³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

My ears may be playing tricks on me but I'm pretty sure I heard George Osborne state quite clearly that the UK will not attempt to cut its carbon emissions any faster or slower than the rest of the EU. The obvious thing being the impact on energy prices on potential economic growth, and perhaps Huhne's proposed " carbon floor price " is now a dead duck along with Huhne's idiotic plan for a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. At last those in government would appear to be waking up to the impact of the Corporate Nazi Climate Scam, like Osborne said, the UK only contributes 2% to global CO2 emissions so whatever we do its not going to make any significant difference to climate anyway. The eco-fascist supertanker would appear to be turning ?

The reason that Germany is in thrall to the Euro is because it makes their overseas business easier, of course, as having a common EU currency.

Also, Germany is concerned about reinstating the D mark as is a statement about Germany's rise as dominant economic power.

Germany is a victim of its own success & fears its currency being attacked on the markets if it refuses to support bankrupt Sun med countries.

A reinstated German Mark currency would also need a higher interest rate setting, at least in the short term as speculators try & buy German assets.

A difficult choice for Germany but that that has to be made as with or without the Euro as Euro will sureley collpase if three or more PIIGS in default.

However, the piecemeal approach to the crisis by the big Eurozone players is adding to the uncertainty & cost of the crisis.

The EU President must put a set of proposals to a majority vote in the Eurozone soon or be out of a job, fairly soon.

The way forward is clear - at what point to the Germans exit further massive bail-outs on the basis that these will cost & have more risk attached than trying to operate its own currency with a higher than ideal exchange rates/interest rates.

Germany's subtle corporate protectionism of German assets - fairly soon to be exposed.

The politicians (both Labour and Tory) as well as the Commentators and Chatteratti are stubbornly stuck in the sexist view that Women are mere baby making machines. Yes, many women want to have children but there are also very many who do not.

Yet anytime that politicians try and devise "women friendly policies" they can only possibly think in terms of child care arrangements, maternity pay, flexible working and so on and so on. Presumably, if you're a woman (or man) who is single, unlucky in love or responsibly chooses not to leave behind a genetic legacy and selflessly decide not to over populate an increasingly over congested little island with yet more unwanted babies then you're simply a compliant cash cow who has to pick up all the bills for those who do.

So much for equality.

Any voters who are not actively having children simply don't exist to politicians and are, therefore, not politically represented. Yet we are paying for the personal lifestyle decisions of those who want us to cough up all the cash to pay for them to have child care, flexible working hours, maternity pay, paternity pay, schools and not to mention doing all the work that they cannot do because they have to constantly attend to the children that they have voluntarily chosen to bring into existence.

It is ironic that there is media focus on David Cameron's response to Nadine Dorries but not on her actual amendment (less than a few weeks ago) that sought to exclude abortion providers from providing counseling as well as her well expressed intentions of restricting a woman's right to an abortion. And yet the Tory party are now scratching their heads wondering why more women don't want to vote for them - well do the math!

When are we going to see serious debate and discussion from politicians and journalists on single (men and women) friendly policies?

:o) Should be an interesting NN with Jeremy tonight at the Conservative Party Conference!

Political policy corpses of council house sales, enterprise zones and now the socialisation of small business loan debt that is too risky for banks to touch does not strike me as doing anything for growth. We're on the same path as Eire and will ultimiately fall off the same cliff, but without Euroland to provide a safety net halfway down.

COUNCIL HOUSE SALES (#8)

It was a scam first time round (part of Maggie's defeat of 'organised labour').
It MUST be a scam this time round. I'm guessing it is all in the timing.

It was interesting to note that George Osborne made no specific mention of the proposed 7p " growth Kamikaze " rise in fuel duty in Jan 2012, but perhaps he is saving a rabbit in the hat for his autumn statement. Perhaps Osborne is foolish enough to go ahead with the fuel duty rise on the basis that failure to do so would be a virtual unfunded tax cut and therefore spook the stock market parasites. If he is not very careful excessive fuel duty will allow the stock market parasites to asset strip what little remains of UK manufacturing and spiral our economy into a massive contraction. Then he will never be able to reduce the debt and the only option on the table will be default, and perhaps the celebrity stock market parasites dictating Tory policy need to be reminded of this factor.

"George Osborne announces multibillion-pound credit-easing plan:
Treasury will buy companies' corporate bonds, providing cash direct to struggling firms unable to gain funds from banks"

Mr Osbone is the devil incarnate.

As I understood it, the Treasury controls revenue for PUBLIC SECTOR expenditure, i.e governance. It takes in £500 billion in taxes to pay for such Public Sector Services. The money is supposed to be spent on GOVERNMENT i.e the management of PUBLIC Sector services.

But, the Public Sector is being cut (allegedly to pay for the Credit Crunch, even though the Public Sector had nothing to do with it, except that the regulators were deprived of their teeth by politicians, nominally there to oversee government). After decades of our Civil Service being hollowed out to make it collapse, it (600,000), like the rest of the Public Sector (6,000,000), is being forced to contract after the Private and Third Sector (NPISH) caused the Credit Crunch. Was that not what they wanted?.

Is this not mega chutzpah?

Public Sector money is to go to Private and Third Sector companies, which, if they go bust after paying out their bonuses etc, will just write off their borrowings and start up anew with a different name, all at the expense of the Public Sector and taxpayers. Note the long loop of deception?

Say you work for health or education and there are companies offering services in competition with the NHS or DFE (think private health service providers like BUPA or Free Schools etc..Or say you work for probation pr prisons in the Ministry of Justice (NOMS) and there are Third or Private Sector companies like Securicor, Group 4 etc saying that they will deliver services (like "rehabilitation") if they can be given money (without pension overheads etc.....money straight from...The Treasury (your pockets). It's a way of killing off the Public Sector is it not, and sending your money into some businesses pockets instead. No regulators either.

It looks like a shell game one might expect from Mephistopheles to me.



Mr Osbone and his Liberal Democrat Libertarian chums truly appear to be the devil incarnate. Sup his words with a long spoon I say.

Are they hoping that most people are too dumb to see this for what it is? Is this made easier by most (80%) of the 31 million comprising the workforce already work for the Private or Third Sector. so think they'll get free money by eating their own legs?

A veritable Faustian stitch up.

The Dow Jones imploded ( down 258 and a new year low ) after the London FTSE closed down just 1% having escaped from being more than 2% down earlier and at one time going below the psychological 5000 point. What's the latest betting on the FTSE closing well below 5000 tomorrow ?

It just crossed my mind that " Credit Easing " is a stepping stone to the future nationalisation of companies which are key to our sustainable economy. It could stave off asset stripping by the stock market parasites and leaves the door open for any new government to take over large swathes of current private industry ?

#13

An astute post again!

Fantastic Jeremy with Phil Hammond et al - we should be given a referendum on the EU! Frankly, I agree with the audience - we haven't gained much from the coalition at all. :p Foster = an epic fail..... and don't get me started on wind farms!

Fraser Nelson is always great on the show - and can't wait to see Jeremy with Boris Johnson tomorrow!!!!!

LIVING WITHIN THE BIG COALITION LIE

The one policy that both Conservatives and LibDems agree, totally, is to keep repeating the fatuous lie that THE TWO PARTIES COMBINED IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST. Yeah right.

If the parties of Westminster had the national interest as their primary concern, they would reconfigure English politics WITHOUT THE PARTY-CHARADE HINDRANCE TO SOUND GOVERNANCE. Just think of the money that could be saved. Just think of the policies that could be advanced LONG TERM. Just imagine the FINE MINDS that would be drawn to governance, in place of the current cipher-ninny dross. Oh Brave New World.

Does ANYONE not know that Dave and Nick were both POWER-HUNGRY, and only came together: Dave to meet his desperate need to be Prime Minister, and Nick to get a pathetic taste of glory, that he will never know again; achieved at any price to integrity? What is the matter with Paxman - a jibe let go! Is he unwell?

DISMANTLE WESTMINSTER - SPOILPARTYGAMES - IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

AGES OF MAN: STONE - BRONZE - IRON - SILICON - GRAPHENE - PLASTICINE

What use will a super-slim super-fast globally-interactive sweatshirt be to the brain-dead masses, of all ages, in England's 'Storage Unto Death' units, reduced to using their 'primitive' hands and eyes, to work their plasticine - until bedtime?

Our culture is anathema to Mother Nature and not one needy, juvenile MP has a clue that their priorities are farce about head-case.

Does Susan Watts cover national psychiatric breakdown?

Weep England.

@ Barrie #21 - we'll end up being ruled by Morph

WHILE THERE'S MORPH THERE'S HOPE (#22)

Tony Hart's programmes epitomised what we have lost 76. Sigh.

'Also we'll be getting the journalist's view of the conference from Fraser Nelson and Kevin Maguire.

As one is usually treated to the singular views of a Mr. Maguire, it was perhaps welcome to have at least one other to represent, apparently, the views of journalists.

Didn't watch, but did he intone 'Tory Toffs' as was his wont? Or is he stuck in another groove now?

We really need to understand what this proposed credit easing really amounts to.

WHY aren't small businesses able to invest? Is it just bank greed, incompetence or the fallout from the credit crunch?

The reason is quite simple - THERE AREN'T ENOUGH PROFITABLE, CREDIBLE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE - mainly due to the collapse in living standards which is drastically reducing demand.

So what will credit easing achieve? Normally banks factor in a risk element to loans and they demand collateral from borrowers - some go bust, others make money - roundabouts & swings.

But the banks got greedy and thought themselves too big to fail, so they overplayed their lending and lost their shirts - then we bailed them out.

So in effect all that this will do is eliminate the middleman by directly lending from government to businesses - and in the current climate we are in effect allowing the coalition to do precisely what got us into this mess - taking excessive and irresponsible risk.

So when the inevitable loses are realised from this higher risk profile, the taxpayer will foot the bill - they will be "socialised". The Tory heartland of small businesses will therefore be directly subsidised at the expense of the general tax payer.

How does this compare internationally? Well Greece immediately springs to mind. The government there simply fails to collect taxes from small businesses and allows them a free ride - there is really no difference between this and credit easing - the same channelling of public resources into small businesses is taking place, it's just the mechanism that is different.

The Tories seem to have given up on the powerhouses of the UK economy - large businesses which could delliver economic growth and increased employment- in order to bankroll their heartland - what used to be known as the "petit bourgoise".

Credit easing will become a form of organised fraud and extortion, where dodgy small businesses of the sort that feature on Watchdog spend their time dreaming up credit applications knowing full well that the business won't deliver, but that they can take the money and then quietly fold the company, leaving the taxpayer with the loss.

This extends the notion of "moral hazard" into every nook and crany of the economy - it opens up the public purse to put dodgy small businesses in the same situation as welfare cheats, able to dip into our pockets and steal from those of us who play the game by the rules.

With the acceptance of the Vickers report recommending separating high street and investment bank activities , some new way is going to be needed to fund medium sized business loans in the future.

Copying the government Gilts system for medium size business may answer this problem. When the government issues new Gilts (bonds) , if the value of these drops drastically soon after purchase , the purchase value is guaranteed by HM Treasury. For example ; if I bought one £100, one year, Gilt bond and two hours after my purchase it dropped in value to £2 and stayed that way for a set number of days, I could then sell back that Gilt to HM Treasury for £100 and would therefore not have lost any money myself. As I understand it , these guarantees are time limited, around six or nine weeks. After that time, the investor in the bond is on their own.

In effect its a confidence building measure.

So doing the same with medium size companies borrowing requirements and enabling them to access private finance ,bypassing the need for a middle man (a bank), may solve future funding problems caused by the Vickers recommendations.
The only difference would be that its not the Treasury offering the time limited guarantee for the medium sized company bonds, but the Bank Of England (QE).

I would have no objection in supporting this as long as the bond guarantee is for six months or less, preferably less, and is a temporary measure to bed down the new financing structures that Vickers will bring about.

Small company loans (credit lines) are a lot higher risk , second only to providing start up funds for new business. Both of which I would not want to blindly guarantee myself. So in the long-term I doubt this should be taken away from the new high street banks, who are closer to the coalface and thus more able to use due diligence in deciding who should have their loans extended and who should not.
But given the possibility of mass defaults (Rolling Thunder) from the Eurozone and banks having to maintain higher capital reserves to be able to write down these bad debts , something may have to be found to take the high street banks place in the short term, a new QE backed small commerce bank maybe ?


Talking about Start Up funding. I am sure there is more that can be done here to organize where potential enterprises can seek such funds. There are a lot (millions) of small scale savers ( potential investors) who would be willing to put two or more thousand into a start up firm that commanded their confidence, but where do such small time investors and potential enterprises find each other with confidence ?
This needs answering if we want to harness the maximum investable funds in the country for new Start Ups.

EU Referendum ?

Our relationship with the EU has substantially changed since the 1975 referenda , a fact that is indisputable. Also it was only three years ago since the Lisbon Treaty was foisted upon us, even though all three political parties promised a referenda in the 2005 general election.
So there is going to be a referenda on the EU at some point, even if the so called Elite don't like it.

Steve-London @ 26

You ask:

"There are a lot (millions) of small scale savers ( potential investors) who would be willing to put two or more thousand into a start up firm that commanded their confidence, but where do such small time investors and potential enterprises find each other with confidence ?"

There are some interesting developments in this area, possibly the best known in England at present is Zopa (Zone of Possible Agreement)

This reduces the friction of business, in terms of matching lenders and borrowers, in an innovative way and might become very popular - unlike conventional banks in England.

"DEMOCRACY IS GOVERNMENT BY EXPLANATION" (still chuckling)

First, a bogus explanation of how the latest mess is someone else’s fault Then some doomed 'initiatives', with bogus explanations as to how they are going to put the Sun back in the sky. Finally: bogus explanations of why the ensuing failures were someone else’s fault. Then round again.

#25 Dead right Richard. There are plenty of examples (recent past) of scammers milking the dumb government. Might there be a 'prison initiative' there? Set prisons to come up with viable schemes; there are far better minds in the Scrubs than Westminster AND THEY WOULD BE SCAM-PROOF!

I wholeheartedly agree with this:

particularly "Paxo’s splendid intolerance of fools on Newsnight sets the whole tone of ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Two: sharp, sceptical, occasionally world-weary. It would be a tragedy if the fools were allowed into the building and trashed the place."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Osbourne's proposal for 'credit easing' seems to be an idea derived from the, as it turned out, ill-fated mortgage packaging aka 'securitisation'.

That was a collection of mortgages which were bundled up into a package and then sold-on to an investor. Some of the mortgages in the package were sub-prime but the model was still meant to give a reasonable return even if some of the mortgagees defaulted.

We all know how that turned out.

Similarly, with this idea of credit easing for business, it would seem that loans to SME's will be packaged up and sold on to investors.

Given that the failure rate of small businesses in England is very high, then this could be quite tricky to market - unless the investor understands that the biggest-mug-of-all-time, the English taxpayer, is standing (reluctantly) behind the loan.

Barrie, whatever might you have been referring to to get so referred?

He asks, rhetorically.

JohnConstable wrote:

"Similarly, with this idea of credit easing for business, it would seem that loans to SME's will be packaged up and sold on to investors.

Given that the failure rate of small businesses in England is very high, then this could be quite tricky to market - unless the investor understands that the biggest-mug-of-all-time, the English taxpayer, is standing (reluctantly) behind the loan."

Some of the comments to this blog surprise/disappoint me, as they seem to be posted with little or no understanding of how governance works.
The Treasury does not print money, it just allocates money to government departments collected by the revenue (largely as income tax). People have no choice but to pay their taxes. That was the point of my earlier post.

Whilst banks are Private Sector companies which are not under the control of government across Libertarian democracies (that is a defining feature of Libertarian democracy) Public Sector government departments/agencies ARE under the control of Government. So, The Treasury, in buying high risk 'corporate' bonds from these small businesses, using money which would otherwise go to Public Sector workers for the services which they would normally regulate and/or deliver, is just a way of bypassing banks which would not be doing their fiduciary duty to their shareholders if THEY risked their shareholders' capital in this way.

Let me spell it out. As the tax payer is prosecuted if he or she doesn't pay due taxes, he or she has no say as to standing behind the actions of the Treasury, as politicians in power can claim that THEY have a mandate to instruct the Treasury to do what THEY say with people's taxes..The only recourse the taxpayers would have would be 4 or 5 years later when they might get the politicians out, if they can get enough people to see what is happening and most people are now so dumb, alas, they don't), and if it was done by legislation, only then, if the legislation was repealed.

This is "fascism" or crony capitalism (take your pick). Meanwhile, Putin is setting up an alternative to lure towards the CIS/SCO/BRICS. those European nations (East Europeans and Greece etc) who are becoming ever more disgruntled with Libertarianism .Clever stuff. A long term strategy I suggest.

.

A couple of MPs have said 50% of Britain's business and export markets are with the eu which is around 200 billion pounds worth and employs over 3 million people. But, with that, the Rotterdam/Antwerp effect is not taken into account (in which exports to final destination partners outside the eu, in the outside world, that pass through Rotterdam and Antwerp are included in, as exports and business with the eu), and Britain runs a trade deficit of around 40 billion pounds with the eu. The business of 200 billion is only around between 12% and 13% of our gnp. I do not think the eu want to lose it's business with Britain, after Britain leaves. The other 50% to the world, and growing, we run a surplus. The eu directly and in-directly could be costing us between 60 billion very best case, to up to 200 billion pounds worst case, now we have a challenge to our financial services from the eu to tax our financial business which could cost anything from 40 to 50 billion, which would go to the eu (if you hate the financial business, you should still not want this to happen). So 40 Billion deficit, up to 200 billion in costs, and a tax against financial transactions to enrich the eu, and at the UK's expense. We will not lose 3 million jobs when we leave. There is nothing to fear in leaving a declining, regulation riddled market, that hampers and costs our businesses and comptitiveness, and even if they do not trade with the eu. China exports more to the eu than us, but do they face all this regulation?

Why are our ports (usually called shipyards) not producing ships. Because the ones that could be building the types of ships that Britain can easily be competitive in against eu, North American, and even some Asian yards, were not invested in and modernised (especially after the eu yards had subsidies (officially) stopped). That's what should be happening to these shipyards, as well as being versatile multi-ability/function facilities also. The only investment in them years ago, was to turn them into something less.