Origin North West

In the last few months a number of local councillors have resigned, swapped sides or gone independent.  Perhaps they always do and it’s only being reported because it fuels the ‘coalition crack’ question.

It must be difficult to be a local councillor and be asked to reduce expenditure or accept that your school won’t be rebuilt.  When you walk down the street no-one likes you anymore, you’ve no chance of re-election.  Yet who is deceiving who?   Any government would need to make cuts and the biggest cuts have not been announced.  Is it that if someone else bears the brunt it’s OK to cut. Even if there is a valid stance that you’d always have preferred something else to be cut is it right to resign over a few issues when there is a big picture.

Is it also OK that 18,000 Royal Bank of Scotland staff get cut,  and before the election 1000’s of car workers were on short time or standby and 1000’s of construction workers were sitting at home and many still are.  But it becomes a major issue of integrity when public services are cut or schools aren’t rebuilt in your own area.

There are so many issues in local politicians allegiances that it must be difficult.  If a councillor was very anti the Coalition policies when announced then an immediate resignation would be in order. However to wait several months down the line and decide it’s getting too hot seems a bit opportunist.  Yes, must be difficult, but it’s too late now and the Coalition should be given at least 2 years.

Today the IFS issued a report sponsored by two social welfare groups that concludes that by 2014 the very poorest will be hit hardest by the Coalition Budget.

The main issue seems to revolve around an outcome in 2014 which is a long way away.  Predicting that far ahead in such detail is very difficult.  The government claims their progressive forecast went to 2012 and their policies are to raise standards by getting people out of unemployment which will put different slant on the situation.

Other big points are that using CPI will have a big effect by 2014.  It also says changes to housing benefits have a big impact. Although the main change appeared to be that excessive rent can’t be claimed so if that is a big contributor to the reports findings it is one brought in by popular request.

A simple stacked bar chart showing the contribution each budget change has brought to the poorest would be useful. Presenting a finished graph without seeing the working doesn’t satisfy curiosity enough to settle the issue.

Although the IFS have a strong reputation if you use certain assumptions and limit the range of data even the best analysis doesn’t close the issue.   This is likely to only reinforce prejudice for some time, although it does provide a case to be answered.  So far the answers haven’t been that clear either.

It is commonly said that those who go to university earn £100,000 more than those who don’t so they can pay more for their education.  I know several people who went to University in the last 10 years and gained a degree but do jobs that they would have got without a degree.  They’re stuck with their education bills and it isn’t clear that they’ll ever get well paid jobs.  Two have shown mobility by moving away but even then they’ve not got jobs with any future and so the social mobility isn’t going to happen, in fact it looks like they’ll go down a level.

It is easy to think that with the degree they have a chance for a better job. Also they’ll be doing what their friends are doing. Is this what countries like China are doing, sending people to university on the off chance or for some kind of social therapy.  Probably not.

In reality employers might actually think better of some people if they took a more realistic view of their potential and started work while doing part-time study.  Many years ago it was almost mandatory for an employer to send young employees to college for one day a week.  This target for graduates is just to keep unemployment down when incentives for training should be given employers and it would be doing more for more without giving unreal hopes.

Here in the North West of England, the home of water, we have the very unusual event of a hosepipe ban and the reservoirs are well down.  There was  a dry spell in Spring but since then it seems to have rained a reasonable amount without making up the loss.   At this moment the whole of the UK is in a block of cooler air because the jet stream has moved over France.

In East Europe there is a heatwave that has lasted several weeks and at the boundary of the heat wave  over Asia colder air has caused torrential rain that is flooding Pakistan. This also seems to be driven by the jetstream moving south.

Areas of the USA, South America, China and Australia are having exceptional weather and some say the change from La Nina to El  Nino in the Pacific is causing upset effecting the overall climate.

Temperatures and extreme weather events seem to be on the increase which appears to match expectations of climate change. Yet fluctuations in climate are not unusual.  Potential food shortages caused by reduced grain harvests might also manifest in greater instability in the world.  At this moment it appears there is increasing evidence to support greater investment in preventing climate change, even if the evidence isn’t conclusive. Certainly this years weather has been very unusual.

Despite the novelty of the coalition wearing off it is still the best option.  This is true even after the public discomfort of those on the right of the Conservatives and the left of the LibDems, and the Labour Party and media trying to create and locate splits.

The basic idea that the party that won the most seats and votes are supported by the third biggest party to keep out the unpopular previous government still seems sound. That the LibDems will moderate the Conservatives still appears the most likely outcome. That many unpopular controlling measures are being undone is what most people wanted. It is unfortunate that the massive borrowing to fund things like schools that people also want can no longer be fully afforded in the timescales planned. The example of EU countries having their debt interest payments ramped up has made it obvious that we can’t go in that direction as our debt is even bigger.

It isn’t clear whether the sight of unions promoting havoc on the streets will turn opinion even further away from the previous government. It is to be hoped that the handling of the schools building programme will be a lesson and that future budget changes are presented in a way that provides hope and uses accurate data.  It really wasn’t necessary to give the impression that school building is stopped completely. Surely the schools are still to be rebuilt but in a different timeframe.

Is it that bad news stays in the mind longer than good news. Is it hard for a government to actually create good news. Looking back on the week recollections are about council housing which was sparked by David Cameron last week, stamp duty to insulate houses, David Camerons overseas speeches.

Logically it might be thought that council houses are for those most in need and if your income rises to a certain level then you should make space for someone else.  On the other hand many, if not most, people live where they are comfortable with the neighbours and environment.  It is said that changes will only be for new tenants, but isn’t it likely they also will want to stay in the same place.  Also there is a risk that an area might become only for the most needy and it might turn into some kind of ghetto where the occupants post code is one where normal services are rejected.  Overall can’t say this policy sits well, although it is said not to be a coalition policy as the LibDems are very much against it.

The other piece of news that stayed in my thoughts was the proposal to use stamp duty to as an incentive to insulate your house. When the coalition came in they immediately stopped HIP’s and it appeared a more free future was on the horizon. Yet with this statement already the creeping hand of bureaucracy is straying back where it needn’t.

Thirdly Mr Cameron has made some interesting speeches overseas and David Miliband came out saying he was naively headline grabbing and using a big stick where light touch is the norm.  Maybe this is the good news because it can also be said that Mr Milibands light stick did nothing over many years. Can anyone name an achievement of his time in the Foreign Office?

The Coalition government is being very active at an early stage with several announcements some of which haven’t got obvious benefits.

For example handing over control of NHS budgets to GP’s. Are GP’s really in a position to determine an areas health needs and which GP’s have the time, desire or capability to do that.  On the plus side of this change the cost of the NHS is escalating far beyond affordability and its processes appear to be subject to bureaucratic, political and political bureaucratic interference. If  this move changes that then it will be for the good.

Stopping the school building programme has given the impression that some schools will never be updated when surely it would have been better to reschedule the plan. That the current scheme has a massive cost and tailor designing all of these schools must be creating a lot of extra costs are points in favour of a change.

The ‘free’ school plan has never appeared an obviously good idea if it means running several schools in one area and if pupil selection is financial. Although it isn’t clear why parents should be prevented from schooling their children the best way they can.

Reducing police budgets seems a strange policy for a Conservative led government and the statements about reducing speed cameras sounds good until accidents start to increase.  Even if the increase is really due to the end of the recession increasing traffic it will be difficult to control the message. It might have been better to leave things where they are rather than reduce it. 

The latest announcement about Trident being included in the Defence Budget puts further strain on what already is a very shrunk and inadequate level of funding for defence.

Today we visited a couple of buildings from the time Britain had a strong industrial and economic base. In effect we have exported to developing countries the poor conditions we once experienced so we have cheap shirts.  It seems the time is getting closer when our standards will decline as there is competition for resources from newly rising economies. At some point we will need to learn to accept less government benefits and more individual enterprise. If these measures put off that date by improving our performance then they will be worthwhile.

This week the government has announced goodbye to compulsory retirement at 65 as of next year. It’s difficult to imagine why anyone would want to carry on working other than for money reasons. Some people claim to love their jobs and others don’t know what to do when they’ve retired.

The biggest reason against carrying on is that it is keeping younger people either out of a job or blocking a rise to promotion. In many cases older people are likely to have old attitudes, some of which might be good but many are probably not the way of todays world.

The average life expectancy is rising so people are retired longer and pension schemes are struggling to cope. Also as the ‘baby boomer’ generation goes out of the workforce there will be a glut of pensioners. Simultaneously there will be a drop in the workforce unless others are brought in from outside the UK. Yet there is unemployment of over 2million so how can there be a shortage of workers and if they have the wrong skills they must be being given poor guidance on training choices.

Overall removing the compulsory retirement age appears a good thing to enable people enough time to pay for their pensions for a shortened retirement period.

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.

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.

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.