Latest Tweets
Adopt This Domain
Google Reader Shared Items
Search
Categories
Recent Comments
Pick of the Feeds

Entries in UK (8)

Monday
02Nov2009

Breaking up the banks will cost £40 Billion anyway. Why not remutualise?

News this weekend that Labour plan to force Lloyds and RBS to sell off large tranches of their branches, especially in Scotland is presumably a good thing. Not many people would argue that the dominance of a tiny number of mega-banks is doing anyone any favours, especially in Scotland, where the demise of HBOS is sorely felt. Even in Leith, if you want a bank with a branch in the neighbourhood people only have a choice between banks owned by Lloyds, RBS and Santander. I can imagine that in many small Scottish towns choice barely exists, if it ever existed before the credit crunch anyway.

However, as the papers digest the mechanics of these break-ups it seems that the best Labour are hoping for is that either Tesco, or Virgin Money will take on these new branch networks, because they will at least appear to be British. Frankly, I can't see Tesco taking on a branch network. They've got their own ubiquitous bricks and mortar portfolio that already spans the country. Why buy up a whole network of shops, most of which won't be big enough to accomodate a Tesco Metro? I can't see it. And as for Virgin? Well it's just a brand that wraps around other people's money - money that the Guardian says would probably be foreign anyway.

So, it looks as though, after all the UK tax payers money, Labour are going to have to spend another £40 Billion of tax payer cash to sell the assets to one or more foreign owned banks. This sounds like an immensely expensive own-goal. At some points during the banking crisis it looked as if the treasury were considering returning some of the tax payer owned banks to mutual status, but these ideas seem to have been dismissed as too complicated, and not lucrative enough in the short term.

Even if remutualising one, or all, of these de-merged banks is more expensive in the short term, even if it is immensely complicated, surely the right decision is to remutualise? The only people who'll benefit from a quick fire sale of UK Banking plc to foreign capital are the Labour politicians who'll be able to make a few headlines about paying down the national debt - presumably they'll want those headlines in time for the election too.

But over time a sale to other foreign mega-banks will see more money, more power, and more business credibility sucked out of the UK and repatriated elsewhere. We've already seen how a Lloyds Banking group are seeking to cut their funding for charities and good causes. How committed will foreign owned banks be to investing in the communities where the operate?

And when it's gone, it's gone. Labour, and perhaps the Tories who may follow them, have an historic opportunity to reshape UK banking for the good of all UK citizens - and bring an end to the era of 'Casino Capitalism'.

Some people have proposed that Labour could bring back the Trust Savings Bank in Scotland as a mutual bank, true to it's orignal aims of providing affordable banking services to the poorest in society. What a great idea, and one that would help to bring trust and stability to retail banking. It would also help to maintain resources in Scotland for the benefit of Scottish people. But most importantly it would be a fantastic symbol to people that politicians aren't just the servants of big, private capital in the city. It would show that that there is value in mutual ownership and control that is, in fact, priceless.

Friday
17Oct2008

Patter Swap

Nats seem to get all annoyed when people accuse them of being in bed with the Tories.  But if Alex Salmond  can't come up with any  new chat of his own, and borrows George Osbornes Tory conference lines about 'the age of irresponsibility' for the SNP conference, you can't blame people for putting 2 + 2 together and getting tartan Tories can you?

In a similar vain I was amused to hear the LibDems environment spokesman in Westminster, Steve Webb, comments on the exclusion of air travel and shipping emissions from the proposed UK Climate Change bill. Steve said:'It's like telling everyone you're going on a calorie controlled diet, but not counting cream cakes.'

Sounds familiar to me.

Is there a reality TV show in this? Er, probably not.

Wednesday
24Sep2008

Brown: 80% CO2 cuts by burning coal?

As I write this I'm listening to the whole YouTube clip of Gordon Browns conference speech. I have to say I lost concentration about 16 minutes in, but should wish to subject yourself to the whole 60 minutes of it, it's here:

Despite his weird body language, I would imagine you'd be pretty relieved, and dare I say it, you'd be inspired, if you were a Labour supporter. He's said sorry, he was hurt, he was misunderstood, but he's moved on. So what do we like?

Commitments to childcare improvements are great. Further extensions for funding Nursery places is vital, and is real progress. That really is a commitment to 'hard working families'. 

I don't see any harm in giving more poor families access to the internet either, although perhaps the money would be better spent on energy saving measures to cut families fuel bills so they're not as poor any more.

The decision to waive prescription charges for those suffering from cancer is welcome, and it was good to see a commitment to cutting prescription charges for all people with chronic diseases. But the SNP is already doing approximately this.

However, that announcement on nursery places seemed to me to be one of the few, fairly concrete, things that were announced. Take Gordons pronouncement on what he's going to do to sort out the financial sector; wooly stuff on 'transparency', 'sound banking', 'responsibility' and 'global supervision' and so on. That could mean that he's planning to go to the UN to hand over control over financial policy to the World Bank!

But, I was most disappointed to hear Brown on climate change. Brown clearly likes the idea of a million green jobs in the UK. But he's not going to put the policies in place that will deliver them. He's still dithering on the issue and he's asked for another report, this time looking at achieving a CO2 cut of 80%. Worst of all he seems to think he can achieve an 80% cut by building new coal and new nuclear plants. Sure he said 'clean coal', but the technology doesn't exist. No new measures to improve energy efficiency, no new policy ideas. 

Gordon may have claimed to have fixed the roof while the sun was shining, but he missed the opportunity to fix solar panels to it while he was up there. How long can Labours business as usual approach shelter us from the problems of climate change?

Labour may have had the radical policies once. But no more.

Thursday
11Sep2008

Hillary Benn: You Fix Climate Change, Labour Can't

Hillary Benn came to Leith yesterday for a 'question and answer' session on Climate Change organised by our local MP Mark Lazarowitcz. Mr Benn is nothing if not brave to face the public on this one, and I have to confess I was pretty amazed in the turn out for the meeting. It must have been the busiest Pilrig church has been for some time. There were some local Labour activists whom I recognised, but the majority of the audience was made up of green activists from all over the city. It did beg the question where were the Labour supporters? It may seem trite, but the turn out to the event  did help to restore my faith in UK democracy a wee bit. If nothing else it is pleasing to know that cabinet ministers do sometimes leave the Westminster bubble.

Hillary didn't preach from the pulpit, but he did open with a 5 minute speech where he set out the climate change issues fairly well. I wished I had my camera at one point as he stood, poised like a methodist preacher dramatically pointing to the light overhead, presumably trying to strike the fear of god into us, asking:

"How will we make the emissions cuts we need to save the planet and keep the lights on at the same time?"

Sadly, Benn did not inspire faith in the Labour party's ability to respond to the climate challenge. And indeed,  it seems Hillary  was looking to God for some help.  There were plenty of questions from the audience:

  • Why is Labour keen to support new nuclear and new coal?
  • Why is Labour promoting the expansion of air travel at the expense of trains?
  • What is Labour doing to address the prohibitive national grid transmission charges that stifles the development of Scottish renewables?
  • What is Labour doing to promote micro renewables and support community owned energy companies?
  • What will Labour do to support people to improve the energy efficiency in older properties, where planning restrictions currently forbid even the installation of double glazing?
  • Why does the westminster climate change bill currently allow the UK to buy CO2 offsets abroad rather than forcing us to reduce our own emissions?
  • Why isn't Labour doing more to help people, especially the poorest, tackle fuel poverty and climate change by improving housing standards?
  • Why isn't Labour bringing forwards zero emissions building regulations given the urgency of the climate change challenge?
There were lots of questions. Sadly, there was very little in the way of answers from Hillary. He obviously knows his stuff, but he certainly didn't convince. The quote that sticks in my mind most  was his response to the questions around transport. After reminding everyone, yet again, that the government couldn't solve climate change on its own, he proudly announced that, "train travel has not been more popular in the UK since just after the 2nd world war."

Surely that is not a success? Surely we should be aiming for more people travelling by train than ever. Full stop. Hillary says he can't stop people wanting to travel by plane, and to some extent that's true. But there was no leadership coming from him on the issue, no resolution to drive a modal shift towards trains, or more sustainable transport use through government policy. And he used the same argument on every issue. It is not governments fault if people want to use loads of electricity/ fly by plane/ buy energy inefficient houses/ prevent wind farms on their doorstep - it's yours. So do something about it.

The touble was, he was speaking to an audience who spend a lot of their time trying to do exactly that. Hillary did motivate  everyone to take action, that's for sure. Leaving the meeting, everyone was indeed fired up to go out and change something. In most cases, it was the government.

Monday
25Aug2008

What we need is an EU football team

As Daniel Hanan points out to his baying Euro sceptic audience at the Telegraph, we'd have considerable sporting success if we could only work together at an EU level. The EU got 87 gold medals, compared to 51 for China, and 36 for the US. Never mind all this pathetic football nationalism going on in the UK at the moment. Perhaps Alex Salmond could accept a Scottish team playing a constructive role in a wider EU team instead?

Saturday
09Aug2008

UK Risk Register Ignores Climate Action

Last week the UK Government Published the 'National Risk Register,' which barely seems to mention climate change. Where it does, it seems to be only in the context of adapting to the consequences - flooding, drought and and so on. It studiously avoids any mention of the merits of taking action to mitigate against climate change, which is an odd way to deal with a pretty big risk. We probably only have 100 months left to stop irreversible climate change.  Anyway, here's one of the wonderful diagrams for you, lifted from here:

You've been warned!

Wednesday
06Aug2008

London Congestion Charge Works - Shock Report

Interesting Spin on TfL report that says congestion in London is back to levels last seen in 2002. Boris takes the opportunity to do as much as he can to rubbish Kens legacy, but the Tfl Press release says:

More than five years after the Congestion Charge was launched, and over a year after the western extension began, traffic in central London remains 21 per cent lower than pre-charge levels and traffic entering the extension has fallen by 14 per cent.

And:

There has been a 6 per cent increase in bus passengers during charging hours and a 12 per cent increase in cycle journeys into the western extension.

Sounds good to me. It turns out that actually the congestion problems are all to do with major roadworks, temporarily removing road space, and blocking key junctions. Yes, more needs to be done to cut congestion, and the charge won't do it on it's own.

Why Boris feels an appropriate response is to scrap plans to pedestrianise part of Parliament square escapes me. It's a temporary problem, whilst pedestrianisation will deliver long lasting benefits in Central London. Why should people who make sustainable transport choices be penalised to apease the petrol head lobby?

Friday
01Aug2008

Windfall Taxes Won't Work

Someone, somewhere said the capitalism is too important to be left to capitalists. I kind of like that. The 'free market' is probably the best way we have of allocating resources, but only if it's regulated to within an inch of its life. The question of course is how you go about regulating it.

Energy prices are scaring the poo out of everyone at the moment, and quite rightly people are aghast at the spectre of oil firms like BP making about £2million a minute for the whole of the last two quarters. Or Centrica announcing profits of £5million a day after announcing the biggest energy price rise ever in the history of everything.

So what's to be done? Any UK energy policy needs to address some tricky problems. We've got a centralised power generation system that relies on ageing and increasingly unreliable plant to keep the lights on.  This needs to be replaced with something, and whatever it is, it needs to produce significantly less CO2 emissions if we're going to play our part in mitigating climate change. At the same time we need to make sure that energy bills don't go up as this forces more and more people into fuel poverty. And by the way, let's not forget - fuel poverty kills people.

Lot's of people are calling for windfall taxes on the large energy fims, that could be used to fund subsidies for those most at risk of fuel poverty, (or hard pressed farmers, fishermen or candle stick makers - whatever). SNP Tactical Voting rates the idea as it would handily validate SNP claims that Scotlands oil is subsidising the whole UK economy.

However, this can only be a short term measure. It would be popular, so perhaps Gordon Brown will be tempted to go for it after the Milliband thing, but it won't fix the problem long term. High fossil fuel prices are here to stay, and a windfall tax could even be counterproductive in the longer term, by undermining energy companies confidence to make big investments in infrastructure. Besides, both BP and Centrica are international businesses, so not all of those millions of pounds per second are made by fleecing pensioners, fishermen and farmers in the UK. Repeated use of windfall taxes might just be enough to encourage these businesses to move to the Bahamas.

So, no windfall taxes for me.

And on the wider topic of energy policy no new coal and no new nuclear for me either. Renewable energy sources are the only sources that make sense - they cut our reliance on foreign fossil fuels, and they 'decarbonise' our economy.  I'm with the writers of this report published today. It shows that the UK can meet it's renewable energy targets, without building any new coal or new nuclear. It requires investment in our housing stock (that will cut fuel poverty too) and it requires investment in the grid and the technology. We need to regulate our markets so that small indepedent renewable energy producers, that are run as social enterprises to benefit thier customers, can get fair access to the grid, and a fair price for their energy. It will also require other measures to help cut our energy demand, like banning inefficient light bulbs. 

These policies will increase energy efficiency, decentralise our energy generation, cut fuel poverty, carbon emissions, and our dependance on foreign energy suppliers. It would also break the stranglehold of the big six energy companies on our energy market.

To get this done we need leadership on this, and we need it soon. The pretence from Labour that we can bugger about buggering up the climate, in a business as usual sort of way is getting dull - but I wonder whether we'll need to see a change of governments before people will contemplate what must seem to some selfish buggers like a bitter pill to swallow. Will David Cameron be able to lead the country on that journey if he gets in next? 

And to anyone who complains to me about my support for the out and out banning of wasteful things, I say pah! Everyone wins - as the economy will be more efficient. That means people will have more cash to waste on pointless things we don't need, and all those pointless things will be produced more efficiently with bigger profit margins. We might even see some of that much promised green jobs revolution too. 

You see? The free market is marvelous, as long as you regulate it to within an inch of its life.

Now, we just need leaders with some backbone - where's that Milliband guy gone when you need him?