the coalition is to be supported.

Then there is the change to the NHS which seems to imply that GPs are going to control 80% of the  budget. It will be interesting to see how this works as it’s hard to imagine how my GP will manage this as it’s almost impossible to see him. It would be a surprise if he has such foresight and oversight. Again the coalition is to be supported blindly for now.

Finally it was announced that private sector pensions will be subject to regulation that makes inflation link to the CPI rather than the RPI. This has the effect of reducing the increases and over a long period of time, say for a deferred pension, could be substantial. Yet in principle this is a good move. Pensioners don’t pay mortgages and although council tax is paid it is a fairly known cost. It also takes some of the pressure off pension schemes which are gradually disappearing. So overall it seems a reasonable move and might mean some people are able to retain their final salary schemes.

The government is expected to announce, on Tuesday, a referendum on using the Alternative Voting System.  This is a key part of the Coalition agreement although not as far as the Proportional Representation System the LibDems want.

At the moment there are a number of points that need clarifying and then there are political differences that will continue to the end. The main positions being that basically the LibDems favour this but the bigger parties aren’t keen.  In fact the Conservatives are quite anti.

Then there is the early / late date. The LibDems want it early to get something out of the coalition because some are feeling a bit tender about it. The Conservatives want it late as it keeps the LibDems on-side longer.

The actual date: It is proposed to hold it on the same date as local and Scottish / Welsh elections as it makes it easier for voters. On the other hand it makes it more complicated and could cause confusion. Also not everywhere has an election on that date so some places will only have a referendum vote which might skew turn-out.

Also there is the threshold to be established. The threshold to pass a change in a referendum could be set to a minimum number of voters that would make it most unlikely to pass.

Another change in the Conservative manifesto was to reduce the number of MP’s.  Labour are calling this Gerrymandering or manipulation of boundaries to your own advantage. Conveniently forgetting that for the last 40 years Labour MP’s have had far smaller seats than other parties and are over-represented.

In political terms the Labour Party can sense that if the LibDems don’t win this referendum they are going to be very unhappy. So they have a motive to spoil it regardless of whether their own manifesto said reform of the voting system was a priority.  Reminds me of the EU referendum in the 1970’s when Labour supported joining until the Conservatives actually were the ones who put us in. Then they invented spurious reasons to oppose the government for party political reasons rather than what was best for the country.

At some point maybe we’ll get a crash course in Alternative Voting.  Seems like you have to prioritise your favourite politicians and I’d think that beyond many voters.

Alternative Voting seems like a good scheme. It keeps MP’s linked to seats.  Gives MP’s a mandate to always say they represent more than half their voters.  Not too concerned about how many MP’s there are although having equally sized seats sounds a good idea.

In the referendum it would be better to seperate it from other elections to give everywhere an equal chance. Then that a turn out of say 25% might be expected and a straight majority will win.  No vote, no say.

More British names transferring overseas. Chloride look certain to be taken over by rival Emerson, a US company.  While Tate & Lyle are selling their sugar and syrup business to rival Domino, a US company.

Names are never lost, they can lie dormant and re-appear. The history and pedigree goes. Perhaps that gets diluted anyway as shares are often owned all over the world.

The most ominous thing that is lost is that control moves overseas, investment and closure decisions are made overseas.  The top jobs move overseas. These are worse features than losing the pedigree.

A week since the Emergency Budget was announced and the Coalition is getting on with its business.  Around it the media and the opposition are combing the details and creating nightmare scenario’s and rumours of discontent to create a wedge in the coalition.

Yet the main effects won’t be felt for around a year which is putting off the changes, similar to what the opposition want.

Some of the changes are uncomfortable like freezing public sector pay, but in the end that is certain to save some jobs.  Pensions will rise in accordance with earnings which has broad support.

The LibDem’s have got some of their policies such as a large tax threshold increase, significant capital gains tax increase while swallowing a moderate VAT increase, which they didn’t want.

The main beneficiary of the budget is business with decreases in corporation tax and employee insurance.

In October and next March the full changes will be announced and from the overall figures announced, these are likely to result in cuts that no-one will be happy about. Further amendments might occur caused by circumstances either good or bad but for now the announcement has taken some of the risk that the economy will destabilise and the financial markets have improved.

The Defence Review, Poverty Review, Pensions Review will be undertaken and provide evidence for the measures to be taken.

Overall the budget comes over as well balanced; clearly taking from the wealthy and giving more than taking from the poor.  It is recommended to the house.

Won 1, Drawn 2, Lost 1. Millions of pounds spent for little result and only 4 matches.

Six hours of football and under an hour of it was on the fringes of world class.  Probably an hour of it was Blue Square level and the rest mundane.

At the end of the day the players should be able to trap, pass, shoot, tackle, mark and think.  In South Africa it seemed they couldn’t. Blaming others and the set up of English football is only part of the answer.

Instead of root – branch let’s find out what Fabio wants and let him have what is possible. Continually sacking managers isn’t the answer.

A month ago we thought the British economy depended on the banks but now we’re learning it also depends on dividends from BP.

Is Barack Obama correct in ramping up the criticism and penalties on BP?  The spill is big, the company has taken several imaginative engineering measures and had some success with more to follow, it is also offering to clear up the mess. How much more does Mr Obama want? 

The US  is now saying that it is going to intervene in BP’s business by dictating its dividend policy, and expecting it to compensate other companies who can’t now set up drilling in the Caribbean.  Both of these seem to be excessive measures.

From what I have read the US is trying to be independant in oil supply and that means taking bigger risks drilling deeper oil.  That one of these risks occurred should be something the US is prepared for. How much a company can do seems quite limited compared to a government and perhaps also relates to how much people are willing to pay for their fuel. It’s becoming a bit like a witch-hunt on BP and the UK should be looking at what it can do both to assist and to put pressure on the US to ease up on BP.

It is fair to comment that BP has been involved in two other major incidents in the US and it would be interesting to know how that stacks up with other companies. For example the Total fuel dump that exploded near London was huge but I don’t recall a government campaign against Total.

The jury has been out on the UK / US relationship over the last couple of years despite Mr Obama using the ’special’ word recently, the appropriateness of the action on BP  can be seen as another piece of that jigsaw.

Worrying signs from South Africa. Wayne Rooney booked for dissent in the opening friendly. Will the team come good, they might.  Then suddenly they’ll be expected to win it before being cruelly defeated.

After winning all their Group C matches they play Australia on June 26th and win on penalties.  In the Quarter Finals they face Argentina and win on penalties. Brazil play sweet football in the semi-finals but in the last minute an own goal deflection gives England a ticket to the final to play Nigeria.  The government then announces that it is cutting the England team and Brazil step in and win the World Cup. Wayne Rooney says he’s awfully disappointed but it’s one of those things.

The terrible events in Cumbria last week are now entering a phase where people are asking questions. Within a day of the shootings people were asking if Cumbria police were up to the task obviously to the irritation of the police chief.

Now it has come to light that 3 policemen saw Mr Bird early in the sequence.

Yet what is a force in a small town in an isolated area supposed to be capable of. How quickly do you realise that someone who shot one person is going to shoot more or if you as an unprotected and unarmed policeman might be a target.

Most of the commentators have travelled from London and imagine that there are police sharpshooting squads on hand in high powered cars covered by helicopters 24hrs a day with an instant reaction time like they’re used to. Yet, even with all this in London criminals aren’t caught. So let’s leave Cumbria police to do a job as appropriate for their area and not get carried away with notions of a big city force.

BP, BA, Prudential are three names synonymous with Britain and all three are going through strong turbulance. Prudential may have lowered the angst by backing out of their deal but they’ve still got to pay some large bills and decide what their future strategy is. BA is in a tussle with the unions trying to bring some realism into the business. BP has an un-controlled oil leak that is making all the wrong headlines yet might be fixed at any time.

Quite often these periods of bad news create quite a storm at the time but within weeks of it being resolved things seem to carry on as normal as far as the public is concerned. Of the three BA stand to gain the most by winning their battle although their pension deficit seems like it will always be a weight round the companies neck. BP can only keep its head down and hope that no major US cases are brought against it, but it seems like some upheaval in its US business is inevitable. Prudential has several options with changes to the board and breaking up being two mentioned in the press.

Of the three BP should be protected in some way by the government in a similar way that the French protect their strategic assets. BA and Prudential are renowned British names but not strategic.

Publishing the names of those who earn more than the Prime Minister might sound a populist measure and perhaps when the fuss ends it will be.  The PM takes around £150k although he’s entitled to around £200k, not including board, lodgings, second houses and transport. Seems a bit wrong way round really as the PM should be worth more than £200k and should take his full salary. An ordinary manager in a large company can earn £50k and in London no doubt higher. The salary below £250k is a bit light, surely the PM is worth £400k. The Civil Servants earning large salaries have large organisations with massive budgets that  need detailed and visionary leadership. Surely they are worth their salaries it’s just that the PM is paid too little.

How long is the expenses saga going to continue. It’s time the press switched off and gave it fair commentary. The constant sniping with blown up headlines is making a mockery out of politics. Few people in the whole population could have all their dealings examined and not have an item pulled out and questioned especially when it comes to business expenses. So someone claimed for a room they were actually living in!

All purchases made from public expenditure are to be published if they are above £25,000. This sounds a good idea and ideal for those rakers of data who might turn up a few less justifiable items that crept through.  Then again there might be a sudden increase in items costing £24,999.  It will probably be a long list and should be successful in bringing government activity into public scrutiny. Might we find out how much a building actually costs or will it be a building with a full stock of furniture and 5 years of maintenance so letting through a mass of purchases.

From what I can gather David Laws has paid his close friend or partner so he can use his flat in London for his government duties. Apparently this might be against rules introduced in 2006 as his close friend might be classed as a partner.

Many people who know David Laws say he is a person of integrity and the amound paid is very small in comparison with what he could have claimed. He says he claimed it because he didn’t want people to be aware of the relationship.

This seems doubly difficult in that he is now a member of the cabinet, which he probably never expected until a couple of weeks ago. Also there has been two years of controversy about expenses during which time this never came up.

Secondly he has been making a big impression in his new post and the coalition must be reluctant to move him as well as being reluctant to make changes at such an early stage of its formation.

The question is will this be a running sore if he stays. It probably depends on how its handled and how much good will David Laws can muster. Also how it compares with other MP’s situations. Even if it comes out justifiable there are some who will undoubtedly not let this pass, although the opposition might not want to appear to be making an issue that could be construed as being driven by sexual orientation prejudices.

Tough decision for Mssrs Cameron and Clegg.  Hope David Laws survives as talent shouldn’t be wasted.

Like a James Bond movie: Lord Triesman head of the English FA. A young lady, an alleged lover, with a tape recorder. Some candid comments between them. A Sunday paper publishes the comments. The Lord resigns from leading the World Cup bid.

Publishing facts isn’t a crime. Candid politicians might be thought to be a refreshing change. The unwise mistake seems to be mixing business with pleasure, ignoring the moral question and not knowing how the story was obtained. As far as known the participants are all on the same side, but seemingly batting against their own team.

The English World Cup bid has had a few problems and if a new leader is found with a common touch, like a David Beckham with political credibility, then all is not lost and this might turn into an advantage. The decision is due to be announced in early December.

In other matters, it was said that England lost a previous bid because ‘football’s coming home’ was perceived as arrogance. Yet quite a few papers have been using this term in the last week and it seems we never learn.

The hottest competition seems to be from Spain / Portugal. Yet Australia could be seen as a place needing a pull up for football, with Rugby and Australian Rules being more popular. Russia might also be a place seen as benefitting from wider understanding. England have a big job ahead to win the hosting of this event but the love of football, fine venues and commercial success of the Premier League is an appealing combination.

The coalition announced yesterday between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats appears to be one of the best outcomes for many a year. It provides a healthy majority and takes the best policies of both parties and reduces the possibilities of the worst ones.  A more socially liberal agenda coupled with a more hard-nosed defence policy seems in tune with the 21st century. Even the basic concept of parties working together seems in tune with the 21st century.

Many LibDem supporters don’t like this and some Conservatives don’t.  But the Liberal Democrats might have continued whistling in the wind with their policies ignored and now some are being promoted. Some of their members will be visibly involved in serious government.  This must be good for them except for those who might have voted Labour. Although many politicians warned about the dangers of tactical voting.

At the moment the two leaders are in a honeymoon period even to the extent that they are trying to cement the knot for 5 years. Time will tell.

Some are saying this is new ground, a hung parliament. What might be new is if the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems combine. There are so many areas of policy where they don’t agree.  Yet it could be what is needed. A Conservative party with its hard edges taken off. A Lib-Dem party with its odd box policies put to one side for now. A combination with no dependence on trade unions and a strong belief in personal liberty.

A sticking point might be electoral reform. Offering some kind of talking shop isn’t going to fool anyone. If the Conservatives fear there never being a single governing party of the right they should awaken to life in a democracy because if that is the case then that is what the people are voting for.

A combination of Conservatives and Lib-Dems would have a tidy majority so MP’s who feel strongly against something, for example European or nuclear policies could probably be allowed to vote as they wished. It could be said that if the combined parties can’t carry off a policy then it isn’t what is wanted anyway.  In some cases Labour might vote to assist the passage but it would be foolish to think they wouldn’t find a way to object and not assist.

A Labour – Lib-Dem combination would seem more natural, yet such a combination hasn’t got a parliamentary majority so isn’t strong,  and wouldn’t even have half of the votes cast. So it seems right to explore the Conservative – Lib-Dem options and if there are strong objectors on either side it will depend on how many there are as you can’t make everyone happy.

The leaked memo from the Foreign Office on the Popes visit to the UK is either one of its biggest blunders or could be thought deliberate to placate those who oppose the Popes preachings. The Catholic Church has had some bad press lately and there are several areas where Catholic beliefs are very different from the UK government, such as on abortion, contraception, gay rights and although not currently government policy euthanasia could become another one.

The theory of some government support for the memo should be resisted as you would hope the government would see the loss is far greater than the gain. Although there is a worrying factor that people in government departments discussed these ideas and actually considered them worth recording.

No matter what you think of the Catholic faith and the Pope, and I’m not a member, there are millions of worshippers in the UK and millions who will flock to see the Pope visit the UK.  Those who want to disrupt should have some common decency and allow the leader of one of the worlds greatest churches a peaceful and welcoming visit.

Another case of contradiction - the Human Right to protest opposing the Human Right to worship in peace.

The people of Ireland and Greece are suffering in the Euro. The Irish have taken their medicine on the chin while the Greeks are reluctant to accept it. In both cases it isn’t clear why the countries are in the Euro. Their economies are so small that they are always going to get little consideration when it comes to supporting the Euro. If Germany needs an adjustment in the interest rate then the interest rate will change.  If Greece needs it, well that’s another matter.

The Euro is a good idea but the criteria for membership isn’t rigorous enough. If the UK had been in the Euro there is no way Germany and France could have supported it in the recession and we’d  be facing massive pay cuts and redundancies. Even EUphile me has realised that keeping out of the Euro has been a major plank in helping the UK economy in the recession.

It would be interesting to read any other thoughts on UK membership.  The Liberal Democrats support joining the Euro and maybe in next weeks leaders debate the subject will come up.

Three days after the leader’s debate the pollsters are saying Nick Clegg is the leading leader.  Who is this man?

Born in Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire in 1967 and went on to one of Britains leading public schools, Westminster School. Then to Cambridge to study archeology while doing some acting.  Did two post degree studies and became a journalist.  In 1994 he worked for the European Commission before becoming a Euro-MP in 1999 and an MP at Westminster in 2005.  Winning the Lib Dem leadership battle in 2007 and now in 2010 winning the first leaders debate.   Clean in the expenses scandal and heroic in some circles for his claimed sleeping with no more than 30 women and setting fire to his professors cactii. 

Is against the storing of innocent peoples DNA, a laudable trait.  Supports prison welfare.  Had involvement in environmental and animal welfare as well as international trade discussions.

Overall seems a decent enough.

Well done, the debate was a success. Seems to be a consensus that Clegg, Cameron and Brown was the order of success, yet in reality there was no outright winner and no  outright loser and two more debates to go. That Nick Clegg could speak confidently and naturally, if not a bit fast, seems to have been a surprise factor for many. David Cameron and Gordon Brown made no significant inroads into each other.

Gordon Brown made a bit of a hit with his comment saying the Conservatives would cut police budgets more than Labour which seemed to surprise everyone, including David Cameron. David Cameron came back strongly with a story about a very violent crime and the culprit getting a short prison sentence. Gordon Brown has the handicap that he’s said he’ll do things before and somehow they never appear to be quite what was said as well as 13yrs of baggage. David Cameron has to show he is more than not being Gordon Brown.

Nick Clegg spoke of the increase in tax threshold being a new idea, that they will look for an alternative to a Trident replacement, opposed immigration limits and his seat in Sheffield was mentioned several times perhaps to distract from his public school background. Wasn’t particularly pushed as the other two were aimed at each other.

The next debate will no doubt take lessons from this and Nick Clegg might find the ride a bit bumpier.  Perhaps Gordon Brown will stop the smile that looks so patronising, David Cameron won’t stand with that distant horizon look, maybe Nick Clegg will appear less anxious about getting his points over. A better method of signalling who is to speak might help, at one point it appeared that David Cameron was left out of the debate. Someone has suggested the audience should be allowed to applaud – please no. Is there anything worse than the Question Time applause battles with someone so eager to get the first clap. Yet sometimes it can be a good feature and how to capture the good without the bad is difficult.

Disappointing that the biggest issue in week 1 of the election campaign is a 1% increase in National Insurance included in the budget and rejected by the Conservatives.

That over 50 top business leaders came out saying they were against it and it would reduce employment has been the flare that lit up the debate. This is said to be a reflection that business has fallen out with Labour after many years when they trumpeted its support.

There appears to be some simple arithmetic to support the business leaders case. National Insurance is charged from a very low wage level and a 1% increase has a disproportionate impact on business performance measures.  It could be the difference between profit and loss in these straightened times. Businesses have already driven efficiency as hard as they can.  The inevitable response must be to get it back either through not recruiting, shedding staff or increasing prices.

The government throws this back by saying the Conservatives will need to take the money from somewhere else and the business leaders are deceived. However as neither party has come clean on what they really intend to do about the deficits this seems like smoke and mirrors.   There seems to also be confusion that some people say the Conservatives are taking money out of the economy by rejecting this measure when actually it is the opposite. The government is taking money out of the economy with the measure and are paying themselves when they admit they are making inefficient use of taxpayers money.

Overall though it seems a minor issue has been blown into a major one and sub-plots have grown all around it. Lets hope it gets better than this although it probably won’t.

After bad news in chocolate and steel manufacturing some good news in cars and nuclear engineering. Most of it with the help of government loans.

Nissan announced that their new electrically powered car, the Nissan Leaf, will be produced in Sunderland from 2013. Up to 50,000 cars a year will be made.  Nissan stated that the UK commitment to providing the infrastructure and education to operate these cars helped the decision.  The North East has agreed to fit 13,000 charging points and London 25,000. Also a novel leasing arrangement for batteries will ease the cost of ownership and another plus the batteries will be made in Sunderland as well.  Photographs of the car look quite smart with nothing to make it look different. Ironically the ‘green’ car will be produced next to the Juke urban off-roader which doesn’t sound quite as green.

Ford announced about £1.5bn investment in new efficient engine R&D and manufacturing in the UK.  A significant portion of the money will be loans from the UK Automotive Assistance Programme and the EU. Ford will test 15 electric vehicles as well as work on low carbon engines.  Ford produce 25% of their world supply of engines in the UK.

Sheffield Forgemasters received government loan support to make a 15,000 tonne forging press, making the company one of two companies in the world capable of making specific nuclear components. The government said the UK can produce 50% of the parts for a nuclear power station and the investment will take it to 70%. The government is also to support up to 1000 apprentice places a year in the nuclear industry.

It is a curious business the offering of loans to keep manufacturing in a country. Subsidising has long been illegal in the EU. However such large scale investment is often only possible with government assistance. Vice versa governments often say that infrastructure projects, for such as energy, cannot be afforded without industrial investment.  Does one balance the other out or is it just convenient to make the best of both worlds. No doubt a company has to get the best deal it can so an existing plant must count for something and make the loan required less than it would be from a place without a plant or who didn’t have other incentives to offer such as car power point infrastructure. We can only welcome this as good news.