We Don't Need Another Overpromising Chancellor

Don't get me wrong I'm all for an aspiring Chancellor seeking economic advice from Economists, after all my degree is in economics so I know the importance of gauging other's opinions. Also I did say earlier this week that George Osborne,

"Like any mediocre student...went to the library and looked up what the master [Vince Cable] had written, taken some key points out of it, tried to pass it off as his own work, but fell short as the whole thing doesn't fit right together."

So the fact that he had also read and used figures from a National Institute of Economic and Social Research paper in preparation for his big keynote speech would be good news. Shouldn't it? Well no apparently he misunderstood that as well to the tune of £3bn or a period of 5 years out.

The previous chancellor promised he's done away with boom and bust. We now say, 'huh?'. Our current chancellor Alistair Darling has mispromised recovery and misrepresented respected economic sources in his budgets. A fact that Darling failed to understand his own incompetencies when he condemned Osborne by saying he:

"has overclaimed comes as no surprise at all. He has shown a shocking lack of judgment through this crisis. His erroneous claims on what he would raise from his pension cuts are just another example."

We don't need another chancellor who is that fictional with the fact, but that is how it is shaping up. At the start of the week of Conservative Party conference we were promised by Dave on the Andrew Marr show that they would be straight talking, and we certainly got austerity, doom, gloom and reality biting home. But have we been oversold the hope? Has Osbourne really promised 5 years quicker to deal with something than is achievable?

If he has he has taken the decision that it fits into the election cycle pattern rather than reality. Not everything is achievable in the 4-5 years that most UK Governments are elected into, that is a reality that we need to wake up to. Politicians can't promise the world and expect to deliver it in one term, if that is not doable.

Osbourne tried to wiggle out of the £3bn difference in claiming that he was accounting for inflation to come up with his 10 year hence figure. However, the NIESR said:

"There is no way of knowing how much it will save except in today's money.. The general principle behind raising the retiring age to 66 is sound. Indeed there is a good case for a rise earlier than the Conservatives are proposing. As we understand it, the full benefits of the package that the Conservatives are proposing will not be realised until after 2020. In 2016 it will only raise £4bn, rising to £10bn in 2023, with the full effect coming in 14 years' time."

So not £10bn in today's money (£13bn with 'inflation') by 2020 as George promised and tried to argue away.

What they can promise is to sort out the system to make the improvement possible. The current chancellor in his last budget overpromised on the recovery the country would rebound with, as figures since have proven. The man who may be next has misrepresented and overpromised another think tank.

We don't want, need nor deserve chancellors who look at economic advise a guideline figure and then try and improve on that. What we do need is someone in charge of our economy who understands economics the principles and mechanics behind what advise is given, not someone playing bridge or poker and merely upping the bidding. Vince Cable shines in that respect above both Darling and Osborne, he knows the issues, understands the theory and reasons the best and doable solutions. If you want straight talking he's the man.

Not Just a Police State of the Future

Harriet Harman this morning on the Andrew Marr show said something which had far reaching ramifications. She said of Sir Fred Goodwin's pension:

"The prime minister has said that it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.

"And it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in."

So be wary. This current Labour regime is eroding more and more into our civil liberties. They have already shown they see themselves as above the law when they invade Iraq on false pretences. Now they are seeking to overturn the law, their own ministerial approvals all for the sake of making up for a mistake that they have made in the past. So they are not just content with rewriting history they want to rewrite laws you may not have known you'd fallen foul of.

Prescott is Right: Don't Award Failure

John Prescott has asked:

"how the hell the former RBS Chief Executive Sir Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin can claim without a guilty conscience a £650,000 annual pension a year from the age of 50.

"His greed and reckless nature got us into this mess and necessitated us bailing out the bank to the tune of £20 billion to try and keep people in their homes and
jobs. "

He ran a survey which asked amongst other things:

"Should RBS rip up his contract and take the risk of legal action."

Well lets look the record of an even bigger pension holder £1.5million all of that publicly funded. Who has been responsible as a senior participant in the running up of a £2.2 trillion debt. Part of that comes from an illegal take over of another's assets, liberties and well being, on false claims which were retrospectively agreed by the regulator of such things. Part of that was from failure to set stern enough regulations in place that would have seen Sir Fred unable to stretch the bank's risk to the degree he did.

So for costing the nation £1bn a year and 179 lives. Supporting a run up of the national debt, which not includes covering toxic debt from the banks his party could have regulated better which exceeds GDP. In his own words, how an earth can John Prescott claim without a guilty conscience such a pension?

Join the LDV cause on Facebook to Shred Prezza's Pension he clearly has a thing about people not being rewarded for failure, so we should look at clawing back his pension then.

Alternative View: Sir Fred Goodwin's Pension

Found this on YouTube and it does ask some very pertinent questions.

When Gesture Politics Fail

Lord Myners appears to have hit the wrong end of things when calling on Sir Fred Goodwin to make a gesture of giving up part of his pension. The former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland wrote back to the Treasury minister once it became clear to his surprise that his pension plans had been leaked to the BBC's Robert Preston.

He wrote back (letters available at The Times) saying he had no objection to his response being made public, before as the Times tell us he made it available himself. The outcome is that he sees that gestures he has already taken, refusing his notice period salary and share options, was already an ministerially approved gesture. Going back to October not the last couple of days as the Prime Minister seems to want to have us believe. Goodwin was in discussions with Myners "at the time".

It is a marvel that the as Myners claims the UK Financial Investments (UKFI) only found out about the discretionary choice of the RBS Board over Goodwin's pension last week. You'd have expected someone to be going over with a fine tooth comb details that had been discussed with Ministers over the past months. Especially in light of discussions over the previous chairman's pension arrangement before assenting to any agreement over what was appropriate.

Having been a former civil servant I'm sure that someone somewhere had enough wit to think outside the box and think about looking into it. I'm sure it also was flagged up on some bit of correspondence that was flying around the Treasury in October or whenever the UKFI first took a stake in RBS. These sorts of minutiae are never totally overlooked, especially when they are no so much minutiae. What I suspect did happen in the last week is that with the whole bonus brouhaha somebody remembered some memo about Goodwin's pension, that had been filed away. As the public outcry rose it bugged them so that one morning they came into the office and asked one of the Administrative Assistant to dig out some files. Then after a bit of reading, ignoring things that had been planned, the memo or margin note or position paper was found and an almighty panic ensued.

But the damage had been done, the Minister had given assurances and was now left trying to back pedal facing further public relations disasters.

Relight My Fire

Well having taken a look over a quiet Grangemouth on Sunday from the Bathgate Hills it appears that the day after the dispute ended may have been productive. The company that owns the plant had planned to close the final pension scheme to new employees and phase in a contribution scheme instead.

The talks that were called off well before the eleventh hour last week had a good resumption when they resumed on Tuesday after the 48 hour strike which not only shut down the Grangemouth petrochemical plant but also shut down the Forties pipeline as a consequence. Both Ineos and the union Unite have said they had reached a proposal which they will consider over the next couple of days.

It has been good to see Unite reduce the level of spite in their statement's about Ineos which may well have paved way for this negotiation to get to where it has. However, over the weekend local MP Michael Connarty sadly proved to be anything but a calming influence when he accused Ineos of "telling lies" and "macho management".

Refinery Talks Break Down

The talks at Acas between the Unite union representing 1200 workers at the Grangemouth petrochemical plant and Ineos the owners broke down last night.

The dispute was over the removal the final pension scheme from new employees and to seek contribution from those already in the scheme. Now seeing the number of other employees across the country who have faced these sort of chances hardly the most radical pension changes in these hardening financial times.

However, Unite came away from the talks saying that Ineos had been unwilling to move over their proposals. Ineos on the other hand had said they were prepared to put all the changes on hold for a 3 month discussion period so that strike action and shutting down the plant can be avoided on Sunday and Monday. Sadly we cannot be sure which story is closest to the truth at present as to why after 2 days the talks broke down.

The Automobile Association and the UK Petroleum Industry Association have both said their is no need for Scottish motorists to panic buy full tanks of fuel as sources will be found to keep the pumps operating at normal levels of demand. For the period of the strike this was already available at Grangemouth and while the plant comes back on stream alternative sources to supplement local delivery. The temporary stock outs that have occurred across Scotland have come as a result of the panic paying.

New Move to Avert Grangemouth Strike

As I blogged yesterday Unite had at unwilling to let the arbitration service ACAS get involved in their dispute with Ineos the owners of the Grangemouth oil refinery over their decision to end their final salary pension scheme.

However, with plants at the site already shutting down in preparation for the strike action Unite have agreed to talks in London with the employers at Acas's offices.

What is alarming however is the lack of response from the Cyber-Nats on this issue. Ideas of Civilation mentions it as did my fellow Lib Dems Iain Dale and Caron Lindsay. But nothing from the Nat or Labour leaning bloggers in Scotland. Obviously the Nats want to keep bad news firmly hidden under the carpet even if business is involved.

Grangemouth Shutting Down in Anticipation of Strike

When I posted last week about Falkirk Council seeking to reduce their carbon footprint. I don't think any of us anticipating that the biggest poluuter in the district might end up shutting down operations for a month.

A strike that the Union Unite is calling for the 27th and 28th April has already cause Ineos who run Grangemouth the only oil refinery in Scotland to start a phased shut down of units in anticipation of a full shut down by Friday and may result in disruption for up to a month as a result of safety concerns. As the Grangemouth facilty provides fuel to all of Scotland, Northern Ireland and a great deal of Northern England motorists have started to panic buy fuel. They are both concerned that fuel will be in short supply or that the price may go up even higher as a result of this action.

The dispute is over the removal of the final salary pensions scheme which Ineos say they will maintain for current members of the pension scheme. Unite apparently have not been prepared to involve the conciliation service ACAS in their dispute, which considering the disruption and panic their announcement would have been expected to cause seems rather unfair to the populace at large.