Month: December 2007

The BBC Today programme had a second go at Northern Rock this morning, and did allow Lord James to set out some of the reasons why nationalisation would be a bad thing. He reminded us that managing the Group would be very difficult for the government, there would be conflicts of interest with their role as Regulator and that there could be competition complications if a nationalised Rock used public money to take busienss away from others.

He might have added the biggest reason of all – taking on more than ??100 billion of liabilities would be a huge commitment for the taxpayer. We the taxpayers would undoubtedly lose substantial sums of money we could ill afford to lose, even if they did nationalise it for ??1 and faced down the lawsuits of aggrieved shareholders who would object to such a confiscation.

Lord James proposed something he called “work – out” instead. This is more commonly known as “run-off” in the financial world, and is used for for example for insurance companies in trouble where they have to be closed to new business. The existing book of business is then managed to a successful conclusion over the years. Of course that is the fall back option, should the current shareholders and directors fail to make a success of running it as a going concern, and if the takeover bids do not result in an agreed deal.

The governnment needs to do some straight thinking and some straight talking for a change.

IT HAS TO BE A TOUGH AND FAIR BANK MANAGER, MANAGING THE LOANS WITH A VIEW TO GETTING THEM REPAID AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

IT HAS TO REMAIN THE REGULATOR OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS BUT SHOULD STRENGTHEN THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND IN THIS FIELD WHERE IT TOOK SO MUCH OF ITS POWER AWAY TEN YEARS AGO

IT SHOULD RULE OUT BECOMING THE ONWER OF NORTHERN ROCK, AS THIS WOULD COMPROMISE ITS ROLES AS BANK MANAGER AND REGULATOR.

Today we were told that we were to receive "The first ever Children’s Plan" Is this a 5 year one left over from the Soviet Union we wondered? Will Marxist songs and invigorating exercise be essential ingredients, as a government backed play strategy is part of it? Apparently it goes alongside the 10 year strategy for young people which we already enjoy.

We discovered that at the core of the plan will be a switch from age testing to stage testing. Unfortunately the printed text from this incompetent Minister had that phrase the wrong way round, saying he would switch from stage to age testing. Although the first time he read it out he got it right, at a subsequent attempt he reverted to the wrong version in the House.

We learned that teaching English to all pupils was central to the task. The printed Statement itself offered:

Sentences without verbs
More sentences starting with "And" and "But"
Split infinitives

A highlight was the conclusion that new primary schools should be co-located with the "police, social care, advice and welfare services…". When I asked him if he really thought a police station on the same site as a primary school would make the school more attractive to parents he looked puzzled as he did not seem to realise co-locating police with children at school could
mean siting the police station at the school.

We are promised extra money to ensure graduates involved with early stage learning, and to offer masters level qualifications to new teachers.

It all sounded like a further attack on the excellent private nurseries run by caring adults with some flair for looking after and enthusing young children.

Today was vintage “Today”. We had the plug for Vince Cable’s idiotic idea that we should nationalise Northern Rock, with no alternative comment or criticism. No-one has explained how taking over responsibility for all ??100 billion of the Rock’s liabilities would be better for taxpayers than merely lending them less than a third of that sum against security from their assets.

Then we had an interview with some inarticulate government Minister about forthcoming cuts in physics departments in Universities. Aggressive repititon of the same question – would the Minister cough up an extra ??80 million which someone had said they would like – wrecked any chance of the rest of us understanding the issues or the problem. His repitiatious statement that the cash available had increased did not advance our understanding much either. Neither questioner Sarah nor interviewee Minister had anything to say about where all the money that had been approved was going, and why the “cuts” all have to fall on physics teaching. It is pathetic that public debate is reduced to a slanging match or a dialogue of the deaf, with one side saying the money has gone up and the other saying it’s not enough. There is never analysis of how much is spent, how it is spent and how efficient and effective the recipient is. Politics should be about priorities, not about sandbagging the taxpayer at every available opportunity.

It was yet again a very expensive Today programme for taxpayers- after wanting to take on ??100 billion of Rock risk saving some physics for ??80 million was a bargain! Will they never give voice to those of us who want to save the taxpayers money and run puiblic services better?

This is almost a first – you won’t often see this, amidst the long list of things to repeal.

I do think the Competition authorities in the Uk should make clear that we will not accept take-over bids for UK based companies by sovereign wealth and investment funds. I do not think we should allow national governments to be able to nationalise UK companies and do with them as they wish, especially where Uk buyers have restricted rights and opportunities to buy assets in those countries.

It would be quite easy to amend Competition law or clarify Competition practise, by stating that all such attempted takeovers would be automatically blocked by the Competition authorities as anti competitive.

It is pathetic that the government has a department for regulatory reform and legislation to deregulate, but no idea on what to repeal.

I submitted 65 proposals to them before the last election, held a Parliamentary debate, and sent them the proposals again last year. There are proposals in <a href="http://www.conservatives.com/getfile.cfm?file=ECPGcomplete&ref=GENERALFILE/3585&type=pdf">Freeing Britain to Compete</a>, the Conservative Party’s Economic Competitiveness Policy Review.

Have they lost these as well? Maybe they put all our proposals on a CD and put it in the post!

Al Gore today recommends once again higher taxes and a higher carbon price to cut CO2 emissions. He wants to tax the poor off the roads and let them stay cold in winter. Rather like Maria Antoinette, he would probbaly say "let them walk and wear thicker woolies". There is no mention of incentives and technology, the magic weapons in the battle to reduce our dependence on burning carbon.

Meanwhile, the UK government has decided to take another tilt at windmills. Urging more renewables (a good thing), they are ordering many more wind farms (a more questionable thing). I hope it is windy on Christmas day when we all want to cook our turkeys. It would not be good being told by the electricity industry in 2020 we will have to wait for a windy day to have Christmas lunch.

The government should also audit the carbon needed to make the wind turbines, install them, maintain them and replace broken parts. They should then add in all the carbon expanded to make stand-by plants for days when it is not windy. Then they might see that "wind wind" is not always "win win".

I went on my annual pilgrimage to see the local Premier side in action yesterday at the kind invitation of a constituent. As a circketer who likes most sports, I went with some trepidation and heavy heart, expecting to see a Liverpool masterclass in ball control, passing, and the occasional goal to give them victory over the home side. How wrong I was!

Instead I saw the multi millionaire multinational Liverpool side outplayed by Reading. They were not just outplayed, they were made to look ordinary. At times Liverpool looked like a school team with everyone chasing the ball, failing to stay in position, run into space and to play an open passing game. I saw tall talented Crouch lose balls in the air because the shorter Reading players jumped higher with more purpose. I saw great Liverpool players lose heart, or fail to show the energy and the skill you expect of such highly paid and highly rated players. I saw Reading players give time and again of their best, culminating in a magical free kick drifting into the Liverpool goal via a Reading head, and a breathtaking run by Harper to craft a goal out of very little by running round the goalkeeper. Hunt gave his best for 90 minutes, and was everywhere harrying the Liverpool team.

The extraordinary decision to call Gerrard off at 70 minutes when he was the main hope of Liverpool, playing with power, determination and skill made it look to us as if the manager had surrendered the tie with 24 minutes still to go. Liverpool lacked punch and the will to win once Gerrard had gone, and not had enough of it with him trying to rally them when he was on.

If I was a shareholder in Liverpool I would want to know why such a team performed so badly for so much money. As someone who believes in free markets I do not begrudge talented people the large sums the global market and global brands can bring. But if top players expect millionaire pay we should expect millionaire performance, and should expect a big element of the pay to be performance oriented. The Reading stars earned their bonus, more modest though it doubtless was.

It was a great day for Reading fans. I enjoyed it enormously, and thought it most amusing to see how little at times great football club owners buy for all their money! We English like the underdog. Yesterday the underdog was Cruft’s finest.

Belgium remains hopelessly split. It is in a way the very embodiment of the European dream. Regionalism in Belgium has been fostered so successfully that the Flemish speaking part of the country now wants nothing to do with the Walloon or French speaking part of the country. The country has quite enough adopted EU law to keep it going. The Eurocrats only worry is there is no longer an official government in place to keep on forcing the new Directives onto the Belgian people. It’s a lovely irony, that European regionalism has destroyed the last vestiges of Belgian national authority (never strong),which in turn weakens the political method for forcing new EU law onto people in Belgium!

It also shows the power of regionalism, especially when it is backed up by linguistic, cultural and economic differences. The EU project generally is likely to splinter other nations. Indeed the scheme is based on divide and rule – setting Catalan against Castillian, Scot and English, Southern Italian against Northern Italian, Walloon against Fleming, Basque against Spaniard. The EU felt that if it weakened state power it could occupy the vacuum it helped create by taking new state power at the EU level.

What is might discover, in the longer term, is that it cannot contain the petty nationalisms it has helped release. The EU is playing a dangerous game with people’s snese of their own identity. The collapse of Belgium may not in the long run be as good as some EU fans think from the EU point of view. Member states have been very important so far in preventing dissent with the EU from getting out of hand, because they still have some legitimacy. The EU has no similar legitimacy to put in place, once the member states lose it as they have in Belgium.

When I first heard the news that the EU-Africa summit would produce a declaration to promote democracy at its heart I marvelled that African dictators had a sense of humour forcing this statement onto a reluctant EU. The EU after all is famed for ignoring the wishes of voters at every turn. They tell countries that hold referenda to re-run them if they reach the wrong answer. They work with secretive governments to throttle promised referenda at all costs.

Then I guessed it was more likely the EU, with its usual brass neck, presumed to telll Africa democracy would be good for them whilst ensuring it was suppressed at home. The EU did not raise an eyebrow when the North East of England voted down regional government and the UK government carried on with it nonetheless, because regionalism is an EU idea. The EU doggedly pursued the development of its Constitution that both France and the Netherlands had voted down. It has conspired to deny both countries and the UK a referendum on the slightly revised version it now insists on. The EU always wants a second referendum if some European power grab is voted down in a first anywhere in the EU. The EU can never understand the word "No" about its plans to take power away from European peoples.

For once I agree with Gordon Brown – he was right to stay away from this conference. It was a pity that the UK was still represented. I see no advantage in the world being told of the importance of democracy by the likes of Mr Mugabe.

Why is the EU so blind to the follies of its position? Is this the same EU that lectures us all on the need to curb climate change? If it is the most serious challenge facing the planet why organise such an expensive junket for many politicians and advisers to fly to, burning carbon on the way? Going from jet to limo to 5 star hotel does not set a good example to the rest of us who are told that taking the family saloon to Tesco is bound to wreck the planet.

Is this the same EU that imposes agricultural protection on the 27 member states with a view to stifling African agricultural development by closing or restricting our markets to them ? Signing a declaration that we want more trade with Africa does not remove the main obtstacle, EU agricutural trade restrictions. It’s just more warm words and humbug.

Is this the same EU that imposed a travel ban on Mr Mugabe because his regime offended even the EU by the magnitude of its assault on civil liberties.? If a travel ban made sense last month, why could it suddenly be lifted this month when there was an EU boondoggle? Doesn’t it show there is no morality or backbone to EU foreign policy, no wish to apply pressure to evil dictators? What is the point of posturing against him one month, and welcoming him as a valued friend and adviser around the conference table the next?

Why is the EU spineless when dealing with dictators, yet spiteful when dealing with the democratic views of the people like us who pay its bills? When will they learn that we are angry about the way the European political elite wastes our money, ties us up in bureaucratic and legal knots, and embarrasses us on the world stage. We want an end to its artificial regions, an end to its expensive posturing, an end to its refusal to listen to the views of the taxpayers.

This summit makes the EU look discredited and dishonest. If they cannot take a stand against Mugabe, if they sign up to democracy when thwarting it at home, people will conclude they cannot be trusted.

Please can we have our country back? We want to make our own foreign policy decisions.