POLITICS CORNER

[Tardis]

It was nice to meet Andrew Stephenson yesterday at the West Craven Disability Forum

[Tizer]

Re the posts above about electricity and control over fuel...
The opportunity to build 6 new nuclear power stations in the UK is in the hands of a joint venture that owns the land in Anglesey and Gloucestershire but the JV is selling it. Several consortia are looking to buy so that they can build the stations and all are foreign. One is a combined Canadian/Japanese (Hitachi) which raises some concerns over the ability of a Japanese company to build a safe power station after what we saw of their efforts in Japan (but at least we don't have the same high probability of earthquakes here). The other two both involve Chinese companies and these are known to be dodgy with regards to nuclear safety due to the low level of regulation in their own country. Not only is there a safety concern but we should also beware of putting so much of our nuclear energy supply into foreign hands, especially Chinese hands.

Regarding Stanley's comment "Crackpot ideas and 'initiatives' are no substitute for good governance based on expert advice and evidence unpolluted by powerful lobbyists", I'll second that. Anyone who heard Professor David Nutt on the radio programme `The Life Scientific' will know how government ministers appoint scientific experts and then ignore their advice in favour of someone unqualified to comment - because it suits the minister's views.

[Stanley]

I heard him Tiz and that was what struck me about his evidence. Interesting that the members who resigned have formed an alternative forum and are still promulgating policy suggestions based on hard scientific evidence. If this principle had been observed during the energy debates we wouldn't be in the position we are now. As I have said before, I don't think politicians are qualified to make decisions without taking notice of the advice.
I see that Downing Street is making pronouncements in advance of the conference. Cameron distances himself from Hunt after rescuing him after the Sky debacle. Cameron also says he is not worried about a challenge from Boris who will speak at the conference. He should be.... Commentators opinion is that there will be no leadership challenge. This is good news for Labour because the inept Cameron is the best guarantee they have to maintain dominance in the polls.
Grant Shapps, party chairman rubbishes the LibDem's mansion tax and says it won't happen. He says that the present course will eventually lead to the clearing of debt and a stronger economy. He is quite right of course but leaves aside the crucial question of where savings are made and what damage they cause to society. Osborne has already said there will be more welfare cuts, £16billion before the end of this parliament and I'm afraid that what we are seeing is Tory DNA governing the economy. He says that "people who work hard shouldn't be clobbered by the mansion tax". For people who work hard substitute 'people who hold capital'. The workers being hit by the austerity cuts further down the chain work just as hard but of course are not seen as essential parts of the Tory vote. This is hard-hearted regressive economic policy, it failed in the past and will fail in the future but the historical evidence for this is glossed over by the Tories. They should read their history. The economy works best when all classes are fully employed in jobs which pay a living wage, this benefits his upper echelons as well. The present course will hit the mansion owners further down the road as the economy stagnates, possibly for at least another ten years. We are being incompetently governed.
By the way, I hate the phrase 'politics of envy' used by right wingers to denigrate anyone agitating for a fairer distribution of wealth. It's the politics of fairness, not envy.

[Whyperion]

Totally confused as to why a couple of extra bands on the council tax is not a good , cheap to implement and sensible idea. Bit of wealth redistribution , and/or allow the proportion of council income generated from local funding to increase. Make it three or four extra bands and re-distribute to central funds where there are some areas with a high proportion of higher valued properties and it becomes more policy adjustment , still cheap and retaining the current allowances avoids the criticism of old grannies on low incomes not being able to afford their (annual ) property tax. What was Cleggs idea ? - a (one off) 1% on over £2m - if my maths is right thats £20,000 , quite a hefty chunk and probably still avoidable in some way by most of those property owners.

[Stanley]

Statements trickle out in preparation for the Tory conference in Birmingham. Ossie has revised his estimate of what further cuts will have to be applied directly to the welfare budget before this parliament ends, it is now stated to be £10billion. Phrases like 'freeloaders' and 'scroungers' are being bandied about. This ugly language which denigrates large swathes of the population who are hard working and trying to do their best under very difficult conditions. Cameron said the other day that he didn't see why hard working house owners should be penalised by a 'mansion tax'. Problem is that his entry level for this club seems to be set at a very hight level. If you are a millionaire he thinks you should be protected. We already have a mansion tax, it is applied against old people who need care. Their mansions are 'taxed' compulsorily to pay inflated care home bills.
There is a political agenda here which I suspect is simply to create blue water between the Tories and the LibDems before the next general election.
Meanwhile, did anyone notice the interview Evan Davies did in his TV programme on the role of infrastructure investment in the economic future of the country? He talked to a man regarded as an expert in the field who had added up the cost of all the pure infrastructure projects proposed in the next eight years. His total was £500billion. This is physical infrastructure only. However, he pointed out that this was only 3% of the annual GDP and looked liker a sensible investment. As Evan pointed out, there couldn't be a better time for starting this investment, plenty of labour available, plenty of equipment and expertise standing idle and low borrowing costs. Of course something sensible like this couldn't happen under a government that doesn't seem to understand basic economics. Borrowing money to throw into black holes like banks is wrong, sensible investment in physical assets is exactly the right thing.
One thing that strikes me about Council Tax is that there could be merit in looking at the proportion of family income was paid out in CT. Why not take the average of the lowest 50% and apply it to the upper percentile? This would be a very progressive tax and completely fair. Any takers?

[Whyperion]

Cannot see how taking £10b a year out of the benefits payments will help the economy in any way , this is normally immediately spent , mostly on essentials , reducing tax take by about £2b so net saving comes out at £8b , maybe , possibly less as more shops close. In respect of family size , what if say a single parent of 3 and a single parent of 4 get together resulting in 7 in the family , they immediately get a reduction in otherwise benifits ? Of course , realistic job opportunities are the best way out of benefit reliance but I cannot see 000s of jobs suddenly appearing. ( Oh , just heard Paramount studios want to convert a former cement works in Swanscombe - near the Ebbsfleet channel tunnel station - into a disney style theme park, looks like a good idea of benefit to North Kent with links on the Thames.

What happend to the LibDems committment to raising the tax free allowances on income - indeed far better for high end tax payers for the complicated removal of the allowance to be abandoned with much simpler tax system , bringing into the same rates on unearned investment income would also be desireable. I don't mind the rate actually falling to 45% if it does bring in extra tax revenues, and realistically Nil Rate Band should move to £12K with Higher Band at £60K, and simply make child benefit subject to income tax and remove child tax credits. Simple system , should be tax paid neutral , gives incentives where required.

[Tardis]

Council tax pays for local services, hence why the money from even the business rates is being repatriated to the different tiers

Infrastructure is always paid for out of Treasury receipts because of their very nature, some counties would not be able to fund them on their own collections...like the major connurbations, Cheshire etc

There is nothing progressive about Council Tax, because you can not refuse the services offered. You pay for them whether you use them or not.

If you go that route, however, then maybe you are calling for the re-introduction of the poll tax so that multi-occupancy households pay more for their services because they (on the whole) are more likely to use more of them....although it would cost more to service an individual.

A flat tax is far fairer, because it is easier to enforce and paradoxically harder to avoid.

[Tardis]

The media appear to have gone after Weird Ed after his millionaire tax speech, appears his wife earns at least £400k a year, his house is worth over £2million, he won't say how much he inherited from his left wing father

None of this will he confirm, so it looks like another "do as I say rather than I do" #charlatan ? '2 legs good'

[Tardis]

Tory Conference begins & the Cameroon is out foxed already by Boris.

[Stanley]

I took the trouble to listen to Ossie making his speech. Quite a credible speech if you had just landed from Mars and didn't know the story behind it. However, he appears to be either deluded or trying to delude everyone else. Note that he never mentioned the elephant in the room, growth. In December he will have to stand up and make an entirely different speech admitting that he has missed all his targets. He got no favours from the IMF this morning which confirms their forecast that we will slip back even further for the rest of the year. As for his repetition of 'We're all in it together', I suspect that a large majority of the voters have seen right through that one. His assertion that the top 1% of wealth holders in the country pay 25% of the tax take sounds impressive until you realise that this is more an indication of the growing gap in wealth distribution than an indication that the tax system is progressive. Not impressed, more depressed that such policies are being clung to.
See this LINK for the American view of Mr Cameron's new Twitter account.
Angela Merkel is in Greece today. Her aim is to demonstrate solidarity with Greece's efforts to comply with austerity cuts but one wonders how the Greek electorate will view her visit.

[Bruff]

I see the Justice Secretary has played to the crowd with his statements and policy intention with regards the permitting (it seems) of disproportionate force when confronting an intruder. Under the last administration the then DPP clarified matters in a statement offering these examples (taken from the CPS website):

"Householder/other victim not prosecuted
Robbery at a newsagent's. One of the two robbers died after being stabbed by the newsagent. The CPS did not prosecute the newsagent but prosecuted the surviving robber who was jailed for six years (Greater Manchester);

A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home. There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence (Derbyshire);

Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. Barmaid not prosecuted (Hertfordshire);

Two burglars entered a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died. There was no prosecution of the householder but the remaining burglar was convicted (Lincolnshire);

A middle aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull. The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute (Lancashire).

Examples of Prosecutions
A man laid in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, tied him up, beat him, threw him into a pit and set fire to him (Cheshire);

A number of people trespassed on private land to go night-time fishing. They were approached by a man with a shotgun who threatened to shoot them. They ran away but one of the men was shot in the back with a mass of 40 shotgun pellets (South Wales);

A householder lay in wait for a burglar who tried to burgle his shed. The householder shot him in the back (South Yorkshire)."

So I'm not too sure whether what is proposed is tackling an issue that is not already covered by existing provisions. It is of course unfortunate that when a serious injury or death occurs the boys in blue have primacy in uncovering the true circumstance and this may mean that an innocent party is for time suspected of something worse. And in the case of a trespass this might at least for them, seem strange and not a little frightening. But that's simply the way of things with any unexplained death. I'm sure the Justice Secretary is not looking to provide a defense for the chap above say, who having decided to chuck the person in a pit and set fire to them felt it reasonable at the time. Is he? If not, where's the problem?

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

wonderful put down by Cameroon on Today this morning. Asked about which foreign position he might assign to Boris he said "I don't know of a country that deserves him"

Apart from that calm and assured rhetoric with the usual interruptions from the numpties on Today. No light, not a lot of heat either.

[Stanley]

I share your misgivings Richard. It all smacks of headline chasing for the conference. I'd prefer trusting our justice system to come to a reasonable conclusion. That route has served us well so why change it?
Too many unanswered questions in politics at the moment for anything but rhetoric in answer to questions. Perhaps better to regard it as flim flam.
It struck me yesterday that all current policies are based on cutting welfare because this is the easiest target. There is one sure way to ensure that the bottom 85% of society pay a larger share of the tax take. Ensure that as far as possible they are employed on a living wage. That should be where the political effort is directed. The politics of fairness.
Cameron talks about the UK being in a global economic struggle and the key is to reduce the deficit. He is right of course, it was ever thus. However there is another key, get manufacturing industry and adding value back up to speed. Remember Thatcher and the Mad Monk squandering the windfall of North Sea Oil Revenues by financing a massive pool of unemployment to smash the unions? This 'strategy' included the view that 'smoke-stack' were old hat and we could live on the service industries and what we then called 'invisible exports'. In other words the whizz kids in the City. At the same time voices like Wedgie Benn were advocating ring-fencing the oil revenue and investing it in the infrastructure. Thatcher won, UK lost. When the sums are eventually added up this will be seen as the biggest political and financial mistake of the 20th century. Trouble is that this mistaken attitude lingers on. There is only one way to make real money, a productive labouring class adding value to raw materials. We haven't found a better way yet. I know it's a red rag to some bulls but Marx had it right in the 19th century, trouble was that his brilliant and far sighted thinking was applied the wrong way by surprise surprise, politicians who were blinkered by their own need for power. Go figure.
Yup, you're right, I am angry. Stupidity has that effect on me.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest.... The BAE merger is in trouble because of well-founded suspicion that the new conglomerate might be subject to political influence and perhaps even boycott by the US. That makes sense. Surely defence and its implications for national security are a commanding height of the economy? As such we should retain a measure of control.

[Stanley]

Cameron's speech gets a lot of attention but most agree it was not the speech of a secure leader. No mention of the Coalition or firm policies. One thing bothers me, I have every respect for parents rearing disabled children but is there a limit on the number of times they should be wheeled out? Cameron was using the boy to make a point about himself, makes me uncomfortable. As for his aspiration that all children should go to Eton.... forget it, pure flim flam!

[Tardis]

Interesting that today's papers say Lib Dems prefer the Cameroon than calamity Clegg

One point picked out was the lesson about tax handed directly to Weird Ed:

Did you hear what Ed Miliband said last week about taxes? He described a tax cut as the government writing people a cheque. Ed…Let me explain to you how it works. When people earn money, it’s their money. Not the government’s money: their money. Then, the government takes some of it away in tax. So, if we cut taxes, we’re not giving them money – we’re taking less of it away. OK?

Let the proper debate about tax begin

[Whyperion]

Yet Council Tax Benefits ( and allowances / adjustments ) are being allowed to be set in part at local level instead of a one nation approach to them. Partially on the grounds that Council Tax Benefit is an expenditure ( well central govt writes bigger cheque to local govt I suppose ). So the party that wishes to cut taxes , is increasing them using Cameron logic.


I had heard (radio) The EU has stated it wishes manufacturing to rise to account for 20% of economic activity across the EU ( currently is about 17% ), checking the EU websites it appears it is already about 20% , and the EU wishes it to remain at least at this level. http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/euro ... olicy.aspx

[Tardis]

Well, Council Tax should be something local, because it then makes your local Cllrs totally accountable although there will still be the top up grant from Whitehall to gerrymander certain situations I'm sure

I would be more concerned about Housing Benefit being localised, because again this will affect property prices in a local area and in places like Nelson and Burnley it will have a marked impact,

I still don't fully understand how they are going to fund the roads though

I would like to vote for whoever controls my Health Care too

[Bruff]

Council Tax is only about a quarter of the funding for local services is it not? The rest is the block grant, which Government can set as it chooses. Government can also pronounce and instruct a feeze in Council Tax. All in, Local Government funding a shambles; talk of localism is a nonsense.

I'm not clear what point is being made on housing benefit. There is already a local element to this via the Local Housing Allowance whereby private tenants of private landlords who don't earn enough to keep a roof over their head get this as a part of their housing benefit. It's not paid locally, but the rate reflects where you live. Most housing benefit is paid to folk in work, or pensioners - something like 90% or more. The long term economically inactive are a very small proportion; indeed they are a very small proportion of the total benefits bill full stop. I'm not quite sure how it would impact on house prices.

Personally, I'm quite attracted to the idea of a National Legislature elected via proportional representation and the most decision-making (aside from the likes of defense and aid) and the ability to raise the funds to effect these decisions delegated down to various elected local bodies. Certainly seems more democratic, but as the aim of any public provision is to be approximately right for the maximum number of people rather than precisely wrong for all, there's no guarantee I'd end up with everything being to my liking. But that is as they safe, life.

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

The new Localism Bill ensures that Councils get to keep their business rates too rather than it being doled back out in the block grant. They then only get to keep a proportion of any increase, as the rest goes to the Treasury

I do not have the figures to hand, but whilst there is a block grant there will always be interference from the centre which will vary with the changing of the politics in Westminster. This is not fair to anyone

There will always be imbalances whilst extra money is paid to those who work in London and the South East and the other regions are neglected. You have to ask why that gerry mandering capability is never closed by any party in government.

As far as I can see proportional representation results in a bland government format without the power or zeal to actually change anything meaningful. That doesn't mean that 1st past the post is any better, but I do think the whole process is spoilt by party politics, rather than actually doing what is right as opposed to following dogma

[Whyperion]

Local councils lost their business rates some years ago as they kept promoting inappropriate schemes of development that would increase their business rates revenues. Having suffered under six local authorities from anything from neglect ( not doing anything ) to interference ( changing things that didnt need changings ) , of hues from Labour to Tory via LibDem I would not trust local authorities with anything really - including emptying the bins ( Leeds City got that wrong one year ). As much policy as possible I think should be centralised at Westminster, with an even application accross England , with only minor changes where local needs are very specific.

[Stanley]

Andrew Mitchell and 'Plebgate'. (LINK) This isn't going away and is being exacerbated not simply by the fact that the police are furious but by the shadows his behaviour casts over the aspiration of Cameron to show that the Tory Party is in line with public opinion and 'we're all in this together'. It's the old 'nasty party' problem rearing its head again. No surprises here, handsome is as handsome does and they will be judged on their record and the effects of their policies. Even the die-hard right wingers are beginning to wonder where they are going and I suspect that the big split at the moment is between right-wing solidarity, looking after their own, and realistic assessments of what has to be done to massage the party image by 2015. On present evidence they are on a hiding to nothing but as has happened so often before, apathy in the voters could be their best ally. After all, where is the credible opposition?
Phil Hammond says that as Mitchell apologised a line should be drawn under the affair. Doesn't he understand that no apology can put right the fact that a public servant tried to force his will on another public servant doing their job? Also, what does it say about Mitchell's political competence if he things it is acceptable to blow his top with a police woman in the same week two of her colleagues are killed in cold blood.

[Stanley]

I note that the Item Club is forecasting growth in the UK economy in the second half of 2012. Don't understand this, they seem to be at odds with all the other commentators. One thing is certain, if there is a technical improvement it will be so small as to be of no account. Good news for Tory spin doctors though.

[EileenDavid]

I feel sorry for this Government they inherited a sorry mess and there was no better spin doctors than Tony Blair's lot. All that comes to mind with me is they are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Eileen

[Stanley]

Eileen, you are right, Gordon Brown was no better than Ossie but the problems go back to deregulation of financial sector over 40 years ago and all political parties who have held power are equally culpable. They thought that fast money via the Masters of the Universe was the 'New Economy' and allowed it because it suited them. Increased money flow meant a high tax take and all looked rosy. What they forgot was that real money has to be 'made' by adding value and hard work. There's no such thing as a free lunch and we are paying for it now.
Inflation figures out today and rival commentators will draw different conclusions. When you are listening to them remember that low economic activity and retailers fighting to survive in non essential sectors automatically reduce inflation.
Paul Krugman talks sense again (LINK) arguing against the madness of austerity when what needs to happen is for the economy to be given a money transfusion to increase activity and generate growth. What we are doing at the moment is burying what capital we have in the banks and hunkering down hoping that things will get better. Keep the tin hats handy lads!
Interesting debate yesterday on the consequences of Scottish Independence in currency terms. The conclusion was that linking to Euro would defeat the purpose of the debate as Scotland would have to give up sovereignty to the EU. I'm glad I haven't got to decide on that one!

[Stanley]

Procrastination is the thief of time. Never more true than when politicians kick decisions into the long grass and then suddenly find they are forced to act. Tories and LibDems are having a big row over the new Ossie idea of creating a loophole and dashing for gas. It will end up with a fudge. Incompetent sods.