Confusion over Tory budget cuts
When it comes to cutting Britain's massive budget deficit (almost £180 billion this financial year and next) the Tories have always insisted they would go faster and further than Labour. Now it's not so clear.
First, Labour's plans: they would not touch the deficit in 2010/11 but thereafter cut the deficit in half over the three years ending April 2014. It's a big cut in a short time and we don't yet know much about how it would be done.
The Tories say they would start cutting the deficit in the new financial year beginning this April (2010/11). It's never been clear just how much they'd cut in their first year but the implication has always been that the axe would cut deep.
Not now: the talk is about a "limited" first year cut and "we're not talking about swingeing cuts" (D Cameron Jan 31). When I interviewed Phillip Hammond (Shadow Chief Secretary) this week he refused to define "limited" but revealed that so far they'd only defined around £1 billion in cuts for 2010/11. No doubt they would do more than that but the difference between Labour and the Tories on immediate public spending cuts is no longer very pronounced.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
What about the longer-term? Yesterday's speech by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne merits close textual scrutiny. The Tory plan is now to "eliminate in large part" the structural current budget deficit over a Parliament. This is technical so let's unravel.
The structural deficit is that part which remains even after economic growth. It is, naturally, smaller than the overall deficit and economists differ on how it should be defined. But the Tories are saying they'd eliminate only the structural current deficit, which excludes capital spending, so they are referring only to a part of the structural deficit and promising to cut that part by an unspecified amount. They would also take a Parliament to do it, which means five years rather than Labour's three (to cut the overall deficit in half).
Still with us? Let me see if I can summarise.
As Allister Heath writes in City AM today, the Tories are now saying they'd take "five years to eliminate an ill-defined chunk of the structural (not cyclical) component of a sub-set of the deficit which excludes capital spending. That is even weaker than Labour's plan."
In fact, because the Tories have yet to put figures on their ambitions it's quite hard to see if it's weaker than Labour's deficit-cutting plans. But it's getting harder to see how they are "faster and further".
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It's all tinkering around the edges. Halving the budget deficit in four years still leaves us borrowing around £6,000,000,000 a month and inflating the money supply with artificially low rates for the degree of fiscal indiscipline. It prevents long-term investment and steals money from savers. Spending should be cut quickly, deeply, and progressively to allow a surplus to develop and avoid interest rate rises.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
we should read your blog with the problem of the budget, and the massive deficit, in conjunction with the speech by Brown yesterday on changes to the constitution. He says and I quote from the Number 10 website:
'And our government has already helped deliver changes that have given more power to people with changes that are more profound than any to politics since the war - and where we have been able to achieve it we have sought and won all party support'.
Now I have no power to change the way government spends my taxes. We have taxation without representation, we have have in the case of some MPs representation with no taxation, but for Brown to assert that our government has 'given more power to the people' is a travesty of the truth, at least Citizen (not subject you will note) Smith wanted power to the people, not 'more' power to the people. I used to live in Tooting, and well remember the glorious revolutionary times, where is that bobble hat.
I think that Brown and his advisers are stuck in some neothilic time warp, next they'll be taking over the role of the Americans and sending the Clangers to the Moon, I saw it on a tv show, as for 'Muffin the Mule'.
When Brown says our government, what on earth does that mean, I mean he took over from Blair two years ago as a result of a coup, this is 1984 gone wrong. Well done Andrew, a new blog. They have picked up on reading the comments made on previous blogs about Brown before the 1997 election, we must see the books first, we can make no promises, I mean even the tax changes were announced last year, to take effect from 5th April this year. Clare Short quite rightly gave her 'evidence' to Chilcot yesterday explaining about her budget and the view from thr Treasury, that's it, that's all you are getting despite the war in Iraq. Brown should have made allowances for the change of circumstances, only he didn't, too pre-occpied on other things.
Complain about this comment
Nobody knows how to get us out of this mess. Both the main parties are making ambiguous hopeful sounding noises with nothing concrete to back them up.
Its quite interesting to watch them going through the motions of wanting to seem electable but in a way that suggests they really would be somewhere else entirely.
If we we just an audience and not potential victims it could be fun to watch the eventual outcome.
I think it was the Queen said when the recession kicked in " this happens every so often and none of them really know what to do about it".
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
just to say that John Reid is giving his 'evidence' to Chilcot, he doesn't half touch his nose a lot when making his comments.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
absolutely fantastic piece on the Pope and demonstrations, and the changes which Harman proposed which will not now take place. people wonder why Blair did not convert until after he lost his role as Prime Minister. I wonder what the police, and the government will do about any gay demonstrations against the Pope, and compare the position as against when the Chinese visit last year.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
the point made by Madeley on the Daily Politics, is pathetic, nobody knows what the situation would be today if we rewrote history. There was no justice for the tens, if not hundreds of thousands who died as a result of the decision to go to war. The certainty is that saddam is dead, a many others are dead as well.
Complain about this comment
I totally disagree with your view Andrew.
You say "the difference between Labour and the Tories on immediate public spending cuts is no longer very pronounced".
You also say "The Tories say they would start cutting the deficit in the new financial year beginning this April (2010/11)".
Labour have said and keep repeating that they will increase spending in April 2010/2011.
Surely that is a massive difference and very pronounced difference.
How about grilling Labour MP's about blatant misuse of taxpayers money with regional cabinet meetings (should be paid by Labour as they are simply electioneering).
How about the misuse of taxpayers money wasting time discussing things like AV voting etc. which cannot become law before the election.
How about grilling Labour about why all their commitments on new laws designed to hogtie the government do not come in till after the next election when Labour expect it to be a tory government.
How about no defence review for 10 years and no spending review until after the election plus all the tax rises after the election.
It is Labour that you should be grilling, they are meant to be the government.
How about demanding Labour explain how they will half the deficit in 4 years.
How about laying off the tories for a while as they do not have the books and therefore do not know how much more of a mess Labour have made of the economy.
How about interrupting loud mouthed Labour MP's on your show who talk incessantly without answering your questions (something you do all the time with the tories.
You are appearing to be as biassed as Andrew Marr and Nick Robinson the way you are letting off these incompetent Labour MP's.
Complain about this comment
Despite the Media hammering the Tories to detail the 'cuts' plans whilst giving a free ride to Labour who refuse to give any details other than they will continue to spend and give our money away to Brown 'good' causes, the fact remains that the Tories no longer wish to win this election for reasons which are all too obvious.
Time therefore to make this Government admit to how much pain they have in store for us over the next 4 years, but more importantly to estimate how much our DEBT will have grown to, including off balance sheet debt, over this 4 years, how much this will cost in interest payments, explain how they are going to start to pay this massive debt off, and why they will still be spending £90bn a year more than they receive in income.
Cameron was right when he said you could not continue to treat the taxpayer as a bottomless credit card.
Complain about this comment
3 Xtun
I think the Tories are just bottling it now, having stated they were going to be straightforward about cuts they are afraid the electorate cannot handle honesty and are back peddling.
If there are no concrete plans to address the deficit the markets may take fright and force whatever government is in power to take action anyhow.
BTW appreciated your defence of Short last night in the other place.
Complain about this comment
Richard Madeley as chief apologist for Blair has invited us to consider where we would be now, in 2010, if we hadn't committed to invading Iraq. Well for a start a million people would probably still be here who otherwise had their lives snuffed out.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
For Madeley to repeat Blair's '2010 question' simply revealed his (and Blair's) naivety. There was never any supposition, or any likelihood, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein would have been allowed to continue with their devious schemes without interference. Why would the UN cease their inspections and sanctions just because there was no decision to invade in 2003?
Depending on how the inspections proceeded, and how Hussein reacted, there might have been a satisfactory solution without bloodshed. And if this course of action failed, the UN could have approved military intervention or introduced tighter sanctions, etc. These possibilities cannot be ignored as Blair ignored them.
The simplistic '2010 question' was never worth considering. It was based on false assumptions.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I think that the Tories are playing the 'who governs Britain' card for the period after the election. if they are elected, and it is a big if, as I have been saying for some time I think that there will be either a hung parliament, or a government of national unity. The problem is that there will be cuts, there will be difficulties, and there are people who having been staying quiet ready to do damage after the general election, the left have not gone away, there will be the class struggle. So, let us say that the conservatives do 'win' and the left start kicking off 'Citizen Smith'style, power to the people and all that, then the conservatives will be able to say, we won the election, we have a mandate, we will use all the means at our disposal to run this country, CCTV will have payback, drones over the streets of Britain, all that sort of 'stuff'. All to keep terror off the streets of Britain of course.
Complain about this comment
Andrew
There have been so many misrepresentations, spin or smoke and mirrors over spending (capital and current) at the best of times that it is extremely difficult to pin any politician down at all. The porridge mess is then conflated with PFI and PPP projects, which are not on HM Treasury's balance sheet but on that of local councils and NHS hospital Trusts. Currently expenditure plans will show central government spending more year on year, BUT those councils/NHS Trust that have PFI schemes on their books will be spending LESS on services as more of their budgets allocate repayments to the banks on the PFI loans. That some of the banks are part nationalised is beyond parody.
Other councils have already made cuts and are planning more due to freezes in the central Gov payments to councils; limits on how much Council Tax can rise; monies collected from speeding cameras redirected to Whitehall. Hence councils are now resorting to all sorts of ridiculous fines on the populace to increase revenues, examples of which abound in the Daily Mail etc. Thankfully this practice is not widespread but it is pretty much a postal lottery.
Regarding the UK's credit rating, I do not believe that the banks really care about this at all and even less about the UK's economy. Until it comes to the crunch the banks will make hay as long as the sun shines. The sun is shining very brightly indeed. By not ringfencing QE and dithering over bank reform a huge mistake has been made.
Defence spending is quite frankly a calamitous mess. The aircraft carriers and ne Trident are all about jobs in Glasgow and NE England respectively. The former are useless strategically without a mini fleet escort of destroyers, frigates and submarines. The Navy has a spectacular shortage of destroyers and frigates - I think we are reduced to 3 or 4 ships for coastal defence purposes.
The joint navy with another country has some merit but lacks ambition. As far as I can make out, French foreign policy has not changed at all since the nineteenth century - it is all about the colonial empire! A more pragmatic approach and one that is symptomatic of changing times, is to ally ourselves with some of the new kids on the block in the G20. We could have an Atlantic navy comprised of say UK, Brazil, Canada and South Africa. Equally further afield partnerships could include Australia etc. Such partnerships could possibly act as deterrent against conviction political leaders from leading us into illegal wars.
Complain about this comment
Are you all deaf? The only people I've heard talking about 'swingeing cuts' are Mandy and co. supposedly referring to the Tory plans. In what universe is an Opposition treated like a government in that they have to answer all questions about their intentions re- cuts and taxes while the actual government sit there doing a 'Yah boo ..'and the media comply with this approach?
Complain about this comment
Quote from todays Chilcot Inquiry.
Sir Kevin Tebbit, the Ministry of Defence’s top civil servant at the time, said that Mr Brown, the then Chancellor, "arbitrarily" ordered the cuts just six months after the Iraq invasion as troops faced a growing insurgency.
Unquote
Brown has got blood on his hands as well as Bliar because Brown was the Military Paymaster.
Sir Kevin Tebbit says he nearly quit, what bull----- is that, the only peron to quit so far was Clare Short.
Its all well and good these creeps giving evidence NOW and saying "I nearly quit" why did't they kickup a stink BEFORE to prevent loss of life.They all lack conviction.
No doubt Brown will give evidence to say the Military Chiefs got ALL the logistics which they required during the Iraq War,which again is BULL---
I would dearly love some of these witnesses take a lie detector test on Iraq.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I thought that the 'performance' of 'Dickie' madely was absolutely fantastic. I mean he is just so yesterday with his sixties long hair, his I so forgot to have a shave for a couple of days, and looking untidy is just so in for people who are of his age.
His references to the Blair testimony to Chilcot was fanatastic, I wonder if he expects him and his wife to go to the House of Lords. People in the media like him have an awful lot to answer for, I mean 2010 where would we be now if Blair had not authorised the killing of so many people. You'd think that saddam had been removed, rather than executed. I wonder if all those people who think that it was alright to remove Saddam would like to see the return of hanging to this country.
In the meantime where are they on the streets complaining about all the recent executions in Iran over thier demonstrations. can't wait for a conservative victory to see how some of these people react to having 'Dave' Cameron as leader. Well must go for now 'Andy' things to do peeps to see, can't wait for Itchy and Scratchy tomorrow night, brilliant. Finally, I did so love Brown on PMQs, hereditary peers, exactly who did vote for Mandy, and the others that Blair and Brown filled the Lords with.
There must be a democratically elected second chamber, not a democratically accountable House of Lords, they are most definitely not the same. As for all the Quangoes, keep it up, who elects all thse people, how accountable are they, maybe they should have resigned as well. I mean why do I have to hold my nose when I'm watching people at Chilcot sying sort of oh I nearly resigned, or I was close to resigning, but basically they lacked courage, unlike a very close family member of mine who risked imprisonment, but has now been silenced by a High Court judge granting the MoD an injunction. So much for freedom of speech! Maybe he ought to be called by Chilcot, whoever he is.
Complain about this comment
Andrew how come you did not pick this up on PM Questions.
The Prime Minister
10, Downing Street
London, SW1A 2AA
3 February 2010
Dear Mr Brown,
At Prime Minister’s Questions today, you told the House of Commons that you knew nothing about the secret fund, worth a reported £50,000, which was held by the Labour Party for your benefit. When asked why you did not declare this on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests (RMFI), you said specifically: ‘I know nothing about what he [the questioner] is talking about.’
This simply cannot be true.
It is clear from Peter Watt, the Labour Party’s former General Secretary, that you were the beneficiary of a secret fund held by the Labour Party. He has said explicitly:
‘Before becoming Prime Minister, Gordon went to some lengths to insulate himself and the Treasury from our financial troubles, setting up his own personal pot of cash at party HQ. This was money we could not dip into, since it was set aside for the Chancellor’s own pet projects. Murray Elder helped secure donations from the Chancellor’s supporters’ (Inside Out, January 2010, page 105).
He went on to claim that it may have been used to finance your ‘long-term campaign to become party leader’ (Inside Out, Peter Watt, 2010, page 105).
Mr Watt’s assertions were widely reported. Indeed, across several pages in the Mail on Sunday, Mr Watt claimed that you used ‘up to £50,000-a-year of Labour money to pay for private polling’ (Mail on Sunday, 17 January 2010).
The allegations were explicitly confirmed as truthful by a Labour official who said in the same article: ‘It [the fund] was funded through donations to the Party.’
In the light of these allegations, my colleague, Greg Hands MP, wrote to you more than two weeks ago, on 17 January, to query why you had failed to declare the fund properly the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This letter was publicised in several newspapers on 18 January.
As you did not respond, Greg Hands submitted a complaint to John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner this week. I attach a copy of this complaint for your reference. Again, this complaint was reported.
Yesterday in a speech titled ‘Transforming Politics’, you said that you would ‘do all that is necessary to restore trust’ in politics and the conduct of MPs. If you wish to restore trust in politics, you should stop treating people like fools by claiming that you were unaware of this fund when all the evidence points to the contrary. I therefore urge you to admit to this fund’s existence, apologise for misleading the House and co-operate with any inquiries that John Lyon may wish to make.
Yours sincerely,
Eric Pickles
Chairman, The Conservative Party
Member of Parliament for Brentwood and Ongar
Complain about this comment
Andrew, i understand that, we already know that, what im asking is this
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/fingers-in-pies.html
Complain about this comment
Ref 18 John Smith
Oh dear me, what a tangled web we weave when we set out to decieve.
It would appear that GB is a thief as well as a liar??!!
Complain about this comment
The current SecofState for the MOD and 4 previous holders of that position were not available for C4 News tonight ,surprise surprise no-one wants to talk to Jon Snow about the breaking news that GB cut defence budget 3 months after the Iraq War started.
There is no doubt in my mind that SOMEONE is lying thru their teeth about the MOD cuts and we need to get to the bottom of this.Bring in lie detectector sez me.
Complain about this comment
Sudan's President Mr Bashier may well face war crimes in the Hague for genocide in Dafur SOONER than he thinks, which means Uncle Sam needs to start with the Oil extractions from that area.
Call me sceptic if you wish but just watch the dates between Bashier being arrested and Oil Exploration starting in Dafur.
Complain about this comment
ZZZZZZZZZ
What a boring old chestnut this is. We know the Tories are more committed to reducing the national debt than Labour and we know they're going to make cuts. The implication is that Tory cuts will be deeper than Labour cuts, but we also know the Labour Govt tell porkies because they're deperate to retain power. So at the end of the day it doesn't matter who's returned at the election, we'll inevitably have to pay more tax for fewer services and it will be the lowest earners bearing the brunt of it as usual...
Complain about this comment
Good evening each & Andrew.
Is it a bird? is it a plane?...
http://www.eurogendfor.eu/
Not male? Not female! but Eurogen...
As mission statements go there's is a doozy; and ends...
EGF goal is to provide the International Community with a valid and operational instrument for crisis management, first and foremost at disposal of EU, but also of other International Organizations, as NATO, UN and OSCE, and ad hoc coalitions.
Complain about this comment
Just been reading the problems with Greece and developments for the Euro.
Is this the UK's future and we are waiting for the overture to finish?
I suspect that the Tories message of more drastic cuts have been disliked in the focus groups and they are trying to move towards it. At Cameron's victory over David Davis looks a bit big mistake. Looks as if they were electing some one to take on Blair, when they should have looked forward a few years and the need for a 'conviction' politician.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Perhaps they don't want to scare the electorate. The Tories have one thing on their mind right now, and one thing only ... winning this election. They either have a stack of plans they don't want to share, or - perhaps more likely - they have NO plan other than gaining power. Can't blame them too much for that, I suppose. Labour are equally guilty. And all the plans in the world are irrelevant if you don't get into government.
Complain about this comment
This exchange from the Commons caught my eye...
It's from the debate on the Police Grant Report presented by the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, David Hanson.
It refers to the formula used for funding the county constabularies.
Humfrey Malins (Woking)(Con) has the floor:
I come now to the funding formula. I am not aware of whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have a first-class degree in mathematics—that seems to me entirely possible—and the Minister may well have such a degree. However, I defy any Member of the House to explain, in comprehensible terms, what this formula is. For posterity, I shall quote from a magnificent document called “The Police Grant Report”. Wait for it, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is incomprehensible. I have never, in—I was going to say my 64 years of life, but I will say my long life—come across anything that is such gobbledegook: I am flabbergasted by it. This part is one of about 15—it talks about something called top-ups, and is headed “Police Crime Top-Up 1”. Here we go; I advise the Minister to make a note:
“2.6482 multiplied by DAYTIME NET INFLOW PER RESIDENT POPULATION; plus
0.2953 multiplied by LOG OF BARS PER 100 HECTARES; plus
16.2210 multiplied by INCOME SUPPORT/INCOME BASED JSA/GUARANTEE ELEMENT OF PENSION CREDIT CLAIMANTS; plus
34.1326 multiplied by SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS”.
Well, it is impossible; I could look at that on an exam paper for a couple of hours and would not have the slightest clue. At the end of the document, under the heading “Scaling Factor”—I do not have a clue what a scaling factor is, and I am still none the wiser—it says:
“The scaling factor used in paragraph 5.6…is:
0.999997836417373”.
"It is magnificent."
Small wonder the police are under-funded... they can't work out the sums.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone explain why we're building aircraft carriers ?
We discovered from the Falklands War that, unless we take on an underdeveloped country without submaries or a navy, they are such a vulnerability that they render much of the rest of the navy redundant by having to protect them.
The Afghan War has demonstrated that we aren't well prepared even to take on a rag tag rabble and need to rely on US support and scheduled airlines to take our troops to war. It may represent some nod to our colonial heritage, but is totally beyond our current needs or means.
The only possible justification is to have major components for the use of another force, either American or European, and we've all had good reason to question the basis on which our forces get sent to war when under the control of our government. If it comes under the direction of some Euro panel or US president, then there's no telling what political agenda they'll be following.
It's absurd to try to run the armed forces of a global super power on the budget of a country crippled and bankrupted for the benefit of bankers. Cancel our rather pointless Trident order, as I have little doubt we couldn't press any button without US permission anyway, and make it clear that banks spent our nulear deterrent budget.
Surely that would be preferable to us having to leave our old folk on the doorsteps of banks when there is no money left to look after them.
Gordon's litany of failure, in such a short period in charge, is remarkable and his catalogue of deceit is a wonder to behold, the crowning glory of which is to offer a referendum on constitutional reform when it clearly only suits his personal ambition. Hypocrisy of that order deserves elevation, but not to become PM or a Lord. I doubt he ever asks 'Who is the fairest of them all ?' when he shaves in the mirror in the morning.
Complain about this comment
Is it going to make any difference at all who is elected in May. The die is cast for the future of the United States of Europe. Germany and the Baltic states will start to become the industrial centre, France, Spain, Italy and the mediterainian regions will become the farming and food producing areas and London will be the financial centre.
Those of us in the UK not in the banking industry will have to fight for the service jobs or tourism.
Time to get fitted out for that suite of amour for the daily joust, the Americans and Chinese love it you know. I wonder wether metal chaffing is covered under work related injuries to the same extent as RSI?
Complain about this comment
Andrew, good to see you exploring the structural and cyclical elements of the deficit. You are right to say that "The structural deficit is that part which remains even after economic growth". But you have missed the significance of the corollary - the cyclical deficit shrinks or even disappears with growth. Since the cyclical deficit is about half the total, according to the IFS, the Labour commitment to halve the deficit in 4 years is, in effect, a commitment to sit back and do nothing while growth does its work. Of course, since Alistair's forecasts are probably rather optimistic, it may take more than 4 years but, by then, who will be counting.
Therefore, contrary to your conclusion, the Tories' plan is much tougher than Labour's, as growth will reduce the cyclical deficit whoever is in power but only the Tories will address the structural deficit. As this is the part of the deficit that arises from a decade of living beyond our means it is the part that really matters if we are to restore the public finances to health.
Ironic really: it's the "Do Something" Tories vs the "Do Nothing" government but no-one in the media seems to have noticed.
Complain about this comment
BG 28
Small wonder the police are under-funded... they can't work out the sums.
...apart from when they submit their overtime claims,
Complain about this comment
The Tories are too worried about Labour's scare stories, and are getting nervous because the Election is ever closer. If the Tories are to win a majority they need to be more definitive and paint a brighter future. Up until about a month ago Brown could not get anything right. Now he is being handed hope by the Tories becoming vague and dithery.
Brown has taken this country through the deepest and longest recession in peace time. Surely that is more than enough ammo for anyone to get him out of office. Not so sure at the moment.
Complain about this comment
EXXONMOBIL2
More on the BBC pension connection.
The Institutional Investers Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European wide forum for leading asset owners and asset managers to promote the assessment and active management of the investment risks and opportunities associated with climate change. The group currently comprises over 40 members with assets under management in excess of 3.7 trillion Euro.
Chairman IIGCC, Peter Dunscombe, Head of Pensions - Investments, BBC Pension Trust Ltd
IIGCC Membership, January 2008
ABP Investments, Baptist Union of Great Britain, BBC Pension Trust, Bedfordshire County Council Pension Fund, Black Rock, BNP Paribas Asset Management, CB Richard Ellis Investors, CCLA Investment Management, Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church, Church Commissioners for England, Co-Operative Insurance Society, Climate Change Capitol, Corporation of London Pension Fund, Credit Agricole Asset Management,
DWS Investments, Environmental Agency Pension Fund, Ethos Foundation, F&C Management Ltd, General Investment Management LLP, Greater Manchester Pension Fund, Hendrson Global Investors, Hermes, HSBC Investments, Insight Investments, Integral Development Asset Management, Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund, London Borough of Islington Pension Fund, London Borough of Newham Pension Fund, London Pension Funds Authority, Merseyside Pension Fund, Morely Fund Management, PGGM, Prudential Property Investment Managers, Schroders, The Church of Wales, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, United Reformed Church, Universities Superannuation Scheme, West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund, West Yorkshire Pension Fund, William Leech Charitable Trust.
Complain about this comment
A quote from Chairman IIGCC, Peter Dunscombe prior to the Copenhagen fiasco.
"The stage is set for a series of decisions which will be critical to how climate change investment advances post-2012," said Peter Dunscombe, Chairman of IIGCC. "To-date investment decision-making has been hampered by weak, disparate and uncertain policies, as well as short time horizons. The specific measures we have called for today will provide a much more supportive investment environment, thus enabling long-term private sector investment and liquidity essential to address climate change. Failure to act is an option which carries with it damaging consequences."
So it's all about the money then.
Complain about this comment
# 35
The way things are going for the Global Warming Camp, I trust he's having a major rethink on investment strategy.
Anyone hear Dr Pachauri's latest rant ? I won't reproduce it hear as its pretty offensive, but typical of the man's complete lack of control. No wonder the government are in a panic to give their own 'creature' - the UEA CRU - a new coat of paint, as soon as possible.
I hope they make the same mistake as Penn University with their difficulties, who are reported to be losing some of their government funding.
Complain about this comment
ref 34 ukpahonta
Smells of a big fat rat to me
Complain about this comment
GREAT, another report out later today damning 50% MPs for expense abuse. I am surprised it is only 50%???
couldn't come at a better time. Sack the bloody lot of them sez me.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
may I use the analogy of Arsenal when talking about Brown at PMQs. Until this week Brown was by general concensus doing quite well at PMQs. Not brilliant but not too bad. Then last week he decided that he would miss PMQs because of the talks in Ireland, he did the big I am and I can leave it to Harman to hold the fort, she wasn't very good. It is the same with Arsenal, they were flying high, had some good results, then went top of the table. Unfortunately they sent out the equivalent of the second team in the FA Cup, and lost, and now they are falling like a stone.
Brown lost it yesterday, there are serious questions which cannot be brushed aside, in particular the reference made in the Chamber to a £50,000 Fund. Others have referred to it on your blog and the way in which Brown slumped into his seat shows that he is not a happy man. Its the same with a lot of things, he is above all this, it is just so demeaning, not the sort of question a PM should be asked at all. I can't wait until Brown goes before Chilcot, when will that be, it surely can't be too long after the problems of funding the military. Or will he call an election so as not to have to present himself for questioning. I think that 'audience' ought to be all those who have given their perspectives at earlier hearings. Then we can watch their faces as Brown weaves his spell!
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I have a problem which somebody might be able to help me with. Oil and gas take up space, underground. They are then extracted from beneath the sea. That must leave space in the structure from which they have been extracted. What goes into the space which has been 'created', how is it filled, we have landfill sites for our rubbish so what goes into the holes under the sea.
Now if it is water, then surely rising sea levels will result if the water does not go into the holes. I mean how much gas and oil do we take out, same with the middle east and all the other places. What does go into the space. Its only a simple question but we are learning from Chilcot that somebody thinks of the question but thinks it is too stupid to ask.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
in this blog you are talking about Tory and budget cuts. Then yesterday we were hearing about the problems with the cost of our war forces, sorry defence forces. What they really ought to be called is the Ministry of Attack, much like Saddam was 'removed' no executed.
What I think is interesting is that we read about how the forces of darkness have bought about regime change without going to war, for example Chile and Allyende for the CIA, then our methods of overthrowing earlier rulers in Iran, and Afghanistan. What I am hinting at is that Cambodia had the Khymer Rouge, why were they not overthrown when journalists knew what was going on. Same with so many things in the media.
However, with regard to the military why do we have so many Chiefs, and so few indians. I mean a General, an Admiral, and an Air Commodore. Why not totally merge the forces, none can work without the other. Get rid of the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army, make them all one. Make it just the Military, or the Killers, because that's their real jobs, or the Removers, as Saddam was removed. If you want social workers, or something harmless, then send social workers, not soldiers, airmen, or the Navy.
Complain about this comment
Andrew
I'm an avid watcher of D.P. on i-player & particularly like you taking Politicians to task on Macroeconomic issues they don’t seem 100% on (especially the treasury ones as they seem some the most confused of all). For a while I’ve wondered if using almost the entire UKs QE cash pile to buy guilt’s from the DMO (i.e. the government) should be a political issue? I hadn’t seen much debate on this until very recently when the financial press started to discuss if the UK should have used at least some of the £200bn for the private sector as have the U.S. and some others. I seem to remember the Tories wanting to use £50bn for loans to private enterprise at the beginning of the QE process? Perhaps you feel this topic may be worthy of discussion or perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree??
I am a frustrated Director of a small business which has been waiting for approval of a government backed EFG loan which we were hoping to use to start to seek new work and to expand our operations over 8 months ago when we first applied!
Complain about this comment
ukpahonta, I hope Peter Dunscombe Chairman of IIGCC and head of BBC Pensions keeps a breast of the German press. Der Spiegel comes up with a fraud story about carbon offset trading every week. This is the latest:
"Phishing Scam Cripples European Emissions Trading
Sneaky cyber-thieves have made millions by fraudulently obtaining European greenhouse gas emissions allowances and reselling them. The scam has hampered trading of the credits, which are seen as an important tool in curbing climate change, in several European countries..........."
Complain about this comment
41 catch22
However, with regard to the military why do we have so many Chiefs, and so few indians. I mean a General, an Admiral, and an Air Commodore. Why not totally merge the forces, none can work without the other.
-------------------------------------------------------
Your comment above barely touches on the scale of the problem. This piece below from "The Register" indicates the over staffing of senior officers at the Ministry of Defence:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/04/mod_green_paper/
On the matter of trimming some admirals, generals, air marshals and equivalent civil servants, no firm commitments are made:
[We will consider] whether the number of senior civilian and military personnel is justified.
There's pretty much no way it can be: the British Army, for example, can field just two combat units calling for generals to command them - and yet there are 65 two-star generals and above. The navy has 42 admirals, more than one for every serious warship (including quite small ones) it posesses; and things are just as bad in the RAF. Unbelievably there are no fewer than 300 MoD civil servants in the top four grades, equivalent to brigadiers or above.
Then also consider the perks a lot of senior officers get as well: accomodation, probably a batman or two... Does the MoD know that WW2 ended a few years ago?
Complain about this comment
The question is about how much will the taxpayer tolerate to pay for the crimes of the banking industry? Your retirement accounts are diminished, your investments are diminished, your property is worth less, you will have increased taxes and now some set of lost services. I would think any political party may wish to walk lightly as they try to explain any service cuts while the bankers pay themselves bonuses and try to explain why those in government did nothing to prevent the crisis when made aware of the problems years in advance. But of course the politicans do not wish to dwell on the past.
Complain about this comment
So the expenses are back. Tomorrow we find out if any will be prosecuted.
I think at least 373 MPs might as well step down now. The time is fast approaching when the electorate will be able to wreak a terrible revenge.
Good I say dump the lot.
Complain about this comment
#45
Any analysis of the crash of 1929 would indicate that one of the main problems was that they did not do what they did with earlier crashes in the 1920s. What was that, they let asset values crash, they find their own level. That is why we have lost more than the wealth owners, they have been saved, but we have lost, big time. I mean even Darling had a mortgage with Northern Rock.
Northern Rock was nationalised, but no money went to shareholders, it went to the directors, depositers, and staff. Same with Bradford and Bingley. So when Brown says that when denationalisation happens there will a share sale with no loss to the taxpayer he is being economical with the truth, as usual.
I await the decision of the CPS as to who will or not be prosecuted. I am still awaiting a comment from Brown as to the situation over his alleged £50,000. Silent on that one, maybe there should be an investigation. Exactly how much did Brown have to repay?
Complain about this comment
Andrew, please would you get G Broon on and put pressure on him to disclose details of all contracts and commitments, including cancellation clauses and terms, so that the other parties can do their sums properly?
That would make for good debating...
Complain about this comment
46 SA
The report also shows a fair number of MP's who have not milked the system.
The fraudulent claims should be taken to court, the minor transgressions should be settled and everyone should move on.
Then in my opinion the next parliament should legislate to reduce the number of MP's at Westminster by a third, reduce the members of the HOL by two thirds and finally curtail expenses and pay the remaining members a decent salary.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I notice that Caroline Wyatt has been on our screens again about the impending attacks in Afghanistan. I have said earlier about DA-Notices and could not fail to note that she referred to why they are announcing an attack before it happens. You see so many people read not only your blogs but also the comments.
Now then about Brown and his £50,000 why has that gone quiet, just ask the questions.
Looking forward to Itchy and Scratchy tonight, could be interesting.
Complain about this comment
Gordon wants to make politics respectable ? - and he can say that and keep a straight face. Very impressive.
Gordon spews rubbish like a ticker tape machine, and so do those about him.
Darling has caught the 'Save a Banker' disease and just talks absolute nonsense, and it's ghard to ascribe any other reason behind it other than that he would be devastated to see a banker go without a gut busting bonus.
Today Darling said, when questioned in the House, that Obama's suggested carve up of banks in the UK wouldn't work because Lehmann Bros that started the collapse were not involved in retail banking, and should never have been allowed to fail.
That's a beautiful melange of half truths and drivel.
"In 2008, Lehman faced an unprecedented loss due to the continuing subprime mortgage crisis. Lehman's loss was apparently a result of having held on to large positions in subprime and other lower-rated mortgage tranches when securitizing the underlying mortgages."
They were facilitators in the whole scandal of sub-prime mortgages, and no government should offer these organisations any form of support.
It is actually reported that the Americans blame the UK as it was claimed that a UK bank was wanting to take over Lehmans, which I doubt was a very smart idea. I'll give credit to Darling if he did stamp his foot on the idea.
Two bits of information. Banks pride themselves on being experts on assessing financial risk, or so they tell us. However, for taking bigger risks they receive superior rewards.
"Lehman then did something that more cautious banks shied away from: it borrowed more and more money. By August 2007, the bank's leverage ratio is believed to have gone as high as 44 to 1 – far beyond competitors like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which had ratios in the 20s or 30s.
Huge rewards followed for those who took the risk. By 2007 turnover was more than $19 billion and staff took home $9 billion in pay and bonuses."
The cult of massive bonuses is a warning sign that banks are taking risks. It's a symptom of sickness not a sign of recovery. We've been there and done that. Darling is placing his chips on the bet that just made him broke, in the belief that it can't fail a second time - GULP. The threat is that if they are controlled we won't get our money back, but that's the most basic of blackmail plots known to mankind. 'Give me more money and you'll get your money back this time'.
These banks generate colossal investments, which could turn out to be little more than imaginary froth, upon which they generate incredible bonuses, leaving the rest of the planet to clean up after them. Forget CO2, if we can't clean this toxic pollution out of the financial markets, the fate of the planet is sealed anyway.
As it appears that Darling is incapable of devising anything that halts bonuses being paid out of taxpayer rescue funds, it's hard to imagine why bankers continue to bleat. Perhaps they wish to convince us that their presence makes us all richer, but that idea is busted. They have only one interest, and that's ruthless self interest, much like politicians really.
Complain about this comment
44#
Even in WW2 we didnt have that many brass hats, ecb. Group Captains commanded Groups rather than individual stations. I dont know when exactly the rot started, just that it got worse towards the end of the cold war and certainly since then. They cost us a flamin' packet. That kind of empire building needs to be stamped on and Lewis Page's piece in The Register shows how bad it is, but... there really ought to be a SecDef who knows his subject matter and can come in and shake the entire place up and kick some arse. 'Elicopter Bob it isnt, although to give him his due, he is getting better, slowly, too slowly, but at least he's not as bad as Portillo or Soames. Fox aint it though either. Doesnt fill you full of confidence for the future.
Complain about this comment
There is a strange similarity between the bailed-out bankers and the expense-exploiting MPs. The underlying drivers are greed and contempt for the taxpayer. Even after their joint disasters, they are all finding penitence difficult and are both striving to salvage what they can in terms of income and personal wealth.
Maybe the lesson we should learn is that the best course of action, for bankers and MPs, would have been to treat them as other companies and other cheats would normally be treated. Those banks that couldn't survive without large inputs of our money should have been allowed to go to the wall, like any other company, with perhaps compensation only for the customers. And MPs guilty of clear system exploitation should have been sacked and by-elections held to replace them.
With some hindsight, these would have been the most effective ways of ensuring that behaviour changed for the better. Knowing the consequences of transgressions is a reasonably sure way of discouraging future irresponsible actions.
Complain about this comment
Re :49
I disagree completely with that assessment meninwhitecoats. They all created the system and were ALL aware that it was open to abuse.
The fact that they tried to block FOI requests for so long proves that beyond doubt as does they way they redacted the information before The Telegraph got hold of it.
They are all guilty irrespective of whether they abused their expenses or not on that count.
In law ignorance is no defence and neither is stupidity. It shouldnt be in this matter either. They have disgraced the greatest Parliament and Parliamentary democracy in the world.
The worst part is that as far as I can see not one of them feels any shame in what they have done.
Complain about this comment
£520,000 each for at least ten members of the Shadow Cabinet and their families when and if they are allowed to introduce their inheritance tax policies.We know where the Tory priorities lie.It is reported that Mr Hammond will be one of the biggest beneficiaries
Complain about this comment
Tories confused over economic policy? Could the fact that vacuDave was advisor to 'No regrets' Norman Lamont have anything to do with the matter?
Complain about this comment
#55, 56
I thought it was 'no regrets' Blair, one of the greatest wealth creators of modern times (for himself, of course). And did Lamont create a bigger economic mess than Gordon?
Also, how many of the cabinet - and former ministers - would benefit from inheritance tax changes? Many of them seem to have multiple houses or have wealthy connections.
Complain about this comment
N054 Super,
Says we have (had) the greatest parliament and parliament democracy in the world
Does anyone think that that is possible, when the majority of parliamentarians are completely un-accountable, un-elected and un-representative, and the people are denied a say in who should be their Head of State?
Complain about this comment
It is reported today that phoney Dave is the king of hospitality amongst his fellow party leaders. He entertained a bunch of lady freemasons at the House of Commons.Are they the people that put fireplaces in for nothing?
Complain about this comment
No57 Mike,
As far as I am aware Mr Blair is little more than a UK citizen. If anyone offered you £200,000 for four speeches, would you accept?
Complain about this comment
#58
The way things are going, we shall be denied a say in anything - it will all be decided in Brussels.
And we could always have a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy. Maybe there would be a majority in favour of having a head of state such as Blair, or Brown, or Dave, or Lord Mandelson.
What do you think?
Complain about this comment
I really don't care who earns a fortune, bankers, Blair or bloody MPs providing they all pay UK tax. Are any of them expats?
If Dave is entertaining the Masons it's the first thing I've heard about him I like!
Complain about this comment
Evening Souter.
I see the Charm School didnt honour your application for a refund then... :-)
... still havent got round to reading your reccomendation from last year (The Two Cultures) yet. Picked up a couple of Theodore Dalrymple's paperbacks recently, but I will get round to it at some point.
Complain about this comment
David Mellor (just on This Week) reckons the Tories current dip in the polls is because we don't know what they are about. Au contraire; it's precisely because we know what they are all about which will see the gap continue to narrow. Their latest backtracking on the economy and the dreaded cuts will only serve to accelerate this process..
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
as some of you will know I am from and live in the westcountry. There is the problem which chilcot has with regard to evidence. Often people are asked where is your evidence. In the meantime down here in the westcountry there is the problem of people with dementia and alzheimers. What I think requires a Chilcot type inquiry is an investigation into what happened, and what has resulted from the Camelford incident. I mean sulphate of ammonia in the water supply. Also what has happened to the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I don't know MPs expenses spend a million or so to get a million. Still no investigation into the role of accountants and auditors into their failure in the banking crisis. They must have very good lobbyists.
Complain about this comment
Ref Catch 22 #40.
To answer your question Catch22 of what replaces the oil and gas extracted from under the ground . They are "SUPPOSED" to inject water into this void,firstly to assist the withdrawal of the product and secondly to fill the void. This is not a great problem with oil and gas production at sea because there is a plentyful supply of water but "ONSHORE" extraction requires BILLIONS of gallons of water and all the "SO CALLED EXPERTS" are scratching their heads in wonderment of the droughts in Africa and the MiddleEast. Take Lake Chad for example which is at its lowest EVER level and just take a look at the AFRICAN OIL development,in Nigeria,Sudan,Chad etc, no bloody wonder Lake Chad is nearly empty.
Someone ,someonewhere should be able to tell you how many BILLION gallons were used on the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline for example, yes BILLIONS.
I hope I answered your question for your Catch 22.
Complain about this comment
I see the Chief Constable of Devon earns nearly as much as the PM according to recent press releases but he has corrected such statements saying he "ONLY" earns £140K. So do we CC Nationwide earning such sums and I for one would disagree they are "Earning their Corn"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ref 65 Catch22.
It might well appear to be illogical to spend £1.6 million on the Expenses Inquiry into the recovery of £1.2. But in my view,it is money well spent to learn 50% of MPs are dishonest.
Talk about Bad Apples??!!
Complain about this comment
Injunctions and Catch22.
As injunctions are very much topical these days from John Terry to MPs expenses thru to your close relative.
Can I suggest, you write or even present yourself to the Chilcot Inquiry with a request to present evidence to the Inquiry on your relatives behalf. This way, your relative would not be in breach of the injunction and you could spill the beans about renditon,rape and pillage etc.
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
we have had a problkem with Harman and her equalities bill and I know his Holiness the Pope has stuck his oar in but may I add my own dimension to the discussion.
Now a famous footballer is in the news. When leaving the pitch male footballers seem to love exhibiting their beautifully honed torsoes. They are banned from baring their chests when scoring a goal, and yet are able to go for masculine displays at the end of the match. I find this display against the spirit of the rules of football. Why I hear you all ask.
Well the Football Association is responsible for both mens and womens football. Now women are not allowed to bare their chests if they score a goal for obvious reasons. They are also not allowed to bare their chests at all, on the football pitch, or its surroundings where members of the public have access, or a view. Why does the Football Association not have the same rules for male footballers as female footballers, the rules would seem to be unequal.
I demand that the footballers, both male and female are treated exactly the same. There must be no baring of chests on the pitch at all, none. To many people the site of a naked, or semi naked, woman in public is offensive, it must be the same for men, stay covered up, I might just get too excited. Is Harman in favour of equality or is she not. It is time for the government, and the F.A., to get a grip. As for the television it might help if they did not show such pictures that may result in women getting too excited.
Complain about this comment
71#
Harriet should definately stayed covered up, otherwise it'll only get Saga excited. He'd come over all unnecessary.
Complain about this comment
So, Andrew, would you happen to be running a sweepstake in the office as to who Kier Starmer is going to throw to the wolves in a few hours time?
Whats the betting that if anyone does get done, its going to be a Tory? Whilst the rest get off scot free?
Anyone see a tanker full of whitewash trying to get through the traffic on Charing Cross Rd heading south?
And now, in this eventful week, the boy Robinson has gone into hiding (how convenient) yet again and closed all his blogs down.... what IS going on?
And the One Show are still giving Labour free prime time PPB's once a month! Anyone see last nights one? Charlie Whelan delivering a two minute pitch? Charlie Whelan? Of All People????!!!!!
Complain about this comment
It's clear that the Global Warmists are going to adopt the Gordon tactic of bluffing it out. Pachauri is blustering on about there being only one error in the IPCC report, which is pretty laughable, but their case is largely a comic spoof on itself.
Now that there are reports that the leaked e-mails weren't hacked by Russians or part of a Martian conspiracy, i think there should be a 'Free Nelson Mandela' type campaign for anyone accused of being responsible, though it'll be hard to actually find something to accuse them of - properly responding to FoI requests, perhaps ?
I have to admit that I have noticed one fundamental and undeniable change in the climate - we don't see many warmists any more - do we ?
Complain about this comment
#70
good point but there is a problem, they would only turn around and say that it was hearsay, where is your 'evidence' well there is none which I can give, that is the problem. A standard response from apologists is now that you were not there, you weren't at the meeting, you are relying on second hand evidence.
Watching Falconer on Question Time was brilliant. Especially when he said, and I paraphrase, nobody can be guilty of any illegality over the war because they believed what they were told.
I always thought myself that ignorance was no defence. Accordingly, if you did as you were told you followed orders, and the orders must be right, because they were legal, only they weren't legal, because regime change is illegal, or sorry, we must say that Saddam was removed, not regime changed, or executed.
There is a problem is there not, because the look of amazement when Falconer said what he did was brilliant. I mean is he a fool? Maybe he ought to go Chilcot and put his comment on the public record. Incredible, absolutely incredible. There is no point in my family member giving any 'evidence' our boys went to war based on a lie, they went on the basis of American Foreign Policy, not to defend their Queen and country, that is the whole problem, the contract has been broken.
My late father had a sound philosophy which he held to his dying day. One, if you lied just once you were so finished, even white lies. Once you lied then there was atotal loss of confidence. I shut the door Sir, honest I did, only you could not have because the ship has sunk, because the water got through.
Secondly, he really had a problem with homosexuals in the Navy. The reason, not because he thought that there was a weakness in their character, no, it was because some senior officers took advantage of the boy sailors. Also they had their favourites, who went with the commander, much to the dismay of other ratings, who saw some getting a cushy posting, and had advantages in promotions.
I am afraid to say that some of my fathers philosophy has been passed down, I neither trust liars, nor homosexuals, I don't know why, I just do. Why, because until 'gays' come out then they are living a lie, there is a consistency in my argument which I would like others to comment on. This is still a contentious issue, is it a lie if a couple who are in a Civil Partnership, if they say that they are married, is it a lie?
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
#73 Perry Neeham (tee-hee)
If I wished to begin an illegal war and sought the backing of my associates would I pass up the option of bribery?
Would I not use all the influence I had to press those who sign the cheques to grant said associates the greatest 'leeway'?
But oh! What if these same people were to end up in the dock and searching for mitigation?
Funny too, what whole years accounts are missing from the archives regarding one of those very same associates? Could it be 2003?
Silly me, I am clearly clutching at straws.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I have a problem, I know you here is all say. It is this. I have known very many women in my life. Whilst married I got involved with a younger woman, we just hit it off right away. It was getting steamy and she asked me if I was married, I said no, even though I was. I knew immediately it was 'wrong', however the woman just wanted to believe that I wasn't, so that then we could go to the next level. We went to the top level.
Now it was all based on a lie, I have struggled ever since with my conscience, she understood, but she is a good woman. But there is a psychological problem which I am unable to resolve. That is the trouble with Blair and saying what we all wanted to hear, we wanted to believe, the ends justify the means.
Complain about this comment
Gomer, re the banks ...
There's another point about this, a point which doesn't get enough of a mention. The commercial and investment banking industry's bread & butter purpose is to service business - deliver credit (in different forms) to where it's needed, at a fair & reasonable price. Because the industry has been run in such a self indulgent manner, they have failed to do this. The banks - particularly the investment banks - are examples of something which various parts of the public sector are often accused of being ... bloated organisations run primarily for the benefit of the people who work in them. Outfits such as Goldman Sachs and Barclays Capital are, funnily enough, like ultra capitalist worker co-operatives - a contradiction in terms, of course, and in the contradiction lies the absurdity of their business model. We hear all the time about how our "bloated" and "inefficient" public sector acts as a drag on the private sector - on business - but how much more of a drag are the banks? How many basis points more expensive does each & every piece of credit need to be in order to support the super "profits" and feed the bonus machine? "Profits" in inverted commas since they are self measured half the time. Perversely, the very fact the banks have been holding us back (economically) gives a degree of optimism for the future. If (when) we get a new & improved model - slimmed down and doing the simple things well - it will be worth a few points per annum on growth. The growth we desperately need in order to emerge intact from this debt crisis.
Complain about this comment
Tom:
You and me both. :-)
Complain about this comment
bill @ 63
"Picked up a couple of Theodore Dalrymple's paperbacks recently"
Please put them down again. They will just feed & intensify your existing views. Not a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
hang on a minute, Brown is giving an extra £800 million to Northern Ireland. He really does want to throw money at everything. The man is totally unbelievable. Keeping viloence off the streets, is this same sort of violence which the Afghans bring to our streets, or is a different sort of terror. Ireland equals viloence, Afghanistan and Pakistan equals terror.
Our insurgency in Ireland, which has lasted for centuries, will soon be over, I wonder how long Afghanistan and Pakistan will have to suffer their insurgencies.
Funny how the first minister in Northern Ireland should be cleared just in time to take his place in history by putting his signature to a document. The best thing seems to be that progress took place on the discussions without Brown being anywhere in the vicinity, brilliant, why did he miss PMQs last week.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
with regard to MPs expenses I take it back to Irvine when he had very expensive wallpaper in his office. The same Irvine who was a friend of both Blair and Falconer. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You have to remember what wallpaper they used as well, maybe the family company of a possible future chancellor had benefited. Where will it all end.
At one office I worked the Chief Executive used the advice of his wife to refurnish our stylish offices, did we get value for money, or was it something else? There is more corruption in this country than many people want to understand.
The bankers were not even bankers, as they admitted to a select committee, they were something else. What do you have to do to be a called a banker.
Complain about this comment
77. Catch22
You are John Terry and I claim my £5!
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I keep hearing about a 'Good Friday Agreement' the trouble is that the agreement was not actually on a Good Friday, it was signed on the Saturday after Good Friday, such is history rewritten, good thing that this latest agreement wasn't signed on Candlemass Day, or Groundhog Day.
Complain about this comment
#83
£5 is that all you think my story is worth, full disclosure and all I get is a fiver, what about all my expenses.
Complain about this comment
Gomer @ 74
we don't see many warmists any more - do we ?
>>>
Oh yes we do! (They're behind you! etc etc)
I don't think a few leaked emails have changed the basic science or the scientific consensus. Or even changed many opinions. (They're just grist to the mill of those who were already sceptical.)
As I've observed before (possibly to you?) I find it strange that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community believe the science but a majority of the general public do not. Something is going on here, which has nothing to do with empirical evidence. (Most members of the public don't have access to the data or the know-how to analyze it.) It's more to do with a growing antagonism towards experts, a resistance to being told how to live their lives, a cynical disregard for politicians and a propensity to think conspiracy theories are the hidden truth because everything we're told is spin.
In short we're heading back to the Dark Ages.
Let's throw some scientists in a pond and see if they float. If they do, burn them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Andrew,
isn't it brilliant. Northern Ireland gets £800 million according to Brown this morning. In the meantime this afternoon Brown is flying into Exeter to give awards for apprentice of the year. This is amazing, I mean does it really need Brown to be flying here there and everywhere giving awards, hasn't he heard of global Warming. Mind you he will porobably go to the Met Office down here in exeter to congratulate the staff on all their overseas trips, and praise them for their work on supplying such sound data to assist in the glabal warming debate.
Complain about this comment
86#
Thats what happens when you treat the great unwashed like fools.
Some of them dont like it.
Complain about this comment
86. pdavies65
Fair points...
Prefer to keep an open mind on this one, politics or no politics.
The only issue I'm sceptical of is carbon trading... open to all kinds of corruption and abuse.
Complain about this comment
No61 Mike,
We can of course leave the EU at anytime if any British government feels that it is the right thing to do.
Can you remember how phoneyDave looked so happy and relieved when he renegeged on his referendum promise over the Lisbon Treaty?
A vote on who should be our Head of State? Excellent idea.
Complain about this comment
bg @ 90
"carbon trading ... open to all kinds of corruption and abuse."
Not half.
Complain about this comment
# 86
pdavies65 - the problem is that the warmism cause is losing the argument and the consensus, and that always was a myth.
Their own obstibnate refusal to asknowledge their shortcomings isn't just fatally flawing its case, it's destroying their whole plausibility. To be honest it's getting embarrassing and I wouldn't recommend you book your flight to Cancun just yet.
I laughed out loud at the Russian spy claims, and realised that not only was the science duff, but this whole charabanc was being driven and directed with a very sloppy sense of direction.
Your own leaders are showing signs of revolt. Pretending there aren't problems is not an issue I'll argue, for the same reason I won't argue that the moon isn't made of cheese.
"Dr. William Sprigg is research professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona and was head of the International Technical Review Panel for IPCC’s first report. The distinguished doctor slams the conduct of some of his global warming colleagues and accuses fellow IPCC scientists of “too much hubris.” He also told the Arizona conference, “climate data has been withheld and manipulated ”and that it is clear that “someone took out information.”
Need I say more ? Don't give up hope entirely. You still have Prince Charles on your side.
Complain about this comment
Gomer @ 93
I'm sure there are legitimate gripes about how the climate scientists have handled themselves and the information.
However, it remains - or should remain - a factual investigation, and not an ideological slanging match. By and large, it is the sceptics who have been guilty of both lowering the tone and raising the temperature.
I have no strong convictions either way and am not an expert in climate science. I am simply puzzled by the number of non-experts who do have very strong convictions and aren't humbled in the slightest by their lack of detailed knowledge or access to data. They simply scour the internet looking for quotations to back up the position they have already decided upon. They track down and gleefully parade other examples of when experts supposedly got things wrong. Why? Why celebrate error and ignorance? It's a very peculiar mindset. But you are right to say that it's spreading - probably even winning the day.
Hence my comment about the Dark Ages.
Complain about this comment
86. pdavies65
"I find it strange that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community believe the science but a majority of the general public do not"
Putting aside the fact that vast numbers of scientists don't support the "consensus" on AGW and that the whole subject has taken on the characteristics of a philosophy.
It has been said that the public mistrust of the "consensus" is because of a lack of education. This is simply untrue. For the last 25 years school geography lessons have been virtual adverts for Greenpeace with global warming featuring prominently. Jet-setting celebs have postured, politicians have pontificated and the media have been almost 100% pro-warmist. Yet mistrust is growing.
Perhaps the public understands something that politicians and maybe scientists don't seem to. To misquote from "Animal Farm" some sciences are more accurate than others.
We've got used to the accuracy of space physics. Space probes entering orbit around Jupiter within seconds of the predicted time after years of travel and a decade of planning.
The science of Climate Change is new and is proving less trustworthy than hoped. The "hockey-stick" graph, beloved of Al Gore, was the first thing that spurred my suspicion. Where was the medieval warming period that we were taught about in school (Greenland cultivated) and where was the "little" Ice Age (frost fairs)? Inconvenient and off-message so deleted from the record.
"Climategate" has raised a rock that covered a squirming mess of worms and cast revealing light on the mind-set of scientists so committed to their philosophy that they will cherry-pick and destroy data (both scientific crimes), slur the opposition, refuse debate and conspire to break the law, boycott journals and pollute the peer-review process.
The public can clearly see that this is not science but is bald-headed and intolerant religion. People are good at smelling a rat.
The response of the warmists? Attack the whistle-blower. Exactly the response of the politicians caught up in the expenses scandal!
There needs to be a lancing of this boil. A clear-out of philosophy-directed scientists and a reassessment of their conclusions based on what can be proven rather than what can be modified through iffy computer programs.
Politicians have become committed to this religion ("I'm not a scientist" bleated Jack Straw on TV) and will have to back-track by blaming the scientists. This at least will save us pushing vast amounts of money into the pockets of the likes of Robert Mugabe in an appeasement of Western guilt.
Only by a cleaning of the stables will the public ever believe anything a scientist says again.
Complain about this comment
# 94
pdavies65 - have you read the harry.readme text file, or the coding for the infamous UEA CRU climate model ? It doesn't so much destroy the validity of their work, as turn it into a laughing stock. The government are desperate to rehabilitate Dr Phil Jones, but that ignores the fact that he is a busted flush, but they might at least be able to exert some control over him, where Dr Pachauri is taking on all comers to disastrous effect.
The wondrous thing is that the warmist camp are pretending 'Climategate' didn't happen but what other option do they have ? It's too damming to do otherwise, but that puts them in a very contorted position in other areas. The latest relevations about the Netherlands are hilarious, and the Dutch parliament were fooled into believing childish errors about their own geography.
You can't win an argument if your claims make people laugh. Banks won't support it they don't see money in it and politicians won't, if they see it losing them votes. Australia is due an election very soon and the argument is a hot potato over there. Once politicians get taught the risks in ignoring their electorate, they'll see sense.
Please refer to the Australian Climate Science Coalition or the similar body in New Zealand as examples of bodies that are interested more in the science than the politics.
Consensus - what consensus ?
Complain about this comment
647 MPs... 4 charged, one pending.... amounts involved relatively small.
I can think of a few who must be extremely 'lucky' to have avoided charges.
I'll leave my guess as to the final pronouncements 'suspended' in case I get modded for being prejudicial.
Complain about this comment
TBG @ 97
Should be 647 MPs AND 738(?) peers... 4 charged, 1 pending.
Complain about this comment
Now that Starmer at the CPS has decided on charges for 3 Labour MPs and 1 Tory Peer the others should also be investigated by the police.
They should be charged and the courts should decide who has done right and wrong.
There is no logic to charging these and not investigating and charging the rest where appropriate.
Complain about this comment
Dr Brian @ 95 wrote:
It has been said that the public mistrust of the "consensus" is because of a lack of education.
Perhaps it has been said, but I don't think lack of education is the root cause. It's an anti-science backlash.
There is legitimate debate about how to interpret the climate data. But the backlash extends to areas where the consensus is undeniable, evolution being the prime example. The backlash is gaining momentum and it is global. Today you cannot study Darwin at a Turkish university - you could ten years ago. It's a rising tide of ignorance. The society of Chiropractors is suing the science writer Simon Singh for daring to question the value of their procedures. It's all very well to doubt scientists - they're human and fallible, and doubt should be part of the scientific method - but if doubt become derision then eventually the bigots will take over and we'll look back at the days when we put our faith in science with some nostalgia.
Complain about this comment
You miss the point padavies65.
The IPCC response to having it pointed out that they have their facts wrong should be to thank those involved and to respond by undertaking to discover where their procedures failed. The don't have an advocacy function in their charter.
Pachauri's response is predictably to launch a vitriolic personal attack on anyone scientist who doesn't follow his political line, which is not what he's paid for.
You fail to understand that the IPCC have soiled their reputation as a scientific body, so they are fair game as political mouthpieces. In rejecting the IPCC we, and a growing body of scientists (including ex IPCC senior scientists) are insisting on attempting to re-establish the credibility of science.
Science is okay - it's the IPCC that's faulty.
Complain about this comment
100. pdavies65
"It's an anti-science backlash."
There may indeed be some truth in what you say with regard to the Evolution debate. I don't think the likes of Richard Dawkins have done science much good by trying to destroy people's faith in God in the name of rigorous thinking. Who was it that said that if you stop people believing in God they don't start believing in nothing, they'll believe in anything?
This is not the same as the AGW debate which has revealed the shallowness of the evidence underlying the whole concept of man-made climate change and the anti-capitalist attitudes of those espousing it.
People are right to be sceptical of this philosophy that is being progressively shown to be half-baked and built on sand.
As it happens I watched Dawkins on TV a few months ago vigorously condemning AGW sceptics. I wonder if the great advocate of rationality is back-tracking now that the evidence has been shown to be so subjective and non-empirical. Are you reading this blog Dawkins?
Complain about this comment
Well Andrew,
our brilliant PM has managed to fly yo Belfast this morning for the historic signing of some agreement or other. He has then flown to Exeter, the home of the Met Office, and is now at the raccourse holding a meeting of his 'cabinet' where they may may discuss the changes to the electoral system and the first past the post system we have now. i know it was an obvious joke but you know by now.
Anyway the great and good are there, and I'm not, now there's a surprise. Hand picked usual load of cronies, this is not a cabinet meeting as I know it, but then again after listening to Clare Short I no longer know if there is such a thing anymore.
Anyway, the PM is doing a great job, the recovery must be sustained, we are advancing on all fronts, and the big push is on. We must keep violence off the streets of Britain, only it used to be known as terror. Sorry, its Irish violence, it's Moslem terror. I don't know the difference anymore. Anyway peace in our time, no demonstrations, mainly because nobody would say where the 'cabinet meeting' was being held. Too afraid of any prospective shoe throwers. The Exeter Racecourse, where the meeting is being held, isn't actually in Exeter, neither is Exeter International Airport, but hey let's not let the truth get in the way.
Mind you must congratulate Brown for visiting this beautiful region and glad that this time there was no attempted coup which meant he had to cancel the last visit at such short notice, oh it was the weather not the coup, oh yeah, well look, whatever, this is important.
Complain about this comment
Gomer @ 101
Sorry if I missed the point.
Let's assume that the IPCC is a thoroughly rotten institution and science would be better off without them. Let's forget all we've been told about climate change and go back to square one with a fresh approach and a respected team of scientists at the helm.
If that happened, and the new team came to broadly the same conclusions - that man's behaviour is either causing climate change or hastening the natural cycle of climate change, and that we should adapt our behaviour to minimize our impact - would you happily accept them? It's hard to believe you would, given the fervor with which you berate those views, but perhaps your mind is more open than it seems.
Personally, I would be surprised if all the new research pointed to a complete absence of AGW but obviously relieved.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I think that there is now universal agreement that bringing the cabinet to the regions is nothing other than a cheap publicity stunt, funded by the taxpayer! Do they register it as a benefit in kind.
As for Scotland visiting the Courts in Exeter, you really can't make it up. I wonder if there were any cases where any illegal immigrants were caught working without the proper permits.
Complain about this comment
#54 IGAPB1
I always smile when anyone comments on Cameron's role as an "adviser" to Lamont. DC was a twenty-something bag-carrier of no importance. If Lamont asked him for anything on Black Wednesday it was for a cup of tea, not economic advice.
And BTW, re #53, did you agree with Labour's effective doubling of the Inheritance Tax threshold when Darling invented the Transferrable Nil Rate band? A brand new recognition of marriage in the tax system as well!
Complain about this comment
brian @ 102
"the AGW debate has revealed the shallowness of the evidence underlying the whole concept of man made climate change and the anti capitalist attitudes of those espousing it."
Not a fan of shallow evidence, obviously, but I don't see much wrong with anti capitalist attitudes. Quite the opposite. Not a blanket anti C attitude - extreme and unhelpful - but one which opposes dubious concepts such as carbon trading. A capitalism sceptic - rather than a capitalism denier - is a healthy way to be.
Complain about this comment
@104 PD65
YES! YES! YES!
..so in the mean time we take all reasonable precautions until the argument can be proven one way or the other.
Complain about this comment
108. meninwhitecoats
"YES! YES! YES!"
NO! No! No!
It all depends on what you mean by reasonable. It wouldn't matter if it was all just a parlour game but is it reasonable to spend untold billions warding off the possibility of a fantasy?
And what else is an idea that has no evidence?
107. sagamix
Perhaps I should have written "the AGW debate has revealed the shallowness of the evidence underlying the whole concept of man made climate change and the anti capitalist attitudes that drive certain academics to espouse it".
That clearer?
Complain about this comment
Brian @ 109
"That clearer?"
Yes, I know what you mean. Leaving aside the absurdities of carbon trading (where it's money talking) it's clear that both of the extreme positions on the Climate debate are driven by something other than rationality. In the one corner, you have the green ultras who view everything from the view point that we ARE destroying the planet, and opposite them you have the reactionary muscleheads who KNOW it's all nonsense. How do they know? Well they just do. Jeremy Clarksons, we can term them ... although how the actual JC views this, I don't know. Then, as you say, there are people who seize on one or other side of the argument purely because it suits their own politics & prejudices - there's the lefty academics which you mention (I bet there are loads of them) and in the other camp, there's the armchair "man of the world" cynics. The CC debate brings all this stuff out more than any other I can think of ... makes it very interesting to observe.
Complain about this comment
DrBrian
If some of the things that would promote leaner greener energy and reduce our reliance on imported fuels, thereby making our economy more stable, would also help the environment and may help with any warming effects [natural or man made] I still say Yes!
Complain about this comment
111. meninwhitecoats
Sorry about the late reply. Just in from a quiz evening. Lousy questions but won.
It's easy to mix up the climate-change debate with the whole idea of sustainability. Nobody is seriously going to argue against water resource management or reforestation or energy security or a host of good measures but the AGW debate is different with the potential to de-industrialise the West and waste vast amounts of money on a fiction.
Let's stick to what we're sure of.
There will be enough grief trying to get new dams built or cooling the strange enthusiasm for windmills instead of what we really need, nuclear power, without spending more time worrying about a possible 0.0001 degree temperature rise over 30 years.
Complain about this comment
I may be mixing the two debates, however I think they are inextricably linked - getting away from the politics of MMGW , addressing one problem has knock on effects with the other [if you accept it exists].
Complain about this comment
one minute it's cut the debt the next minute it's don't cut spending yet
george osbourne looks like an infant schoolboy at senior school he and cameron change their mind with every new dailymail headline the latest seems to be they want to priotitise cutting the debt though as tories did precious little of that over 18 years, even while cutting spending few will believe there is anything new about them other than their smart suits and airbrushed posters and personalities the best way they can cover up their real oldfashioned thatcherite selves out of their depth puts it accurately and politelyIt will be interesting to see how the political editorreports it!
Complain about this comment
David Cameron talks...and talks...and talks...and says absolutely nothing because he doesn't want us to know what's in store for us, should he win.
It's quite possible Cameron could continue with his vacuous speeches on 'TIME FOR A CHANGE' right up to election day and soon after be handed the keys to number ten THEN we'll discover what his plans are, and if the few policies we already know about are an indication, it will be to form a right wing government.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS