Browse > Home / Archive: November 2010

| Subcribe via RSS



A not especially lavish wedding that’s not especially business friendly

By Angela Harbutt
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:23 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

So the Royal wedding has been set for Friday 29th April. We are told that the date was the couples choice – so we should not be too suprised that they have opted for a date just six days before the vote on AV. Afterall what need have they to concern themselves with commoners issues such as…. oh I don’t know…. the single most important vote on democracy in decades. We can hardly accuse them of being “out of touch”  or “just a little bit remote” just because the 29th April was the only day they could get Wesminster Abbey.

And I certainly don’t hold with the notion that the choice of  date had anything to do with Mr Cameron – or that AV vote. That would be absurd.

What does point to their royalships being “just a tad out of touch” was the statement from one of their chaps, talking about us paying for the security, who said   “.. that the only service personnel involved are those already on ceremonial duty in London. No one will come out of training or from combat duties..” .  Did anyone seriously expect that we would bring soldiers back from the frontline for the day?

 I also loved the line from another palace official who stated that the ceremonial wedding would not be especially lavish” . What counts as especially lavish I wonder ?

So despite the fact that (or indeed perhaps because) “times is tough”, we are having a “not especially lavish” cermonial wedding that will cost millions in security (though reassusringly we are not actually pulling outof Afghanistan to police it) AND making it a bank holiday.

You might think that making it an official bank holiday is not especially “business friendly” but to be fair it will have been days since the workers enjoyed their last bank holiday (Easter: Friday 22nd and Monday 25th April) ….

Hang on that makes it a three day working week (and a Conservative government (well sort of)) … How very 1970s. Are we sure we don’t have a energy crisis they are not telling us about?

Still it will be ages til the next bank holiday – oh no that will be the following week.

So we are going to have a four working day week, followed by a three day working week, followed by a four day working week. Or put another way – two consecutive four day holidays. 

Economic crisis? What economic crisis?

Tags: ,
'

Nick Clegg: Why isn’t your party as organised as this ?

By Angela Harbutt
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:19 am | 7 Comments | Posted in Weird and Wonderful

Having had a revolting conference in September….. Hows about Nick sorts out a conference rally that looks something like this? That would set our coalition partners teeth on edge….and I doubt that even the glorious red brethren could deliver….. Go on Nick. Give it a go ..Afterall these are just footie supporters … Just think what a co-ordinated , cohesive party could do !

To the Tories, size clearly matters

By Tom Papworth
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm | 5 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

The Liberal Democrats are not the only party faced with the uncomfortable consequences of a bad pre-election promise.

The Conservatives are coming under increasing pressure to abandon their growth-destroying immigration cap, and David Cameron has promised that the new immigration regime would be “business friendly” by ensuring that intra-company transfers were exempted.

Unsurprisingly, the representatives of the Blue Chips and Multinationals are cock-a-hoop.
Neil Carberry, CBI Head of Employment policy, said, described the report as “a thoughtful contribution to the debate about how a cap on migration might work.” For him, what was “important [is] that companies with an international operation can transfer their own staff, as required, on a temporary basis, and we would like to see these ‘Intra-Company Transfers’ exempted from the cap.” His new Chief Executive had previously said that “Introducing a cap for work permits is a valid way of balancing the need for skilled workers with the social pressures caused by immigration”.

But before the Tories are allowed to walk off into the sunset, hand-in-hand with their big corporate partners, we need to consider whether these policies really are business friendly, or whether they are in fact anti-competitive and harmful to small and medium enterprises that are not able to operate across numerous jurisdictions.

The Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, David Frost, said last week: “The prime minister has said Britain is ‘open for business’. Our migration policies must reflect that sentiment.” Earlier in the month he went further, saying that “arbitrary restrictions on the number of talented non-EU nationals will not help increase jobs for UK workers… The Government needs to think again – and create a balanced migration policy that limits the number of low-skilled migrants, while allowing us to entice top global talent to the UK.”

Before the election, David Yeandle, head of employment policy at manufacturers’ group the EEF, warned that “with a cap there’s a danger that it will be set not on the needs of businesses but what politicians feel will be acceptable to the general public, but the two might not be the same…  A cap is very inflexible and doesn’t take into account the differences that take place in the economy during the year, and we could end up in a situation half-way through the year where companies need people but they have all been taken, and employers then can’t meet their business needs.”

At the same time, John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), warned that a cap could leave employers struggling to find skills, while wages could be forced up as competition for workers increases. “When a cap is put on the supply of labour, demand that otherwise would be met is not met. That means either vacancies are unfilled, or that employers compete for staff and drive up wages costs” (though he did also suggest that in the long term employers would seek to train existing workers).

The immigration cap is a truly moronic piece of legislation that not only prevents the UK economy from benefiting from some of the most hard-working and entrepreneurial people in the world, but doing so in a particularly cack-handed and economically illiterate way. This was recognised by Lib Dem business secretary Vince Cable, who described its effect on the economy as “very damaging”.

So, on one level, the decision to exempt intra-company transfers (the relocation of staff by a company from an office outside the UK to an office based here) is to be welcomed: it prevents one of the negative effects of this legislation, and hopefully will mean that more places are available for those whose decision to immigrate to the UK is not based within the operations of one firm.

But on another level, it shows exposes the Tories’ longstanding and unhealthy relationship with big business. The problem is that, while multinationals may benefit from being able to move staff into and out of the UK, smaller, domestic firms will not share the benefits. Thus, not only does it do nothing for Small and Medium Enterprises, it actually hands yet-another regulatory-imposed anti-competitive advantage to the UK’s largest firms.

It is typical of the Conservatives that they should add to the woes of SMEs by firstly preventing them from recruiting talent from the widest possible pool, and then providing loop-holes only for the largest firms. Some might also note that foreign companies operating in the UK will benefit at the expense of domestically-based UK competitors.

This week we have seen two sides of the Tories: the anti-competitive side that supports big business at the expense of smaller companies; and the anti-economic side that puts political expediency before economic science. There’s two sides to every story, and neither leaves the Tories looking good!

"Your business is too small. Get out!"

"Your business is too small. Get out!"

Government signals “illicit tobacco welcome here”

By Angela Harbutt
November 21st, 2010 at 9:38 pm | 3 Comments | Posted in Personal Freedom

So much for a government committed to “the big society”. So much for a government that said it was going to talk to us seriously – not treat us lihmmm glitzy !ke idiots – not tell us what to do. So much for a government that was going to get out of the way of business.

So here we have a government that, if reports are to be believed, at the first hurdle is buckling to pressure from a government funded lobbying group and that age old nonsense about “saving the kids” – and seriously considering forcing tobacco companies to package cigarettes in plain packets.

First and foremost, the idea that “glitzy packages” are the reason why kids start smoking is simply preposterous. Look along any cigarette counter at any supermarket or newsagent and what you see is oblong boxes with the words “SMOKNG KILLS” all over them. They come in quite dull colours – a lot of white, a splash of purple here, a dash of gold there. But “glitzy” ? hardly. This is another poorly thought-through spurious piece of nonsense from the ASH evangelists – who just can’t leave well alone.

I understand. ASH has to justify the huge amount of money they take off the government . They would hardly continue to argue for there very nice handout if they sat there and did nothing. 

But what is the government thinking? If reports are to be believed – this is an EXPERIMENT.. apparently ” ministers want to see if changing the appearance of cigarette packets could deter children from taking up smoking“.

Well I want to see how many jobs this is likely to cost. How much tax revenue this is likely to lose. How many more illicit tobacco products will be sold if this insane idea becomes law.  How can any sensible govenment seriously consider a measure that – more than any other I can think of – will make it eaiser and cheaper than ever before to produce counterfeit tobacco?  – replacing a legitmate, taxed and policed business with an illegal one.

Why don’t we go the whole hog and put up a sign at Dover that says “illict tobacco products welcome here“. Lets not worry that the criminals don’t pay anything  to the Exchequeror indeed what the profits from this activity might be funding. Lets not concern ourselves that the criminals will distribute their products – most often bypassing legitimate tobacco retailers  – to anyone will to pay for them regardless of age. And let’s not worry that when kids know that they can go to “Joe” for cheap cigarettes – how easy it will it be for them to go to him for anything else they know Joe has in his larder of goodies. 

No. Let’s make it easier to counterfeit.

Let’s see just how far the this government is willing to go, what market share the criminals can actually secure, and what level of much-needed tax revenue it is willing to give up, before the government decides this was not such a good idea afterall.

Tags:

Red storm rising?

By Andy Mayer
November 18th, 2010 at 9:56 pm | 5 Comments | Posted in Liberal Democrats, Opinion

David Hall-Matthews of the Social Liberal Forum raised an interesting point on Lib Dem Voice this week. Have the ‘left’ of the party “become the mainstream”?

His evidence for the shift is the result of the internal party elections, which, as with last year showed greater success for explicitly left candidates like Evan Harris than moderates and aspirational liberals. Tim Farron (left) beat Susan Kramer (moderate) for the Presidency, and across the committees the people’s front of Judea dominate the Judean people’s front.

It one sense he’s clearly right. I’m not sure though that it means what he thinks it means, or it’s all good news for his side.

In any coalition between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives the opposition to the government within the party is predominantly going to come from the left. Either those who still regard us as some kind of annex for a grand realignment plan, or just those for whom liberal democrat politics is about opposition for the sake of opposition. If you want to send Nick Clegg a message of disapproval, voting for this year’s Miliband-tendency is pretty low risk.

It’s also the case that Nick Clegg is not Tony Blair, and Danny Alexander is not Peter Mandelson. Party management from the leadership has been notably absent. Where New Labour took on their internal critics and crushed them in a series of internal battles for control, Nick has been, well… liberal…

What David has identified is two fingers politely raised to a Leader who is looking the other way.

The issue there I suspect, is that if the internal committees of the party actually mattered, Nick would not be quite so relaxed. The Federal Executive is a case in point. Technically it is the governing body of the party. In reality all serious political decisions are taken by the MPs, all operational ones by Cowley Street. It has a serious role scrutinising those decisions in the manner of a Council committee, but on almost every occasion it has had the power tested, it has proved rather keener to ask the Leader and Chief Executive for direction than rock the boat.

Their one big power is to appoint and sack the Chief Executive, but even that is devolved to a Finance and Administration committee, and the real test of a CEO is whether or not they have the confidence of the Leader.

The Federal Policy Committee technically steers party policy to Conference for approval, and is responsible for how policy is developed. Technically Conference votes are sovereign in deciding what policy is. In reality the FPC is one voice amongst many, and significantly less well resourced than an average-sized think tank. The selectorate who choose the committees and get to vote at conference represent activism not liberal opinion or even the membership of the party. No serious politician would regard that group as having the right to be sovereign over their political decisions, they are primarily accountable to their constituents for their campaign promises and votes in Parliament.

What both conference and the FPC have in spades is influence. It is a story if the FPC or Conference shoot down a leadership proposal.

But it a power best used infrequently and wisely. And this is where David may not get what he wants.

The more the FPC behaves like an anti-government faction, or impractical left-wing ideas shop, the more likely it is it will be ignored.

A key test for example will be what the committee recommend to conference in respect of our tuition fees policy for the next election, and what conference decides. One does not need the foresight of a deceased German octopus to predict that a left-leaning FPC will leave the policy unchanged or back a graduate tax and the Conference will wave it through. Government MPs will ignore it, those planning to vote against will stick it on their leaflets. Overall the party will look confused.

Tim Farron is likely to spend the next two to four years as President planning the Leadership bid that he is crystal clear he does not want. This will involve walking a tight-rope between constructive opposition and sabotage. He will become one of Ed Miliband’s sternest critics whilst agreeing with almost everything he says. He will be effusive in his praise of Nick Clegg whilst disagreeing with almost every decision he takes. He may occasionally stick-up for the Leadership at Conference to show willing whilst privately supporting attempts to get anti-government motions passed via caucuses like the SLF. He and Nick are real friends, but they are both also ambitious politicians.

The win for the left is not in this Parliament and internal elections, it is if and when Tim gets his shot at the big job.

Betting against that after the narrow result between Nick and Chris, and Ed Miliband’s success against New Labour, would be unwise. It is further not at all clear at the moment who would be the opposition. David Laws is brooding in his cave, Jeremy Browne has too marginal a seat, Vince Cable will be too old, Julia Goldsworthy is not in Parliament, and Sarah Teather has not fully recovered her internal reputation since the removal of Charles Kennedy.

Most ministers will struggle to build the kind of party-love available to a candidate outside the coalition. Chris Huhne is plausible, but given he ran on the left-wing ticket last time he would have to perform some quite canny shifts to build a new platform. Danny Alexander oddly looks rather like the compromise candidate who might emerge in the middle, but is untested and has always shone as a loyal number two. He’d be much more likely to back the candidate he thought would win than stand himself. It is though insanely early in the Parliament and the rise of Tim Farron is a plausible scenario not a forecast.

Another plausible scenario is that the left overplay their hand and provoke the friends of Nick into taking the party more seriously. Moving to one member one vote, or registered supporters being allowed to vote for the leader would undermine the committeeariat. Tough change to deliver. It requires a Conference vote. But events might deliver the right circumstances to make the party more democratic and reflective of liberal Britain.

The other key shift  is that the balance in the membership is likely to shift to the right to reflect support for the Coalition whilst more liberal socialists go back to Labour. The economy should recover by 2015 without a collapse of public services. The party might just win the balance of power again in a closely fought election, AV or no AV.

So that Alexander premiership, or even a decade or more of Clegg (sorry Miriam) are both entirely possible. Evan’s vision of a party obsessed with increasing spending, state control through councils, and endless redistribution schemes “distinctive, radical, and progressive” is far from assured.