So, at 12:30pm George Osborne stood up in the House of Commons and told us all straight.
His target for reducing the national debt - missed.
His growth forecast - halved.
Government borrowing - up on one measure, only down on another due a freak underspend by Government departments.
Not a great start. Still, now these things are all out in the open we can get back to putting the ship back on course, right?
Apparently not.
Despite the cupboard being bare, apparently there was just enough left to play belated Santa.The rise in the income tax personal allowance to £10k has always been on the cards. It was a Lib Dem commitment at the last election and will lift a lot of people who are working part time out of tax altogether.
Based on previous rises in the personal allowance however, it will be accompanied by a lowering of the point at which the 40% tax rate kicks in. So while some will be taken out of tax altogether, others will find their take home pay falling.
Not those with income over £150k of course, who will benefit from the 5% lowering of their tax rate already announced, having already managed their income in such a way as to avoid the 50% rate.
There was also enough in the cupboard for the government to start underwriting mortgages and lending money for deposits. To cut the main rate of Corporation Tax to 20%. To put an extra £15bn into road, rail and other construction projects. To give tax breaks to the shale gas extraction industry, despite their dubious environmental credentials. To compensate those who lost money on Equitable Life policies.
Not everyone got a gift under their tree from George this year however. Most government departments are finding their budgets cut by 1% in each of the last two years. At a time when their fixed costs are rising (utilities, transport, consumables) these savings are going to have to come from more "efficiencies". It cannot be done without there being some effect on services.
The level of cuts in public spending is going to be deeper than originally planned, an additional £1.5bn on top of the £10bn scheduled. Again, how can this be achieved without an adverse impact on public services?
Public sector staff find their wage rises capped at a level well below the rising cost of living again. Those who we rely on to provide essential services are being denied the opportunity to earn a living wage.
Still, if you drive a car (which we're all supposed to be doing less of to be "green") or like a pint of beer (which we're all supposed to be doing less of to avoid putting strain on the NHS) then good news. The planned fuel duty escalator increase has been canned, and duty on beer has actually been reduced by 1p per pint - a decision that may find Osborne in conflict with the European Courts of Justice, who ruled in 2008 that treating beer and wine differently for duty purposes offers indirect protection.
From the outside, this is a budget that lacks focus. It's as if a whole load of different policies have been placed in a National Lottery machine, and the first few out have made it into the speech. Carrots have been dangled, sticks wielded but with not with the intention of getting the donkey that is the economy to go in any one particular direction.The acid test is whether in 12 months time when Osborne stands up again, he has the better news to report that the "independent" OBR forecasts suggests he will.
I won't hold my breath.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Thursday, March 07, 2013
On The Origin Of Competition
Competition.
When you think about it, competition makes a lot of sense.
If I can only buy something from one particular shop, then that shop can set its prices at whatever level it feels like in the knowledge that I have no choice but to buy it from them. Particularly if that item is something that I really need in order to survive.
Competition is the reason our planet, and indeed our species, looks the way it does today. Over billions of years different plant and animal life has learned to out compete others, in order to make best use of the conditions and resources available to it. In terms commonly associated with (but never actually used by) Charles Darwin, it's survival of the fittest.
So if instead of being able to buy my gas from just one supplier, or use just one bus or train company to get me to work every morning I had a choice of two or more, it stands to reason that I would get a better deal, right?
These businesses are going to be competing for my money. They'll be falling over themselves to offer the best service at the lowest prices in order to get my business rather than have it go to their competitors.
That's the theory at least, behind a lot of economic and political ideology.
So why doesn't it work? Why have welfare to work programmes contracted for on this basis failed spectacularly to deliver? Why do utility prices continue to rise? Why do service standards and cost to the customer seem to be drifting apart in the wrong direction on public transport?
It's us. Homo sapiens. In particular, the first world variety.
We're greedy. That's not an insult. I'm not using it as a pejorative term here. It's our greed that has enabled us to survive and flourish as a species. We understand the value of having resources and keeping them to ourselves.
Once upon a time that might have been having the biggest stash of berries in the settlement, or the most number of goats on your particular farm. These days it's about having as much cash in your bank, or your pension pot, or on your company balance sheet as you can possibly get.
If you're a business, you do that by winning and keeping as many customers as you can. The best way to do that, so the ideology says, is to keep your prices low and your service standards high. Give people good service at reasonable prices and they'll keep coming back. Problem with that, is that it tends to eat into your profit margins.
If you're not making profits, then you're not an attractive proposition for those investors with the really big money to sink their capital into. Not Joe Public, who buys and sells the odd few shares here and there and fancies himself as a bit of a trader, but the pension funds and hedge funds who have billions to invest, all in the interest of making money for their own investors.
Drive down costs, keep prices as high as you can get away with and you'll have these big boys beating a path to your door in search of a quick return on their clients money. If you can get together with your competitors on the quiet and all agree to set your prices at a particular level, then there's money to be made for everyone and no need to really compete. Instead of struggling to get to the trough and having the weakest starve, just agree to build a longer trough.
So we've tried competition as a business model, and found it sadly lacking for the end customer in the utilities market, in train and bus travel, in telecommunications.
So why on earth does anyone in their right mind want to introduce it wholesale into the way we educate our children, or the health services required to keep us alive?
When you think about it, competition makes a lot of sense.
If I can only buy something from one particular shop, then that shop can set its prices at whatever level it feels like in the knowledge that I have no choice but to buy it from them. Particularly if that item is something that I really need in order to survive.
Competition is the reason our planet, and indeed our species, looks the way it does today. Over billions of years different plant and animal life has learned to out compete others, in order to make best use of the conditions and resources available to it. In terms commonly associated with (but never actually used by) Charles Darwin, it's survival of the fittest.
So if instead of being able to buy my gas from just one supplier, or use just one bus or train company to get me to work every morning I had a choice of two or more, it stands to reason that I would get a better deal, right?
These businesses are going to be competing for my money. They'll be falling over themselves to offer the best service at the lowest prices in order to get my business rather than have it go to their competitors.
That's the theory at least, behind a lot of economic and political ideology.
So why doesn't it work? Why have welfare to work programmes contracted for on this basis failed spectacularly to deliver? Why do utility prices continue to rise? Why do service standards and cost to the customer seem to be drifting apart in the wrong direction on public transport?
It's us. Homo sapiens. In particular, the first world variety.
We're greedy. That's not an insult. I'm not using it as a pejorative term here. It's our greed that has enabled us to survive and flourish as a species. We understand the value of having resources and keeping them to ourselves.
Once upon a time that might have been having the biggest stash of berries in the settlement, or the most number of goats on your particular farm. These days it's about having as much cash in your bank, or your pension pot, or on your company balance sheet as you can possibly get.
If you're a business, you do that by winning and keeping as many customers as you can. The best way to do that, so the ideology says, is to keep your prices low and your service standards high. Give people good service at reasonable prices and they'll keep coming back. Problem with that, is that it tends to eat into your profit margins.
If you're not making profits, then you're not an attractive proposition for those investors with the really big money to sink their capital into. Not Joe Public, who buys and sells the odd few shares here and there and fancies himself as a bit of a trader, but the pension funds and hedge funds who have billions to invest, all in the interest of making money for their own investors.
Drive down costs, keep prices as high as you can get away with and you'll have these big boys beating a path to your door in search of a quick return on their clients money. If you can get together with your competitors on the quiet and all agree to set your prices at a particular level, then there's money to be made for everyone and no need to really compete. Instead of struggling to get to the trough and having the weakest starve, just agree to build a longer trough.
So we've tried competition as a business model, and found it sadly lacking for the end customer in the utilities market, in train and bus travel, in telecommunications.
So why on earth does anyone in their right mind want to introduce it wholesale into the way we educate our children, or the health services required to keep us alive?
Thursday, February 14, 2013
The Right To Publicity
Frankly, I'm a bit miffed.
I made a real effort yesterday to look nice, just for my own personal benefit, and not one picture of it has ended up on any media outlet anywhere.
I know how the Duchess of Cambridge must feel now. My right to a bit of personal publicity has been repeatedly breached by newspapers and television stations, both domestic and foreign.
I'm thinking of taking out a superinjuction compelling them to print photos of me in a bikini, or speculate about whether I'm pregnant or not. My Mum and Dad's house has issued a strongly worded statement condemning the lack of interest in my personal life.
A quick note to the seemingly lovely, yet apparently enormously naive about how the world works, former Ms Middleton.
You're famous. Expect people to be interested in what your baby bump, or for that matter your norks, look like. If you get them out in what are very public settings, there's a chance that someone might see them and take a photograph.
Either you learn to shrug your shoulders, deal with it and move on with your life, or you take to wearing a burkha at all times.
Just please, stop the incessant whining. It's creating an image of you as some over-privileged toff who wants all the rights and glamour of being a member of one of the most high profile families on the planet, but with none of the downside.
Time to woman up. If you think it's bad now, just wait til the third in line to the throne drops out of your womb.
I made a real effort yesterday to look nice, just for my own personal benefit, and not one picture of it has ended up on any media outlet anywhere.
I know how the Duchess of Cambridge must feel now. My right to a bit of personal publicity has been repeatedly breached by newspapers and television stations, both domestic and foreign.
I'm thinking of taking out a superinjuction compelling them to print photos of me in a bikini, or speculate about whether I'm pregnant or not. My Mum and Dad's house has issued a strongly worded statement condemning the lack of interest in my personal life.
A quick note to the seemingly lovely, yet apparently enormously naive about how the world works, former Ms Middleton.
You're famous. Expect people to be interested in what your baby bump, or for that matter your norks, look like. If you get them out in what are very public settings, there's a chance that someone might see them and take a photograph.
Either you learn to shrug your shoulders, deal with it and move on with your life, or you take to wearing a burkha at all times.
Just please, stop the incessant whining. It's creating an image of you as some over-privileged toff who wants all the rights and glamour of being a member of one of the most high profile families on the planet, but with none of the downside.
Time to woman up. If you think it's bad now, just wait til the third in line to the throne drops out of your womb.
Monday, February 04, 2013
The Sanctimony of Marriage
I'm married.
I'm also an atheist. When my wife and I got married, we did so in a civil setting rather than under the eyes of God in a church. Our choice.
While I'm an atheist, I also wholeheartedly respect the religious choices of others. If you want to believe in whatever your chosen deity wants you to believe, have at it. Live your life the way the scriptures of your particular religion tell you to. Shout your religion from the rooftops if you wish, and I'll respect your right to do so.
The minute you get a publicly funded career that allows you to directly influence the laws of the land however, park your religion on the lawn outside if you would be so kind. You're not in Parliament to follow your own personal crusades, you're there to represent (as best you can) the views of all the people in your constituency.
Sadly, this concept seems beyond the grasp of a number of Conservative MPs when it comes to the debate over gay marriage. What also seems beyond them is having the courage of their convictions to come out and say what they actually think.
If you believe it is wrong for people to be able to marry someone of the same gender, if you think it is somehow an affront to your god and to morality, at least have the balls to come out and say so. Take your position and stand by it. I'll regard you as a bigot not fit for public office, but I'll have at least a grudging respect for your forthright defence of your viewpoint.
Just whatever you do, please don't come up with some weasel excuse about it "not being a priority", or that the government has "other things it needs to be doing". You're fooling nobody with that one. If you're against it, just come out (if you'll pardon the pun) and say so. When it goes to a vote, which side of the fence you came down on will be a matter of public record so your stance on the matter will be out there for all to see.
It's not beyond the remit of even the most inept of governments - and this one is pretty close to the top of the charts in that category - to deal with both social and economic issues simultaneously. More than one piece of legislation is moving through the houses all the time. It has to be, otherwise nothing would get done.
If your MP is one of those who is trying to delay the vote (until such a time as they are out of office and won't get their bigotry exposed, presumably) and believe that everyone should have the same rights to be married irrespective of their sexuality, I hope you bear their actions in mind should they come up for re-election. Parliament is no place for racists or sexists, neither should it be for homophobes.
I'm also an atheist. When my wife and I got married, we did so in a civil setting rather than under the eyes of God in a church. Our choice.
While I'm an atheist, I also wholeheartedly respect the religious choices of others. If you want to believe in whatever your chosen deity wants you to believe, have at it. Live your life the way the scriptures of your particular religion tell you to. Shout your religion from the rooftops if you wish, and I'll respect your right to do so.
The minute you get a publicly funded career that allows you to directly influence the laws of the land however, park your religion on the lawn outside if you would be so kind. You're not in Parliament to follow your own personal crusades, you're there to represent (as best you can) the views of all the people in your constituency.
Sadly, this concept seems beyond the grasp of a number of Conservative MPs when it comes to the debate over gay marriage. What also seems beyond them is having the courage of their convictions to come out and say what they actually think.
If you believe it is wrong for people to be able to marry someone of the same gender, if you think it is somehow an affront to your god and to morality, at least have the balls to come out and say so. Take your position and stand by it. I'll regard you as a bigot not fit for public office, but I'll have at least a grudging respect for your forthright defence of your viewpoint.
Just whatever you do, please don't come up with some weasel excuse about it "not being a priority", or that the government has "other things it needs to be doing". You're fooling nobody with that one. If you're against it, just come out (if you'll pardon the pun) and say so. When it goes to a vote, which side of the fence you came down on will be a matter of public record so your stance on the matter will be out there for all to see.
It's not beyond the remit of even the most inept of governments - and this one is pretty close to the top of the charts in that category - to deal with both social and economic issues simultaneously. More than one piece of legislation is moving through the houses all the time. It has to be, otherwise nothing would get done.
If your MP is one of those who is trying to delay the vote (until such a time as they are out of office and won't get their bigotry exposed, presumably) and believe that everyone should have the same rights to be married irrespective of their sexuality, I hope you bear their actions in mind should they come up for re-election. Parliament is no place for racists or sexists, neither should it be for homophobes.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Why The Long Face?
I'm a vegetarian. In the interests of full disclosure, I thought I'd put that one out there before you read any further. Not going to be preachy about it. just saying.
Anyway, it turns out some UK supermarkets and fast food chains have been selling beef products from the same supplier that sold Tesco products containing up to 29% horse meat and other traces of horse DNA.
Leaving aside the argument about correct food labelling, hygiene etc. it does bring into focus the British view of animals, in particular which ones it's "acceptable" to eat.
If, for example, it had turned out that some beef products actually contained up to 29% pork, or lamb, or chicken, would there have been the same fuss made? Probably not. These are all animals we're used to eating and consider to be a food source. Labelling issues aside, most people would probably have shrugged and gone about their day.
We in Britain however, don't eat horses. The equine fraternity are designed to be ridden for pleasure, or for sport, or just to be looked after as pets. Certainly not slow braised in a nice red wine reduction and served with root vegetables. That kind of thing simply isn't on, and is something look down our noses for at our continental neighbours who do such things.
Then there's the South East Asian fondness for dogs. And no, not in a sponsor one in a home or a Joel Monaghan style either. More barbecued, really. Again, not something the British do to old Spot or Rover. Some people will happily breed them to fight to the death, but heaven forbid the loser ends up in a bap covered in ketchup.
So why is it we'll eat a chicken, or a duck, or a goose, but if you present us with a little roasted sparrow - beak and all - we'll pull a face and tell you it's disgusting?
I've a theory that this all goes back to children's literature. How many of the storybook classics we're read as children contain anthropomorphised version of animals given human characteristics, and how does this influence which one we consider acceptable to eat?
Take the Three Little Pigs for example. It is clear, despite their abilities (or otherwise) on the construction front, that the pigs are intended to be a food source. Pigs are that magical animal that produces pork, ham and bacon after all. No wonder the wolf is trying to eat them.
Jemima Puddle-Duck is predated on by the fox, who attempts to attract her back to his lair so he can roast her. Presumably with some lovely redcurrant jelly. Again, nothing unusual there. People eat ducks, so why shouldn't foxes find them delicious?
At no point in the Black Beauty books however, do you read about someone trying to get Beauty hung up to turn into burgers. Or Lassie being chased down the street with a cleaver by the Korean family from the next village. These are animals it is ingrained into us that are not for eating, but for treating like members of the family.
So if you want to know who is to blame for the British having this eccentric attitude towards animals and their eating, I suggest you look first at the likes of Enid Blyton, Anna Sewell and those who teach us at an early stage what's for eating and what's for petting.
Anyway, it turns out some UK supermarkets and fast food chains have been selling beef products from the same supplier that sold Tesco products containing up to 29% horse meat and other traces of horse DNA.
Leaving aside the argument about correct food labelling, hygiene etc. it does bring into focus the British view of animals, in particular which ones it's "acceptable" to eat.
If, for example, it had turned out that some beef products actually contained up to 29% pork, or lamb, or chicken, would there have been the same fuss made? Probably not. These are all animals we're used to eating and consider to be a food source. Labelling issues aside, most people would probably have shrugged and gone about their day.
We in Britain however, don't eat horses. The equine fraternity are designed to be ridden for pleasure, or for sport, or just to be looked after as pets. Certainly not slow braised in a nice red wine reduction and served with root vegetables. That kind of thing simply isn't on, and is something look down our noses for at our continental neighbours who do such things.
Then there's the South East Asian fondness for dogs. And no, not in a sponsor one in a home or a Joel Monaghan style either. More barbecued, really. Again, not something the British do to old Spot or Rover. Some people will happily breed them to fight to the death, but heaven forbid the loser ends up in a bap covered in ketchup.
So why is it we'll eat a chicken, or a duck, or a goose, but if you present us with a little roasted sparrow - beak and all - we'll pull a face and tell you it's disgusting?
I've a theory that this all goes back to children's literature. How many of the storybook classics we're read as children contain anthropomorphised version of animals given human characteristics, and how does this influence which one we consider acceptable to eat?
Take the Three Little Pigs for example. It is clear, despite their abilities (or otherwise) on the construction front, that the pigs are intended to be a food source. Pigs are that magical animal that produces pork, ham and bacon after all. No wonder the wolf is trying to eat them.
Jemima Puddle-Duck is predated on by the fox, who attempts to attract her back to his lair so he can roast her. Presumably with some lovely redcurrant jelly. Again, nothing unusual there. People eat ducks, so why shouldn't foxes find them delicious?
At no point in the Black Beauty books however, do you read about someone trying to get Beauty hung up to turn into burgers. Or Lassie being chased down the street with a cleaver by the Korean family from the next village. These are animals it is ingrained into us that are not for eating, but for treating like members of the family.
So if you want to know who is to blame for the British having this eccentric attitude towards animals and their eating, I suggest you look first at the likes of Enid Blyton, Anna Sewell and those who teach us at an early stage what's for eating and what's for petting.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
The Price Of Living
Imagine if you will, that I'm out of a job. Let's face it, when my work discover just how little I do on a daily basis it's only a matter of time.
I might be able to claim some benefits while I look for a job. That's how a welfare state works, it supports you in your time of need. It's what we pay our National Insurance contributions for, after all.
These benefits are set at a level that the state determines as the minimum I need to be able to exist. Not live, not to maintain my current standard of living, just to survive from day to day on the basic necessities. If I'm renting a house, I might get help with some or all of the cost of my rent so my unemployment doesn't render me homeless.
When I was working, if I thought I wasn't getting properly remunerated for the work I did or I needed more money to cover rising costs, I could go ask my boss for a raise or go look for another job elsewhere.
While I'm looking for work, my benefits will go up once a year. They used to go up in line with inflation. After all, if I'm on the very minimum I need to survive and the things I need to buy go up in price, benefits need to go up at the same rate or I won't be able to afford even basic necessities like food and heating.
At least that's the way it used to work. Now my benefits are going to be capped so they only go up by 1% per year. So when the gas company puts its prices up 5%, or the price of milk goes up by 5% I'm going to be left behind. The amount I get will no longer be enough to cover the cost of the things I need to survive.
As if that's not bad enough, my landlord tells me that the money I get paid towards my rent is going to go down as there is going to be a cap based on what size of property you live in. So I've either got to find some more money from my benefits to put towards it, or find somewhere else to live.
Course, because I'm on benefits I can't afford to put a bond together, or find a month's rent in advance for another place. Nobody is going to offer me a mortgage to buy somewhere The council won't consider me a priority case until I actually get made homeless, so I'm stuck in limbo.
I've applied for a load of jobs, but some of them pay so poorly that it will barely cover the extra rent and council tax I'll have to pay once my benefits stop. Either that, or they are short term contracts that will just mean I'm back where I started again in three months. Nobody seems to be offering "proper" jobs any more, ones that are likely to last and have some prospects to them.
According to the Government, I'm a "skiver" rather than a "striver". I'm what's wrong with the country. I'm the reason we're in this mess - together, apparently.
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the reality of life for those in Britain on benefits. Demonised, belittled and now it seems, starved into submission by a coalition of the heartless. I hope you enjoy reaping what those of you who voted Tory and Lib Dem sowed.
I might be able to claim some benefits while I look for a job. That's how a welfare state works, it supports you in your time of need. It's what we pay our National Insurance contributions for, after all.
These benefits are set at a level that the state determines as the minimum I need to be able to exist. Not live, not to maintain my current standard of living, just to survive from day to day on the basic necessities. If I'm renting a house, I might get help with some or all of the cost of my rent so my unemployment doesn't render me homeless.
When I was working, if I thought I wasn't getting properly remunerated for the work I did or I needed more money to cover rising costs, I could go ask my boss for a raise or go look for another job elsewhere.
While I'm looking for work, my benefits will go up once a year. They used to go up in line with inflation. After all, if I'm on the very minimum I need to survive and the things I need to buy go up in price, benefits need to go up at the same rate or I won't be able to afford even basic necessities like food and heating.
At least that's the way it used to work. Now my benefits are going to be capped so they only go up by 1% per year. So when the gas company puts its prices up 5%, or the price of milk goes up by 5% I'm going to be left behind. The amount I get will no longer be enough to cover the cost of the things I need to survive.
As if that's not bad enough, my landlord tells me that the money I get paid towards my rent is going to go down as there is going to be a cap based on what size of property you live in. So I've either got to find some more money from my benefits to put towards it, or find somewhere else to live.
Course, because I'm on benefits I can't afford to put a bond together, or find a month's rent in advance for another place. Nobody is going to offer me a mortgage to buy somewhere The council won't consider me a priority case until I actually get made homeless, so I'm stuck in limbo.
I've applied for a load of jobs, but some of them pay so poorly that it will barely cover the extra rent and council tax I'll have to pay once my benefits stop. Either that, or they are short term contracts that will just mean I'm back where I started again in three months. Nobody seems to be offering "proper" jobs any more, ones that are likely to last and have some prospects to them.
According to the Government, I'm a "skiver" rather than a "striver". I'm what's wrong with the country. I'm the reason we're in this mess - together, apparently.
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the reality of life for those in Britain on benefits. Demonised, belittled and now it seems, starved into submission by a coalition of the heartless. I hope you enjoy reaping what those of you who voted Tory and Lib Dem sowed.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Read All About It...
Scholars working in the Middle East have found what they believe to be a previously unseen final book to The Bible, in which it predicts the state of a country believed to be Britain in 2013.
Extracts of the manuscripts have been translated into English, and I have managed to get hold of a few which are reproduced below. The accuracy in some cases is truly astonishing.
"And it came to pass that the leper was summoned to the wise pharisees of Atos, and they did find him fit for work despite his condition and withdrew his meagre income deaf to his pleas."
"Nick did descend from the mountain, and did bring with him a list of Ten Commitments to share with the people that they may view him favourably in the ballot.
The Commitments were scribed onto a slate with chalk, and on his descent it did rain so some of them may have got a bit smudged and difficult to tell exactly what they were meant to say."
"The Lamb shall lie down with the Lion, as the Lamb knows it has no other prospect of even sniffing the backside of power lest it does so.
Even though the Lion doth continually sodomise the Lamb and mock its core values, the Lamb shall take it and repeat its mantra about how much worse the Lion could be were the Lamb not there to protect the people.
And the Lion shall continue to go forth into the villages and pick off the weak, the sick and the elderly, not giving a shit about what the Lamb thinks."
"Dave did say to the money lenders, come thee in to the temple. Fear not as I will not regulate thee or require thee to behave with scruples. Thou shalt have first pick of the many new poor that I create so that thou might pick the flesh off their bones.
Should anyone attempt to shackle thee, I shall reward them with great riches and honours for turning the other blind eye."
"And Dave did hear about Plebgate and did say to the Sentinels of the Palace, I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy the Mitchell. And you will know my name is Dave when I lay my vengeance upon thy Federation."
Pretty shocking stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.
Extracts of the manuscripts have been translated into English, and I have managed to get hold of a few which are reproduced below. The accuracy in some cases is truly astonishing.
"And it came to pass that the leper was summoned to the wise pharisees of Atos, and they did find him fit for work despite his condition and withdrew his meagre income deaf to his pleas."
"Nick did descend from the mountain, and did bring with him a list of Ten Commitments to share with the people that they may view him favourably in the ballot.
The Commitments were scribed onto a slate with chalk, and on his descent it did rain so some of them may have got a bit smudged and difficult to tell exactly what they were meant to say."
"The Lamb shall lie down with the Lion, as the Lamb knows it has no other prospect of even sniffing the backside of power lest it does so.
Even though the Lion doth continually sodomise the Lamb and mock its core values, the Lamb shall take it and repeat its mantra about how much worse the Lion could be were the Lamb not there to protect the people.
And the Lion shall continue to go forth into the villages and pick off the weak, the sick and the elderly, not giving a shit about what the Lamb thinks."
"Dave did say to the money lenders, come thee in to the temple. Fear not as I will not regulate thee or require thee to behave with scruples. Thou shalt have first pick of the many new poor that I create so that thou might pick the flesh off their bones.
Should anyone attempt to shackle thee, I shall reward them with great riches and honours for turning the other blind eye."
"And Dave did hear about Plebgate and did say to the Sentinels of the Palace, I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy the Mitchell. And you will know my name is Dave when I lay my vengeance upon thy Federation."
Pretty shocking stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
The Alphabet Lottery
As years go, 2012 hasn't been a bad one from a sporting perspective. So it was always going to be interesting to see who got what when it came to the traditional New Year's Honours announcement.
Whatever your opinion of the honours system and whether it should exist at all, it gives a reflection of what the "establishment" thinks of the recipients achievements during the year.
The higher up the MBE-OBE-CBE-Knighthood-Peerage ladder you appear, the "greater" your achievement is regarded as being.
Some honours were fairly obvious. Nobody would deny that Bradley Wiggins career achievements, both on the track and on the road, are not worthy of a knighthood given the precedent set by giving one to Sir Chris Hoy.
Likewise Dave Brailsford, who has revolutionised British cycling with his approach to the sport making it the most successful track cycling nation in the world.
Staying on the cycling theme, Sarah Storey's achievements both as a Paralympic cyclist and previously as a swimmer mark her out as being more than worthy of a Damehood. And this is where things start to get a little complicated and in my view, discriminatory.
Let me get this straight. I have no axe to grind with Jessica Ennis. She's done well for herself, winning titles at major Championships. Being a multi-eventer is the most difficult challenge for an athlete. She was under immense pressure heading into London 2012, and coped with it admirably to win gold. She was rewarded with a CBE, same as Mo Farah who achieved something only six other men in history had achieved - the 5 and 10k double.
Let's compare their career achievements with our next recipient of the CBE.
Six time Olympic gold medallist.
Six time World Championship gold medallist
Six time London Marathon Winner
Four time Great North Run winner
Winner of the New York Marathon
No offence to either Ennis or Farah, but I don't think you can possibly say that their career achievements are even close to being on the same scale.
The winner of all these honours is a guy called David Weir. So why isn't Weir getting a Knighthood?
Pretty simple really. He's in a wheelchair. This, in the eyes of those responsible for dishing out the honours, clearly diminishes his achievements somehow.
Much was made after the massive success of the Paralympics about the terrific example set by the athletes in their triumphs over personal adversity, and how it would change the UK's attitude to disability and disability sport in particular.
While it may have had a short-term impact, it appears that warm glow has worn off and the disabled and disability sport have returned to their normal place in the public consciousness.
More's the pity.
Whatever your opinion of the honours system and whether it should exist at all, it gives a reflection of what the "establishment" thinks of the recipients achievements during the year.
The higher up the MBE-OBE-CBE-Knighthood-Peerage ladder you appear, the "greater" your achievement is regarded as being.
Some honours were fairly obvious. Nobody would deny that Bradley Wiggins career achievements, both on the track and on the road, are not worthy of a knighthood given the precedent set by giving one to Sir Chris Hoy.
Likewise Dave Brailsford, who has revolutionised British cycling with his approach to the sport making it the most successful track cycling nation in the world.
Staying on the cycling theme, Sarah Storey's achievements both as a Paralympic cyclist and previously as a swimmer mark her out as being more than worthy of a Damehood. And this is where things start to get a little complicated and in my view, discriminatory.
Let me get this straight. I have no axe to grind with Jessica Ennis. She's done well for herself, winning titles at major Championships. Being a multi-eventer is the most difficult challenge for an athlete. She was under immense pressure heading into London 2012, and coped with it admirably to win gold. She was rewarded with a CBE, same as Mo Farah who achieved something only six other men in history had achieved - the 5 and 10k double.
Let's compare their career achievements with our next recipient of the CBE.
Six time Olympic gold medallist.
Six time World Championship gold medallist
Six time London Marathon Winner
Four time Great North Run winner
Winner of the New York Marathon
No offence to either Ennis or Farah, but I don't think you can possibly say that their career achievements are even close to being on the same scale.
The winner of all these honours is a guy called David Weir. So why isn't Weir getting a Knighthood?
Pretty simple really. He's in a wheelchair. This, in the eyes of those responsible for dishing out the honours, clearly diminishes his achievements somehow.
Much was made after the massive success of the Paralympics about the terrific example set by the athletes in their triumphs over personal adversity, and how it would change the UK's attitude to disability and disability sport in particular.
While it may have had a short-term impact, it appears that warm glow has worn off and the disabled and disability sport have returned to their normal place in the public consciousness.
More's the pity.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
"On Starbucks, On Google, On Amazon etc..."
As someone working within the tax industry, I've watched the feeding frenzy developing over the "tax avoidance" activities of major multinationals trading in the UK with a mixture of bewilderment and laughter.
Starbucks decided to try and mitigate some of the bad publicity recently by offering to pay an additional £20m over to the UK exchequer, as some sort of goodwill gesture. In the best traditions of the well-advised, they of course stopped short of admitting any liability or malfeasance in their tax affairs.
They will also cease to use what is referred to in the trade as "transfer pricing" arrangements with their US parent company. These are arrangements common to all multinational groups of companies, where one part of the business in one country buys a product or service it needs from another part based elsewhere. It might be a part or a piece of equipment, or something you can't lay your hands on like the rights to use a trademark.
While the purchaser gets to claim the cost of whatever it is they have bought as an expense in their accounts, the seller has to show that income in their accounts and will pay tax in their jurisdiction on whatever profit they make.
These sort of arrangement are commonplace and are perfectly legal, indeed HMRC has a whole team of people dedicated to making sure these sort of arrangements are not being abused by the setting of artificially high or low prices between parts of the same group.There are plenty of British companies out there using transfer pricing to reduce their tax liability in one part of the world or another.
If Starbucks in the UK stops making these payments to its US parent, it will make more of a profit and potentially pay UK Corporation Tax. Starbucks in the US however, will make less of a profit as it no longer has this income stream, and therefore pay less US tax. The net effect on Starbucks the worldwide group is going to be absolutely minimal.
Let's be clear here. Starbucks have, based on the facts that are in the public domain, done absolutely nothing wrong. Once the payments they make to the US parent company, which they are entitled to claim as a deduction, are taken into account they make a loss on their UK operations.
So what of this £20m they are paying over the next two years then? It's not tax, as they don't owe any based on their accounts as submitted. HM Revenue & Customs have said that they are not set up to accept "voluntary" payments, just payments of actual tax liability. Indeed if you overpay your Corporation Tax to HMRC, they will usually just send you a cheque back in the post.
So presumably, when Starbucks attempt to pay it, HMRC will be unable to accept it. If it does, this sets an uncomfortable precedent for public opinion - rather than fact - being what dictates how much tax an entity should pay.
That Amazon and Google have got sucked into this furore shows how wide the lack of understanding of their tax affairs actually are. Neither company is based in the UK. When you order something from Amazon, you are not making a purchase from a UK company. When you click on a link or advert that generates income for Google, that income is not going to a UK company. So why should they have to pay UK Corporation Tax on their profits, rather than tax in the country in which they are based?
Don't like it? Don't buy from Amazon and don't search on Google. Use a UK based company, if you can find one.
Politicians through the ages have used tax as a tool of social or economic engineering. This time, before lighting the torches and storming the castles of the rich and powerful they might want to stop and consider whether there is any legal or ethical basis for what they do. Otherwise, the UK is going to become a much less attractive place for multinationals to do business, and that's in no-one's best interests.
Starbucks decided to try and mitigate some of the bad publicity recently by offering to pay an additional £20m over to the UK exchequer, as some sort of goodwill gesture. In the best traditions of the well-advised, they of course stopped short of admitting any liability or malfeasance in their tax affairs.
They will also cease to use what is referred to in the trade as "transfer pricing" arrangements with their US parent company. These are arrangements common to all multinational groups of companies, where one part of the business in one country buys a product or service it needs from another part based elsewhere. It might be a part or a piece of equipment, or something you can't lay your hands on like the rights to use a trademark.
While the purchaser gets to claim the cost of whatever it is they have bought as an expense in their accounts, the seller has to show that income in their accounts and will pay tax in their jurisdiction on whatever profit they make.
These sort of arrangement are commonplace and are perfectly legal, indeed HMRC has a whole team of people dedicated to making sure these sort of arrangements are not being abused by the setting of artificially high or low prices between parts of the same group.There are plenty of British companies out there using transfer pricing to reduce their tax liability in one part of the world or another.
If Starbucks in the UK stops making these payments to its US parent, it will make more of a profit and potentially pay UK Corporation Tax. Starbucks in the US however, will make less of a profit as it no longer has this income stream, and therefore pay less US tax. The net effect on Starbucks the worldwide group is going to be absolutely minimal.
Let's be clear here. Starbucks have, based on the facts that are in the public domain, done absolutely nothing wrong. Once the payments they make to the US parent company, which they are entitled to claim as a deduction, are taken into account they make a loss on their UK operations.
So what of this £20m they are paying over the next two years then? It's not tax, as they don't owe any based on their accounts as submitted. HM Revenue & Customs have said that they are not set up to accept "voluntary" payments, just payments of actual tax liability. Indeed if you overpay your Corporation Tax to HMRC, they will usually just send you a cheque back in the post.
So presumably, when Starbucks attempt to pay it, HMRC will be unable to accept it. If it does, this sets an uncomfortable precedent for public opinion - rather than fact - being what dictates how much tax an entity should pay.
That Amazon and Google have got sucked into this furore shows how wide the lack of understanding of their tax affairs actually are. Neither company is based in the UK. When you order something from Amazon, you are not making a purchase from a UK company. When you click on a link or advert that generates income for Google, that income is not going to a UK company. So why should they have to pay UK Corporation Tax on their profits, rather than tax in the country in which they are based?
Don't like it? Don't buy from Amazon and don't search on Google. Use a UK based company, if you can find one.
Politicians through the ages have used tax as a tool of social or economic engineering. This time, before lighting the torches and storming the castles of the rich and powerful they might want to stop and consider whether there is any legal or ethical basis for what they do. Otherwise, the UK is going to become a much less attractive place for multinationals to do business, and that's in no-one's best interests.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Please Give Generously
This is an urgent appeal on behalf of the British Red Tops.
You may have seen in the media recently about the impact Hurricane Norman has had on the Fourth Estate. Lasting thousands of hours and causing millions of pounds of expenditure, Hurricane Norman had serious and far reaching consequences on the future of the British press.
This is Rebekah.
Prior to Hurricane Norman, she was one of the most powerful women in the British media. Norman has left her with no job, no hope, no future. She may be forced to sell one of her horses just to meet the mortgage payments on her big house in the Cotswolds.
Rebekah is not alone.
There are dozens more like her, struggling to survive in the aftermath of Hurricane Norman. These people face being deprived of their most basic human rights:
The right to bribe police officers for sensitive, confidential and potentially prejudicial information.
The right to access the emails, text messages and voicemails of anyone they think might be newsworthy.
The right to manipulate politicians into setting standards and legislation in a way that best suits their needs, under threat of withdrawing their support otherwise.
If you believe that the likes of Rebekah should have these basic human rights, please give generously.
Send a cheque, made payable to Murdoch, Dacre and Co to:
Save The Scumbag
Murdoch Towers
A Tax Haven
On behalf of Rebekah, Andy and others like them, thank you.
You may have seen in the media recently about the impact Hurricane Norman has had on the Fourth Estate. Lasting thousands of hours and causing millions of pounds of expenditure, Hurricane Norman had serious and far reaching consequences on the future of the British press.
This is Rebekah.
Prior to Hurricane Norman, she was one of the most powerful women in the British media. Norman has left her with no job, no hope, no future. She may be forced to sell one of her horses just to meet the mortgage payments on her big house in the Cotswolds.
Rebekah is not alone.
There are dozens more like her, struggling to survive in the aftermath of Hurricane Norman. These people face being deprived of their most basic human rights:
The right to bribe police officers for sensitive, confidential and potentially prejudicial information.
The right to access the emails, text messages and voicemails of anyone they think might be newsworthy.
The right to manipulate politicians into setting standards and legislation in a way that best suits their needs, under threat of withdrawing their support otherwise.
If you believe that the likes of Rebekah should have these basic human rights, please give generously.
Send a cheque, made payable to Murdoch, Dacre and Co to:
Save The Scumbag
Murdoch Towers
A Tax Haven
On behalf of Rebekah, Andy and others like them, thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)