See http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/david-cameron-has-won-1922-rule-change-by-168-to-118-votes.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e20134813b602d970c
Plus ca change...
When in that House M.P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Sunday, 16 May 2010
From the New World 2: UK Fixed Term Parliaments
Fixed term Parliaments and the 5 year deal.
A problem with a May election is that any Budget measures would have been put into effect only 5 weeks before it.
It would surely make more sense for all future Budget proposals from this government and its successors to be made in mid November. This would allow the proposals 2014 Budget to form part of the election campaign whilst leaving 6 months to plan the implementation of any changes.
Another benefit of fixed term parliaments would be the avoidance of the Machiavellian wash-up deals we have just seen.
A problem with a May election is that any Budget measures would have been put into effect only 5 weeks before it.
It would surely make more sense for all future Budget proposals from this government and its successors to be made in mid November. This would allow the proposals 2014 Budget to form part of the election campaign whilst leaving 6 months to plan the implementation of any changes.
Another benefit of fixed term parliaments would be the avoidance of the Machiavellian wash-up deals we have just seen.
From the New World 1 - Victoria BC: UK Science Policy
Prior to the election Adam Afriyie set out intended Tory policies in a presentation to RAEng: see
http://www.adamafriyie.org/AR%20-%20Royal%20Academy%20of%20Engineering%20Policy%20Network.html
Labour & the LibDems were also invited to present their policies but failed to appear.
It would be helpful if David Willetts were to reiterate the new government's policy given the change of Minister and the brave new world of coalition.
http://www.adamafriyie.org/AR%20-%20Royal%20Academy%20of%20Engineering%20Policy%20Network.html
Labour & the LibDems were also invited to present their policies but failed to appear.
It would be helpful if David Willetts were to reiterate the new government's policy given the change of Minister and the brave new world of coalition.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Parliamentary Progress and Processes
The list would of Conservative gains almost certainly have been longer, possibly producing an overall majority and a more settled European policy had Dave kept to his "cast iron" commitment on the Lisbon referendum and thereby secured the UKIP vote
In Dave's own words:-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/eu_referendum/article273758.ece
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx
"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."
Look at the URLs in detail. In neither case is there any qualification about retreating from this commitment in the event that the Lisbon Treaty had been ratified.
The LibDems also have form. Their 2005 manifesto stated:-
"We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people."
Any Tory-LibDem concordat should therefore include commitments to referenda on (inter alia) Europe as well as electoral reform.
Following the shambles we witnessed last week this should also allow the introduction of a voting system more appropriate to the 21st century - rather than the 19th.
In Dave's own words:-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/eu_referendum/article273758.ece
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx
"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."
Look at the URLs in detail. In neither case is there any qualification about retreating from this commitment in the event that the Lisbon Treaty had been ratified.
The LibDems also have form. Their 2005 manifesto stated:-
"We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people."
Any Tory-LibDem concordat should therefore include commitments to referenda on (inter alia) Europe as well as electoral reform.
Following the shambles we witnessed last week this should also allow the introduction of a voting system more appropriate to the 21st century - rather than the 19th.
Thursday, 11 March 2010
The "Special Relationship"
"US President Barack Obama and myself know that the U.S. has no better friend in the community of nations than Israel."
- Thursday 11th March 2010: U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden at Tel Aviv University
- Thursday 11th March 2010: U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden at Tel Aviv University
Monday, 8 March 2010
Quantitative Easing (financial laxative): QE not QED - revisited
Comment on Roger Bootle article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7393470/A-year-on-and-quantitative-easing-is-paused-but-when-will-it-return.html
So 'My Uncle'* Mervyn at the Bank of England pawnshop has been buying £200Bn of gilts.
Now that selfsame BoE has cut interest rates to an historical low; this has caused a corresponding rise in the price of gilts. So, the BoE is buying at high prices and the financial institutions which were holding the stock have made a tidy profit with which to pay bonuses.
Alternatively, the opportunity has been created for the institutions to make arbitrage deals between the Treasury's Debt Management Office and the BoE.
Roll on a couple of months and we see that the inflation number is not a “blip”.
The BoE raises interest rate; gilt prices fall correspondingly.
The BoE now starts to sell its holding and incurs losses.
Who is paying for this capital loss?
Presumably the cash has gone to “money heaven” as in the Iceland debacle.
* The English term of ‘my uncle’ as a euphemism for the pawnbroker dates back to the middle of the seventeenth century.
According to Tim Congdon of Lombard Street Research, the whole process "is quite idiotic, frankly". He believes that the Bank, if it ran the DMO, would simply issue fewer gilts in the first place and "quantitative easing" would be achieved by buying bank debt.
- Daily Telegraph 26/3/09
Q&A: Quantitative easing "Q&A: Quantitative easing Are there any risks?
QE is a high-risk strategy. If it is not done aggressively enough, banks will remain unwilling to lend and the crisis could drag on. To some extent that is what happened in Japan when this was tried 10 years ago. Like old-fashioned money printing, QE also runs the risk of going too far: pumping too much money into the economy and causing high inflation - even hyperinflation - as seen in 1920s Weimar Germany and modern-day Zimbabwe.
Why are the UK's actions different from 1920s Germany and Zimbabwe?
Printing money can be defined as the central bank financing of government debts. This is what happened in both 1920s Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe and what the British government will insist it is not doing, although the short-term effect is similar. According to the Maastricht Treaty, EU member states are not allowed to finance their public deficits by printing money. That is one reason why the Bank of England will buy government bonds from financial institutions, not directly from the government. The Bank believes this form of QE is different because it is "printing money" as part of monetary policy - to prevent deflation. It is not printing money to help the government finance its deficit. Also, unlike Zimbabwe, this is a temporary policy: the Bank expects to sell the government bonds back into the market when the economy recovers. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7924506.stm 6/8/09
"an elaborate game of pass the parcel sees cash effectively shifted from one arm of government to another via third parties" - Rodney Hobson 6/8/09
So the story so far: the BoE has cuts interest rates; gilt prices have risen.
Next "the Bank expects to sell the government bonds back into the market when the economy recovers. " i.e. when interest rates will have increased; gilt prices fallen.
The BoE sustains a loss; paid for by?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7393470/A-year-on-and-quantitative-easing-is-paused-but-when-will-it-return.html
So 'My Uncle'* Mervyn at the Bank of England pawnshop has been buying £200Bn of gilts.
Now that selfsame BoE has cut interest rates to an historical low; this has caused a corresponding rise in the price of gilts. So, the BoE is buying at high prices and the financial institutions which were holding the stock have made a tidy profit with which to pay bonuses.
Alternatively, the opportunity has been created for the institutions to make arbitrage deals between the Treasury's Debt Management Office and the BoE.
Roll on a couple of months and we see that the inflation number is not a “blip”.
The BoE raises interest rate; gilt prices fall correspondingly.
The BoE now starts to sell its holding and incurs losses.
Who is paying for this capital loss?
Presumably the cash has gone to “money heaven” as in the Iceland debacle.
* The English term of ‘my uncle’ as a euphemism for the pawnbroker dates back to the middle of the seventeenth century.
According to Tim Congdon of Lombard Street Research, the whole process "is quite idiotic, frankly". He believes that the Bank, if it ran the DMO, would simply issue fewer gilts in the first place and "quantitative easing" would be achieved by buying bank debt.
- Daily Telegraph 26/3/09
Q&A: Quantitative easing "Q&A: Quantitative easing Are there any risks?
QE is a high-risk strategy. If it is not done aggressively enough, banks will remain unwilling to lend and the crisis could drag on. To some extent that is what happened in Japan when this was tried 10 years ago. Like old-fashioned money printing, QE also runs the risk of going too far: pumping too much money into the economy and causing high inflation - even hyperinflation - as seen in 1920s Weimar Germany and modern-day Zimbabwe.
Why are the UK's actions different from 1920s Germany and Zimbabwe?
Printing money can be defined as the central bank financing of government debts. This is what happened in both 1920s Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe and what the British government will insist it is not doing, although the short-term effect is similar. According to the Maastricht Treaty, EU member states are not allowed to finance their public deficits by printing money. That is one reason why the Bank of England will buy government bonds from financial institutions, not directly from the government. The Bank believes this form of QE is different because it is "printing money" as part of monetary policy - to prevent deflation. It is not printing money to help the government finance its deficit. Also, unlike Zimbabwe, this is a temporary policy: the Bank expects to sell the government bonds back into the market when the economy recovers. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7924506.stm 6/8/09
"an elaborate game of pass the parcel sees cash effectively shifted from one arm of government to another via third parties" - Rodney Hobson 6/8/09
So the story so far: the BoE has cuts interest rates; gilt prices have risen.
Next "the Bank expects to sell the government bonds back into the market when the economy recovers. " i.e. when interest rates will have increased; gilt prices fallen.
The BoE sustains a loss; paid for by?
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Good government costs less with Conservatives
Dave has just posted:
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/tag/taxpayers/
My submission:
Public sector pensions are a huge problem as is amply illustrated in the report from the Taxpayers' Alliance this week.
Reform must start from the top.
How about a manifesto commitment on this topic?
You should start with the MPs' scheme.
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/tag/taxpayers/
My submission:
Public sector pensions are a huge problem as is amply illustrated in the report from the Taxpayers' Alliance this week.
Reform must start from the top.
How about a manifesto commitment on this topic?
You should start with the MPs' scheme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)