Sometimes I prepare blogs which I don't publish. Here's one I found from last March. Quite interesting with hindsight.
A key lesson we can learn from our local government electoral successes is that when we take over from Labour administrations, we need to communicate to the electorate the true nature of the Labour legacy. We need to make the case for truing up UK plc’s accounts as soon as we get a chance to open the books.
Anyone who consumes political news can see that Labour is eager to frame the economic debate - which is the key battleground at the coming election - in terms of Tory spending plans. This is a problem for us. The Labour government has shown that they will unleash the machinery of a politicised senior Civil Service to attack specific ideas, but being overly vague on our deficit reduction plans sends a poor message to voters.
In respect of the inevitable future spending reductions, the media have taken up this what/when/how line of questioning on Labour’s behalf, and time after time we see Tory spokespeople on our screens walking a delicate tightrope between realism about and over-enthusiasm for cuts. It rarely looks pretty and in the context of a deficit of trillions, has, at times, descended into heated arguments over line items which are, in relative terms, minutiae.
The simple truth is that without sight of the books, we won’t know the true extent of the deficit problem or be able to diagnose the consequent action required. To fight on this territory before the election is like going into battle blind-folded, and it isn’t good strategy.
Therefore we should seek to reframe this debate by describing our approach to deficit reduction. Whilst certain cuts can and should be made from day one of a Conservative government, the larger part of the deficit reduction programme needs more groundwork.
In my view, the first step in this programme is to true up the national accounts. It may seem like a long time ago, but New Labour’s golden rule was that debt should not exceed 40% of GDP. First mentioned by Brown in the 1990s for over a decade, many major government projects and policies have been structured in ways with adherence to this rule as a prime objective. Classifying spending as investment, PFI projects where unavoidable future costs are not recorded as government liabilities and the non-recognition of future pension liabilities are the best known tools in the government’s box of accounting tricks, but they may be just the tip of a very nasty iceberg. Like Enron, the UK government has used the letter rather than the spirit of the law to present their numbers in a favourable way.
To reveal a fairer picture of our finances, we should engage an independent firm to prepare a May 7 2010 UK plc balance sheet under private sector standards valuing our assets at their market value and recording our liabilities in full. A summary of the adjustments made to take the leap from our predecessors’ records to get to this truer picture should not be difficult to set out.
Armed with this realistic information, we can have a proper public debate about future fiscal decisions. It may well be the case that after ring-fenced budgets and unavoidable commitments, the percentage cuts required in other areas to get our finances back on track are even greater than previously estimated or advertised. Or we may need to renegotiate onerous contracts entered into by the previous government. But that’s a question for the future.
These interminable arguments about what, when and where to cut which do so much to switch off the electorate can be extinguished, if instead, we answer such questions by describing our approach. It can also be used to put the onus on Labour on whether or not they support our sensible approach. If we can put this inane deficit debate to bed, perhaps we can focus our attention on the important business of recreating the excellent conditions for economic growth in the private sector which we provided last time we were in government.
Another reason for taking the approach I describe is to manage public expectations. If we don’t go through this exercise, I fear that financial grenades will be exploding for years to come. I’d hate to see us caught in the same cycle of obfuscation and form over substance that we have come to expect under New Labour. We wouldn’t be forgiven by the electorate for that.
14 February 2011
10 February 2011
Robert Higginson For Soho
For the second year in succession our local candidate in Birmingham Soho ward will be local campaigner, Robert Higginson.
With his extensive knowledge of the people and the area, Robert has come to the conclusion that Soho ward has been let down over the years and effective advocacy is what is missing from their political representatives.
A good example of this came up at a recent Winson Green Neighbourhood meeting, there were several complaints about the quality of council houses. This struck myself and Robert as strange as we knew that the decent homes programme across the city is almost complete. Well we did some digging and found that Soho's decent homes completion was 89% at the end of 2009/2010 compared to an average of 96% in the other wards in Ladywood constituency. The city-wide figure is 98% compared to 35% when Labour were kicked out in 2004.
Another can of worms opens up when you look at section 106 money. There are a variety of reasons (or a catalogue of disasters) which explain why various pots have not been used effectively in Soho, but the root cause is the rank incompetence of the three Labour councillors.
Vote Robert Higginson the local Conservative candidate in 2011 for an effective voice for Soho.
With his extensive knowledge of the people and the area, Robert has come to the conclusion that Soho ward has been let down over the years and effective advocacy is what is missing from their political representatives.
A good example of this came up at a recent Winson Green Neighbourhood meeting, there were several complaints about the quality of council houses. This struck myself and Robert as strange as we knew that the decent homes programme across the city is almost complete. Well we did some digging and found that Soho's decent homes completion was 89% at the end of 2009/2010 compared to an average of 96% in the other wards in Ladywood constituency. The city-wide figure is 98% compared to 35% when Labour were kicked out in 2004.
Another can of worms opens up when you look at section 106 money. There are a variety of reasons (or a catalogue of disasters) which explain why various pots have not been used effectively in Soho, but the root cause is the rank incompetence of the three Labour councillors.
Vote Robert Higginson the local Conservative candidate in 2011 for an effective voice for Soho.
08 February 2011
Election Flashback
Feeling nostalgic for the 2010 election? This picture relates to a general election story. Does anybody know which one and where it took place?
04 February 2011
Stewart Stacey - Interfering Idiot
Labour's council candidate in Acocks Green in 2010 was the former Transport Cabinet member, Stewart Stacey. It was on that watch that he became known as the 'Butcher Of Broad Street' following his decision to ban taxis (!!!) from travelling in the vicinity of Broad Street thereby causing both short term and long term damage to Birmingham's premium entertainment area.
Mr Stacey's qualification for being Transport Cabinet member was his experience as a train driver(!), but seems to operate under the illusion that he is an expert on everything. Well, I've heard another story about this meddler unnecessarily throwing his weight around to damage business. Apparently, he managed to block a planning application for a building extension based on the fact that it would be of detriment to his view (get this) from his train driver cab. No doubt Stewart Stacey will be standing in Acocks Green again this May. Please keep this busybody as far from power as possible.
Mr Stacey's qualification for being Transport Cabinet member was his experience as a train driver(!), but seems to operate under the illusion that he is an expert on everything. Well, I've heard another story about this meddler unnecessarily throwing his weight around to damage business. Apparently, he managed to block a planning application for a building extension based on the fact that it would be of detriment to his view (get this) from his train driver cab. No doubt Stewart Stacey will be standing in Acocks Green again this May. Please keep this busybody as far from power as possible.
25 January 2011
20 January 2011
Olton By-election - Lib Dem Last Minute Literature
Since the General Election the Solihull Council has been run by a Lib Dem/Labour coalition despite the Tories being the largest party. I believe it is the only Lib Dem led authority in the West Midlands. However, control is on a knife-edge. At the start of the day, the coalition had a working majority of just one. This is what makes today's by-election in Olton - a contest over a Lib Dem held seat in which the Lib Dem and Conservatives are regarded as the main contenders - a fairly important political event in local government terms and in West Midlands politics.
Here is an interesting type of campaign leaflet. Printed in Conservative blue and distributed on the day of the election, from the cover page below, it looks like a note of apology from the Conservative team.
It was no such thing and the Conservative team who ran a positive campaign have not apologised and have absolutely nothing to apologise for. Inside is a note from one of the incumbent Lib Dem councillors (note that neither the candidate herself or his ward colleague felt able to sign it) apologising on behalf of the Conservatives, which of course he has no right to do. Cllr Windmill even brings a dead body into the Lib Dem message.
This evening the Conservative campaign office was inundated with calls of complaint from voters (some of whom were previously Lib Dems disgusted by this particular leaflet). One mentioned that he's been through all the literature to see what the author of the literature was getting at, but couldn't find anything. On the other hand, we'll probably never know how many voters were fooled by these nasty tactics. I don't think we've heard the end of this matter. The first question is of course who authorised this disgusting and dishonest piece of literature.
Update 21 January 2011 0034hrs
LD 1188, Con 1179, Lab 280, Ind 228, Green 115.
Grrrrrr!
Here is an interesting type of campaign leaflet. Printed in Conservative blue and distributed on the day of the election, from the cover page below, it looks like a note of apology from the Conservative team.
It was no such thing and the Conservative team who ran a positive campaign have not apologised and have absolutely nothing to apologise for. Inside is a note from one of the incumbent Lib Dem councillors (note that neither the candidate herself or his ward colleague felt able to sign it) apologising on behalf of the Conservatives, which of course he has no right to do. Cllr Windmill even brings a dead body into the Lib Dem message.
This evening the Conservative campaign office was inundated with calls of complaint from voters (some of whom were previously Lib Dems disgusted by this particular leaflet). One mentioned that he's been through all the literature to see what the author of the literature was getting at, but couldn't find anything. On the other hand, we'll probably never know how many voters were fooled by these nasty tactics. I don't think we've heard the end of this matter. The first question is of course who authorised this disgusting and dishonest piece of literature.
Update 21 January 2011 0034hrs
LD 1188, Con 1179, Lab 280, Ind 228, Green 115.
Grrrrrr!
12 December 2010
Last Thursday's Student Protests
I vowed not to, but ended up watching these activities on Sky and BBC. We are asked to believe that these are peaceful protests, but the people leading these protests have encouraged violence. The NUS labelled the first demo 'Demolition', a very popular placard at all protests is 'bring down the government' and the chanting is all about fighting back.
Predictably, violence ensued. The following is what happened.
1. Fairly early on, protestors diverted from the agreed route and head towards the Houses of Parliament.
2. Barriers surrounding Parliament Square were torn down by protestors and they headed into Parliament Square. Still over 3 hours from the vote, the prospect of further police lines being breached and protestors invading Parliament looked possible.
3. Protestors tested the police lines separating Parliament Square and the Houses of Parliament. Considerable violence was being used by this time.
4. The line appeared to be holding firm and a considerable number of the troublemakers headed towards the opposite corner of Parliament Square around Westminster Abbey. A very thin police line formed there, which became a flashpoint, as the number of troublemakers and police bolstered on either side. Sticks, paint bombs and railings were used as weapons against the police here.
5. It's from this point that the containment had effectively started.
A few points about this. One - anyone caught between the Houses Of Parliament and Westminster Abbey wasn't where they were supposed to be. Two - the number of thugs who were on Oxford Street causing mayhem and mobbing the Royal car would have been far higher if the police had failed to contain these people.
As far as I can see, once the protestors had breached Parliament Square, the police tactics were exactly right. I don't understand why some arguing that kettling failed - it prevented far greater disorder. My main criticism is that the police allowed protestors into the target rich environment around Parliament Square. In other words, they should have been more firm earlier on.
The protestors and media are talking about further activities, but as the legislation is now passed, I doubt that future events will be on the same scale and certainly there will be less 'peaceful protestors' who provide useful camouflage for anarchists and criminals cover to operate.
Nonetheless, I am disturbed about the diversion of police resources away from the neighbourhoods they are supposed to serve to police these demos.
Here's the pictures of 14 people who Scotland Yard would like to speak to. Recognise anyone?
Predictably, violence ensued. The following is what happened.
1. Fairly early on, protestors diverted from the agreed route and head towards the Houses of Parliament.
2. Barriers surrounding Parliament Square were torn down by protestors and they headed into Parliament Square. Still over 3 hours from the vote, the prospect of further police lines being breached and protestors invading Parliament looked possible.
3. Protestors tested the police lines separating Parliament Square and the Houses of Parliament. Considerable violence was being used by this time.
4. The line appeared to be holding firm and a considerable number of the troublemakers headed towards the opposite corner of Parliament Square around Westminster Abbey. A very thin police line formed there, which became a flashpoint, as the number of troublemakers and police bolstered on either side. Sticks, paint bombs and railings were used as weapons against the police here.
5. It's from this point that the containment had effectively started.
A few points about this. One - anyone caught between the Houses Of Parliament and Westminster Abbey wasn't where they were supposed to be. Two - the number of thugs who were on Oxford Street causing mayhem and mobbing the Royal car would have been far higher if the police had failed to contain these people.
As far as I can see, once the protestors had breached Parliament Square, the police tactics were exactly right. I don't understand why some arguing that kettling failed - it prevented far greater disorder. My main criticism is that the police allowed protestors into the target rich environment around Parliament Square. In other words, they should have been more firm earlier on.
The protestors and media are talking about further activities, but as the legislation is now passed, I doubt that future events will be on the same scale and certainly there will be less 'peaceful protestors' who provide useful camouflage for anarchists and criminals cover to operate.
Nonetheless, I am disturbed about the diversion of police resources away from the neighbourhoods they are supposed to serve to police these demos.
Here's the pictures of 14 people who Scotland Yard would like to speak to. Recognise anyone?
21 October 2010
The Impossibility Of 'Progressive' Spending Cuts
Only the very most stupid continue to argue that large spending cuts to address the dreadful black hole that the Coalition government inherited in May are unnecessary. However, the main line of argument against the spending cuts is itself a nonsense. Left-wing critics argue that low income groups will be most affected. But is there a permutation of government spending cuts which would not be regressive?
Of course, many elements of government expenditure are targeted at the poorest, but for illustrative purposes let's assume that the benefit of government spending is evenly distributed.
Let's imagine that in this theoretical nation, the highest earning half of the population segment have average take home pay of £30,000 and the lowest half £10,000. Say there is £10,000 of government spending per head and an across the board of 10% reduction is announced. The £1,000 cut in government expenditure represents 3.3% for the richest and 10% for the poorest. As it is obviously the case that poorer people have more spent on them by the government, a large scale expenditure reduction is always going to have a bigger percentage effect on the poorest than the richest.
Speaking on TV, Carl Emmerson, the acting director of the IFS suggests on the one hand that the cuts may not be sufficient but complains that the cuts are regressive. You can't have it both ways. To support spending cuts but argue against regressive cuts is demanding the impossible.
Of course, many elements of government expenditure are targeted at the poorest, but for illustrative purposes let's assume that the benefit of government spending is evenly distributed.
Let's imagine that in this theoretical nation, the highest earning half of the population segment have average take home pay of £30,000 and the lowest half £10,000. Say there is £10,000 of government spending per head and an across the board of 10% reduction is announced. The £1,000 cut in government expenditure represents 3.3% for the richest and 10% for the poorest. As it is obviously the case that poorer people have more spent on them by the government, a large scale expenditure reduction is always going to have a bigger percentage effect on the poorest than the richest.
Speaking on TV, Carl Emmerson, the acting director of the IFS suggests on the one hand that the cuts may not be sufficient but complains that the cuts are regressive. You can't have it both ways. To support spending cuts but argue against regressive cuts is demanding the impossible.
10 October 2010
What Is The Housing Crisis?
When house prices spiral out of the reach of the average family, they call it a housing crisis, now there are signs of price slippage, the message is similar. Tails, they win, heads, we lose. Some commentators appear to place the blame firmly with the Great British Public castigating our apparent obsession with owning a home for our ills, (See Note below) but I don't agree.
The housing crisis isn't about the level of house prices, significant as that is for aspiring and actual home-owners, but rather the housing shortage. The most relevant symptom of the UK housing crisis is the 5 million people on the council house waiting list. This is a record and a friend of mine who is in the sector tells me that many of these people will never get to the top of this particular 'waiting list'. Please don't go away with the idea that I am advocating a massive council house-building programme. Surveys show that most people would like to live in their own homes so what is the point of spending money we don't have, on things people don't want.
Instead, reflect on the incentives created by our current system of property taxes. In my apartment block of 20 flats, I reckon we spend £25,000 a year on council tax. If a similar-sized plot next door was derelict scrub, it would not attract any taxes. Seems strange that land put to productive use is highly taxed, but that in relative terms, owners of semi-abandoned land are rewarded. But this is just one feature of a British property tax system which penalises built property (council tax, rates, VAT etc) and property transactions (capital gains, stamp duty and inheritance tax).
Let us the consider the relative outcomes that arise from different ways of organising taxes on properties.
Taxes On Built Property - Taxes On Land
Housing Shortages - No Housing Shortages
Unaffordable Housing - Affordable Housing
Narrow Property Ownership - Wide Property Ownership
Poverty Trap - Incentives To Progress
Sclerotic Property Market - Dynamic Property Market
What's not to like?
Note re British obsession with owning a house - 1. I don't detect a relative lack of appetite in other countries to own a home 2. For a family the alternative to owning a home is living on a council state or depending on a private landlord. Neither is an appetising prospect.
The housing crisis isn't about the level of house prices, significant as that is for aspiring and actual home-owners, but rather the housing shortage. The most relevant symptom of the UK housing crisis is the 5 million people on the council house waiting list. This is a record and a friend of mine who is in the sector tells me that many of these people will never get to the top of this particular 'waiting list'. Please don't go away with the idea that I am advocating a massive council house-building programme. Surveys show that most people would like to live in their own homes so what is the point of spending money we don't have, on things people don't want.
Instead, reflect on the incentives created by our current system of property taxes. In my apartment block of 20 flats, I reckon we spend £25,000 a year on council tax. If a similar-sized plot next door was derelict scrub, it would not attract any taxes. Seems strange that land put to productive use is highly taxed, but that in relative terms, owners of semi-abandoned land are rewarded. But this is just one feature of a British property tax system which penalises built property (council tax, rates, VAT etc) and property transactions (capital gains, stamp duty and inheritance tax).
Let us the consider the relative outcomes that arise from different ways of organising taxes on properties.
Taxes On Built Property - Taxes On Land
Housing Shortages - No Housing Shortages
Unaffordable Housing - Affordable Housing
Narrow Property Ownership - Wide Property Ownership
Poverty Trap - Incentives To Progress
Sclerotic Property Market - Dynamic Property Market
What's not to like?
Note re British obsession with owning a house - 1. I don't detect a relative lack of appetite in other countries to own a home 2. For a family the alternative to owning a home is living on a council state or depending on a private landlord. Neither is an appetising prospect.
08 October 2010
Katherine Birbalsingh
In my sidebar links under education, I link to "To Miss With Love" a teacher who has been blogging for years about how the poorest kids are badly let down by the educational system and culture. I found and so have others, that there comes a point when you run a successful blog when you have said all you have to say to your online audience and want to find a way to make a greater impact in the real world. For the author of "To Miss With Love", Katherine Birbalsingh that epiphany came recently.
So the other day she stopped blogging and appeared on the main stage at Conservative Party Conference. She brought the house down with an insightful testimony into how education was failing and what needed to be changed. Click to 1.17 for her impassioned speech. Well, naturally enough, she has now been asked to stay away from her work as deputy head at St Michael and All Angels Academy C of E in Southwark, London.
Cranmer's got the story by the scruff of the neck as have some of the nationals. Some people suggest that she should work in the private sector or help Michael Gove with helping to reform education. I would humbly submit that it isn't in those areas where there is a lack of talent or an excess of wrong-headedness. No. She should remain as teacher in the state sector.
She hasn't been punished by her school for speaking against the establishment but rather, for doing so effectively. She should keep her job and the people who punished her for exercising freedom of speech need to go. This is the sort of battle we need to win.
Update
The battle has been won. Katharine has been reinstated. However, in the fight against the left-wing establishment, Katharine may need our support again, so please join this facebook group.
So the other day she stopped blogging and appeared on the main stage at Conservative Party Conference. She brought the house down with an insightful testimony into how education was failing and what needed to be changed. Click to 1.17 for her impassioned speech. Well, naturally enough, she has now been asked to stay away from her work as deputy head at St Michael and All Angels Academy C of E in Southwark, London.
Cranmer's got the story by the scruff of the neck as have some of the nationals. Some people suggest that she should work in the private sector or help Michael Gove with helping to reform education. I would humbly submit that it isn't in those areas where there is a lack of talent or an excess of wrong-headedness. No. She should remain as teacher in the state sector.
She hasn't been punished by her school for speaking against the establishment but rather, for doing so effectively. She should keep her job and the people who punished her for exercising freedom of speech need to go. This is the sort of battle we need to win.
Update
The battle has been won. Katharine has been reinstated. However, in the fight against the left-wing establishment, Katharine may need our support again, so please join this facebook group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
