Sir John Major is right to warn of the consequences of such an unholy union in yesterdays papers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11452938/John-Major-It-is-shameful-that-Labour-hasnt-ruled-out-a-pact-with-the-SNP.html
For my part I think it would ensure the demise of the Union for sure. I was talking to Jim Murphy in Westminster on Wednesday and he assures me that the SNP will fade once it comes under scrutiny; but I will be going north to campaign in Scotland shortly both for the 2 Conservative candidates in the border region, and the Union generally.
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 March 2015
Sunday, 18 January 2015
Energy Prices and why Miliband "Price freeze" would have been a disaster - and is still affecting our bills
This blog matters because Ed Miliband and Ed Balls want to run our country. Labours policy of an energy price freeze for 18 months shows how little they understand about economics and basic budgeting: I will set out below the consequences of his energy policy on Northumberland consumers here and now, but first the Room 101 basic economics lesson:
- If you require by law a company to "freeze" its prices for 18 months then it has buy at least18 months of stock up front - whether this is gas, oil, timber whatever.
- if the price of gas oil etc goes up then this may be a good thing as you have frozen your price. [NB you can do this with all the companies anyway]
- however, if the price of gas, oil etc goes down then both the original supplier company AND you the consumer / purchaser are stuck with an 18 month fixed price - even though the core product of oil and gas has gone down in price.
This is happening right now: oil and gas have dropped dramatically in price - and if you had taken the Miliband price freeze you would be stuck with a higher price.
Yet it is even worse: because there is a risk that Labour could win the election, and bring in this mad plan, it is still affecting present energy prices: dont take my word for it - look at the prices, and industry commentators set out below....
Thus, Ed Miliband’s ill-conceived price freeze is one of the main reasons for companies’ failure to pass on reductions, because if prices rose after the start of a price freeze suppliers would make losses.
Counter intuitively, the proposed freeze has therefore caused consumer energy prices to be higher than they could otherwise have been at this time.
Just one major company, E.On, has so far cut its prices, announcing a gas price cut of 3.5 per cent of £24 a year – which it said was “a risk” due to the price freeze.
Another major company, npower, suggested last summer it would be cutting prices but for Labour’s freeze.
"The political and media pressures at the moment make it more difficult to reduce prices and then increase them again next spring,” Paul Massara, its chief executive, said. “We are acutely aware that if the Labour party were to implement their proposed price freeze, we will be living with the consequences of our standard rate tariff price for a very long time and beyond the level of risk that we could manage in the wholesale market."
While some suppliers are thought to be holding back cutting prices in order to avoid risk, others have already bought so much energy further in advance than normal, in order to ensure they can afford to freeze prices, that they are now unable to benefit from the lower wholesale costs.
One of the Big Six suppliers, SSE, responded to Labour’s freeze by announcing last March it would freeze its own prices until 2016. It admitted at the time that it was buying its energy much further in advance than usual and might therefore be unable to pass on the benefits if prices fall.
At the time SSE's freeze was seen as a coup for Labour as it was thought unlikely that prices would fall, but mild weather has seen persistently low gas prices since last summer.
If a company had bought 85 per cent of its gas for this summer back last April, leaving only 15 per cent to buy now short-term markets, it would have spent about 8 per cent more on the gas than if it had left 50 per cent to buy at today’s lower prices.
Peter Atherton, the independent utilities analyst, said: “The election is undoubtedly a real risk; given Labour's price freeze idea it is a significant barrier to lowering prices.
“I think it’s leading to materially higher prices for consumers.”
Sam Laidlaw, the recently-departed chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, told the Telegraph last month that Labour’s freeze would have “unintended consequences”.
“I think the clear concern is that people will have bought some of their energy further forwards than they otherwise would have done, in order to mitigate the effects of the price freeze. And that means that retailers’ ability to take advantage of a softer price are limited,” he said.
If you want real help on energy bills I suggst you have a look at my local booklet with local suppliers and details on everything from switching to biomass and oil buying clubs. See here: http://guyopperman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/2015-energy-booklet-now-online.html
It is entirely your choice to vote Labour at the next election. But your energy bills will go up for sure. The evidence is here right now.
- If you require by law a company to "freeze" its prices for 18 months then it has buy at least18 months of stock up front - whether this is gas, oil, timber whatever.
- if the price of gas oil etc goes up then this may be a good thing as you have frozen your price. [NB you can do this with all the companies anyway]
- however, if the price of gas, oil etc goes down then both the original supplier company AND you the consumer / purchaser are stuck with an 18 month fixed price - even though the core product of oil and gas has gone down in price.
This is happening right now: oil and gas have dropped dramatically in price - and if you had taken the Miliband price freeze you would be stuck with a higher price.
Yet it is even worse: because there is a risk that Labour could win the election, and bring in this mad plan, it is still affecting present energy prices: dont take my word for it - look at the prices, and industry commentators set out below....
Thus, Ed Miliband’s ill-conceived price freeze is one of the main reasons for companies’ failure to pass on reductions, because if prices rose after the start of a price freeze suppliers would make losses.
Counter intuitively, the proposed freeze has therefore caused consumer energy prices to be higher than they could otherwise have been at this time.
Just one major company, E.On, has so far cut its prices, announcing a gas price cut of 3.5 per cent of £24 a year – which it said was “a risk” due to the price freeze.
Another major company, npower, suggested last summer it would be cutting prices but for Labour’s freeze.
"The political and media pressures at the moment make it more difficult to reduce prices and then increase them again next spring,” Paul Massara, its chief executive, said. “We are acutely aware that if the Labour party were to implement their proposed price freeze, we will be living with the consequences of our standard rate tariff price for a very long time and beyond the level of risk that we could manage in the wholesale market."
While some suppliers are thought to be holding back cutting prices in order to avoid risk, others have already bought so much energy further in advance than normal, in order to ensure they can afford to freeze prices, that they are now unable to benefit from the lower wholesale costs.
One of the Big Six suppliers, SSE, responded to Labour’s freeze by announcing last March it would freeze its own prices until 2016. It admitted at the time that it was buying its energy much further in advance than usual and might therefore be unable to pass on the benefits if prices fall.
At the time SSE's freeze was seen as a coup for Labour as it was thought unlikely that prices would fall, but mild weather has seen persistently low gas prices since last summer.
If a company had bought 85 per cent of its gas for this summer back last April, leaving only 15 per cent to buy now short-term markets, it would have spent about 8 per cent more on the gas than if it had left 50 per cent to buy at today’s lower prices.
Peter Atherton, the independent utilities analyst, said: “The election is undoubtedly a real risk; given Labour's price freeze idea it is a significant barrier to lowering prices.
“I think it’s leading to materially higher prices for consumers.”
Sam Laidlaw, the recently-departed chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, told the Telegraph last month that Labour’s freeze would have “unintended consequences”.
“I think the clear concern is that people will have bought some of their energy further forwards than they otherwise would have done, in order to mitigate the effects of the price freeze. And that means that retailers’ ability to take advantage of a softer price are limited,” he said.
If you want real help on energy bills I suggst you have a look at my local booklet with local suppliers and details on everything from switching to biomass and oil buying clubs. See here: http://guyopperman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/2015-energy-booklet-now-online.html
It is entirely your choice to vote Labour at the next election. But your energy bills will go up for sure. The evidence is here right now.
Tuesday, 6 January 2015
Scottish Politics just got way more bizarre - Scots Labour to try and tax English voters more to pay for more Scottish nurses
The policy is bizarre: Jim Murphy, who is normally a sensible Labour politician has announced that
- Scottish labour will recruit 1,000 extra nurses above whatever number were recruited by the SNP.
This bidding war equates to this: regardless of existing staffing levels, regardless of existing clinical priorities, regardless of other devolved departmental priorities, Labour will spend the money just to get one over on the SNP.
And bear in mind that Health is devolved in Scotland so Holyrood not Westminster decide staffing levels etc.
But how this does affect us in England is the Labour Party as a whole's approach to England, to taxation, and the distribution of wealth that this country earns?
1. Because Scottish Labour is in such a fight with the SNP Jim Murphy can say anything to win votes in Scotland, even if that means upsetting normal voters of any political persuasion in England. The madness of his policy was exposed today when English Labour MPs queued up to attack him - see for example Dianne Abbott MP calling it an expropriation, and describing her own colleague as "unscrupulous". It is a fair point to say that the famous Mansion Tax is being spent many times over by Labour.
2. It also says a lot on Labour spending as the nurses proposed are a figure even if not needed - so if the SNP proposed 1 million nurses, Jim Murphy says Labour will have 1 million and a thousand. Sadly this is a fair consideration when spending and restraint in these troubled times are being considered.
3. Even with the Barnett Formula and devolved funding, the Scottish Labour Party now want even greater tax on England to pay for Scotland. It is little surprise that they are opposed to English Votes for English Issues - because they would use Scottish MPs to force through a pro Scotland law on healthcare, even though healthcare is devolved. Bizarre.
4. This can only add fuel to the argument that I and others in the House of Commons have been making, that we will only get a fairer settlement for the North East if we stop Scottish MPs - whether they be SNP, Labour or any other parties voting on devolved matters to England's disadvantage
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/north-east-analysis/analysis-news/government-must-press-english-votes-8300027
Ed Miliband is not happy with Jim Murphy today. But then he’s never been happy with Jim Murphy. The irony, of course, is that Miliband will have to be saved in Scotland by a man he demoted and sidelined. But that’s politics for you.
More details on the story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11327310/Labour-has-just-told-London-and-the-South-East-to-drop-dead.html
- Scottish labour will recruit 1,000 extra nurses above whatever number were recruited by the SNP.
This bidding war equates to this: regardless of existing staffing levels, regardless of existing clinical priorities, regardless of other devolved departmental priorities, Labour will spend the money just to get one over on the SNP.
And bear in mind that Health is devolved in Scotland so Holyrood not Westminster decide staffing levels etc.
But how this does affect us in England is the Labour Party as a whole's approach to England, to taxation, and the distribution of wealth that this country earns?
1. Because Scottish Labour is in such a fight with the SNP Jim Murphy can say anything to win votes in Scotland, even if that means upsetting normal voters of any political persuasion in England. The madness of his policy was exposed today when English Labour MPs queued up to attack him - see for example Dianne Abbott MP calling it an expropriation, and describing her own colleague as "unscrupulous". It is a fair point to say that the famous Mansion Tax is being spent many times over by Labour.
2. It also says a lot on Labour spending as the nurses proposed are a figure even if not needed - so if the SNP proposed 1 million nurses, Jim Murphy says Labour will have 1 million and a thousand. Sadly this is a fair consideration when spending and restraint in these troubled times are being considered.
3. Even with the Barnett Formula and devolved funding, the Scottish Labour Party now want even greater tax on England to pay for Scotland. It is little surprise that they are opposed to English Votes for English Issues - because they would use Scottish MPs to force through a pro Scotland law on healthcare, even though healthcare is devolved. Bizarre.
4. This can only add fuel to the argument that I and others in the House of Commons have been making, that we will only get a fairer settlement for the North East if we stop Scottish MPs - whether they be SNP, Labour or any other parties voting on devolved matters to England's disadvantage
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/north-east-analysis/analysis-news/government-must-press-english-votes-8300027
Ed Miliband is not happy with Jim Murphy today. But then he’s never been happy with Jim Murphy. The irony, of course, is that Miliband will have to be saved in Scotland by a man he demoted and sidelined. But that’s politics for you.
More details on the story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11327310/Labour-has-just-told-London-and-the-South-East-to-drop-dead.html
Sunday, 4 January 2015
The Tony Blair Question is a fair one: is Ed Mili's Labour a Left wing or centre ground party?
We are all now familiar with Tony Blair's recent statements that:
Blair is clear in his own mind that Ed Miliband is left wing, and offering impractical solutions to the countries big questions - but upon this voters will have to decide. Put simply, what kind of Labour Party are they being offered?
As Dan Hodges, the columnist put it:
"For the past four years. Labour has been trying to win from the Left. The New Politics. The Thirty Five Per Cent strategy. Zen Politics. Whatever you wanted to call it, the grand plan – and the philosophy underpinning it – were clear. To win, Labour had to reject the consensus, “Big Tent” politics of Blairism."
“I am still very much New Labour and Ed Miliband would not describe himself in that way, so there is obviously a difference there,” he added. “I am convinced the Labour Party succeeds best when it is in the centre ground.”
This came from his recent interview with the Economist: see here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/30/tony-blair-ed-miliband-general-election-labour
Blair is clear in his own mind that Ed Miliband is left wing, and offering impractical solutions to the countries big questions - but upon this voters will have to decide. Put simply, what kind of Labour Party are they being offered?
As Dan Hodges, the columnist put it:
"For the past four years. Labour has been trying to win from the Left. The New Politics. The Thirty Five Per Cent strategy. Zen Politics. Whatever you wanted to call it, the grand plan – and the philosophy underpinning it – were clear. To win, Labour had to reject the consensus, “Big Tent” politics of Blairism."
Earlier this week, in a refreshingly honest open letter to Tony Blair, Neal Lawson – a member of Ed Miliband’s early kitchen cabinet – set out the thinking behind the strategy. “In hindsight, the wrong people were voting Labour. The tent was too big and you spent the next 10 years trying to keep the wrong people in it.”
The evidence against the 2 Eds is pretty clear: Labour has formally abandoned the political centre and swung to the Left. Deficit denial. Big state interventionism. Raw anti-capitalism. Public service protectionism; a nation divided between “producers and predators”.
The evidence against the 2 Eds is pretty clear: Labour has formally abandoned the political centre and swung to the Left. Deficit denial. Big state interventionism. Raw anti-capitalism. Public service protectionism; a nation divided between “producers and predators”.
For my part, I well remember the 1997 General Election and the Labour Party rightly won. Blair offered a centre left party which supported business, wanted to keep taxes down as they knew high taxes stop job creation, and which had a genuine offer to Mr and Mrs Middle Ground UK. Clearly the Labour Party lost its way during their 13 years in office but their message in 1997 was clear.
Under Ed Miliband and Ed Balls their hero is the far left socialist leader, Francois Hollande of France - he of the 75% taxes, anti business laws, and pro union policies. The results in France have been catastrophic. Minimal growth, mass unemployment, entrepreneurs and job creators leaving the country in droves.
So it is a fair question, posed by a Labour leader who won three elections largely from the entre: is Ed Miliband a centre ground politician or a left wing politician? That is for voters to decide, but the evidence is pretty clear.
Under Ed Miliband and Ed Balls their hero is the far left socialist leader, Francois Hollande of France - he of the 75% taxes, anti business laws, and pro union policies. The results in France have been catastrophic. Minimal growth, mass unemployment, entrepreneurs and job creators leaving the country in droves.
So it is a fair question, posed by a Labour leader who won three elections largely from the entre: is Ed Miliband a centre ground politician or a left wing politician? That is for voters to decide, but the evidence is pretty clear.
Tuesday, 30 December 2014
2015 Nightmare: Ed Miliband as PM, Balls as Chancellor, Alex Salmond as Deputy PM & Farage as Foreign Secretary
Politics:
- Nightmare: Ed Miliband as PM, Balls as Chancellor, Alex Salmond as Deputy PM and Nigel Farage as Foreign Secretary
- 2015 Reality: Farage will not, in my view based upon my recent visit to South Thanet, win his seat, I will be doing everything to stop the 2 Eds as PM / Chancellor, but we may be stuck with Alex Salmond in Westminster post May I fear, unless someone can stop him in the Gordon seat.
Local Politics:
Anne Marie Trevelyan should win Berwick upon Tweed at the Election. I also think we will have further successes in Scotland at the election, notwithstanding the Nationalist resurgence.
Sport:
Spring Heeled and Ma Filleulle would be my two Grand National tips, but as with the election these events are a long way off!
- Nightmare: Ed Miliband as PM, Balls as Chancellor, Alex Salmond as Deputy PM and Nigel Farage as Foreign Secretary
- 2015 Reality: Farage will not, in my view based upon my recent visit to South Thanet, win his seat, I will be doing everything to stop the 2 Eds as PM / Chancellor, but we may be stuck with Alex Salmond in Westminster post May I fear, unless someone can stop him in the Gordon seat.
Local Politics:
Anne Marie Trevelyan should win Berwick upon Tweed at the Election. I also think we will have further successes in Scotland at the election, notwithstanding the Nationalist resurgence.
Sport:
Spring Heeled and Ma Filleulle would be my two Grand National tips, but as with the election these events are a long way off!
Monday, 10 November 2014
Westminster this week
I have Home Office, Women 2 Win, and other meetings today as well as the European Arrest Warrant debate; this will mean a late night tonight - I will not finish tonight much before 11; tomorrow we have various other smaller bills to address, but I will probably try and go to help in Rochester by election tomorrow morning.
The main activity in Westminster is the speculation about Ed Miliband: Labour seem to circling the wagons around the beleaguered Ed but as Boris explains this is not a wise move.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11219697/Ditching-Ed-Miliband-will-not-change-the-fact-that-socialism-has-no-relevance-these-days.html
The main activity in Westminster is the speculation about Ed Miliband: Labour seem to circling the wagons around the beleaguered Ed but as Boris explains this is not a wise move.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11219697/Ditching-Ed-Miliband-will-not-change-the-fact-that-socialism-has-no-relevance-these-days.html
Friday, 7 November 2014
Ed Miliband is not fit to be PM - What North East Labour leaders say about their own leader [and this is their public line]
‘They have got to get a coherent
line on the economy… Personally I’d bring back some of the grown-ups’ – Chris Mullin, former MP for
Sunderland South
Source: World at One, BBC Radio 4, 13 Aug 2013
Or take journalist Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times this week, who said on Miliband…
“…Mr Miliband does not have a 35% strategy. He has a 35% world view. He is authentically left-wing and was only ever going to seek a left-wing path to power. His effort to cobble together enough like-minded voters to pull off a slight but doctrinally pure victory is better understood as an urge – what Amis calls a “frisson” – than a decision. And it was not his error to follow this path; it was Labour’s error to choose as its leader someone who was always incapable of doing anything else.”
Finally this is what the Guardian says today:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/06/ed-miliband-faces-labour-leadership-crisis
Source: World at One, BBC Radio 4, 13 Aug 2013
‘(There is) a lack of vision and ambition’ -
Kevan Jones – MP for North Durham
Source: Northern Echo, 17 June 2014
"Ed pulls his punches, triangulates against
himself and ends up in a no-man's land" - Alan Milburn, former Labour
Minister and MP for Darlington.
Source: The Times, 25 August 2014
‘Little more than a shopping list without any
real understanding of the impact on the daily lives of men and women’ - Dave
Anderson, MP for Blaydon, on Labour’s manifesto under Miliband
Source: Labour List, 1 June 2014Or take journalist Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times this week, who said on Miliband…
“…Mr Miliband does not have a 35% strategy. He has a 35% world view. He is authentically left-wing and was only ever going to seek a left-wing path to power. His effort to cobble together enough like-minded voters to pull off a slight but doctrinally pure victory is better understood as an urge – what Amis calls a “frisson” – than a decision. And it was not his error to follow this path; it was Labour’s error to choose as its leader someone who was always incapable of doing anything else.”
Finally this is what the Guardian says today:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/06/ed-miliband-faces-labour-leadership-crisis
Saturday, 25 October 2014
Ouch! Scots Labour in meltdown and now Tony Blair says Ed is too left wing to win election
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11187285/Tony-Blair-Miliband-has-failed-to-connect-with-voters-and-is-doomed-to-election-defeat.html
In his last public comments about British politics in July, Blair warned Ed Miliband about retreating into a left-wing “comfort zone” and said the party has not yet developed a “narrative that is about the future of the country.” Even John Prescott, Mr Blair’s former deputy, has said Mr Miliband is pursuing a “core vote strategy” of appealing only to traditional Labour supporters.
All this on the day after Johann Lamont steps down as Scots Labour leader, 5 days after saying she was not going to quit - and blames Westminster politicians for meddling and scheming against her.
In his last public comments about British politics in July, Blair warned Ed Miliband about retreating into a left-wing “comfort zone” and said the party has not yet developed a “narrative that is about the future of the country.” Even John Prescott, Mr Blair’s former deputy, has said Mr Miliband is pursuing a “core vote strategy” of appealing only to traditional Labour supporters.
All this on the day after Johann Lamont steps down as Scots Labour leader, 5 days after saying she was not going to quit - and blames Westminster politicians for meddling and scheming against her.
Wednesday, 24 September 2014
Surely cutting the deficit & balancing the books is more important than memorising a speech?
I must be one of the few people who has actually watched Ed Miliband's speech yesterday as he tried to convince the Labour party faithful that he could tackle Britain's economy. The speech had its moments to be fair, but he totally forgot to talk about the deficit and immigration - although these are consistently the 2 biggest issues pollsters say voters are concerned with. Freud might have something to say about the unconscious erasing of past mistakes and the inability to deal with present problems, but lets not try and psycho analyse the Labour leader too much. But what you "forget" is also very indicative.
For the real problem is the lack of candour from anyone in Labour about the scale of the financial challenges facing a Labour government, if it came to power next year, because the economy is not out of the woods and it is not sunlit uplands all the way from May 2015. Just ask French President Francois Hollande how his anti austerity super socialist measures are going in La Belle France: the reality is that socialism is a jobs and economic disaster. France is the sick man of Europe.
Ed Balls said on Monday that Labour was facing difficult, unpopular decisions, but then undermined his bad cop routine by failing to outline any meaningful cuts to any budgets. And this from an Opposition who has opposed every attempt at Budget Reduction between 2010-2014.
The truth is that Ed Miliband is simply not concerned by the economy, balancing the books and cutting the deficit. We have to remember that Ed Miliband is after all:
- a former Treasury Policy wonk under Tony Blair,
- an advisor to Gordon Brown [remember "no more boom and bust"]
- and now advised on the economy by Ed Balls
So his lack of understanding of the economy is not altogether surprising.
For the real problem is the lack of candour from anyone in Labour about the scale of the financial challenges facing a Labour government, if it came to power next year, because the economy is not out of the woods and it is not sunlit uplands all the way from May 2015. Just ask French President Francois Hollande how his anti austerity super socialist measures are going in La Belle France: the reality is that socialism is a jobs and economic disaster. France is the sick man of Europe.
Ed Balls said on Monday that Labour was facing difficult, unpopular decisions, but then undermined his bad cop routine by failing to outline any meaningful cuts to any budgets. And this from an Opposition who has opposed every attempt at Budget Reduction between 2010-2014.
The truth is that Ed Miliband is simply not concerned by the economy, balancing the books and cutting the deficit. We have to remember that Ed Miliband is after all:
- a former Treasury Policy wonk under Tony Blair,
- an advisor to Gordon Brown [remember "no more boom and bust"]
- and now advised on the economy by Ed Balls
So his lack of understanding of the economy is not altogether surprising.
Saturday, 12 July 2014
Why does Miliband employ David Axelrod if he can't get his old boss Obama to meet Ed?
Not a good story for Ed Mili: the Spectator puts it well: they ask why exactly Labour are paying Obama’s former campaign wizard David Axelrod a comfortable six figure sum. His work doesn’t seem to be paying off at home, and it’s clearly not paying off in terms of influence across the pond.
Full story here:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/ed-milibands-road-to-nowhere/
Full story here:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/ed-milibands-road-to-nowhere/
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Miliband will never reform welfare
Labour have opposed every reduction in welfare spending over the last 4 years. Every single one.
Indeed Miliband has made it clear that he wants welfare spending to go up, even though we are still clearing up the mess of Labour's debts, 5 million people on benefits in 2010, and the wider financial crisis. Ed has spent the last 4 years attacking every reduction in the welfare bill. There is never an alternative to how we balance the books - just criticism for us as Coalition in trying. On Monday he again proposes to criticise and hold a commons debate; at no place in that debate is he proposing an alternative; governments do not get every decision right - particularly when trying to balance the books as we have had to do but we cannot spend money we do not have any more, and that must mean welfare reform.
Ed wishes to undermine the radical reform that is Universal Credit; he has proposed one reform himself, by tinkering around the edges of welfare policy. It will not last. Dan Hodges in the Telegraph makes the point very clearly: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100276909/theres-no-point-trying-to-fix-ed-miliband-labour-needs-to-work-out-how-it-can-move-on-from-him/
Indeed Miliband has made it clear that he wants welfare spending to go up, even though we are still clearing up the mess of Labour's debts, 5 million people on benefits in 2010, and the wider financial crisis. Ed has spent the last 4 years attacking every reduction in the welfare bill. There is never an alternative to how we balance the books - just criticism for us as Coalition in trying. On Monday he again proposes to criticise and hold a commons debate; at no place in that debate is he proposing an alternative; governments do not get every decision right - particularly when trying to balance the books as we have had to do but we cannot spend money we do not have any more, and that must mean welfare reform.
Ed wishes to undermine the radical reform that is Universal Credit; he has proposed one reform himself, by tinkering around the edges of welfare policy. It will not last. Dan Hodges in the Telegraph makes the point very clearly: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100276909/theres-no-point-trying-to-fix-ed-miliband-labour-needs-to-work-out-how-it-can-move-on-from-him/
Saturday, 5 April 2014
1 year to the election: look to France to see the kind of future awaits Britain if Miliband wins
Francois Hollande’s presidency has been a total
disaster;
- French unemployment is now over 10 per cent;
- among the young it is 24 per cent.
- His war on wealth creators has led to a collapse of foreign investment into the country — it has more than halved in the two years since he came into office.
- In the same period, it has trebled in Germany. While most countries in the eurozone think the worst is behind them, France fears that the worst is yet to come.
Hollande cannot be faulted for being serious about doctrine. He wanted to impose a 75 per cent rate of tax on the richest, and when the courts struck that down he imposed it on the employers instead. Rather than leading to a flood of revenue, it has put up a ‘keep out’ sign above France for anyone serious about starting a business. Success is penalised. Miliband’s proposed above 50% tax rises would do precisely the same.
Meanwhile, George Osborne is squeezing the richest better than anyone: the best-paid 1 per cent now contribute 30 per cent of all income tax collected, the highest share in history. The Conservative party’s secret? It cut the top rate of tax. Hollande now talks grandly about his ‘responsibility pact’ with French business, whereby he cuts taxes in return for them taking on workers. It is not working. This is what George Osborne has been doing: since entering office, corporation tax has fallen from 28 to 21 per cent. Employment has soared to an all-time high (defying the predictions of Ed Balls, who said hopes of such a jobs surge was a ‘fantasy’). France has found out the hard way that no country has ever taxed its way into prosperity; if Miliband wins the election, and implements his agenda, Britain will be plunged into precisely the same crisis which now engulfs France. The stakes at the next election are terrifyingly high.
- French unemployment is now over 10 per cent;
- among the young it is 24 per cent.
- His war on wealth creators has led to a collapse of foreign investment into the country — it has more than halved in the two years since he came into office.
- In the same period, it has trebled in Germany. While most countries in the eurozone think the worst is behind them, France fears that the worst is yet to come.
Hollande cannot be faulted for being serious about doctrine. He wanted to impose a 75 per cent rate of tax on the richest, and when the courts struck that down he imposed it on the employers instead. Rather than leading to a flood of revenue, it has put up a ‘keep out’ sign above France for anyone serious about starting a business. Success is penalised. Miliband’s proposed above 50% tax rises would do precisely the same.
Meanwhile, George Osborne is squeezing the richest better than anyone: the best-paid 1 per cent now contribute 30 per cent of all income tax collected, the highest share in history. The Conservative party’s secret? It cut the top rate of tax. Hollande now talks grandly about his ‘responsibility pact’ with French business, whereby he cuts taxes in return for them taking on workers. It is not working. This is what George Osborne has been doing: since entering office, corporation tax has fallen from 28 to 21 per cent. Employment has soared to an all-time high (defying the predictions of Ed Balls, who said hopes of such a jobs surge was a ‘fantasy’). France has found out the hard way that no country has ever taxed its way into prosperity; if Miliband wins the election, and implements his agenda, Britain will be plunged into precisely the same crisis which now engulfs France. The stakes at the next election are terrifyingly high.
Thursday, 3 April 2014
Miliband's Bon Ami Hollande shows why French socialism is no way to run a country
As the French economy struggles on and socialism fails I am not sure Ed Miliband will continue to argue that the French way is a better way. But if you want an understanding of how bad Britain would be under the 2 Ed's then France is your example.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10735650/Francois-Hollande-picks-a-government-of-combat-after-disaster-at-the-polls.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10735650/Francois-Hollande-picks-a-government-of-combat-after-disaster-at-the-polls.html
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Labour and Benefits - committed to spending more on benefits for all, and opposing every welfare reform
The budget debate today focused on the words of Rachel Reeves, Labour Welfare Minister, who stated at an earlier meeting:
‘It will be much better if we can say that all of the changes that the Government have introduced we can reverse and all benefits can be universal.’
Despite being pressed she refused to deny saying this.
As others have pointed out:
- Implementing working-age Universal Benefits alone after the next election would cost Rachel £180 billion a year, which is double the benefits bill now.
- If you then include reversing all of IDS’s savings made in this parliament - like £2.1 billion to Housing Benefit Reforms or £1.3 billion to Employment and Support Allowance - you’re looking at another £50 billion needed. That takes Rachel’s bill to £230 billion . How can that figure possibly be seen as ‘much better’?
The truth is that Labour have opposed every single cut to the Nation's Budget. They are addicted to spending.
‘It will be much better if we can say that all of the changes that the Government have introduced we can reverse and all benefits can be universal.’
Despite being pressed she refused to deny saying this.
As others have pointed out:
- Implementing working-age Universal Benefits alone after the next election would cost Rachel £180 billion a year, which is double the benefits bill now.
- If you then include reversing all of IDS’s savings made in this parliament - like £2.1 billion to Housing Benefit Reforms or £1.3 billion to Employment and Support Allowance - you’re looking at another £50 billion needed. That takes Rachel’s bill to £230 billion . How can that figure possibly be seen as ‘much better’?
The truth is that Labour have opposed every single cut to the Nation's Budget. They are addicted to spending.
Tuesday, 28 January 2014
What happened to One Nation Labour? That's gone now has it?
Dan Hodges quietly explains where Labour are going: as he puts it very eloquently
"At the moment Ed and Labour are coming over as the party of social vengeance. Does Ed Miliband want to move Britain beyond the financial crisis of 2008, or does he want retribution for it? Is it about moving the country forward, or seeking payback?
If it’s the latter, it will rebound on him."
Also we should remember Andrew Neil's dicing and slicing of the Labour tax proposals. Clearly we all want more tax revenue for the country, and the jobs the big, and small, businesses create:
These stats are unarguable:
HMRC Revenues from Top Taxpayers:
2011/12: £41.3 Billion [50% rate]
2012/13: £41.6 Billion [50% rate]
2013/14: 49.36 Billion [45% rate]
The truth is that high taxes destroy jobs and the economy. Just ask the French
Full story here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100256801/labour-have-dropped-one-nation-and-gone-for-bitterness-and-spite/
"At the moment Ed and Labour are coming over as the party of social vengeance. Does Ed Miliband want to move Britain beyond the financial crisis of 2008, or does he want retribution for it? Is it about moving the country forward, or seeking payback?
If it’s the latter, it will rebound on him."
Also we should remember Andrew Neil's dicing and slicing of the Labour tax proposals. Clearly we all want more tax revenue for the country, and the jobs the big, and small, businesses create:
These stats are unarguable:
HMRC Revenues from Top Taxpayers:
2011/12: £41.3 Billion [50% rate]
2012/13: £41.6 Billion [50% rate]
2013/14: 49.36 Billion [45% rate]
The truth is that high taxes destroy jobs and the economy. Just ask the French
Full story here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100256801/labour-have-dropped-one-nation-and-gone-for-bitterness-and-spite/
Friday, 17 January 2014
This is getting too French! Has Miliband bank speech thrown away the election?
Ed's latest economic speech, featuring his idea of shutting rural bank branches is the worst in a long line of policy disasters, that are beginning to become almost Francois Hollande in their ineptitude. Here are the words of some of the commentators, who have piled in this afternoon:
Dan Hodges, son of Glenda Jackson, and seasoned Westminster reporter, said:
"What was most depressing about Miliband's speech was his dismissal of deficit reduction. Labour has just given up on the macro-economy."
Nick Robinson of the BBC drops a bomb - "Ed, how are you going to tell your party they can't have what they want - massive spending?"
BBC comments: Miliband is "like an arsonist who burns your house down and then criticises your choice of fire engine".
Institute of Directors boss Simon Walker has his say:
“The state has a very poor history of creating competition in banking. The last time the Government told a bank what to do, Lloyds was ordered to sell branches to Rev. Flowers, and we all know how that ended.”
Again not my words - but here is the summation of the car crash from the papers:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/56905/miliband-bank-debacle-has-he-just-thrown-away-election
Dan Hodges, son of Glenda Jackson, and seasoned Westminster reporter, said:
"What was most depressing about Miliband's speech was his dismissal of deficit reduction. Labour has just given up on the macro-economy."
Nick Robinson of the BBC drops a bomb - "Ed, how are you going to tell your party they can't have what they want - massive spending?"
BBC comments: Miliband is "like an arsonist who burns your house down and then criticises your choice of fire engine".
Institute of Directors boss Simon Walker has his say:
“The state has a very poor history of creating competition in banking. The last time the Government told a bank what to do, Lloyds was ordered to sell branches to Rev. Flowers, and we all know how that ended.”
Again not my words - but here is the summation of the car crash from the papers:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/56905/miliband-bank-debacle-has-he-just-thrown-away-election
Wednesday, 8 January 2014
France's failed socialist experiment is turning into tragedy
Yesterday, more evidence emerged of the disastrous decline of France, which has followed a strong left wing socialist agenda under President Hollande.
I have blogged before of the growing economic mess of this country - whose fortunes can be compared with the likes of Ireland, or even Spain, both of which have cut their debts and public spending, and not taxed business and job creation into the ground. The Irish in particular have cut taxes to boost growth. The French have raised taxes to 75%.
The impact has been to kill any chance of a French recovery stone dead. The perils for us in Britain are clear: it would be economic suicide to follow the Hollande policies in the UK. This is what Miliband / Balls propose.
Again, don't take my word for it - read below the comments and then full article of Allister Heath of City AM, who said: "France’s economic sickness is primarily due to its overbearing state, horrendously high tax levels, insane regulations, absurd levels of inefficient public spending and generalised hatred of commerce, capitalism, success and hard work." Full article here:
Saturday, 28 December 2013
France right now is what a Labour government would be like - unemployment rising, no deficit reduction plan
"Business confidence is falling. Unemployment has risen to 10.9%, a 16-year high. Only months after escaping one recession, the nation is on the brink of another. Time to adopt Labour's plan B? No, because this is France – plan B is already in place, and the bad economic news is its grisly fruit.
At one time, it seemed as if the British left would never stop talking about a grand economic alternative to austerity. There was even a march for the alternative - though none of its proponents were very specific about exactly how the alternative would work. The most you could get out of them was this: austerity would be stopped; the rich would be made to pay far higher taxes; the deficit could look after itself, or else it would be magically paid off by a plan-B boom."
Full details about why The Two Eds have no economic credibility is set out in more detail here in the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/18/labour-plan-b-france-economic-disaster-ed-balls-austerityIf you want more spending, more borrowing and no turnaround of the British economy then do vote Labour. The reality is that you will end up with a scenario that is just like France, which is failing to confront the problem that it continues to spend more than it earns. This leads to greater unemployment, no growth, a relapse into further recession and no action on the deficit.
Sunday, 24 November 2013
The sad demise of the Co-Op Bank shows why we need local community banks
If ever we needed reminding of why the German Bank Model of the Sparkassen - in the form of local community banks that look after their area and who do not do speculative and risky lending - then the disaster of the Co-Op is the best guide. First and foremost, this is a disaster for members. On this point I will finish but let us first look at the history.
In years gone by, the Co-op, that pillar of the mutual ideal, was seen as reassuringly solid, and secure. Its shops and funeral services were deliberately lacking in ostentation. Its bank was boring, too, regarded by the outside world as a risk-averse repository for the monies of charities, non-governmental organisations and people who didn’t really like the idea of banks – but accepted the need to have one.
When the banking sector crashed in 2007 the staff and customers of the Co-operative Bank could stand back, tut-tut and shake their heads, sure in the knowledge that their forebears, the thrifty weavers who in 1844 created the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, were up there in heaven, shaking their heads, too. And then along came Paul Flowers. Rarely does that insatiable beast known as the 24-hour news cycle enjoy fare as rich as the Reverend Paul Flowers. Clerics have often been exposed as possessing feet of clay but the rotund Methodist minister, former Labour Councillor, advisor to Ed, director of the Co-Op Bank in 2009, and its chairman shortly thereafter, before becoming the architect of the Bank's downfall ... is in a league of his own. I genuinely do not know where to start on his fall from grace.
However, he has my sympathies, because when the media get their hooks into you it is not pretty, whatever his misdemeanours. I am certain he has very good qualities and will be very sad now.
But the reality is that the UK mutual sector is now damaged by two spectacular collapses. The UK’s oldest mutual insurance company, Equitable Life, was brought low by promising more than it could afford to pay out to policyholders and savers. I have spent countless days as an MP trying to help those who lost their life savings in Equitable Life. The mutual sector’s largest bank, the Co-op, has just reported large losses, insufficient capital and a Chairman who lacked the qualities of mind and character to be a successful bank chairman. It is not bust but in real trouble needing a bail out.
Noone could have a problem with a good well run mutual. This recent history should, however, be a warning of the special risks mutuals can pose. With no shareholders to provide capital and insufficient conventional profit reserve some financial mutuals can be very risky. However, if anyone came to our London Local Banking Conference will know – there are always dangers when the pursuit of profit becomes the motive of the business. Profit should result from a good service, knowing your customer and knowing your market. I again make the point that not one of the German Local Banks went bust and have actually increased bank lending in the recession.
As to the Labour party, Ed Miliband has to answer for the millions of unpaid Co-Op lons to the Labour Party, the £50,000 donation to Ed Balls, and why these moneys are linked to the recent meetings with Flowers. As to Balls the scene last Wednesday with my colleague Jason McCartney, who is a Co-Op member had to be seen to be believed. For my part this does, however, strengthen the case for Local and Community banks - not weaken it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)