Conservative party/opposition watch

[3rdRock]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 40918.html

4 charts that show how George Osborne wants to sell more public assets in 12 months than Britain has in last 20 years

As the Government sets about implementing a programme of sell offs, new research shows George Osborne will raise more cash from the sale of public assets this year than from the last two decades of privatisations combined.

Tory plans to pass publicly owned services into the hands of private companies are likely to generate around £31.8 billion for the Chancellor in 2015/16 with parts of RBS, Royal Mail and Lloyds up for grabs.

Mr Osborne began his programme of sell-offs this week when he authorised the disposal of £2.1 billion of shares in RBS, representing a £1 billion loss to the taxpayer, seven years after the bank was rescued by a £45 billion Government bailout.

Shares in RBS are trading 33 per cent lower than when the Labour government initially purchased them. If the Government sells all it’s holding at this price it will end up losing around £15bn of public funds.

Back in 2013, Under the Coalition, 70 per cent of the public stake in Royal Mail was sold, and last month Mr Cameron announced half of the remaining shares had left public hands.

If Osborne's proposals are seen through, it will be the largest amount of money raised through the disposal of public assets in any 12-month period in modern history.

This year's proposed sell-off total, currently £31.8 billion, is roughly just one fifth of the total amount raised by all privatisations from 1979 to 2014, a period of 35 years.

Len McCluskey, General Secretary of trade union Unite, has described todays findings as "the sale of the century", and accused Mr Osborne of "rewarding the Tory party's friends in the city in a spectacularly lavish style".

"These are public assets belonging to the taxpayer, held in trust for the future for the benefit of the many, not for the financial gain of a rich city elite," said Mr McCluskey.

[3rdRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ay-cheques

Public sector workers to lose right to have union fees deducted from wages

Up to 3.8 million workers will be affected by what government says is ‘outdated practice’ but unions say it is latest Tory assault on workers’ rights.

[johnhemming2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 40918.html

Len McCluskey, General Secretary of trade union Unite, has described todays findings as "the sale of the century", and accused Mr Osborne of "rewarding the Tory party's friends in the city in a spectacularly lavish style".

"These are public assets belonging to the taxpayer, held in trust for the future for the benefit of the many, not for the financial gain of a rich city elite," said Mr McCluskey.

This is a bit silly. When the government part nationalised RBS and Lloyds it was not with the intention of holding on to them for ever. Had Labour been in office they would be selling the bank shares as well.

They add up to a lot because a lot was invested.

[3rdRock]

There are none so blind as those who will not see or to put it another way, it's like trying to explain colour to a blind man.

[raspberry-blower]

Had Labour been in office they would be selling the bank shares as well.

Irrelevant point, John. The question is at what market valuation would Labour have sold it? Would they have sold it at a loss to the taxpayer as this Government has done? Obviously a rhetorical question now

There are other questions I would like answers to:

What has been done to prevent another systemic banking failure?
Have said banks had their assets audited and if so where are the findings?
What is the level of exposure to the derivative markets of these banks?
Will the taxpayer be on the hook if/when the derivatives market implodes? If so, why?

Any answers? Anyone?

[3rdRock]

Had Labour been in office they would be selling the bank shares as well.

Irrelevant point, John. The question is at what market valuation would Labour have sold it? Would they have sold it at a loss to the taxpayer as this Government has done? Obviously a rhetorical question now

There are other questions I would like answers to:

What has been done to prevent another systemic banking failure?
Have said banks had their assets audited and if so where are the findings?
What is the level of exposure to the derivative markets of these banks?
Will the taxpayer be on the hook if/when the derivatives market implodes? If so, why?

Any answers? Anyone?

Don't expect any significant change until 2019 at the earliest.

This from The Independent in 2011:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 79370.html

Reforms to the banking system designed to prevent a repeat of the financial crash are to be implemented in full by 2019, Chancellor George Osborne announced today.

The reforms will create a "ring-fence" around the high street banks which handle consumer and small business accounts, to insulate them from the risks run by "WE ARE DODGY" operations within the same group.

And banks will be required to hold equity capital of 10% - some three percentage points higher than the level proposed in the international Basel III agreement - to act as a "cushion" against potential losses.

Why we have to wait until 2019 to safeguard the high street banks is anyone's guess - 11/12 years after the regulators claim to have first known about the global financial meltdown.

[johnhemming2]

There are other questions I would like answers to:

>What has been done to prevent another systemic banking failure?
Various regulatory changes, but not every failure can be prevented.

>Have said banks had their assets audited and if so where are the findings?
Annual accounts and stress tests

>What is the level of exposure to the derivative markets of these banks?
Very complex issue, but studied as part of counter party and principal risk.

>Will the taxpayer be on the hook if/when the derivatives market implodes?
It wasn't a problem with derivatives last time. The changes have been made to bank reorganisation to keep the taxpayer off the hook and have a cram down of the various creditors (tier 1 and tier 2 etc) instead. Which is much fairer in concept.

>If so, why?
n/a

[3rdRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tte-cooper

David Cameron won general election with series of lies, says Yvette Cooper

Labour leadership contender lists nine major pre-election promises that Conservative prime minister has ‘ripped up’ since being returned to No 10.

The nine areas identified by Cooper are:

Cuts in child tax credits. Cooper said Cameron denied during the election that he would cut child tax credits. She said Osborne, the chancellor, unveiled £4.5bn of cuts to child tax credits in the budget which would hit women twice as hard as men.

Cuts to child benefit after Cameron said during the election there would be no cuts beyond a two-year freeze. Cooper says it will now be subject to a four-year freeze.

Cancellation of rail electrification plans.

Downgrading of the number of affordable homes due to be built. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said 14,000 fewer homes will be built.

Delaying of a decision on a new airport runway in south-east England. Downing Street says it is standing by its commitment to reach a decision by the end of this year.

Delay in the introduction of tax-free childcare from 2015 to 2017.

Shelving of an election pledge to give public officials three days off work to take part in volunteering.

Delay until 2020 in the introduction of the social care cap.

Reversal of pledge for greater government transparency after launch of review into freedom of information.

[raspberry-blower]

>What has been done to prevent another systemic banking failure?
Various regulatory changes, but not every failure can be prevented.

What my question stated, which I have highlighted for your benefit, is what has been done to prevent a systemic banking failure. In other words, what mechanisms are in place to isolate a failing bank. You have NOT READ WHAT THE QUESTION IS

>Have said banks had their assets audited and if so where are the findings?
Annual accounts and stress tests

So you have confirmed that there has been no adequate independent review then.
Stress tests have been invariably found to be less than useless when discovering weaknesses in the banking sector.
This is an abdication of responsibility

>What is the level of exposure to the derivative markets of these banks?
Very complex issue, but studied as part of counter party and principal risk.

Again you have NOT READ THE QUESTION. What I asked for was the level of exposure the banks had to the over the counter derivatives market - not what the hell they are. I presume from your answer that the authorities did not open up the banks' vaults for independent inspection?
If so, this is an abdication of responsibility.

>Will the taxpayer be on the hook if/when the derivatives market implodes?
It wasn't a problem with derivatives last time

Irrelevant, John. The question was not a debate about whether derivatives caused the last financial crash.

The changes have been made to bank reorganisation to keep the taxpayer off the hook and have a cram down of the various creditors (tier 1 and tier 2 etc) instead. Which is much fairer in concept

So from that is it implied that there are no more bailouts for the banks?

[3rdRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... wp-figures

Thousands have died after being found fit for work, DWP figures show

Nearly 90 people a month are dying after being declared fit for work, according to new data that has prompted campaigners and Labour leadership contenders to call for an overhaul of the government’s welfare regime.

Statistics released by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) revealed that during the period December 2011 and February 2014 2,380 people died after their claim for employment and support allowance (ESA) ended because a work capability assessment (WCA) found they were found fit for work.

Ministers insisted that the data could not be used to link claimant deaths to its welfare reforms, but the figures focused attention on the government’s fit-for-work assessment process, which has been dogged by controversy in recent years.

Anita Bellows, researcher with campaign group Disabled People Against the Cuts, said it would take time to fully analyse the figures, but added the group was “very worried by the number of people who died within two weeks of being found fit for work” [see footnote].

Good news for IDS I suppose. A few less mouths to feed.

God damn this Conservative government from hell!

[3rdRock]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 78536.html

UN investigating British Government over human rights abuses caused by IDS welfare reforms

The UN is to visit the UK to investigate whether Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms have caused “grave or systematic violations” of disabled peoples’ human rights, it has been reported.

A leading disability charity says that they have been contacted by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as part of an investigation into human rights abuses against disabled people in the UK.

This should wipe the smile from Reichsführer Duncan Smith's face - for a while anyway.

[johnhemming2]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... wp-figures

Thousands have died after being found fit for work, DWP figures show

The question, of course, is whether these people were less or more likely to die. The fact that some have died is sadly part of one of the certainties of life.

Every year a number of people who are in fact working die. That is not normally as a result of them working.

There were 501,424 deaths registered in England and Wales in 2014, compared with 506,790 in 2013 (a fall of 1.1%).
Age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) have continued to decrease in 2014. There were 11,213 deaths per million population for males and 8,219 deaths per million population for females.
The infant mortality rate decreased in 2014 to 3.9 deaths per thousand live births, compared with 4.0 in 2013.
There were 3,254 stillbirths in England and Wales in 2014, compared with 3,284 in 2013 (a fall of 0.9%).
In 2014, cancer was the most common broad cause of death (29% of all deaths registered) followed by circulatory diseases, such as heart disease and strokes (27% of all deaths registered). Cancer was the most common broad cause of death for both sexes.
Get all the tables for this publication in the data section of this publication .

[3rdRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... wp-figures

Thousands have died after being found fit for work, DWP figures show

The question, of course, is whether these people were less or more likely to die. The fact that some have died is sadly part of one of the certainties of life.

I'm sorry, I should have realised that.

So those lucky folk who died within two weeks of an assessment / judgement, really were fit for work after all?

[biffvernon]

The question, of course, is whether these people were less or more likely to die.

Which is why Ben Goldacre (a man who knows a bit about statistics) tweeted:

ben goldacre ‏@bengoldacre Aug 28
Maybe the gov are evil because Fit For Work claimants die. We dont know. They’re definitely evil for hiding the data https://storify.com/bengoldacre/how-dwp ... ng-the-rig

Follow that link to find out just how evil the government is.

[johnhemming2]

I agree with Ben Goldacre. We don't know what the true picture is.

When I chaired the DWP back bench committee I was pressing to get access to this sort of info.