A small way to start tackling the Cost Of Living Crisis

It does appear to me that very few people know what to do - all Parties and most commentators. At root we have to recognise that we are all in this together (where have we heard that before). Dancing around VAT reductions and temporary relaxation of "green levies" is insufficient with the prospect of price increases that could go to +300%! This could mean the least well off paying up to a quarter of their income in energy bills!

In regard to the current inflation there is an overwhelming argument to increase welfare benefits (Universal Credit) such that recipients have sufficient funds to keep reasonably fed and warm in Winter. But this has to be part of an integrated plan. Energy companies should be offered a debt for equity deal provided they accept the price cap, have adequate collateral (independently audited), freeze Board or equivalent level salaries and Dividends. The government backed loan facilitating the debt for equity could be spread over many years - perhaps 20 which should help in the transition to non-fossil fuels. Additionally this should obviate the demand for an energy bill payment strike with the potential for societal breakdown.

What would be the arguments against this plan. It is true that it would raise the national debt but I say that is better than people becoming ill due to lack of warmth. Of course in a debt for equity arrangement the country would have a long term investment in those companies but long repayment dates would help both the companies and the country in gradually reducing debt. This would have to be managed much better than the shambles of Covid related purchases. Companies might object that their freedom to operate would be curtailed - this is true and with the failed regulation (particularly in relation to some companies which were no more than asset lite traders) it would not be before time for what is an essential utility!

I would suggest this is a far better option than tinkering around the edges.

Are you pessimistic or not and does it matter?

Ruminating on the present crisis (sic) - Cost of Living (Gas, Electricity, Petrol, Diesel etc, Ukraine, PRC and Taiwan while listening to an afternoon with Kraftwerk; I keep thinking will we survive all this? and then recall the WW1 acronym - SNAFU. Taking this summer to do some more work on what Labour might do in relation to Utility regulation and specifically the electricity market. So contrary to Roger Scruton while pessimism is necessary hope is essential!

Weekly Commentary 9th July 2022

 

UK Politics: Trust, Probity and Transparency

Now that the self deluded Boris Johnson is on his way out the circling pretenders tell us how they will be straight with the British public. The issues of trust, probity and transparency are to the fore. Are we again being fed a line, not just by the Conservatives, but by all professional/career Politicians? I fear that is the case. Let us look at the criteria on which they say they should be judged. First a couple of reminders. It would be well to remember the words attributed to St. Augustine: "Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet"; and the applicable conditions for sainthood:- becoming a servant of God, live a life of heroic virtue and perform or participate in miracles. (I do not consider martyrdom or canonisation necessary to consider in this context - at least not at this time). Of course these reminders apply to Political Commentators, but most are so tribal, (of which there are daily and numerous examples), in their affiliations that rational analysis of the substance of their comments is most often a waste of time! Which brings me to the point that if Political Commentators behave with, often outrageous, extreme partiality, how can the electorate bisect and debate the real issues. Unfortunately this requires taking your own precious time to understand the background to the issues. Most do not have the time even if they have the inclination. For my part I never take at face value what Chris Evans (Editor of the Telegraph) nor Katharine Viner (Editor of the Guardian) without further thought. I conclude therefore that appeals to probity, trust and transparency are chimerical. Much better to look at specific issues!

Here are three to start with: How are you prepared in detail to deal with the "Cost of Living Crisis" without debasing, substantially, the currency and increasing inflation; How would you address and implement policies to achieve much wider home ownership; and how can you contribute to improving the NHS within the inevitable financial constraints.

Finally some may say these questions require technocratic solutions, i.e. get the unelected great and the good plus the Civil Service to run the country. Oh please no! The notion that these people (even if it could be agreed who they might be) would not have a political agenda is naive in the extreme. Politics is for the elected not those who happen to have a position.

Weekly Commentary (a bit late)

Is better Government possible?

Current discussion centres around severe loss of trust, "sleaze" and other misdemeanours in our Parliamentary Democracy. Without delving into the past too much it would be advisable for the other three main Parties in Westminster to reflect on their own histories as well as the Johnsonian Conservative administration, e.g. - Parliamentary expenses scandal when Labour was in power, Chris Hühne during the Tory Liberal-Democrat coalition and SNP with the present Grady/Blackford issue plus Natalie McGarry a few years ago. I am certainly not a Conservative and the simplistic wish for Proportional Representation seems opportunistic, not reflective of a deeper malaise and an absence of more rigorous analysis which allows (and perhaps contributes) to bad behaviour. Indeed it may be that PR would multiply bad behaviour in our system as it requires more croneyism which is at present a major contributing factor. And in so doing lessen the effectiveness of our Parliamentary Democracy. It will be clear from this opening that I very much support our Parliamentary system and believe that the present arrangements are not adequate to deal with the quasi Presidential modus operandi we now have. In addition Parliament itself through the medium of administrative processes (e.g. Standards/Behaviour) has diminished it's own standing as a viable and vibrant integral mainstay of our politics. For explanation, I am not saying that the present administrative processes should be abandoned but that their presentation of the facts in any particular case should be just that without any judgement whatsoever and that Parliament is then left to decide. (The notion that a Civil Servant would not be judgemental, or not, is naive in the extreme (see Sue Gray report which, in my view, should have gone to Parliament not the Prime Minister).

How do I get to this conclusion? Well I start with the electorate and their views! It should be worrying that UK turnout in General Elections has been steadily declining from 78.7% in 1959 to 67.3% in 2019. (Source: House of Commons Research Papers 01/37, 01/54, 05/33 & 10/36). How often have you heard the common refrain: "They're only in it for themselves"; or even more apt, on Bury Market during the 2019 General Election Campaign a citizen was asked about Boris Johnson and replied; ' he's probably the best of a bad bunch as he is borderline human'. There will be many other examples of the public's view of our Parliamentary Democracy most of them uncomplimentary and a lot unprintable!

This brings me to the second point. We are discussing our Parliamentary Democracy not our Presidential system. Much of this drift towards: Big Job requires Big Person who is all powerful is a construction of Spin Doctors and twenty four hours News Programmes. (Note omnipotence is in the ownership of God not Politicians nor Commentators, myself included). The relationship between Politicians and the News Media is dangerous for serious analysis and debate, as the visual media sells instant answers to very complex problems. Not to do that militates against the media's attractiveness for continued viewing and income from advertising. Over simplification brings with it greater disappointment when the promised solutions are not delivered. This has become a never ending merry go round of near vacuous verbiage!

The third point is: How are persons selected for Parliamentary candidature? This is an area where Parties have control and over the years have assumed that electorates in those constituencies will continue to vote on a Party Ticket although of late this appears to be declining. However Parties continue to impose Candidates. The desire of Parties is to have compliant members so that the Governing Party's programme can be voted through. Independent thinkers and potential rebels are not welcome, with very few exceptions. It is therefore the unanswerable case that Parliament does not have the most talented and competent people.

What might be done to improve behaviour and competence? Together with enhancing our Parliamentary Democracy. Today I shall concentrate on Party procedures which can only be part of the necessary reforms! (Other reforms would definitely include the Civil Service and transferring administrative oversight of political/government activities back to the political arena). The desire for control by Parties has to be loosened. I would suggest very strongly that compulsory Primaries would have to be held in each constituency in selecting Candidates for prospective election to Parliament. I believe the compulsory element is necessary so as to maximise participation. Affiliation could be withdrawn or changed at any time. People would have to register as a Party Supporter and those putting themselves forward would engage with a much wider electorate than is presently the case. The process to be managed via the existing Electoral Registration system. Only Parties registered by the Electoral Commission could proceed to a Primary. Others would have to declare as Independents. Those putting themselves forward would be subject to scrutiny much more so than at present and the likelihood of past behaviour being exposed should contribute to better representation.

The three main arguments against this proposal are: cost; necessity and that it would favour the wealthy/organised. It is accepted that there would be an increase in cost but this should be minimised by using the existing Electoral Registration/Counting arrangements and utilising electronic/mechanical aids. With regard to necessity I do not think it can be argued that this is unnecessary given the current low trust between Government and Electorate. As to favouring the wealthy/organised this arrangement should help those willing to act collectively e.g. Trade Unions as against the herds of Lawyers, Journalists and the 'never had a proper job'. For a little effort, much change could be effected with the distinct possibility of a better democracy. Certainly it would be less costly and less divisive than PR (of whatever flavour was subsequently decided). With these changes more people representative of the electorate should be chosen and some of the hindrances to the talented and capable would be removed. Our democracy would stand a better chance of being improved and trust would increase.

Weekly Commentary 26th June 2022

 

In a week which has seen Labour re-take the Wakefield seat at a by-election and the Conservatives trounced in Tiverton and Honiton it is timely to look at both the facts on the ground (as against media hysteria and spin) as to what this might mean, if anything, to the Labour Party.

The turnout in Wakefield was 39.1%; whereas in Tiverton and Honiton it was 52.3%. As Sir John Curtice (National Centre for Social Research) says: ‘many Conservative voters stayed at home and there is no great enthusiasm for Labour. In a General Election turnout would be likely to exceed 60% in Wakefield and over 70% in Tiverton and Honiton.

Let us look at the sloppiness of current media thinking and presentation. There is the conflation of the EU and Europe. The distinction needs to be made and remembered unless you are a convinced Bonapartist such as Macron. From this conflation a number of errors and misinformation flows. David Gauke in the New Statesman this week asserts: “the best solution to the UK’s woes is to rejoin…the EU”. Neither the “woes” nor the analysis are presented. It is an extraordinary fact free assertion. I do not wish this article to dwell on Brexit but suffice to say the evidence is all the other way. Trade may be down but significantly this is in part due to the removal of the Rotterdam effect where trans-shipments from Felixstowe and Southampton were counted as exports but now are no longer and in any event while imports from the EU are down exports to the EU are "...at the highest level since records began." (ONS). Facts are very important unless you wish to regress to animal instincts alone: "Over the last six years...UK GDP has expanded at an accumulated rate of 6.8% - France 6.2%, Germany 5.5% and Italy 2.1%. (IMF and Liam Halligan, Independent Economist sometime with Financial Times and The Economist).

I could go on but Labour has to realise that the EU is not a religion! This is of particular relevance to Hilary Benn, Emily Thornberry, David Lammay, Chris Bryant and their ilk!

Of much more importance is Labour's policies or lack thereof. It has to be much more than Keir Starmer saying he is not Boris Johnson!. Such policies need to be rooted in securing a fundamental shift in power so that democracy is seen to work better - hence a re-run of the Brexit debate can only be a disaster for Labour.

So on a first matter of substance Labour has to think carefully about what binds people and the nation together. This may be difficult for old style Labourites in that it means accepting the Liberal notion of property rights but in an updated way. I believe a significant rallying point would be the progressive abolition of residential leaseholds - not the 'half- hearted' attempt by the present government but to develop the sense of place, identity and freedom that property ownership gives. This has to be properly thought through. Thus in a programme not exceeding 10 years from day 1 no new residential property Leases would be permitted. The trigger for change would be on the sale of a property - a sale would only be legal if it transferred the Freehold interest without restriction. Voluntary transfers could take place but the formula for the determination of Freehold cost would be limited - say a maximum of ten times the current leasehold rent. Insofar as Apartments are concerned the move in the same time-scale would be to create common-holds.

Such a policy would only be part of the programme. It would be vital to raise the level of Social Housing provision to at least 300k units per annum for the 10 year period. These units would be built to exacting quality standards which would be legally binding on Developers/Builders. Additionally Developers/Builders would be subject to ongoing Independent audit to advise government as to whether excess profits were being made. Thus many more people would feel they had a real stake in society. Worth thinking about.

Just some observations to end with!

Boris Johnson says he would want to go to a third term? The "dumb heads" in the media take this at face value. He is, of course, taking the mickey out of his own profession

"Levelling Up" is a joke - increasing the Living Wage is crumbs from the Master's table while the Conservatives allow and encourage exorbitant salaries elsewhere (Bankers and the City of London).

We have been told for 40 years that "trickle down" would work - the evidence says otherwise!

I leave you with the most wonderful observation from George Orwell.

"...The ugly fact is that most middle-class Socialists, while theoretically pining for a class-less society, cling like glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige....The Coles, Webbs, Stracheys, etc., are not exactly proletarian writers...Sometimes I look at a Socialist — the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation — and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? ... You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb's autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders…"

see p162 Penguin Modern Classics 1986 edition re-printed 2001

Weekly Commentary 19th June 2022 - Whither Assange?

Things are a bit behind this week. Glorious few days in Suffolk and then getting the Lounge and Dining area ready for the Decorator who (2 weeks later than we had hoped) will be coming tomorrow.

Have been ruminating about the Julian Assange affair. Is he a saint just seeking to speak truth to power (yawn) or a narcissistic publicity seeker (another yawn). It is worth looking over the chronology of this saga. 391,000 reports covering the period of 2004-2010 of the Afghan War were released via WikiLeaks in 2010 from information obtained from the “whistleblower” Chelsea Manning and possibly others. These documents show (prima facie) that the USA engaged in activities in Afghanistan that could be War Crimes, e.g. deliberately killing civilians. The USA response was to seek the arrest of those responsible for the release of this classified information. That the information was classified is one of the few agreed facts here. Whilst it was implied that the security of the USA was threatened by the release of this information nothing further was detailed. This is to be expected, as to suggest that security was endangered would require (subsequently) proof in a closed court session. I think it reasonable to believe therefore that USA security was not endangered! And since it is now 12 years since the release of the information one would have thought the USA security agencies would have by now closed any actual or potential breaches. It was widely reported that American Generals were furious at the release of the information. Perhaps this was because, they had been found out – undertaking actions in breach of International Law or, that it was necessary to come down hard on the perpetrators else questions might be asked about political authorisation, or simply to provide cover for soldiers working in a particularly hostile environment. What is of great interest is that Barack Obama in January 2017 issued a pardon for Chelsea Manning!

Of course Assange has been claiming privilege in that he is an Investigative Journalist, which may be the case – although I have never seen a tight legal definition of what one of those is! Hence umpteen years in the Ecuador embassy in London and now Home Secretary approval for extradition to the USA for what inevitably will be a “show trial” (to discourage others).

What I get from this is: a) there is a great difference between what those in power say they are doing and that it is lawful; b) that in refusing to acknowledge that “fighting dirty” does happen treats electorates as infantile!; and c) it is no surprise when electorates turn to the openly nasty as they at least know what they are getting! Treating electorates as stupid and juvenile opens the door to the precise opposite of what governing elites want! It is they who want to mature and stop infantalising citizens. They might be surprised at a mature response! In the end therefore Assange should not be extradited to the USA because for all his faults he has shown the massive duplicity of some of our leaders and thereby indicating a possible better way forward with much greater transparency and open debate.

Weekly Commentary 11th June 2022

 

Utility Regulators without Teeth

The report this week from OFGEM about the storms earlier this year and the failures of Network Providers is yet another example of toothless regulation. They have been fined, of course, but despite that and allegedly scrutinising performance and capital expenditure by the Regulator it is evident that they have not failed in profits and dividends (see ENWLtd for example). It is as if this Utility privatisation was designed for that specific purpose. That is, a profit and dividend created Company with an Electricity Network Provider attached not the other way round! In detail we also have the further extortion of money from customers not only through usage charges but via the “Standing Charge”. This charge is for the wired connections, meter reading and customer service. If that is the case why does it vary so widely between suppliers but also on different tariffs with the same supplier. Is it not the case that those three elements are the same or very similar for all! I know the argument will be made that recently it has been necessary to use the charge to recoup losses where another company has ceased trading but that does not explain the huge disparities. In my own case 20.83p per day in February 2021 and 33.22p per day in September 2021 (prior to most company collapses) and with the same supplier! Moreover using the charge to accommodate customers from collapsed companies hurts the poorest most. So we have a failed regulation in relation to the resilience of the network, a failed regulation in relation to continuity of suppliers, yet profits are still made and dividends paid!

The Soap Opera Continues

I have long held the view that present day politics in Britain is a Soap Opera and continues to be so as the participants engage in mutual ego massaging. This week is a good example. Boris Johnson is doomed. Boris Johnson is saved but only for a while (don't kill the story just yet). Huge opportunity for Keir Starmer – Oh no! He’s fluffed it. The similarities all round are hard to ignore. Principally the lack of substance. Boris Johnson, his persona is deliberate superficiality (although History may attach more importance to Brexit, Covid and Ukraine than glasses of wine and birthday cake). But what can you make of Keir Starmer – it has to be more than I am not Boris Johnson. It also has to be more than “we would spend/invest more”; “we would be quicker”. I’ve been burrowing around looking for Labour policies as to what their government would be like. Apart from a “Green Paper” on Employment that is all I could find! A lot of work to do here both in the substance and giving Keir Starmer a personality.