Aborad in the Caribbean this week, so little posting.
of note in the business and political world here though is the story of sugar. You may remember that Britain founded colonies here to produce sugar nearly 300 years ago.
We supported the islands until 3 years ago, via subsidy for their produce. Then the WTO over-ruled our right to subsidise islands and we could no longer help them. The unit cost of sugar was equal £1.20 and the international average rate £1.
I recall being much dismayed on hearing this and wondering how the islands would cope. Along with the socialists who too rang their hands at international capitlisms worst travesty..
However, the sugar was mainly farmed by immigrant Haitians to keep the cost down. Now that these people have left crime has fallen and as much of the money went to these workers and the international traders the economy has barley suffered. Indeed, the politicians here have run on tickets to promote tourism and develop the island. Things are moving apace and the country as a whole is improving quickly.
Until the socialists and greens impose stiff charges on air fares which will destroy the tourist industry here; but then they are not coconcerned about that are they?
So much haschanged that Slicker's idea tothe president of using sugar fields to fire a new power station to replace their ancient diesel one has fallen on deaf ground.; they don't want to know about sugar here any more.
Wednesday, 29 November 2006
Friday, 24 November 2006
On Tour again
Slicker will be out of office yet again. So much travelling recently makes blogging hard to sustain. This time I will try to blog from abroad. So expect updates about foreign parts next week....
Thursday, 23 November 2006
Tagged..
by James Highham...
so my ten things I would never do are:
1. Audition for Big Brother
2. Drive a Ford
3. Holiday in a caravan
4. Visit Scotland (31 years and counting here...)
5. Go Hunting with Hounds
6. Convert to Islam (sorry, Croydonian)
7. Learn to read music
8. Support the Monarchy
9. Go to Old Trafford
10. Emigrate to France
not very exciting, but hey-ho. I tag Shotgun
so my ten things I would never do are:
1. Audition for Big Brother
2. Drive a Ford
3. Holiday in a caravan
4. Visit Scotland (31 years and counting here...)
5. Go Hunting with Hounds
6. Convert to Islam (sorry, Croydonian)
7. Learn to read music
8. Support the Monarchy
9. Go to Old Trafford
10. Emigrate to France
not very exciting, but hey-ho. I tag Shotgun
Good ideas on the Environment at last
It takes a sane right winger to come up with sound ideas on the Environment. Anatole Kaletsky in the Times today (here).
Whether or not the Climate change lobby is right, Kaletsky makes some good points. Where is the investment in technology that will save us? Why the focus on aircraft when they contribute so little?
Clean coal, Fusion, Wind and Nuclear power can end this 'threat' within one or two generations. Somehow it does not suit the purposees of money-grabbing politico's though. They prefer fear and taxes.
Read the article, it is common sense.
Whether or not the Climate change lobby is right, Kaletsky makes some good points. Where is the investment in technology that will save us? Why the focus on aircraft when they contribute so little?
Clean coal, Fusion, Wind and Nuclear power can end this 'threat' within one or two generations. Somehow it does not suit the purposees of money-grabbing politico's though. They prefer fear and taxes.
Read the article, it is common sense.
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Greg & Polly
The siesmic wave that has emanted from Greg Clark (not Barker, yet another Greg who has sullied the Tories reputaiton of late) today has left me speechless. Along with most of the known world I regard Polly Toynbee as the devil incarnate whose only usefulness is in helping to define what you should not believe.
However, now the NuTories are a-changing again. The re-branding will not end. The Tories are to embrace Polly. Hopefully this is just all some sick joke to wind-up the members and win over some wimpy Lib Dems.
Mr Eugenides sums up the universal reaction perfectly.
I am seriously considering abandoning the Tories as a party; I fail to see what part of the centre right they represent on any issue. They would miss my vote too, living in one of the tightest marginals.
However, now the NuTories are a-changing again. The re-branding will not end. The Tories are to embrace Polly. Hopefully this is just all some sick joke to wind-up the members and win over some wimpy Lib Dems.
Mr Eugenides sums up the universal reaction perfectly.
I am seriously considering abandoning the Tories as a party; I fail to see what part of the centre right they represent on any issue. They would miss my vote too, living in one of the tightest marginals.
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
China and Politics
Further to my post below, I thought it worth commenting on what I saw of politics in China, given this is an occasionally political blog.
However, this is a hard piece to write, even in short, as there is nothing to report.
The people and businesses tolerate the over-arching government which appears to manifest itself in the form of rampant bureaucracy that consumes time and effort for all things. There are though no police on the streets except glorified traffic wardens. In Beijing the police I saw travelled in a golf cart and looked distinctly nonthreatening.
My take is that this is a very clever ploy on behalf of the PRC. The people are allowed relative freedom and encouraged to worship mammon. In this way their energies are turned from demanding rights and democracy. Who needs democracy if you are rich?
There is little crime in the country, amazing given the huge and rapid changes over-taking the populace. The Government also achieves much by being inactive. Notice how little China does in foreign affairs relative to its new status. This provides a stability for the countries' businesses to enter the world stage; yet China is also capable of shifting the goal posts to its own advantage. It's managing of the Renminbi to keep its exports competitive is a classic example.
All in all, there is something impressive about how they are moving away from a Maoist insanity to a full market economy without enormous political upheaval. I promise not to praise socialists on this blog again, but I have a hunch that the leadership of China gave this up some years ago now.
However, this is a hard piece to write, even in short, as there is nothing to report.
The people and businesses tolerate the over-arching government which appears to manifest itself in the form of rampant bureaucracy that consumes time and effort for all things. There are though no police on the streets except glorified traffic wardens. In Beijing the police I saw travelled in a golf cart and looked distinctly nonthreatening.
My take is that this is a very clever ploy on behalf of the PRC. The people are allowed relative freedom and encouraged to worship mammon. In this way their energies are turned from demanding rights and democracy. Who needs democracy if you are rich?
There is little crime in the country, amazing given the huge and rapid changes over-taking the populace. The Government also achieves much by being inactive. Notice how little China does in foreign affairs relative to its new status. This provides a stability for the countries' businesses to enter the world stage; yet China is also capable of shifting the goal posts to its own advantage. It's managing of the Renminbi to keep its exports competitive is a classic example.
All in all, there is something impressive about how they are moving away from a Maoist insanity to a full market economy without enormous political upheaval. I promise not to praise socialists on this blog again, but I have a hunch that the leadership of China gave this up some years ago now.
Sunday, 19 November 2006
China and the Environment
On my recent trip tot China I was fortunate enough to meet with a number of Chinese companies and visit Beijing and Hong Kong.
The pollution in Beijing is truly terrible (see here), the smog hangs over the city almost permanently. On a very rare day you may be able to glimpse the blue sky overhead. Hong Kong is a little better, but not much. The Smog rolls in from all the factories in Gaungdong province.
Interestingly though, this is of concern to the people who live and work there. Companies too would like to reduce their emissions and clean up the environment; but they also like the economic growth that swift development has given them.
The best solution that I can see is for the West to sell to China the best technology that we have for reducing emissions. We can't ask China to stop its growth in the iron age with countless millions still poor.
A new Kyoto, based on its old measures will not be ratified. A new approach is needed.
By the by, for the Olympics the Chinese Government are set to close all factories for a month in Beijing Province and ban all private cars. This should do much to reduce the pollution for the games. How Tony Blair must wish he had such powers in this country!
The pollution in Beijing is truly terrible (see here), the smog hangs over the city almost permanently. On a very rare day you may be able to glimpse the blue sky overhead. Hong Kong is a little better, but not much. The Smog rolls in from all the factories in Gaungdong province.
Interestingly though, this is of concern to the people who live and work there. Companies too would like to reduce their emissions and clean up the environment; but they also like the economic growth that swift development has given them.
The best solution that I can see is for the West to sell to China the best technology that we have for reducing emissions. We can't ask China to stop its growth in the iron age with countless millions still poor.
A new Kyoto, based on its old measures will not be ratified. A new approach is needed.
By the by, for the Olympics the Chinese Government are set to close all factories for a month in Beijing Province and ban all private cars. This should do much to reduce the pollution for the games. How Tony Blair must wish he had such powers in this country!
Saturday, 18 November 2006
Back from the Orient
Lots of excitment this week with a trip to Beijing and Hong Kong. No time for blogging unfortunately; but there are a couple of posts I am working on and should have them up tommorrow.
Monday, 13 November 2006
Slicker on Tour
I am off to China this week to try and repatriate some of our FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) to Blighty.
No idea what I will find or if I will be able/allowed to blog. So either there will be the odd post or a collection at the end of the week recounting my experiences of business and politics China-Style.
No idea what I will find or if I will be able/allowed to blog. So either there will be the odd post or a collection at the end of the week recounting my experiences of business and politics China-Style.
Socialist tosh here
This about the cost of raising children was in The Times this week:
We need to head back towards people becoming responsible for their own lives; not leaning further on the state. It reminds me of the need to hark back to Mrs Thatcher and her off-misquoted speech:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
The survey found Wales the cheapest place to raise a child, at £172,632, and inner London the most expensive, at £193,562. According to the Halifax, the average house price is now £184,593.
“While there is substantial cost and responsibility attached to raising children, we mustn’t forget the huge joy and happiness a child brings to parents,” said Mary MacLeod, chief executive of the National Family and Parenting Institute.
She said that while the survey reflected average costs of raising children, it did not show that for poorer parents this was a much larger proportion of their income than more affluent parents.
“Raising a child is a responsibility to be shared between parents and the state and so it is right that the state should share the financial burden with parents." (My Italics)
We need to head back towards people becoming responsible for their own lives; not leaning further on the state. It reminds me of the need to hark back to Mrs Thatcher and her off-misquoted speech:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Friday, 10 November 2006
Take that Lancet
Last month I posted on the nonsense of the Iraq war dead estimate as written in the Lancet. It was my most viewes post yet.
Here is a link to the latest new from Iraq. They estimate 100,000 dead. A colossal figure and a sad stain on our expedition to Iraq; nevertheless, how does this sqaure with the Lancet fantasies....
Here is a link to the latest new from Iraq. They estimate 100,000 dead. A colossal figure and a sad stain on our expedition to Iraq; nevertheless, how does this sqaure with the Lancet fantasies....
Culture Clash
Nick Griffin and his henchman have been found innocent of charges brought against them of inciting racial hatred. This followed an undercover BBC investigation. (here)
Given their defence, that they were attacking Islam as a fanatical culture rather than race of skin colour (he even use the Koran as evidence); I am not surprised that he won his case.
Two points strike me here:
1. How long until the government changes the law to cover 'cultural' as well as racial discrimination?
A long time I hope, as this would be a massive restriction on free speech.
2. So many of the follow-up cases to TV undercover investigations fail. Clearly they have sought shock value over fact. The recent football bribes being another case of this. How long until the Police start to sue TV Companies for wasting their time?
UPDATE: For the record it took Peter Hain, (surprise eh!), two hours and 1o minutes to suggest new laws were needed to prevent the CPS from looking silly in court again.
Given their defence, that they were attacking Islam as a fanatical culture rather than race of skin colour (he even use the Koran as evidence); I am not surprised that he won his case.
Two points strike me here:
1. How long until the government changes the law to cover 'cultural' as well as racial discrimination?
A long time I hope, as this would be a massive restriction on free speech.
2. So many of the follow-up cases to TV undercover investigations fail. Clearly they have sought shock value over fact. The recent football bribes being another case of this. How long until the Police start to sue TV Companies for wasting their time?
UPDATE: For the record it took Peter Hain, (surprise eh!), two hours and 1o minutes to suggest new laws were needed to prevent the CPS from looking silly in court again.
Thursday, 9 November 2006
American dreams
Many bloggers have posted re the recent US mid-term elections. Rather than add to the melieu, I was lucky to find that Istanbultory, has written a short piece with which I agree totally.
What are your thoughts though?
How much of an effect on UK politics will this really have over the next few months or years?
What are your thoughts though?
How much of an effect on UK politics will this really have over the next few months or years?
Tuesday, 7 November 2006
FSA catching up with the Slicker
The FSA have finally released their report into Private Equity buy-outs today. A good article on this is in today's Times (here).
I blogged 2 months ago on the crisis that is brewing in this industry, with companies abusing the market by lending at unsustainable levels to corporates and then selling off their risk piecemeal.
As usual, little mention of any consequences of corporate defaults in the FSA report. The Boys at North Colonnade are worried about the effect on fellow city workers; the jobs and pensions at the affected companies are hardly mentioned. Even Robert Coles column on this in the Times today barely mentions the real world.
The FSA also downplays any systemic risk from the collapse of one of the big LBO's (the lenders). No surprise there then; the FSA never thinks there are any major risks in the financial markets that it regulates.
Cityunslicker predicts the demise of the mad Private Equity lending rush in the next year will be one of two catalysts to next years' recession; the other being the more well understood consumer credit crunch.
I blogged 2 months ago on the crisis that is brewing in this industry, with companies abusing the market by lending at unsustainable levels to corporates and then selling off their risk piecemeal.
As usual, little mention of any consequences of corporate defaults in the FSA report. The Boys at North Colonnade are worried about the effect on fellow city workers; the jobs and pensions at the affected companies are hardly mentioned. Even Robert Coles column on this in the Times today barely mentions the real world.
The FSA also downplays any systemic risk from the collapse of one of the big LBO's (the lenders). No surprise there then; the FSA never thinks there are any major risks in the financial markets that it regulates.
Cityunslicker predicts the demise of the mad Private Equity lending rush in the next year will be one of two catalysts to next years' recession; the other being the more well understood consumer credit crunch.
Monday, 6 November 2006
Religious road to nowhere
Whilst baby slicker was playing with the remote on Sunday, he chanced upon the BBC Heaven & Earth show for a minute or so. The sole piece I saw was the Bishop of London discussing the Stern report and pronouncing that it was indeed a sin to drive a 4x4 or take holiday flights long-haul.
With the great success of the COE's previous campaigns, such as to lower the divorce rate, I can see that nothing but disaster for the world ahead if the Climate Change lobby is to be proved correct.
Really, what is the point in haranguing people in today's consumer society. This is no way to bring back the agnostics. However, I can't see the COE learning, they are too obsessed with the drive for 'Hair-shirts-for-all.'
With the great success of the COE's previous campaigns, such as to lower the divorce rate, I can see that nothing but disaster for the world ahead if the Climate Change lobby is to be proved correct.
Really, what is the point in haranguing people in today's consumer society. This is no way to bring back the agnostics. However, I can't see the COE learning, they are too obsessed with the drive for 'Hair-shirts-for-all.'
Thursday, 2 November 2006
Freedom from Scotland
My very first job involved sharing an office with a Scotsman; and hilarious company he was too. Since then I have acquired one or two other Scottish acquiantances. Many is the time I have wound them up with a refusal to ever got to Scotland. An achievement with no merit, but it gladdens me nonetheless to hear them witter on about the glories of Edinburgh(never seems to be Glasgow though?) and why I should go.
Today, in the Times here there is a poll which, albeit rather weakly, suggests the people of Scotland may soon seek Independence. This has the effect of making me draw a huge sigh of relief.
Scotland has many famous sons and daughters; but some notable bloggers apart (The Devil and Mr E. for example), it provides little benefit to merry England today.
Without the impernicious Barnett formula the English would be much better off.
Their dreary and socialistic local politico's would be free to impose on the Country its own new 1980's style communist government. Leaving England to be a more Right-wing and Conservative dominated political state, more like the USA. Their intelligent and hard-working citizens would flock to London at an even greater rate than they do now, to our benefit.
They would be free to adopt the Euro; with all the benefits that has brought to the countries of the EU.
The last few years of oil revenue could be all their own too (or most of it, it depends how the boundaries would be drawn). The cost to the English treasury, at up to 10% of revenues, would be lessened by the fact that BP and Shell are London based and would still have to pay English taxes. In addition, the Pound would lose its petrodollar premium which would help our balance of payments and improve e the prospects of our manufacturing sector.
Overall, I can think of few reasons to keep the Union from the Southern side. We may miss their stout troops perhaps and submarine bases..I can't think of too much else.
I look forward to May 2007 and Alex Salmond's smiling face; I never thought I'd say that!
Today, in the Times here there is a poll which, albeit rather weakly, suggests the people of Scotland may soon seek Independence. This has the effect of making me draw a huge sigh of relief.
Scotland has many famous sons and daughters; but some notable bloggers apart (The Devil and Mr E. for example), it provides little benefit to merry England today.
Without the impernicious Barnett formula the English would be much better off.
Their dreary and socialistic local politico's would be free to impose on the Country its own new 1980's style communist government. Leaving England to be a more Right-wing and Conservative dominated political state, more like the USA. Their intelligent and hard-working citizens would flock to London at an even greater rate than they do now, to our benefit.
They would be free to adopt the Euro; with all the benefits that has brought to the countries of the EU.
The last few years of oil revenue could be all their own too (or most of it, it depends how the boundaries would be drawn). The cost to the English treasury, at up to 10% of revenues, would be lessened by the fact that BP and Shell are London based and would still have to pay English taxes. In addition, the Pound would lose its petrodollar premium which would help our balance of payments and improve e the prospects of our manufacturing sector.
Overall, I can think of few reasons to keep the Union from the Southern side. We may miss their stout troops perhaps and submarine bases..I can't think of too much else.
I look forward to May 2007 and Alex Salmond's smiling face; I never thought I'd say that!
Tuesday, 31 October 2006
Lawyers...
I have posted on both Dizzythinks and Ellee recently about the pernicious effect of lawyers. A few thoughts below on my increasing dismay with the effect they have on government.
The UK is the world leader in Legal Affairs. All the top law firms in the world are UK based or UK run, top graduates and scion of wealthy families inevitably contribute to the legal world.
This has some good benefits, we have a legal aid system with enough lawyers to staff it and a set of City based firms that pay good wages and taxes.
However then there is the negatives: The hundreds of failed lawyers trying to get into parliament (one is even PM now, eh?). The over-representation of the legal strand in our country is a huge hold back to our development.
Lawyers always think the law is best and that is their solution to any problem; trust the law, not trust the market or trust people. Tony Blair clearly believes this, he can't make enough laws fast enough in his whole time in power; but what have all these laws achieved?
One thing they do achieve is to hobble good governance and common sense. Take Dizzy's post on the EU. The UK takes a legalistic approach to its commitments, we suffer from its poorly thought out edicts like Rural farm Payments, the French and Germans ignore the rules and so do no suffer. Even on the major issues like economic governance these two countries just ignore the parts they don't like.
In the UK many new laws are argued over in legal detail to the point at which their paragraphs become so vague and accommodating that they cease to mean anything; the new laws are pointless and instead start a new wave of 'challenge' cases.
But it is more pernicious than this, the liberal elite who are the top lawyers at the moment, babyboomers them all, have other agenda's. They fight any cause all the way to the European Parliament (their fees being important here, Lawyers are not interested in right and wrong per se). On some major issues, like the defence of liberty, this is a public good. Increasingly however, the attention is turned to marriage, 'human rights' etc. Here the lawyers campaining for their clients to the detriment of society and the riches of themselves (a case in point, Cherie Blair).
I am not saying all lawyers are bad, but the legal system we have is being abused by the lawyers for their own benefit. Having possibly hundreds of lawyers in Parliament exacerbates this situation.
We need less lawyers in Parliament and more representatives from the rest of society; the current make up does us no good at all as a society.
The UK is the world leader in Legal Affairs. All the top law firms in the world are UK based or UK run, top graduates and scion of wealthy families inevitably contribute to the legal world.
This has some good benefits, we have a legal aid system with enough lawyers to staff it and a set of City based firms that pay good wages and taxes.
However then there is the negatives: The hundreds of failed lawyers trying to get into parliament (one is even PM now, eh?). The over-representation of the legal strand in our country is a huge hold back to our development.
Lawyers always think the law is best and that is their solution to any problem; trust the law, not trust the market or trust people. Tony Blair clearly believes this, he can't make enough laws fast enough in his whole time in power; but what have all these laws achieved?
One thing they do achieve is to hobble good governance and common sense. Take Dizzy's post on the EU. The UK takes a legalistic approach to its commitments, we suffer from its poorly thought out edicts like Rural farm Payments, the French and Germans ignore the rules and so do no suffer. Even on the major issues like economic governance these two countries just ignore the parts they don't like.
In the UK many new laws are argued over in legal detail to the point at which their paragraphs become so vague and accommodating that they cease to mean anything; the new laws are pointless and instead start a new wave of 'challenge' cases.
But it is more pernicious than this, the liberal elite who are the top lawyers at the moment, babyboomers them all, have other agenda's. They fight any cause all the way to the European Parliament (their fees being important here, Lawyers are not interested in right and wrong per se). On some major issues, like the defence of liberty, this is a public good. Increasingly however, the attention is turned to marriage, 'human rights' etc. Here the lawyers campaining for their clients to the detriment of society and the riches of themselves (a case in point, Cherie Blair).
I am not saying all lawyers are bad, but the legal system we have is being abused by the lawyers for their own benefit. Having possibly hundreds of lawyers in Parliament exacerbates this situation.
We need less lawyers in Parliament and more representatives from the rest of society; the current make up does us no good at all as a society.
Monday, 30 October 2006
Enviro-Nuttism
So much to write on the current loopiness of the environmental pronuoncements of all parties. However today Wat Tyler does a better job than I could.
Just to add, I am very concerend that the media chatterati are just lapping all this rubbish up.
Who is going to declare that the emperor has no clothes?
What has happened to the Tory party; going green has also meant losing touch with reality on this issue entirely.
Vote Blue, Red Orange - vote for poverty.
Just to add, I am very concerend that the media chatterati are just lapping all this rubbish up.
Who is going to declare that the emperor has no clothes?
What has happened to the Tory party; going green has also meant losing touch with reality on this issue entirely.
Vote Blue, Red Orange - vote for poverty.
Hayden Philips Update
I blogged below about the Sir Hayden Philips review. I managed to free up some time today to attend his webchat in the hope of at least getting in the last word on behalf of taxpayers; which fortunately I managed.
My Q&A is below:
Scenario statistics?
Having reviewed the website forum I thought it would be interesting to have the statistics for each of the 4 scenarios' outlined in the interim review.
By this I mean how many posts or posters were in favour of the 4 scenario's put forward.
I appreciate the chance to give feedback and I would be most interested to know the overall balance of views thus far. I would be concerned if the whole report did not hold any reflection of the strength of feeling as well as the breadth of debate.
The forum pre-dated setting
Posted by Sir Hayden Phillips on 30/10/2006 - 14:49
The forum pre-dated setting out the four scenarios. But I want to make it clear that those scenarios were not options from which to choose but a way of illustrating the issues involved. The point of publishing the interim assessment, and of this webchat, is to get peoples views on these issues. What are yours?
My view is that there is little wrong with the current system that an independent review body could not fix. The government did away with a parliamentary regulator, Elizabeth Filkin as I remember, who was doing a good job of policing parliamentarians.
This kind of approach would allow Labour to continue to receive union funding and Tories / Lib Dems their funding too, without further taxation.
The current system is also not bad in comparison with other democracies. The current investigations prove that it works, not that it is a fiddle. Cheaters are being caught.
From many people I have spoken too there is no appetite for increasing public funds from where they are today.
I think that the current politicians have two agenda;
Seeking a way to keep the established status quo and make it more difficult for new parties to emerge and break the consensus;
Reducing their need to rely on donors/public for funds for election and therefore reducing the need to engage directly with a public who can disagree with their views.
Britain is a free country at heart and its democracy has lasted hundreds of years without the need for substantial state funding of political parties. I hope that the outcome of your review is that this remains the case.
There were also some other useful questions with hazy answers, the best two of which are below:
Daylight robbery !
Posted by Colin McNamee ( I am guessing the UKIP candidate here) on October 30th 2006
The discussions of the three main political parties are giving bias in their favour at the expense of smaller political parties and Independents and therefore to the detriment of democracy. It will inhibit the growth of other parties and political positions.
41% of the electorate chose not to vote in the 2005 General Election.
With the overspending during the 2005 General Election, which each party did voluntarily, the three main parties are activity discussing the taxpayer to finance their unprincipled behaviour.
A maximum to be levied on monies spent by all political parties equally and for them to have to act and fund raise within the law and be provably seen to do. The use of taxpayers money will be an open cheque to these profligate spenders.
State funding applies on the Continent and it has not stopped corruption by political parties of public funds in Germany, France and Italy.
Your interim assessment indicates an overwhelming lack of support from the public for State Funding, as this is a democracy that counts. It is also their money.
Based on just the above where is there any justification for the State Funding of political parties in the UK?
By talking of “Party Funding” going ahead, I assume you mean providing more public funds for political parties. I want to underline that no decisions have yet been made about this or any other aspect of a new system of funding for political parties. However I would make three points in response to your general views.First, a substantial sum of public money already goes to political parties under the existing system, and much of it is long standing. Second, even if no more public funds went in future to political parties, other changes to the party funding system should be directed towards encouraging parties to make better contact with the voters than they do now. Third, if I recommend more public funds for parties, that will not only require greater accountability and transparency but also place an even clearer obligation on them to engage better with the electorate. It is this part of political and democratic reform to use your own words, with which my review is engaged.
And from Slim Jim:
We are currently experiencing the highest levels of taxation in our history. If party funding goes ahead, what possible benefits will the taxpayer see? Unless this proposal is accompanied by much-needed political and democratic reform, it will be seen as just another stealth tax, will it not? We need greater accountability, not more taxation (without representation!).
By talking of “Party Funding” going ahead, I assume you mean providing more public funds for political parties. I want to underline that no decisions have yet been made about this or any other aspect of a new system of funding for political parties. However I would make three points in response to your general views.First, a substantial sum of public money already goes to political parties under the existing system, and much of it is long standing. Second, even if no more public funds went in future to political parties, other changes to the party funding system should be directed towards encouraging parties to make better contact with the voters than they do now. Third, if I recommend more public funds for parties, that will not only require greater accountability and transparency but also place an even clearer obligation on them to engage better with the electorate. It is this part of political and democratic reform to use your own words, with which my review is engaged.
Conservative and Labour have both overspent. If they were individuals or corporations they would be bankrupt.
If there is to be public funding should there not at least be a requirement that parties live within their expanded means?
No decisions have yet been made. However, more public funding does not seem to me to be the only or necessarily primary reason why parties should be expected generally to live within their means. Equally – like individuals or corporations – they should be able, within the law, to raise money provided they can clearly foresee how they can meet their financial obligations.
In conclusion it can quite clearly be seen that Sir Hayden is well down the road to wanting more state funding. Whether he will find a way of balancing this with some independent review I do not know.
When the report is finally issued I will review with a nice bottle of cold Reisling to dull the pain......
My Q&A is below:
Scenario statistics?
Having reviewed the website forum I thought it would be interesting to have the statistics for each of the 4 scenarios' outlined in the interim review.
By this I mean how many posts or posters were in favour of the 4 scenario's put forward.
I appreciate the chance to give feedback and I would be most interested to know the overall balance of views thus far. I would be concerned if the whole report did not hold any reflection of the strength of feeling as well as the breadth of debate.
The forum pre-dated setting
Posted by Sir Hayden Phillips on 30/10/2006 - 14:49
The forum pre-dated setting out the four scenarios. But I want to make it clear that those scenarios were not options from which to choose but a way of illustrating the issues involved. The point of publishing the interim assessment, and of this webchat, is to get peoples views on these issues. What are yours?
My view is that there is little wrong with the current system that an independent review body could not fix. The government did away with a parliamentary regulator, Elizabeth Filkin as I remember, who was doing a good job of policing parliamentarians.
This kind of approach would allow Labour to continue to receive union funding and Tories / Lib Dems their funding too, without further taxation.
The current system is also not bad in comparison with other democracies. The current investigations prove that it works, not that it is a fiddle. Cheaters are being caught.
From many people I have spoken too there is no appetite for increasing public funds from where they are today.
I think that the current politicians have two agenda;
Seeking a way to keep the established status quo and make it more difficult for new parties to emerge and break the consensus;
Reducing their need to rely on donors/public for funds for election and therefore reducing the need to engage directly with a public who can disagree with their views.
Britain is a free country at heart and its democracy has lasted hundreds of years without the need for substantial state funding of political parties. I hope that the outcome of your review is that this remains the case.
There were also some other useful questions with hazy answers, the best two of which are below:
Daylight robbery !
Posted by Colin McNamee ( I am guessing the UKIP candidate here) on October 30th 2006
The discussions of the three main political parties are giving bias in their favour at the expense of smaller political parties and Independents and therefore to the detriment of democracy. It will inhibit the growth of other parties and political positions.
41% of the electorate chose not to vote in the 2005 General Election.
With the overspending during the 2005 General Election, which each party did voluntarily, the three main parties are activity discussing the taxpayer to finance their unprincipled behaviour.
A maximum to be levied on monies spent by all political parties equally and for them to have to act and fund raise within the law and be provably seen to do. The use of taxpayers money will be an open cheque to these profligate spenders.
State funding applies on the Continent and it has not stopped corruption by political parties of public funds in Germany, France and Italy.
Your interim assessment indicates an overwhelming lack of support from the public for State Funding, as this is a democracy that counts. It is also their money.
Based on just the above where is there any justification for the State Funding of political parties in the UK?
By talking of “Party Funding” going ahead, I assume you mean providing more public funds for political parties. I want to underline that no decisions have yet been made about this or any other aspect of a new system of funding for political parties. However I would make three points in response to your general views.First, a substantial sum of public money already goes to political parties under the existing system, and much of it is long standing. Second, even if no more public funds went in future to political parties, other changes to the party funding system should be directed towards encouraging parties to make better contact with the voters than they do now. Third, if I recommend more public funds for parties, that will not only require greater accountability and transparency but also place an even clearer obligation on them to engage better with the electorate. It is this part of political and democratic reform to use your own words, with which my review is engaged.
And from Slim Jim:
We are currently experiencing the highest levels of taxation in our history. If party funding goes ahead, what possible benefits will the taxpayer see? Unless this proposal is accompanied by much-needed political and democratic reform, it will be seen as just another stealth tax, will it not? We need greater accountability, not more taxation (without representation!).
By talking of “Party Funding” going ahead, I assume you mean providing more public funds for political parties. I want to underline that no decisions have yet been made about this or any other aspect of a new system of funding for political parties. However I would make three points in response to your general views.First, a substantial sum of public money already goes to political parties under the existing system, and much of it is long standing. Second, even if no more public funds went in future to political parties, other changes to the party funding system should be directed towards encouraging parties to make better contact with the voters than they do now. Third, if I recommend more public funds for parties, that will not only require greater accountability and transparency but also place an even clearer obligation on them to engage better with the electorate. It is this part of political and democratic reform to use your own words, with which my review is engaged.
Conservative and Labour have both overspent. If they were individuals or corporations they would be bankrupt.
If there is to be public funding should there not at least be a requirement that parties live within their expanded means?
No decisions have yet been made. However, more public funding does not seem to me to be the only or necessarily primary reason why parties should be expected generally to live within their means. Equally – like individuals or corporations – they should be able, within the law, to raise money provided they can clearly foresee how they can meet their financial obligations.
In conclusion it can quite clearly be seen that Sir Hayden is well down the road to wanting more state funding. Whether he will find a way of balancing this with some independent review I do not know.
When the report is finally issued I will review with a nice bottle of cold Reisling to dull the pain......
Thursday, 26 October 2006
A pointless exercise
I have been sent the below today by Sir Philip Hayden:
"This is your advance invitation to join me in an online question and answer hour on Monday 30 October at 2pm (1400 GMT). This webchat follows the publication of our interim assessment and I am inviting you early as a way of saying thank you for your participation in our online forum."
Apparently,
"By entering into a dialogue with you through the forum, asking you questions and listening to what you have to say, we have fed your views into our analytical work and my discussions with the political parties.
Last Thursday I published an interim assessment setting out the main issues as they appear to me; and the choices that face the public and political parties. The debate on party funding has moved on. Choices now need to be made between sometimes conflicting views on these issues."
My and most other views on the forum were vehemently against giving Parties any more State funding and also withdrawing the ability of unions to give money to labour willy-nilly, this should be an interesting webchat.
Sir Phillip's interim assessment helpfully summarises all the views and clearly marks out the case for extra government funding.
So now I feel cheated twice, firstly because the review is the sham it was always going to be; secondly because this is at a cost to me as a taxpayer.
"This is your advance invitation to join me in an online question and answer hour on Monday 30 October at 2pm (1400 GMT). This webchat follows the publication of our interim assessment and I am inviting you early as a way of saying thank you for your participation in our online forum."
Apparently,
"By entering into a dialogue with you through the forum, asking you questions and listening to what you have to say, we have fed your views into our analytical work and my discussions with the political parties.
Last Thursday I published an interim assessment setting out the main issues as they appear to me; and the choices that face the public and political parties. The debate on party funding has moved on. Choices now need to be made between sometimes conflicting views on these issues."
My and most other views on the forum were vehemently against giving Parties any more State funding and also withdrawing the ability of unions to give money to labour willy-nilly, this should be an interesting webchat.
Sir Phillip's interim assessment helpfully summarises all the views and clearly marks out the case for extra government funding.
So now I feel cheated twice, firstly because the review is the sham it was always going to be; secondly because this is at a cost to me as a taxpayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)