It was a summer's day a few years ago, and I got a phone call from someone called "Andy" who was so obviously not British.
As much as I was tempted to tell the guy that I was also called Andy, I chose not to.
Instead I just let Andy talk. Apparently he was trying to save money on my energy bill.
Andy asked if I was with British Gas, to which I replied no.
Then the conversation went something like this- Eon? No. EDF Energy? No. Npower? No. Scottish Power? No.
So Andy piped up with the question, "Well who are you a customer of?"
I informed Andy that I was a customer of Quacki Gas!
As I am sure one could imagine, Andy was totally ecstatic and prepared for my answer. In fact he replied, "Erm, sorry what are they called again?"
So I reconfirmed the words Quacki Gas.
At this point Andy sought clarification that I was actually the bill payer. When I confirmed that I was, all Andy could do was say his goodbye. RESULT!
On that note, this is the final post of the WattoTalk Blog. It has been an enjoyable six months. I will now be moving on to new blogging interests. Thanks for reading.
Monday 10 March 2014
Sunday 9 March 2014
Vince Cable wrong on EU Referendum!
Liberal Democrat Leader and British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been critical of the plans by Conservative Premier David Cameron for an in-out EU referendum, should Mr Cameron's party secure an outright majority at next year's general election. That criticism was backed on March 7 by Clegg's cabinet and party colleague, Vince Cable.
I consider myself to have a fair bit of common ground with the Liberal Democrats, especially when it comes to Britain being part of the European Union. However as previously stated in a post on September 30 2013, I do believe that the question of Britain's EU membership will at some point in the foreseeable future need to be put again to the British people! The issue has moved on so many times over a couple of generations, and it is now a minority of the current British electorate who were actually eligible in 1975 to cast their vote in Britain's only previous referendum on Europe. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the line taken a couple of days ago by the Business Secretary Vince Cable.
I feel a particular need to address what Mr Cable says when he speaks of business leaders informing him that referendum talk is deterring large scale investment into the UK. Don't get me wrong, I am just like some ordinary Joe Bloggs on the ground- no Captain of Industry is likely to come and tell me directly that this talk of an EU referendum is deterring investment into the UK. But an ordinary Joe Bloggs I may be, I can still broadly be aware that the British economy is slowly picking up from what has been a very deep recession. Unless the Government in which Mr Cable is a part of is substantially fiddling the figures on various economic data, I believe Mr Cable is exaggerating this point!
The Liberal Democrats may well not be looking over their shoulders in the same way as the Conservatives at the potential threat posed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). But as an ordinary Joe Bloggs, I can say that some people who support centre-left parties like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, do also want out of Europe! Surely that means it would be desirable to offer the eurosceptic voter the opportunity to have their say on the matter, which would in turn tell that eurosceptic voter that a vote for the Lib Dems will not necessarilly deny them a much needed say on a most crucial national issue.
After all, Mr Clegg and his party had been previously in favour of an in-out referendum. This was ironically at a point prior to the 2010 general election, when both Labour and the Conservatives did not support this position. The biggest hole in not supporting the in-out referendum is the challenge Clegg has made to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage in having a national TV debate on Europe.
ONLY A REFERENDUM CAN ULTIMATELY DETERMINE IF BRITAIN IS TO REMAIN AN EU MEMBER FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IF THE MAJORITY DISAGREE WITH THE PRO-EUROPEAN VIEWS OF MYSELF AND MESSRS CLEGG AND CABLE, THEN THAT IS DEMOCRACY! THE REAL UNCERTAINTY IS BY LEAVING THE ISSUE UNRESOLVED IN THE MINDS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
I consider myself to have a fair bit of common ground with the Liberal Democrats, especially when it comes to Britain being part of the European Union. However as previously stated in a post on September 30 2013, I do believe that the question of Britain's EU membership will at some point in the foreseeable future need to be put again to the British people! The issue has moved on so many times over a couple of generations, and it is now a minority of the current British electorate who were actually eligible in 1975 to cast their vote in Britain's only previous referendum on Europe. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the line taken a couple of days ago by the Business Secretary Vince Cable.
I feel a particular need to address what Mr Cable says when he speaks of business leaders informing him that referendum talk is deterring large scale investment into the UK. Don't get me wrong, I am just like some ordinary Joe Bloggs on the ground- no Captain of Industry is likely to come and tell me directly that this talk of an EU referendum is deterring investment into the UK. But an ordinary Joe Bloggs I may be, I can still broadly be aware that the British economy is slowly picking up from what has been a very deep recession. Unless the Government in which Mr Cable is a part of is substantially fiddling the figures on various economic data, I believe Mr Cable is exaggerating this point!
The Liberal Democrats may well not be looking over their shoulders in the same way as the Conservatives at the potential threat posed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). But as an ordinary Joe Bloggs, I can say that some people who support centre-left parties like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, do also want out of Europe! Surely that means it would be desirable to offer the eurosceptic voter the opportunity to have their say on the matter, which would in turn tell that eurosceptic voter that a vote for the Lib Dems will not necessarilly deny them a much needed say on a most crucial national issue.
After all, Mr Clegg and his party had been previously in favour of an in-out referendum. This was ironically at a point prior to the 2010 general election, when both Labour and the Conservatives did not support this position. The biggest hole in not supporting the in-out referendum is the challenge Clegg has made to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage in having a national TV debate on Europe.
ONLY A REFERENDUM CAN ULTIMATELY DETERMINE IF BRITAIN IS TO REMAIN AN EU MEMBER FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IF THE MAJORITY DISAGREE WITH THE PRO-EUROPEAN VIEWS OF MYSELF AND MESSRS CLEGG AND CABLE, THEN THAT IS DEMOCRACY! THE REAL UNCERTAINTY IS BY LEAVING THE ISSUE UNRESOLVED IN THE MINDS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
Saturday 1 March 2014
Manchester biomass incinerator highlights English democratic deficit!
The incinerator in question is not actually in Manchester; it in fact lies in Davyhulme in the borough of Trafford, the home of Manchester United FC. But moving away from geographical anomalies, the serious issue here is that an elected council's planning committee had voted unanimously against permitting Peel Energy from building a biomass incinerator in Davyhulme, against a backdrop of strong local feelings. Yet, the unelected Environment Agency took a different view, which subsequently led to a Government Inspector backing the plans. A High Court Judgement on February 24 in support of building the plant has come as a crushing blow to many Trafford residents.
On the other side of the coin, many people will sympathise with the notion that the Country does face future challenges in keeping the lights switched on. But quite clearly balancing any economic benefits the incinerator would bring to the area against environmental risks, needs to have an input from a more locally democratically accountable body, rather than some so-called Central Government expert or an unelected quango like the Environment Agency.
There is another way. It is called Germany. Or perhaps I should say Britain needs to embrace some aspects of the German Devolution Model, taking on board that England is in fact the only nation within the UK not to currently have any form of devolution (London aside). German States or Lander can pass laws across many policy areas, with Defence and Foreign Policy as two notable exceptions which are handled solely by the Federal Government in Berlin.
I have previously stated my views on English Devoultion in my post on 1 November 2013 entitled "An English Devolution Perspective." To summarise my perspective, a dramatic reduction in the number of English MPs at Westminster could pave the way for Regional Parliaments be set up in the English Regions. Following the German model, Westminster could still legislate in policy areas covered by the regions. However, this would only be when it is clearly in the national interest to do so.
A sensitive local issue such as a biomass incinerator needs the accountability of elected politicians. Unfortunately, the High Court decision in backing the position of the Westminster Village is yet another example of the ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
On the other side of the coin, many people will sympathise with the notion that the Country does face future challenges in keeping the lights switched on. But quite clearly balancing any economic benefits the incinerator would bring to the area against environmental risks, needs to have an input from a more locally democratically accountable body, rather than some so-called Central Government expert or an unelected quango like the Environment Agency.
There is another way. It is called Germany. Or perhaps I should say Britain needs to embrace some aspects of the German Devolution Model, taking on board that England is in fact the only nation within the UK not to currently have any form of devolution (London aside). German States or Lander can pass laws across many policy areas, with Defence and Foreign Policy as two notable exceptions which are handled solely by the Federal Government in Berlin.
I have previously stated my views on English Devoultion in my post on 1 November 2013 entitled "An English Devolution Perspective." To summarise my perspective, a dramatic reduction in the number of English MPs at Westminster could pave the way for Regional Parliaments be set up in the English Regions. Following the German model, Westminster could still legislate in policy areas covered by the regions. However, this would only be when it is clearly in the national interest to do so.
A sensitive local issue such as a biomass incinerator needs the accountability of elected politicians. Unfortunately, the High Court decision in backing the position of the Westminster Village is yet another example of the ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
Recent English flooding strengthens the case for Regional Devolution
Last month's floods saw frightening images for many Brits. Living in the North West of England, I have to say I am a very lucky boy.
Arguments ensued on how politicians on the Conservative side of the Coalition Government were slow to visit affected areas such as the Somerset levels, which happen to have four constituencies held by Liberal Democrat MPs. Other arguments put forward suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron conveniently visited flood affected visits to display his wellies in what happens also to be Tory heartlands.
This is all further evidence that Britain is too densely populated an island not to have further devolution in the English regions. The United Kingdom as a whole has a population in excess of 63 Million. Breaking this down, over two thirds of Brits live outside of either London, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Scotland. In addition to being the seat of Britain's Government, London also has an elected mayor and assembly. Whilst Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a national parliament or assembly with devolved powers, English regions don't have any regional devolution at all presently!
I am not going down the route of claiming that devolution would have altered nature. What I am saying is that had the West Country (which includes the Somerset Levels) had a regional assembly, then arguments over whether Environment Secretary Owen Paterson visited affected areas a month too late, would be less significant.
The British flooding crisis has also seen disagreements between Lord Chris Smith (as Chairman of the unelected quango that is the Environment Agency) and Government ministers, who have been blaming each other. Once again my belief is that Regional Devolution in distributing more power away from central government, would make such disagreements largely irrelevant.
It doesn't make much difference over whether one is scrutinising the decisions made by the British Government or the Environment Agency. Both have come in for much deserved criticism. Whilst Regional Assemblies and Governments won't alter nature, they are better placed to respond to crises of an environmental nature with more local implications. THE WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HAS SHOWN ITSELF ONCE AGAIN TO BE TOO FAR DETACHED!
Arguments ensued on how politicians on the Conservative side of the Coalition Government were slow to visit affected areas such as the Somerset levels, which happen to have four constituencies held by Liberal Democrat MPs. Other arguments put forward suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron conveniently visited flood affected visits to display his wellies in what happens also to be Tory heartlands.
This is all further evidence that Britain is too densely populated an island not to have further devolution in the English regions. The United Kingdom as a whole has a population in excess of 63 Million. Breaking this down, over two thirds of Brits live outside of either London, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Scotland. In addition to being the seat of Britain's Government, London also has an elected mayor and assembly. Whilst Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a national parliament or assembly with devolved powers, English regions don't have any regional devolution at all presently!
I am not going down the route of claiming that devolution would have altered nature. What I am saying is that had the West Country (which includes the Somerset Levels) had a regional assembly, then arguments over whether Environment Secretary Owen Paterson visited affected areas a month too late, would be less significant.
The British flooding crisis has also seen disagreements between Lord Chris Smith (as Chairman of the unelected quango that is the Environment Agency) and Government ministers, who have been blaming each other. Once again my belief is that Regional Devolution in distributing more power away from central government, would make such disagreements largely irrelevant.
It doesn't make much difference over whether one is scrutinising the decisions made by the British Government or the Environment Agency. Both have come in for much deserved criticism. Whilst Regional Assemblies and Governments won't alter nature, they are better placed to respond to crises of an environmental nature with more local implications. THE WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HAS SHOWN ITSELF ONCE AGAIN TO BE TOO FAR DETACHED!
Monday 24 February 2014
Brendan Rodgers contract extension surely now inevitable?
Liverpool Football Club will kick off Saturday evening's Barclays Premier League match at Southampton in need of just two more victories from their remaining eleven matches to surpass last season's points total of 61. Although Brendan Rodgers walked into the Anfield hotseat twenty one months ago with some question marks over his credentials, being the genuine choice of Fenway Sports Group was always going to mean that Rodgers would be in a much stronger position than Roy Hodgson (who was inherited from the disgraceful previous American Owners) and Kop favourite Kenny Dalglish, whom Rodgers succeeded.
Although Liverpool finished the 2012/13 season in seventh place, the Reds' average league position over the previous three seasons had also averaged seventh place. The 2012/13 campaign did see the disappointments of domestic cup exits at the hands of Rodgers' former club Swansea City, as well as lower league Oldham Althletic. But more crucially, the campaign also saw the Reds cut the gap to the top four by five points from the previous campaign under Dalglish.
When I was travelling on the train to Liverpool's opening match of this season against Stoke, I expressed my hope to a fellow supporter that we would be in the mix for a top four position come the final few games of the season, and that our points total would break through the 70 point barrier. It would be so easy now to get carried away and say that nothing less than a top three or top four position would do. Against a backdrop that the Reds can now break through the 70 point barrier by winning less than half of their remaining games, missing out on Champions League qualification this season may prove to be a missed opportunity.
Going beyond the statistical talk of points tallies increasing year on year, the football enjoyed by the Anfield faithful has at times been a delight during the current campaign. In the SAS, Liverpool have arguably the most feared partnership in the league. They can clearly play together. From a personal point of view, being at Anfield this season to see both Suarez's four goal haul against Norwich and Sturridge's double strike in the space of a couple of minutes against the Toffees, has been a top top feeling.
Prior to Rodgers' signing of Sturridge, Suarez was at times carrying a struggling team. That said, there can be little doubt Rodgers is now getting more out of the iconic Uruguayan, in part due to the acquisition of Sturridge. Having not delivered at Man City or Chelsea, Sturridge was viewed in some quarters to be a big gamble. It is surely right now that with that gamble reaping dividends, and with only a little over a year remaining on his current contract, Fenway Sports Group must surely recognise that Rodgers has to be rewarded himself?
Although Liverpool finished the 2012/13 season in seventh place, the Reds' average league position over the previous three seasons had also averaged seventh place. The 2012/13 campaign did see the disappointments of domestic cup exits at the hands of Rodgers' former club Swansea City, as well as lower league Oldham Althletic. But more crucially, the campaign also saw the Reds cut the gap to the top four by five points from the previous campaign under Dalglish.
When I was travelling on the train to Liverpool's opening match of this season against Stoke, I expressed my hope to a fellow supporter that we would be in the mix for a top four position come the final few games of the season, and that our points total would break through the 70 point barrier. It would be so easy now to get carried away and say that nothing less than a top three or top four position would do. Against a backdrop that the Reds can now break through the 70 point barrier by winning less than half of their remaining games, missing out on Champions League qualification this season may prove to be a missed opportunity.
Going beyond the statistical talk of points tallies increasing year on year, the football enjoyed by the Anfield faithful has at times been a delight during the current campaign. In the SAS, Liverpool have arguably the most feared partnership in the league. They can clearly play together. From a personal point of view, being at Anfield this season to see both Suarez's four goal haul against Norwich and Sturridge's double strike in the space of a couple of minutes against the Toffees, has been a top top feeling.
Prior to Rodgers' signing of Sturridge, Suarez was at times carrying a struggling team. That said, there can be little doubt Rodgers is now getting more out of the iconic Uruguayan, in part due to the acquisition of Sturridge. Having not delivered at Man City or Chelsea, Sturridge was viewed in some quarters to be a big gamble. It is surely right now that with that gamble reaping dividends, and with only a little over a year remaining on his current contract, Fenway Sports Group must surely recognise that Rodgers has to be rewarded himself?
Wednesday 12 February 2014
Is Spain a failed state?
Ten years ago, Spain's economy was seen to be outperforming many other EU economies. The then conservative Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar was considered in some quarters to have led several key reforms. With Aznar set to depart the scene at the 2004 General Election, his conservative Popular Party looked set to be on course for a third successive election victory, such was the positive outlook for the Spanish economy. Mariano Rajoy (his successor) in fact lost that election.
Ten years on, Spain has another conservative government led by Rajoy, following two successive terms of socialist government. As part of a eurozone trying to recover from the financial crisis of 2008, the Spanish economic outlook is not currently looking so rosy. Not only does Spain have high unemployment, we now hear talk about autonomous regions with separatist tendencies looking to break away. We also now hear about the odd royal scandal. There is the chink of light provided by the national football team, which is considered by some to be one of world football's greatest of all time. What could all this mean Spain will look like in a decade's time?
I would not be surprised if Spain became a republic, and one with much reduced influence on the back of successful breakaways in both Catalonia and the Basque Country. For all the official statements coming out of Madrid indicating that an independence referendum in Catalonia later this year is illegal, the reality is that Madrid will have no choice at some point in accepting that the people in Catalonia do in fact have the right to self-determination.
If the people of Catalonia don't have the right to self-determination, then why on earth has Catalonia President Artur Mas's Democratic Convergence of Catalonia not been banned, along with other pro-independence parties? As I indicated in my post on January 1 2014 entitled "Spain blocking Catalan Independence Vote could be a test of the EU's democratic values," prospective EU member states must be seen to be democratic as stipulated by the Treaty of European Union, just like existing EU Member States! Indeed Mr Mas agreed in a BBC TV interview last month that Spain and the EU itself would have a constitutional crisis in the event of Madrid rejecting a referendum in support of Catalonian independence.
Comparisons are often made between Catalonia and Scotland. There are though a few differences between Scotland and Catalonia. The main one is that the UK Government has acknowledged the Scottish Government's right to hold an independence referendum. Madrid needs to correct this mistake quickly, and follow the UK example. After all, support for Scottish independence has been generally perceived to be around the 30% mark for decades, whereas current support for Catalan independence of around the 50% mark has only really come about due to the euro financial crisis of recent years.
Who knows what the Catalan people would decide after a considered process with all the arguments for and against. However, for any Nation State to deprive a constituent part of the right to self-determination as the government of Mariano Rajoy appears to be doing, it can only prove to be counterproductive in the long term as the deprivation of democracy will merely strengthen the Catalan resolve.
A Spanish Republic is possible but monarchies can also mean stability due to the Monarch's political neutrality, and the lack of political power which would be concentrated towards one political office. But in the twenty first century, monarchies must now embark on a journey to being a mere figurehead. Lavish and ill-judged holidays as King Juan Carlos has embarked upon in recent years, along with accusations of corruption (as faced by Princess Cristina) will not go down well in any modern western society, irrespective of the era of austerity. The Spanish Monarchy has possibly entered a period in which it has no room for further error.
Madrid's current approach to the Catalan situation is not the only example of Spain's A La Carte approach to democracy. The British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar can provide more than the occasional episode of tension between London and Madrid. The consistent position from London has been that it is for the people of Gibraltar to decide on Gibraltar's future, much to Madrid's displeasure.
That is not to say there aren't holes in British arguments when it comes to the self-determination of British Overseas Territories. On the one hand, Britain continues to argue it's right to administer the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, on the basis of the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. Yet, there is other British Territory in the South Atlantic such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where there is actually no native population. Both of these territories are claimed by Argentina as part of it's own national territory.
Whilst Madrid does from time to time have genuine cause for grievance in cases of cigarette smuggling for instance, Spain's claim on Gibraltar is no more rightful than Morocco's claim on the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which are located on Morocco's North African Coast. Spanish politicians have stated that the situation of Ceuta and Melilla is different to that of Gibraltar on the basis of Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory, as opposed to being a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Such an argument is merely colonial waffle.
HOWEVER THE NEXT DECADE OR SO DEFINES SPAIN, THIS A LA CARTE APPROACH TO THE PRECIOUS COMMODITY THAT IS DEMOCRACY WILL NEED TO CHANGE!
Ten years on, Spain has another conservative government led by Rajoy, following two successive terms of socialist government. As part of a eurozone trying to recover from the financial crisis of 2008, the Spanish economic outlook is not currently looking so rosy. Not only does Spain have high unemployment, we now hear talk about autonomous regions with separatist tendencies looking to break away. We also now hear about the odd royal scandal. There is the chink of light provided by the national football team, which is considered by some to be one of world football's greatest of all time. What could all this mean Spain will look like in a decade's time?
I would not be surprised if Spain became a republic, and one with much reduced influence on the back of successful breakaways in both Catalonia and the Basque Country. For all the official statements coming out of Madrid indicating that an independence referendum in Catalonia later this year is illegal, the reality is that Madrid will have no choice at some point in accepting that the people in Catalonia do in fact have the right to self-determination.
If the people of Catalonia don't have the right to self-determination, then why on earth has Catalonia President Artur Mas's Democratic Convergence of Catalonia not been banned, along with other pro-independence parties? As I indicated in my post on January 1 2014 entitled "Spain blocking Catalan Independence Vote could be a test of the EU's democratic values," prospective EU member states must be seen to be democratic as stipulated by the Treaty of European Union, just like existing EU Member States! Indeed Mr Mas agreed in a BBC TV interview last month that Spain and the EU itself would have a constitutional crisis in the event of Madrid rejecting a referendum in support of Catalonian independence.
Comparisons are often made between Catalonia and Scotland. There are though a few differences between Scotland and Catalonia. The main one is that the UK Government has acknowledged the Scottish Government's right to hold an independence referendum. Madrid needs to correct this mistake quickly, and follow the UK example. After all, support for Scottish independence has been generally perceived to be around the 30% mark for decades, whereas current support for Catalan independence of around the 50% mark has only really come about due to the euro financial crisis of recent years.
Who knows what the Catalan people would decide after a considered process with all the arguments for and against. However, for any Nation State to deprive a constituent part of the right to self-determination as the government of Mariano Rajoy appears to be doing, it can only prove to be counterproductive in the long term as the deprivation of democracy will merely strengthen the Catalan resolve.
A Spanish Republic is possible but monarchies can also mean stability due to the Monarch's political neutrality, and the lack of political power which would be concentrated towards one political office. But in the twenty first century, monarchies must now embark on a journey to being a mere figurehead. Lavish and ill-judged holidays as King Juan Carlos has embarked upon in recent years, along with accusations of corruption (as faced by Princess Cristina) will not go down well in any modern western society, irrespective of the era of austerity. The Spanish Monarchy has possibly entered a period in which it has no room for further error.
Madrid's current approach to the Catalan situation is not the only example of Spain's A La Carte approach to democracy. The British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar can provide more than the occasional episode of tension between London and Madrid. The consistent position from London has been that it is for the people of Gibraltar to decide on Gibraltar's future, much to Madrid's displeasure.
That is not to say there aren't holes in British arguments when it comes to the self-determination of British Overseas Territories. On the one hand, Britain continues to argue it's right to administer the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, on the basis of the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. Yet, there is other British Territory in the South Atlantic such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where there is actually no native population. Both of these territories are claimed by Argentina as part of it's own national territory.
Whilst Madrid does from time to time have genuine cause for grievance in cases of cigarette smuggling for instance, Spain's claim on Gibraltar is no more rightful than Morocco's claim on the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which are located on Morocco's North African Coast. Spanish politicians have stated that the situation of Ceuta and Melilla is different to that of Gibraltar on the basis of Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory, as opposed to being a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Such an argument is merely colonial waffle.
HOWEVER THE NEXT DECADE OR SO DEFINES SPAIN, THIS A LA CARTE APPROACH TO THE PRECIOUS COMMODITY THAT IS DEMOCRACY WILL NEED TO CHANGE!
Saturday 1 February 2014
ConDem Fifty Pence tax reversal was premature!
The final weekend of January saw the so-called big horror emerge that Labour will reinstate the 50p in the pound tax rate for those highest earners!
By getting to the heart of the issue, there will be those people who will instinctively be for the highest earners probably paying even more than 50p; there will also be those who consider such a move to be the road to uncompetitiveness. Ultimately, the main reality a government of any colour must reconcile is what level of taxation will produce an optimum level of revenue for the exchequer. It is a very similar pressure to a business on setting it's unit sales price, whilst taking on board it's costs to maximise profit. The main difference here for a government is not just a question of financial cost, but also one of public perception.
The fact that there are so few people who would see their tax rate increase, I would suggest the 50p tax rate will influence the voting intentions of very few based on how the policy would actually impact their wallets and purses. If there were to be a likelihood though that this tax increase could scare business off from inward investment into the UK, then all ordinary citizens should be concerned. INWARD INVESTMENT ULTIMATELY MEANS JOBS!
The aftermath of this announcement by Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, has seen the predictable responses from the Conservatives and some sections of the UK Business Community, including the Confederation of British Industry's Policy Director who referred to the policy as one which could put off talented people from coming to the UK to invest.
Let us not forget though that the decision by the ConDem Government to scrap the 50p rate was not universally popular amongst the UK Business Community in the first place. Former Marks and Spencers Boss, Sir Stuart Rose indicated in September 2011 that there was no credible case in scrapping the 50p rate, against the backdrop of difficult economic times we were living in. IN FACT SIR STUART ALSO INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO DEBATE WHETHER HIGH EARNERS LIKE HIMSELF SHOULD IN FACT PAY MORE TAX!
With the UK economic outlook now generally looking more positive, is the case really credible to now put the rate back to 50p? Sir Stuart Rose appears to have now changed his tune on the 50p tax rate, whereas both main UK Political Parties have been quick to highlight opposing sets of data in support of each other's case. Reading between the lines, it is probable that the policy won't raise a huge amount; it also won't see any reduction in the amount of taxation that will be collected in a worse case scenario.
The case for re-instating the 50p tax rate comes down to the cost which all governments of different colours must weigh up in terms of the cost of public perception. Most ordinary hard working Britons knew all too well that an era of austerity was on the horizon in 2010, whatever the make up of the next government. WHAT RANKLES SO MANY PEOPLE THOUGH IS THAT THERE IS A GOVERNMENT FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHO SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE AND FIND THAT EXTRA MONEY WHEN A BASIC LIVING COST INCREASES!
In a series of interviews in which Ed Balls has given in the aftermath of the 50p announcement, it is quite clear to me that the policy is not a return to Labour policies of a bygone era which clearly did make a compelling case of delivering uncompetitive tax policies. It is particularly important to highlight Balls has a preference for taxes to be lower not higher. However, the UK still has a budget deficit to address in the here and now.
Ed Balls will no doubt need to do much more on the run up to next year's general election in spelling out other specifics of how Labour's economic policy will be different to that of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. What a prospective return to a 50p tax rate will offer is a symbolic recognition that the Government of the Day does have a sense of understanding of what ordinary folk are going through. THE CONDEM COALITION DECISION TO REDUCE THE 50P TAX RATE WAS FAR TOO PREMATURE!
By getting to the heart of the issue, there will be those people who will instinctively be for the highest earners probably paying even more than 50p; there will also be those who consider such a move to be the road to uncompetitiveness. Ultimately, the main reality a government of any colour must reconcile is what level of taxation will produce an optimum level of revenue for the exchequer. It is a very similar pressure to a business on setting it's unit sales price, whilst taking on board it's costs to maximise profit. The main difference here for a government is not just a question of financial cost, but also one of public perception.
The fact that there are so few people who would see their tax rate increase, I would suggest the 50p tax rate will influence the voting intentions of very few based on how the policy would actually impact their wallets and purses. If there were to be a likelihood though that this tax increase could scare business off from inward investment into the UK, then all ordinary citizens should be concerned. INWARD INVESTMENT ULTIMATELY MEANS JOBS!
The aftermath of this announcement by Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, has seen the predictable responses from the Conservatives and some sections of the UK Business Community, including the Confederation of British Industry's Policy Director who referred to the policy as one which could put off talented people from coming to the UK to invest.
Let us not forget though that the decision by the ConDem Government to scrap the 50p rate was not universally popular amongst the UK Business Community in the first place. Former Marks and Spencers Boss, Sir Stuart Rose indicated in September 2011 that there was no credible case in scrapping the 50p rate, against the backdrop of difficult economic times we were living in. IN FACT SIR STUART ALSO INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO DEBATE WHETHER HIGH EARNERS LIKE HIMSELF SHOULD IN FACT PAY MORE TAX!
With the UK economic outlook now generally looking more positive, is the case really credible to now put the rate back to 50p? Sir Stuart Rose appears to have now changed his tune on the 50p tax rate, whereas both main UK Political Parties have been quick to highlight opposing sets of data in support of each other's case. Reading between the lines, it is probable that the policy won't raise a huge amount; it also won't see any reduction in the amount of taxation that will be collected in a worse case scenario.
The case for re-instating the 50p tax rate comes down to the cost which all governments of different colours must weigh up in terms of the cost of public perception. Most ordinary hard working Britons knew all too well that an era of austerity was on the horizon in 2010, whatever the make up of the next government. WHAT RANKLES SO MANY PEOPLE THOUGH IS THAT THERE IS A GOVERNMENT FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHO SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE AND FIND THAT EXTRA MONEY WHEN A BASIC LIVING COST INCREASES!
In a series of interviews in which Ed Balls has given in the aftermath of the 50p announcement, it is quite clear to me that the policy is not a return to Labour policies of a bygone era which clearly did make a compelling case of delivering uncompetitive tax policies. It is particularly important to highlight Balls has a preference for taxes to be lower not higher. However, the UK still has a budget deficit to address in the here and now.
Ed Balls will no doubt need to do much more on the run up to next year's general election in spelling out other specifics of how Labour's economic policy will be different to that of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. What a prospective return to a 50p tax rate will offer is a symbolic recognition that the Government of the Day does have a sense of understanding of what ordinary folk are going through. THE CONDEM COALITION DECISION TO REDUCE THE 50P TAX RATE WAS FAR TOO PREMATURE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)