Okay, I have a quick question as I have been on holiday and not privy to the details.
As I understand it, Cameron and the ConDems plan to withdraw the Child Tax Credit (because that is what it is, not a benefit) for couples where one partner earns enough to be taxed at the 40% rate. This currently stands at around £45,000.
So what if that person is the only breadwinner? And do the couple, both of whom earn £30,000 each (and therefore one-third more than the 'high-earner'), get to keep the credit? It doesn't seem fair to me. I'm just asking to make sure I am completely up to speed.
P
Friday, 8 October 2010
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Ideology vs economy
Yesterday, in Birmingham, David Cameron announced that public sector funding levels would not be restored once the budget deficit has been addressed. This will, hopefully, spell the end of any pretence that these cuts are anything but ideological in nature.
Most people out there agree that reducing the deficit is a necessity at this time, where the political parties differed was on how deep and fast to cut, with Labour choosing to wait before cutting, while the Tories were keen to wield the axe as soon as they had taken their shoes off in Number 10. The Lib Dems said they would wait but once in government Clegg said he had changed his mind. Who knew?! (This is all, by the way, ignoring those small numbers of people who do not see the deficit as a massive problem and something that would have been dealt with when the economy picked up.)
By stating that public sector funding will be expected to continue at the levels forced upon departments, councils and other organisations by the economic downturn and the coalition government’s unwillingness to continue funding the deficit, Cameron has stated that regardless of how the economy (and therefore Treasury take from tax revenue) improves nothing will encourage him to spend more.
Furthermore, a big issue is made of how much of the deficit is made up of interest payments – some £43bn this year alone out of a budget deficit of approximately £150bn. But hang on, if you successfully reduce the deficit, you are no longer paying that interest and therefore is it not free money which could be reinvested by the government? Oh wait, I forgot about Cameron’s comments yesterday!
All of this begs the question, if the Treasury are taking in more tax through a recovered economy, and have an extra £43bn freed up by not having to make those interest payments, what does the coalition government plan to do with the extra cash? My guess would be bring taxes down, something that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, purely by how much they pay in taxation, while the poor will suffer from the decreased investment in public services they rely on.
We are now starting to see Cameron’s true colours seeping out.
P
Most people out there agree that reducing the deficit is a necessity at this time, where the political parties differed was on how deep and fast to cut, with Labour choosing to wait before cutting, while the Tories were keen to wield the axe as soon as they had taken their shoes off in Number 10. The Lib Dems said they would wait but once in government Clegg said he had changed his mind. Who knew?! (This is all, by the way, ignoring those small numbers of people who do not see the deficit as a massive problem and something that would have been dealt with when the economy picked up.)
By stating that public sector funding will be expected to continue at the levels forced upon departments, councils and other organisations by the economic downturn and the coalition government’s unwillingness to continue funding the deficit, Cameron has stated that regardless of how the economy (and therefore Treasury take from tax revenue) improves nothing will encourage him to spend more.
Furthermore, a big issue is made of how much of the deficit is made up of interest payments – some £43bn this year alone out of a budget deficit of approximately £150bn. But hang on, if you successfully reduce the deficit, you are no longer paying that interest and therefore is it not free money which could be reinvested by the government? Oh wait, I forgot about Cameron’s comments yesterday!
All of this begs the question, if the Treasury are taking in more tax through a recovered economy, and have an extra £43bn freed up by not having to make those interest payments, what does the coalition government plan to do with the extra cash? My guess would be bring taxes down, something that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, purely by how much they pay in taxation, while the poor will suffer from the decreased investment in public services they rely on.
We are now starting to see Cameron’s true colours seeping out.
P
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
End of term report - Labour
Having lost the reins of power and a leader (albeit a less than popular one) in such a short space of time, the Labour party could be forgiven for going through a period of introspection, after all the Conservative party had one lasting six or seven years after their defeat in 1997. They have, however, managed the rather difficult job of conducting the leadership campaign at the same time as doing rather a good job of holding the new government to account. All of this while avoiding the traditional Labour post-election defeat activity of consuming itself in a damaging internecine conflict.
Admittedly, the Conservatives and particularly the Lib Dems have made this rather easier than it might have been, but as Yakubu will tell you it is still possible to miss an open goal! Ed Balls has not gotten enough credit in my eyes, for holding Michael Gove to account for the numerous slip ups since he took over at the Department for Education. Harriet Harman and Jack Straw, although not the most polished of performers at the Dispatch Box, have done credibly well against David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who have found the transition from asking the questions to answering them rather trickier than they anticipated.
Others getting honourable mentions include David Miliband for his response to Cameron’s recent foreign policy rhetoric and Andy Burnham for his campaigning against Andrew Lansley’s health ‘reforms.’ Overall, the impression the voters are getting is one of a party with some renewed vigour, if not as of yet some sparkly new policy ideas. They will (hopefully) come, however, when a new leader is elected and the direction of the party is set.
And the polls seem to be heading in the right direction for the party. Up around seven or eight points since the election, they are now in the strange position of being capable of being the largest party in the Commons after a general election, while still a few points behind the Conservatives. This, as well as the rise in the Tory numbers, is probably a result of the those on the left and right fringes of the Lib Dems peeling off, either in protest at the coalition or deciding to support the (obviously) more senior partner.
As Ed Balls says in today’s times, though ‘...while we must win back voters lost to the Lib Dems, we must be not let the Tories off the hook.’
P
Admittedly, the Conservatives and particularly the Lib Dems have made this rather easier than it might have been, but as Yakubu will tell you it is still possible to miss an open goal! Ed Balls has not gotten enough credit in my eyes, for holding Michael Gove to account for the numerous slip ups since he took over at the Department for Education. Harriet Harman and Jack Straw, although not the most polished of performers at the Dispatch Box, have done credibly well against David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who have found the transition from asking the questions to answering them rather trickier than they anticipated.
Others getting honourable mentions include David Miliband for his response to Cameron’s recent foreign policy rhetoric and Andy Burnham for his campaigning against Andrew Lansley’s health ‘reforms.’ Overall, the impression the voters are getting is one of a party with some renewed vigour, if not as of yet some sparkly new policy ideas. They will (hopefully) come, however, when a new leader is elected and the direction of the party is set.
And the polls seem to be heading in the right direction for the party. Up around seven or eight points since the election, they are now in the strange position of being capable of being the largest party in the Commons after a general election, while still a few points behind the Conservatives. This, as well as the rise in the Tory numbers, is probably a result of the those on the left and right fringes of the Lib Dems peeling off, either in protest at the coalition or deciding to support the (obviously) more senior partner.
As Ed Balls says in today’s times, though ‘...while we must win back voters lost to the Lib Dems, we must be not let the Tories off the hook.’
P
Monday, 2 August 2010
End of term report - Conservatives
As previously stated, David Cameron has done a good job of holding things together in government since the election. It is to his great credit that the Conservatives, previously so bolshie in opposition, have been able to keep any disquiet largely under wraps, despite a disappointing election result and having to make room at the Cabinet Table for several players who before May 5th were ‘enemies!’
The government has hit the ground running, forced in part through the Emergency Budget and (the government claims) the necessity to find massive savings right away. Consultations have been thrown out left, right and centre and all have contributed to the feeling, no doubt, that we finally have a government who are doing things! In any case, recent polling data would suggest that the public are responding, offering the tantalising prospect that, should Cameron wish, he could easily throw off the need for his coalition partners if the polls are replicated across the country.
There have been, however, a number of gaffes and headaches that have meant it has not all been plain sailing for Cameron. Michael Gove is developing quite a nice reputation for being an able and quick-witted lieutenant in opposition, but something of a liability in government. The haste with which the fast-track academy bill went through the Commons has been shown up to have been unnecessary and the fiasco surrounding the Building Schools for the Future announcement is something Gove and Cameron would sooner forget.
Liam Fox and his handling of the Defence portfolio is also proving to be something of a landmine that risks blowing up in Cameron’s face. Having criticised the previous government mercilessly for undermining the military covenant, it now seems Cameron and George Osborne are happy for them to force the MoD to find the cost of Trident replacement out of its existing budget. What will Dr Fox have to cut to find the cash for that boondoggle?! And finally, there is Cameron’s junior partner in government, Nick Clegg, who cannot even answer a few simple questions at the Dispatch Box without forcing Number 10 to issues unbelievable statements claiming he was not speaking for the government. It begs the question, what was he doing at the Dispatch Box if he does not?!
Still, none of this is making much impact with the electorate who, as stated above, have been getting happier with the Tories since the election. Still, Labour have been growing in popularity too, suggesting that much of the growth in support for both parties has come at the expense of the Lib Dems and other parties. Labour have done it all without a permanent leader, however as well as the distraction of a leadership contest. Food for thought for Cameron indeed!
P
The government has hit the ground running, forced in part through the Emergency Budget and (the government claims) the necessity to find massive savings right away. Consultations have been thrown out left, right and centre and all have contributed to the feeling, no doubt, that we finally have a government who are doing things! In any case, recent polling data would suggest that the public are responding, offering the tantalising prospect that, should Cameron wish, he could easily throw off the need for his coalition partners if the polls are replicated across the country.
There have been, however, a number of gaffes and headaches that have meant it has not all been plain sailing for Cameron. Michael Gove is developing quite a nice reputation for being an able and quick-witted lieutenant in opposition, but something of a liability in government. The haste with which the fast-track academy bill went through the Commons has been shown up to have been unnecessary and the fiasco surrounding the Building Schools for the Future announcement is something Gove and Cameron would sooner forget.
Liam Fox and his handling of the Defence portfolio is also proving to be something of a landmine that risks blowing up in Cameron’s face. Having criticised the previous government mercilessly for undermining the military covenant, it now seems Cameron and George Osborne are happy for them to force the MoD to find the cost of Trident replacement out of its existing budget. What will Dr Fox have to cut to find the cash for that boondoggle?! And finally, there is Cameron’s junior partner in government, Nick Clegg, who cannot even answer a few simple questions at the Dispatch Box without forcing Number 10 to issues unbelievable statements claiming he was not speaking for the government. It begs the question, what was he doing at the Dispatch Box if he does not?!
Still, none of this is making much impact with the electorate who, as stated above, have been getting happier with the Tories since the election. Still, Labour have been growing in popularity too, suggesting that much of the growth in support for both parties has come at the expense of the Lib Dems and other parties. Labour have done it all without a permanent leader, however as well as the distraction of a leadership contest. Food for thought for Cameron indeed!
P
Friday, 30 July 2010
End of term report - the Lib Dems
Government is a tricky business at the best of times, but in a coalition there is the potential for a so much more turmoil. Since the election however, David Cameron seems to have held it together rather well. This, I think, is in spite of the efforts of his junior partner, Nick Clegg.
For Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems, the election and its aftermath have, with the caveat of being in a position to form a government, been quite disastrous. Clegg might be the first Liberal to speak at the Dispatch Box since Lloyd George in the 1920s but he was also the first Liberal leader since Paddy Ashdown in 1992 to lose seats. Since then, the experience of government has not been such a pleasant one either, with attacks from Labour that they are selling out on key manifesto commitments seemingly sticking. From 23 per cent just three months ago at the general election, according to YouGov (26 July) this now stands at 15 per cent, while Ipsos-Mori (25 July) have it at 14 per cent.
The ease with which Clegg has admitted that he changed his mind about cuts in the weeks leading up to the election and yet did not inform the electorate of this change in policy is just one example of the duplicity of the man. Others include the ease with which he suggested to David Cameron that Labour were prepared to offer more than the Conservatives in the coalition negotiations as well as the outrageous gerrymandering bill he is proposing to put through parliament. His party are now, rightly, suffering the consequences of his short-sightedness and face being reduced to only 20 MPs if recent polling is replicated at a general election.
P
For Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems, the election and its aftermath have, with the caveat of being in a position to form a government, been quite disastrous. Clegg might be the first Liberal to speak at the Dispatch Box since Lloyd George in the 1920s but he was also the first Liberal leader since Paddy Ashdown in 1992 to lose seats. Since then, the experience of government has not been such a pleasant one either, with attacks from Labour that they are selling out on key manifesto commitments seemingly sticking. From 23 per cent just three months ago at the general election, according to YouGov (26 July) this now stands at 15 per cent, while Ipsos-Mori (25 July) have it at 14 per cent.
The ease with which Clegg has admitted that he changed his mind about cuts in the weeks leading up to the election and yet did not inform the electorate of this change in policy is just one example of the duplicity of the man. Others include the ease with which he suggested to David Cameron that Labour were prepared to offer more than the Conservatives in the coalition negotiations as well as the outrageous gerrymandering bill he is proposing to put through parliament. His party are now, rightly, suffering the consequences of his short-sightedness and face being reduced to only 20 MPs if recent polling is replicated at a general election.
P
Thursday, 10 June 2010
BP: British Pensions?
Pensions. A subject which, for one reason or another, I know a fair bit about. Perhaps more than a self-confessed cool-dude I like to think of myself as, ought to. It is a truism that most of us ignore them yet most of us will, at some point be relying on them. So it is with some interest I've been following some of today's development involving BP.
Or perhaps that should be 'British Petroleum.' President Obama has been naming it thus, and his reasons are self-evident: this is no American company and therefore by implication as the American president he could not be held responsible. Anyway, his rhetoric has sent diplomats and politicians into a tailspin.
The reason is pensions! BP's recent troubles have seen its share price take a mammoth tumble, down over 260p since 20 April, wiping billions off its value. More
importantly though, it has wiped millions off the value of the investments of pension funds, and potentially putting the savings of thousands of retirees (and soon to be retirees) at risk.
Hence the ridiculous scenes today where the Prime Minister, apparently a Conservative and others like Lord Tebbit, definitely a Conservative, pleading with Obama to calm the 'British' rhetoric and thus calm the markets and safeguard the UK voting public's retirement.
Now, I think it is important to say that I am not opposed to this, per se. This is damaging to a lot of people's financial security and ought to be a high priority. What I object to is the abject hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Cameron and Tebbit while obstinately refusing to recognise the real issue.
This is market interference, something Cameron, as a Tory, should be opposed to. Fair enough, one can argue Obama started it, but in that case shouldn't the market be self-correcting? Isn't that what capitalism is all about? The efficiency of the markets?
Anyway, enough of the hypocrisy, my real problem with this is how it represents what is wrong with the pension provision in the UK. The dependence on the stock market to provide the kind of returns needed to sustain pensions is fundamentally unstable and BP's troubles highlight this. This issue though, is being brushed under the carpet by Cameron and his talk of getting Obama to tone down the rhetoric.
What we need in this country, and what pensioners deserve, is a safer, more realistic system, immune from the ups and downs of the market. Unfortunately it seems that Cameron, on the evidence of today's performance is not interested in tackling this issue.
P
Or perhaps that should be 'British Petroleum.' President Obama has been naming it thus, and his reasons are self-evident: this is no American company and therefore by implication as the American president he could not be held responsible. Anyway, his rhetoric has sent diplomats and politicians into a tailspin.
The reason is pensions! BP's recent troubles have seen its share price take a mammoth tumble, down over 260p since 20 April, wiping billions off its value. More
importantly though, it has wiped millions off the value of the investments of pension funds, and potentially putting the savings of thousands of retirees (and soon to be retirees) at risk.
Hence the ridiculous scenes today where the Prime Minister, apparently a Conservative and others like Lord Tebbit, definitely a Conservative, pleading with Obama to calm the 'British' rhetoric and thus calm the markets and safeguard the UK voting public's retirement.
Now, I think it is important to say that I am not opposed to this, per se. This is damaging to a lot of people's financial security and ought to be a high priority. What I object to is the abject hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Cameron and Tebbit while obstinately refusing to recognise the real issue.
This is market interference, something Cameron, as a Tory, should be opposed to. Fair enough, one can argue Obama started it, but in that case shouldn't the market be self-correcting? Isn't that what capitalism is all about? The efficiency of the markets?
Anyway, enough of the hypocrisy, my real problem with this is how it represents what is wrong with the pension provision in the UK. The dependence on the stock market to provide the kind of returns needed to sustain pensions is fundamentally unstable and BP's troubles highlight this. This issue though, is being brushed under the carpet by Cameron and his talk of getting Obama to tone down the rhetoric.
What we need in this country, and what pensioners deserve, is a safer, more realistic system, immune from the ups and downs of the market. Unfortunately it seems that Cameron, on the evidence of today's performance is not interested in tackling this issue.
P
Thursday, 1 April 2010
April Fool's Day
One of my favourite days of the year as far as the media goes is here. I love April Fool's Day for all the stories that the press try and convince us are genuine. Past favourites include the spaghetti growers (obviously), the Emperor Mars Bar and one story about how the sky is gradually becoming less blue!
This year I hope not to be disappointed and all indications are there are some good ones out there. Already spotted are:
- The Guardian: Labour unleashes Gordon Brown's inner hard man
- The Metro's story about the renaming of the 1000 and 2000 guineas because of EU diktats!
I will update further as soon as I spot more, but feel free to let me know others that are out there.
P
Update #1: Wonder how many people tried the story on p. 17 of the Sun on the train this morning?!
Update #2: The Express try to convince us that the Queen took an Easyjet flight yesterday, costing us a mere £22.99, on p. 9. Also not sure about the story on p. 29 claiming Debrett's are publishing a driving etiquette guide.
This year I hope not to be disappointed and all indications are there are some good ones out there. Already spotted are:
- The Guardian: Labour unleashes Gordon Brown's inner hard man
- The Metro's story about the renaming of the 1000 and 2000 guineas because of EU diktats!
I will update further as soon as I spot more, but feel free to let me know others that are out there.
P
Update #1: Wonder how many people tried the story on p. 17 of the Sun on the train this morning?!
Update #2: The Express try to convince us that the Queen took an Easyjet flight yesterday, costing us a mere £22.99, on p. 9. Also not sure about the story on p. 29 claiming Debrett's are publishing a driving etiquette guide.
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Smoke and mirrors
Before we begin, let’s review a few facts:
1. Unite’s predecessors were instrumental in the founding of the Labour party in 1900
2. Unite represents almost 2 million people today (and other unions a further 5 million)
3. Since 2007 it has donated £11m to the Labour party, an average of £5.50 per person
4. Lord Ashcroft, one man, has donated £3,628,238.62, an average of £3,628,238.62 per person, all through his private company, Bearwood Corporate Services.
5. Trade unions are democratic organisations, dedicated to the betterment of conditions for working people. If you do not want any of your subscription to be donated to a (the Labour) party, you can opt out at any time.
The simple fact of the matter is, Unite are doing the job their members signed up for, representing their interests to the powers that be, in much the same way that the Association of British Insurers or the Law Society represent their professions to government and opposition.
And don’t we want to encourage more participation in the democratic process? With almost 7 million members, won’t trade unions play an important part in this? And if members do not agree with the direction their union is taking, they are free to try to alter it or resign their membership.
Basically, this is an attempt by the Conservatives and their allies in the press, to distract attention from their own problems with regards party financing. They are trying to present Unite’s support of Labour as an equivalent, or worse, to Lord Ashcroft’s of the Tories. The important thing to remember is, however, one man contributed to the Tories 700,000 times the average amount one Unite member did to the Labour party.
Noone wants to see the BA strikes go ahead, but all the stirring by the opposition and the supine media is merely allowing them to escape scrutiny of their own embarrassing financial arrangements.
P
1. Unite’s predecessors were instrumental in the founding of the Labour party in 1900
2. Unite represents almost 2 million people today (and other unions a further 5 million)
3. Since 2007 it has donated £11m to the Labour party, an average of £5.50 per person
4. Lord Ashcroft, one man, has donated £3,628,238.62, an average of £3,628,238.62 per person, all through his private company, Bearwood Corporate Services.
5. Trade unions are democratic organisations, dedicated to the betterment of conditions for working people. If you do not want any of your subscription to be donated to a (the Labour) party, you can opt out at any time.
The simple fact of the matter is, Unite are doing the job their members signed up for, representing their interests to the powers that be, in much the same way that the Association of British Insurers or the Law Society represent their professions to government and opposition.
And don’t we want to encourage more participation in the democratic process? With almost 7 million members, won’t trade unions play an important part in this? And if members do not agree with the direction their union is taking, they are free to try to alter it or resign their membership.
Basically, this is an attempt by the Conservatives and their allies in the press, to distract attention from their own problems with regards party financing. They are trying to present Unite’s support of Labour as an equivalent, or worse, to Lord Ashcroft’s of the Tories. The important thing to remember is, however, one man contributed to the Tories 700,000 times the average amount one Unite member did to the Labour party.
Noone wants to see the BA strikes go ahead, but all the stirring by the opposition and the supine media is merely allowing them to escape scrutiny of their own embarrassing financial arrangements.
P
Monday, 4 January 2010
Make sure we keep up with Jones
First of all, a happy new year to everyone. I hope 2010 is a prosperous one for all.
Now, the real business of this, the first blog of the new decade. As you may know from today's press, GQ magazine have decided Gordon Brown is the worst dressed man of the year. David Cameron comes in at number eight, on the best-dressed list, more on this later. (Full story here.)
Ordinarily, I would have no problem with this, apart from it being a nonsense story. In this case however, I am stimulated to speak out as there is an undeniable conflict of interest in this piece, that is not being reported on. Another instance of Mainstream Media fail?
Dylan Jones is the editor of GQ magazine, and also the author of 'Cameron on Cameron', a rather sickly, sycophantic book from the Antony Seldon-Blair school of hagiography. Jones also penned a piece in this weekend's Mail on Sunday supplement on 'Karaoke Cameron' and how he plans to 'strike the keynote for the great election battle.'
Is this not a clear conflict of interest? A magazine edited by someone who has interviewed Cameron dozen of times over the past few years, decides Brown dresses badly (which he does, no complaint from me) and Cameron dresses well (again, not an unreasonable assertion) and noone mentions the rather pertinent connection between the two? If it were in the Commons, Jones would have to declare it!
Now, the real business of this, the first blog of the new decade. As you may know from today's press, GQ magazine have decided Gordon Brown is the worst dressed man of the year. David Cameron comes in at number eight, on the best-dressed list, more on this later. (Full story here.)
Ordinarily, I would have no problem with this, apart from it being a nonsense story. In this case however, I am stimulated to speak out as there is an undeniable conflict of interest in this piece, that is not being reported on. Another instance of Mainstream Media fail?
Dylan Jones is the editor of GQ magazine, and also the author of 'Cameron on Cameron', a rather sickly, sycophantic book from the Antony Seldon-Blair school of hagiography. Jones also penned a piece in this weekend's Mail on Sunday supplement on 'Karaoke Cameron' and how he plans to 'strike the keynote for the great election battle.'
Is this not a clear conflict of interest? A magazine edited by someone who has interviewed Cameron dozen of times over the past few years, decides Brown dresses badly (which he does, no complaint from me) and Cameron dresses well (again, not an unreasonable assertion) and noone mentions the rather pertinent connection between the two? If it were in the Commons, Jones would have to declare it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
