TOP STORIES
CARTOONS
MAGIC MONEY TREE
POSH GRAMMAR
OSBORNE KERCHING!!
PROMISES PROMISES
SOUTHERN FAIL
DUMB POLLSTERS
DON'T BLAME TRUMP!
£13bn APPLE TAX DODGE
SAFE SEATS = BREXIT?
UKIP v LABOUR
ALL OUT OF IT TOGETHER
EU IMMIGRATION
TORY v TORY
PRISON SUICIDES
LONDON LEAVES UK!
EU v TORY MANDATE
HMRC IS A TAX HAVEN
PANAMA TAX LEAK
IDS v IDS
RICH v POOR
POSH BOYS
HELP2BUY PROFITEERS
LLOYDS, RBS CEO PAY
HSBC DRUG MONEY
PM'S MUM FIGHTS CUTS
PEAK "STUFF" IS HERE
HMRC GOOGLY
PENSION TAX RAID

Thursday, 21 January 2016

Thursday, January 21, 2016 Posted by Hari 1 comment Labels:
Oil price crashes, but Big Six energy firms failed to pass on massive savings to consumers
The Big Six energy firms have been accused of overcharging consumers by the watchdog. Ahead of the results of an eagerly-anticipated Competition and Markets Authority investigation, Ofgem chief executive Dermot Nolan yesterday told the BBC: “The market is not working as competitively as it should be.” He was reacting to growing anger about energy giants’ not passing on large cuts in wholesale prices to consumers. A report from comparison site Energyhelpline showed that wholesale gas prices dropped 51 per cent while electricity prices fell 33 per cent over the last two years. "This could have been passed through as price cuts of around 25 per cent on gas and 11 per cent on electricity for UK households, yet all customers have seen is an average of 5 per cent off gas bills and nothing off electricity bills," pointed out Mark Todd from the comparison site. In fact British Gas was the only big six energy giant to reduce prices when wholesale costs fell last summer, and then it was just 5 per cent off gas bills. The other big six firms firms EDF, E.on, Npower, Scottish Power and SEE decided against passing on any savings to their customers. INDEPENDENT

“Smash and grab raid”: Holland & Barrett accused of squeezing its suppliers
In a letter this month, seen by the BBC, the high street retailer says it wants a reduction of costs of at least 5% from all its suppliers. It also wants suppliers to pay for £3m worth of security tags and CCTV. The Forum of Private Business (FPB) has described it as a "smash and grab raid" on the supply chain. Ian Cass, Managing Director of the FPB, said: "Many of their suppliers are small firms who have helped the retailer increase their margins and have been unable to put up prices themselves over the last few years... Sometimes it is helpful to suppliers to offer discounts to retailers in return for product placement or increased marketing of their products, which is beneficial to both parties, but this needs to be agreed by both sides, not a unilateral decision as in this case." Holland and Barrett is owned by the American private equity company, The Carlyle Group, and has 735 shops in the UK and Ireland. Last year its profits increased by 12% to £146m. In its letter, the company said that it increased turnover thanks to a range of new initiatives and internal investment but that suppliers were not contributing proportionately to the growth of the business. The letter has been greeted with dismay and anger by one small supplier, who did not want to give his name for fear of losing his contract. "What they will gain is a 5% increase in profits and dividends for their shareholder for nothing. What they have done to their suppliers is abhorrent," he said. The (FPB) said it would be writing to the company to make clear its concerns. It has a hall of shame of other companies it has accused of mistreating suppliers. Companies include Carlsberg, Mars, Halfords, GlaxoSmithKline, Debenhams, Premier Foods, Monsoon and many others. BBC NEWS

IMF says refugee influx could provide EU economic boost
The recent influx of refugees into Europe is likely to raise economic growth slightly in the short term – mainly in Austria, Germany and Sweden – and could deliver a bigger long-term economic boost to the EU if refugees are well integrated into the job market, according to the International Monetary Fund. The number of asylum seekers arriving at EU borders is unparalleled in recent times – in the first 10 months of last year, 995,000 first-time asylum applications were submitted to EU countries, more than twice the number over the same period in 2014, the 50-page report said. The fund said this is likely to result in a “modest increase in GDP growth” in the short term, due to higher state spending on housing and benefits for asylum seekers, as well as a boost to the job market from the newcomers. GDP in the EU as a whole could be lifted by 0.05%, 0.09% and 0.13% in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively. The IMF estimates the largest impact in Austria, with GDP rising by 0.5% by 2017, followed by Sweden (0.4%) and Germany (0.3%). In the long run, the economic impact could be larger, but will depend on the integration of refugees into the labour market. Assuming this is successful, by 2020 the level of GDP could be 0.25% higher for the EU as a whole, and between 0.5% and 1% higher in Germany, Austria and Sweden. “Rapid labour market integration is key to reducing the net fiscal cost associated with the current inflow of asylum seekers. Indeed, the sooner the refugees gain employment, the more they will help the public finances by paying income tax and social security contributions,” the report said. The IMF noted that the Swedish introduction programme, which includes language training, employment preparation and basic knowledge of Swedish society, has helped refugees achieve high rates of employment, although it is a lengthy process. Confounding widespread fears, the IMF said most immigration studies showed that the effect of new arrivals on domestic workers is usually small, possibly because they are in different segments of the job market or because of a rise in investment in response to a sudden surge in workers. Enrica Detragiache, one of the report’s lead authors, said: “By and large the negative effects tend to be short-lived and temporary.” GUARDIAN

Balfour Beatty admits liability, pays £137k to whistleblower over dodgy £18.5m public contract
Nigel McArthur, from Devon, claimed he was hounded out by his bosses after he made a protected disclosure about an £18.5m office building project in Cardiff. The Welsh government awarded a contract to Balfour Beatty to construct a building in Callaghan Square as part of a regeneration on a vacant site. The project was later halted but the firm was paid about £600,000 for work carried out. The whistleblower said the firm's true sub-contract costs had been hidden, and raised its profit margins from an agreed 3.3% to 7.34%. Pre-construction manager Mr McArthur, 56, from Exmouth, said he reported his findings to his line manager but "was told that he should not have investigated the costs or alternatively that he should not be concerned about it". His solicitor, Terry Falcao, of Stephens and Scown, said the claim was brought in February 2015, and was met with denials until last November, just two weeks before a full five-day hearing was due. The company paid £137,000 before the case was due to be heard at a tribunal. Balfour Beatty admitted liability with the caveat that it had not carried out criminal activity or breached legal obligations. It said it regretted that it "failed to properly support our employee following concerns they raised". It added it also "provided full disclosure to the Welsh Assembly who were satisfied with our approach". The Welsh government did not comment. BBC NEWS

NHS funding is falling further behind European neighbours' average
The UK is devoting a diminishing proportion of GDP in health and is now a lowly 13th out of the original 15 EU members in terms of investment, according to research by the King’s Fund. Ministers highlight that they are giving the NHS in England an increasing share of overall government spending, ringfencing its budget and handing it annual increases totalling £8.4bn in real terms by 2020-21, despite very tight public finances. But the Kings Fund’s chief economist Prof John Appleby also found that the government’s decision to increase the NHS’s budget by far less than the anticipated growth in GDP meant the service would miss out on what would have been an extra £16bn by 2020. The latest OECD data shows that the UK spent 8.5% of its total GDP on healthcare in 2013, though that includes a small amount of private spending, such as private medical insurance. “This placed the UK 13th out of the original 15 countries of the EU and 1.7 percentage points lower than the EU-14’s level,” Appleby said, referring to the EU 15 without the UK. “If we were to close this gap solely by increasing NHS spending, and assuming that health spending in other UK countries was in line with the 2015 spending review plans for England, by 2020-21 it would take an increase of 30% – £43bn – in real terms to match the EU-14’s level of spend in 2013, taking total NHS spending to £185bn.” GUARDIAN


62 richest people own as much as half of the world's population put together
Oxfam's publication also reveals that the wealthiest one per cent, around 73million out of the 7.3bn people in the world, now own the same as everyone else put together. As recently as 2010, the combined wealth of the 388 richest people was needed to equal that of the poorest half of the world, but that number has since plummeted to 80 last year and 62 now. The total wealth of the poorest half of the world fell by a trillion US dollars (£694bn) since 2010 even though the actual number of people in this group rose by 400 million, said the report, “An Economy for the 1%”. Meanwhile, the wealth of the super-rich 62 rose by more than half a trillion dollars over the same period to 1.76 trillion (£1.22trn). This equates to an average of around £20 billion for each of the 62. Although the number of people living in extreme poverty halved between 1990 and 2010 globally, the average annual income of the poorest 10 per cent has increased by less than three dollars (£2.08) a year over the past 25 years. Globally, the super-rich are estimated to have a total of 7.6trn dollars (£5.3trn) stashed in offshore accounts, depriving governments around the world of 190bn dollars (£132bn) in tax revenues each year, said the report. As much as 30 per cent of all African financial wealth is believed to be held offshore, costing 14 billion dollars (£9.7bn) in lost tax revenue each year - enough to save four million children's lives a year through improved healthcare and employ enough teachers to get every African child into school. The new findings have been released ahead of the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) of global political and business leaders in Swiss ski resort Davos. Nine out of ten WEF corporate partners have a presence in at least one tax haven and it is estimated that tax dodging by multinational corporations costs developing countries at least 100 billion dollars (£69bn) a year, said Oxfam. Corporate investment in tax havens increased almost quadrupled between 2000 and 2014. DAILY MAIL

Apple may owe $8bn in back taxes after European commission ruling
Apple may owe $8bn in back taxes from its use of potentially illegal tax shelters in Ireland. This is not the first time Apple has been investigated for its accounting practices in Ireland. Executives including Cook appeared before the US Senate in 2013 to testify about whether it had renegotiated Ireland’s 12.5% corporate tax rate down to 2%. The company denied any wrongdoing. Matt Larson, litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, calculates that the company would owe $8.02bn at that rate. The European commission has been cracking down on US companies trying to negotiate sweetheart deals with individual EU member nations for the last several years. Starbucks’s operations in the Netherlands and Amazon and McDonald’s in Luxembourg have all been subject to similar investigations. The commission found that Starbucks owed Dutch authorities upwards of $22m, and a ruling from Belgium this week determined that 35 companies across the EU owe the equivalent of $760m in back taxes. Apple has already said it would appeal against a ruling against the company; CEO Tim Cook called the investigation “political crap.” GUARDIAN

Excessive pension exit fees to be capped, says government
The Treasury has confirmed that "excessive" exit fees charged by some pension providers will be banned. The precise level of the cap will be set by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), after a public consultation. The chancellor, George Osborne, told the House of Commons that as many as 700,000 people faced such penalties. "The government isn't prepared to stand by and see people either being ripped off or blocked from accessing their own money by excessive charges," he told MPs. The Treasury said that 66,000 people over the age of 55 face currently face charges worth more than 10% of their pension pots. Since April 2015 anyone over the age of 55 has been free to withdraw as much money as they like from their pension pot (subject to income tax). But such investors are being advised to consider holding back on withdrawals until the reforms are in place. However, it could be as much as two years before the new law is passed. Pensions minister, Baroness Altmann, said that such policies would never have been sold, had customers understood the hefty exit penalties. "In some cases these penalties can run to hundreds or even thousands of pounds," said Tom McPhail of Hargreaves Lansdowne. Baroness Altmann has previously said that up to 40% of a pension's value can be lost in all the different fees applied over a lifetime’s saving. BBC NEWS

Thursday, 14 January 2016

Thursday, January 14, 2016 Posted by Hari 2 comments

SOURCE INDEPENDENT: DWP fit-to-work assessments cost more money than they save
The study by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that the Department for Work and Pensions is handing over £1.6bn over the next three years to private contractors who carry out the controversial health and disability assessments. But at the same time, the Government’s own financial watchdog has warned that savings in benefits payments are likely to be less than a billion pounds by 2020 as a result of the new tests. The NAO report also found: The cost of carrying out each employment and support allowance (ESA) test had risen from £115 to £190 after the controversial outsourcing firm Atos pulled out of its contract to run the tests last year; Benefit claimants are still waiting for more than six months before they are assessed during which time they are not entitled to full payments; None of the companies carrying out the tests met the Government’s own quality assessment threshold – with reports including spelling mistakes and unintelligible acronyms. The report found evidence that ministers set completely unrealistic targets for the number of ESA assessments that could be carried out each year. As a result, there is a backlog of at least 280,000 new claims while ministers have been forced to suspend plans to carry out periodic reassessments of those already claiming the benefit. The report also found significant problems with the American outsourcing company Maximus which took over the contract to carry out ESA assessments from Atos. Only half of all the doctors and nurses hired to carry out the assessments completed their training against a target of 95 per cent, while average staff costs rose from £26,000 in 2014 to £44,000 last year. Over the summer the company was carrying out just 37,000 face-to-face assessments a month compared with a target of 57,000. It had carried out 10,000 fewer paper assessments than it had promised the Government.


Thursday, January 14, 2016 Posted by Hari No comments Labels:
Lawyers fees and legal aid cuts block access to justice, warn top judges
In a stark message, the Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, said bringing legal action – or, alternatively, defending oneself against litigation – has become “unaffordable” for most people. It has led to ever-growing numbers of people representing themselves in court because they cannot afford a lawyer, which leads to delays and further inefficiency in the system, he said. In his annual report, Lord Thomas referred to a study published earlier this week by Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge, which concluded that some of the blame could be “laid at the door of the legal professions.” Lord Justice Briggs said: “The single, most pervasive and intractable weakness of our civil courts is that they simply do not provide reasonable access to justice for any but the most wealthy individuals, for that tiny minority still in receipt of Legal Aid, for those able to obtain no win no fee agreements with their lawyers, for the few who obtain free advice and representation, and for substantial business entities. “To any rational observer who values access to civil justice, this is a truly shocking state of affairs." Last June Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, said lawyers who have "done very well" financially could be compelled to give up their time for free to shore up the less well-funded areas of law. Mr Gove said: "When it comes to investing in access to justice then it is clear to me that it is fairer to ask our most successful legal professionals to contribute a little more rather than taking more in tax from someone on the minimum wage... If we are going to have effective access to justice then we need to ensure that those who have done well out of our justice system contribute more.” TELEGRAPH

Tory bill could cost UK nearly 200,000 council houses, warns Labour
A proposal to force councils to sell their highest value homes, as well as the impact of increased discounts for council tenants granted the “right to buy”, will result in the loss of one in every eight council properties, according to the shadow housing minister John Healey. He said the homes could be snapped up by overseas investors and buy-to-let landlords rather than people in housing need. “Rather than running down the number of much needed affordable homes, ministers should be investing more homes to rent and buy,” said Healey, who was housing minister in Gordon Brown’s government. The government has pitched its housing reforms as a major boost for the construction of homes to buy rather than rent, arguing that is what the majority of the population wants. Its initiatives include 13,000 directly commissioned new homes and a £1.2bn grant to help private housebuilders clean up brownfield land and build 60,000 new homes for sale, half for buyers under 40. On Monday, David Cameron announced a £140m redevelopment programme for Britain’s sink estates, which he described as “concrete slabs dropped from on high, brutal high-rise towers and dark alleyways that are a gift to criminals and drug dealers”. The scheme will include demolition of some estates and he said tenants and homeowners will be given binding guarantees that their right to a home is protected. The policy is partly based on analysis by Savills, the property consultancy, which found that more and better homes can be created if 1960s-style estates are demolished and replaced by new housing with conventional layouts. But Labour believes that the government’s parallel demand, that town halls sell off their most valuable council homes to fund the extension of the right-to-buy scheme to tenants of housing association properties, will combine with the existing decline in council housing numbers to see around 40,000 council homes disappear annually. There were 1.8m council homes in 2009 but that will drop to 1.4m by 2020 according to estimates by Labour with the House of Commons library. GUARDIAN

£1.6 billion: DWP fit-to-work assessments cost more money than they save
The study by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that the Department for Work and Pensions is handing over £1.6bn over the next three years to private contractors who carry out the controversial health and disability assessments. But at the same time, the Government’s own financial watchdog has warned that savings in benefits payments are likely to be less than a billion pounds by 2020 as a result of the new tests. The NAO report also found: The cost of carrying out each employment and support allowance (ESA) test had risen from £115 to £190 after the controversial outsourcing firm Atos pulled out of its contract to run the tests last year; Benefit claimants are still waiting for more than six months before they are assessed during which time they are not entitled to full payments; None of the companies carrying out the tests met the Government’s own quality assessment threshold – with reports including spelling mistakes and unintelligible acronyms. The report found evidence that ministers set completely unrealistic targets for the number of ESA assessments that could be carried out each year. As a result, there is a backlog of at least 280,000 new claims while ministers have been forced to suspend plans to carry out periodic reassessments of those already claiming the benefit. The report also found significant problems with the American outsourcing company Maximus which took over the contract to carry out ESA assessments from Atos. Only half of all the doctors and nurses hired to carry out the assessments completed their training against a target of 95 per cent, while average staff costs rose from £26,000 in 2014 to £44,000 last year. Over the summer the company was carrying out just 37,000 face-to-face assessments a month compared with a target of 57,000. It had carried out 10,000 fewer paper assessments than it had promised the Government. INDEPENDENT

Ofwat blamed for high water bills by overestimating water companies' costs
A report from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the water regulator Ofwat regularly overestimated companies' financing and tax costs when setting price caps. The PAC said this meant the companies had made windfall gains of at least £1.2bn between them. Household water bills averaged just under £400 per year last year. Ofwat came into being to oversee the 18 privately owned companies that supply separate areas with water and sewerage services after the service was privatised in 1989. They currently operate as local monopolies but the government has announced plans to free the market for limited competition between suppliers by the end of this parliament in 2020. PAC chairwoman Meg Hillier said: "Ofwat was set up to protect the interests of customers, most of whom have no choice over who supplies their water yet must pay bills typically running to hundreds of pounds.” BBC NEWS

'Sell everything!' Dire warning from Royal Bank of Scotland as fears mount that markets are set for new crash and oil could plunge to $10 a barrel
The bank told investors stock markets could fall 20 per cent this year as it urged them to sell with a stark warning, saying: 'In a crowded hall, exit doors are small. Risks are high.” The horrifying warnings follow a torrid start to the year on financial markets, with billions of pounds wiped off stocks in the UK and elsewhere. London's top stock index saw £85billion wiped off its value after tumbling 5.3 per cent last week, during what is being dubbed the worst start to a New Year ever on world markets. A string of banks including Barclays, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Societe Generale have slashed their 2016 oil forecasts this week, while Standard Chartered cautioned that the price could plummet to $10 a barrel. The slump in oil prices has coincided with turmoil on global financial markets as the slowdown in China and higher interest rates in the US knock fragile confidence. RBS warned that it could be a punishing setback for savers with pensions and other investments tied up in shares. A 20 per cent fall in stock markets would wipe more than £300billion off the value of Britain’s biggest companies. In its note to clients, RBS warned that ‘this all looks similar to 2008’ when the collapse of US banking giant Lehman Brothers triggered the global financial crisis. The RBS analyst advised investors to switch their money out of risky assets such as shares and into the safety of government bonds. DAILY MAIL

London help-to-buy scheme to launch in February
Help to buy London is an extension of the equity loan scheme that has been available to buyers around the country since April 2013, which doubles the amount of money being offered from 20% of a property’s purchase price to 40%. While mortgage rates are still at record lows and lenders are increasingly willing to offer loans to first-time buyers, high house prices in the capital have locked many out of the market. To meet affordability checks and qualify for mortgages, borrowers have had to raise increasingly large deposits. Data from Halifax published on Monday showed the average first-time buyer in London spent £367,990 in 2015, while the average deposit was £91,409. To spend the same amount with a 40% loan the same buyer would need a deposit of just£18,399. The extension, which was announced in the chancellor’s autumn statement, will be available to buyers of new properties in Greater London costing up to £600,000. As under the existing scheme, borrowers will need to be able to raise a deposit of at least 5%, and to qualify for a normal mortgage. They will also have to show that they can afford interest payments on the government loan when the five-year interest-free period ends. Funding for the scheme comes from the £8.6bn budget set aside to extend the help to buy equity loan scheme from April 2016, when it was originally due to end, to March 2021. By the end of September 3,548 households had used an equity loan to buy properties in the capital, and the government said more than 10,000 more could benefit from the new scheme. Developers have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the help-to-buy scheme, reporting big demand for homes through it. The scheme has its critics. Campbell Robb, the chief executive of housing charity Shelter, said: “What we need to tackle the housing crisis in London isn’t more gimmicky schemes that are only available to higher earners, but investment in genuinely affordable homes.” He added: “To solve the housing crisis for the long term, both central government and the mayor need to prioritise building homes that people on low or average incomes can actually afford to rent or buy... Without this, millions of Londoners on ordinary incomes will continue to be stuck in unstable, expensive private renting.” Housing expert Henry Pryor said it would stoke demand and house prices in London. “First introduced as a measure to encourage house builders to take off the tarpaulins off their moth-balled sites and get building again after the 2007-8 crash the initiative has worked well with more homes being built but the byproduct is toxic - higher prices that require even more help to buy,” he said. “Results from the quoted developers illustrates who is really being helped and a London version of the scheme is wrong both from a moral and practical perspective. There are no work-shy builders in the capital, in fact we need more sites to satisfy demand.” GUARDIAN

Tuesday, 12 January 2016

Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Posted by Hari 1 comment Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Wage restraint has been tough. In March 2015 the Chief Secretary to HM Treasury announced:

"Our teachers, doctors and armed forces do a wonderful job serving the people of this country. Pay restraint has been very difficult for many, but has helped us to protect vital public service jobs while we deal with Britain’s deep financial problems.

The independent pay review bodies have worked hard to bring forward a balanced and affordable set of recommendations that delivers on our commitments to increase pay by around 1% and deals with particular pressures. The government is grateful for their work and I am pleased that we are able to accept their main recommendations.

The government has accepted in full the recommendations for the following workforces who will receive an average of a 1% pay increase:
  • Armed Forces
  • independent contractor GPs and dentists
  • Prison Service
  • teachers
  • senior military
  • judiciary"

Happily for some the doom and gloom did not spread everywhere.

From 31st July 2015 MPs pocketed a 10% payrise, their pay going up from £67,060 to £74,000 per annum (backdated to the General Election in May 2015). 

Perhaps you remember all those MPs shaking their heads and shooting out their lips protesting that the payrise was a disgrace in these times of austerity? According to the website Donate My Payrise 74 out of the 650 MPs pledged to hand over the extra cash to charities. The website helpfully gives links to the individual MPs’ public statements, so you can check what your MP did or didn't say.

A report in October 2015 by the Sun newspaper stated in fact only 26 MPs had actually done so. [Subsequent to the Sun report the SNP chimed in saying their MPs too would donate their rises to charity, but hadn't at that time decided to which ones]. 

Asked what David Cameron would do with his payrise, the Sun reported Cameron’s spokesman would only say:
“The PM has been explicitly clear since the very start that he does not agree with this pay increase.”

Which may remind you of Cameron's response when asked whether he benefited from the "millionaire's tax cut" in 2013. Cameron was asked by Stephen Pound MP, during Prime Minister's Questions of February 13th 2013 : 

"Q12. [142834] Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab):  will [the Prime Minister] tell the House whether he will personally benefit from the millionaires’ tax cut to be introduced this April?

The Prime Minister: I will pay all the taxes that are due in the proper way. "

There is a spooky similarity between Cameron's statement and that of the Starbucks and Google bosses when they were being grilled by a parliamentary select committee on multinationals tax dodging shenanigans:
Tax avoidance

"we strive to follow the letter of the law and have done so in the case of our tax obligations. All taxes owed to the UK have been timely and fully paid"
Mr.Troy Alstead, Starbucks

"We pay all the tax you require us to pay in the UK."
Mr.Matt Brittin, Google

Could it be Cameron, Starbucks and Google share tax advisors? Surely not!

The Government is not simply turning a blind eye to the predicament of the less well off. Iain Duncan Smith's Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) showed enough concern to commission a report on the impact of the Bedroom Tax: "Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy". This report found that three quarters of those affected tried to make ends meet by cutting back on food and clothing. The report also states that even among people not affected by the Bedroom Tax (referred to in the report as the "comparison group"): 56% cut back on food and 62% cut back on clothing. Which is not so surprising when, acccording to OECD figures, the UK has one of the highest proportions of workers on low pay in the developed World:



Duncan-Smith, thoughtful chap that he is, waited until the day MPs broke up for Christmas holiday, on 17th December 2015, before publishing the report. So as not to spoil their mood as they scampered off to spend their 10% payrise on presents and other festive stimulants. You can't say our Government isn't sensitive and caring.


Sunday, 10 January 2016

Sunday, January 10, 2016 Posted by Jake 1 comment Labels: , , , ,
Pity the poor executives of OFGEM, Tweedledum to the FCA’s Tweedledee. Both OFGEM (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets), regulator of the UK energy market, and the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), regulator of the UK finance industry, are just actors on Britain’s regulatory stage. And like actors anywhere, they can only read from the script they are given. A script written by lawmakers in Parliament, in a farce directed by Cabinet Ministers. When one actor fails to smile and shout and sob as directed there are plenty of replacements to choose from. Plenty of players eager to pick up a medal or perhaps even a damehood or knighthood for services rendered (or artfully not rendered).

And that's not to mention a generous six figure salary for those who get to the top. OFGEM’s report for 2014-15, showed their CEO taking £215,000 for that year; Martin Wheatley, FCA CEO until being defenestrated in September 2015, was on a basic salary of £460,000.


You will notice the FCA’s boss is paid considerably more than OFGEM’s CEO. Perhaps because the public have a better understanding of financial rip-offs, and thus have more contempt for the FCA’s dopey regulation of the banks. This is of course quite unfair, as OFGEM’s performance is entirely equally dopey. 

If only the public understood the energy market better then OFGEM’s boss would surely get a bumper hike in salary to compensate for the heightened public contempt.

So we thought we would throw a little more light on OFGEM’s lamentable performance. And perhaps its CEO can get a well deserved, if not earned, payrise.

In 2011 OFGEM commissioned the accountancy firm BDO to look into the issue of energy pricing transparency. BDO made 8 recommendations, of which OFGEM ditched 6 and watered down the remaining 2. Perhaps BDO got the wrong end of the stick, thinking OFGEM wanted them to recommend how to INCREASE transparency!

Silly them. In practice, OFGEM seems to find lack of transparency quite agreeable. The graph below is from an OFGEM infographic titled "Bills Prices and Profits". It is an example of how OFGEM strives to smokescreen energy company profits. The graph shows only a meagre slice of profit (EBIT) at the top of each column, illustrating how hard OFGEM fights to keep prices down:



The reality is the Big Six energy companies operate in both the Wholesale market (generating) and the Retail market (selling to end users, like you and me and the companies we work for). They are all making profit from the "Wholesale costs" shown in the OFGEM graph above. However OFGEM fails to show this.

OFGEM's "Wholesale Energy Markets in 2015" report shows all the Big Six generate a significant portion of the electricity they sell on the Retail market. EDF actually generates more than it sells.
So OFGEM provides the helpful graph to show Retail profits. But fails to provide the equivalent to show what the Wholesale profits of the Big Six are.

An analysis was done by Derek Louden, an energy industry commentator, which may explain why. According to Louden's calculations, the generators are generating very healthy profits indeed.

OFGEM themselves gave the game away in a report way back in 2010, "Electricity and Gas Supply Market Report, Ref:23/10". Their graph shows how from 2005 the energy companies suddenly switched their profits from their Retail to their Wholesale businesses. Explaining why they and OFGEM now seem to focus on the teensie retail profit, while ignoring the fat wholesale profit. (As far as we can tell, OFGEM haven't been so forthcoming since this 2010 report - please let us know if we are mistaken).


In 2015 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its "Energy Market Investigation, Notice of possible remedies". In this report the CMA identified a "Lack of robustness and transparency in regulatory decision-making", specifying "The lack of a regulatory requirement for clear and relevant financial reporting concerning generation and retail profitability."


Non-transparent regulators and non-transparent energy companies confusing the ripped-off British consumer! Ripping us off to the tune of £1.7 billion a year according to the CMA’s “Energy Market Investigation” report of July 2015:
“This equates to customers paying approximately £1.7 billion per year more than they would have done had prices and costs been at benchmark levels, or £8.5 billion over the five-year period.”

If the loss of money was not enough, even the loss of life was insufficient for something to be done. The Hills Report on fuel poverty, commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in March 2012, stated:
"From a health and well-being perspective: living at low temperatures as a result of fuel poverty is likely to be a significant contributor not just to the excess winter deaths that occur each year (a total of 27,000 each year over the last decade in England and Wales), but to a much larger number of incidents of ill-health and demands on the National Health Service and a wider range of problems of social isolation and poor outcomes for young people."
Final report of the Fuel Poverty Review, Professor John Hills


So unaffordable energy was a significant contributor to the 27,000 excess winter deaths over the decade to 2012? Having seen junior traders from miscreant banks led off to prison while their directors are left to buy each other drinks in their clubs, we think junior energy company executives would be prudent to keep evidence for when the corporate manslaughter charges are brought in a decade or two.

Neither the Labour nor Tory governments, nor the LibDems in coalition, did anything much about the energy market. David Cameron promised, in Prime Minister's Questions on 17th October 2012:
“I can announce, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome, that we will be legislating so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers—something that Labour did not do in 13 years, even though the Leader of the Labour party [at the time, Ed Miliband] could have done it because he had the job.”

Miliband didn’t do it. Cameron didn't do it either. 

Thursday, 7 January 2016

Thursday, January 07, 2016 Posted by Hari No comments Labels:
Nurse shortage hits dangerous levels in 90% of hospitals
An analysis by the Health Service Journal (HSJ) of 232 hospitals in England found that 207, or 90%, were unable to meet safe levels during the day, while 81% could not hit targets for night cover and 79% missed both quotas. It marks a decline since January 2015, when 85% of hospitals were short-staffed during the day. Earlier this month the health service missed a series of key targets for A&E waiting times, cancer treatment and ambulance responses, leading experts to warn that the NHS would struggle to cope with the busy winter period. Separate research last week suggested nurses were under such pressure that they could not guarantee safe care for their patients. The Nursing Times survey of almost 1,000 nurses found eight out of 10 were under more stress at work than they were 12 months ago. More than half said they “rarely” or “never” had either sufficient staff or time to ensure safe care for patients, while a third said their ward or team was “always” short-staffed. The chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, Janet Davies, said the health service was paying the price for previous cutbacks to the nurse training programme. “We went through a period of time when we were trying to save money, we cut posts, we didn’t train enough people and we are still feeling the effect of that,” she said. GUARDIAN

Revealed: how Tory cuts are wrecking UK flood defences
Many of Britain’s flood defences are being abandoned or maintained to minimal levels because of government cuts that could leave almost twice as many households at “significant risk” within 20 years, according to a leaked document submitted to ministers. The Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA), which represents a range of organisations responsible for managing water levels, says in the document: “We have had the five wettest years since 2000. The Environment Agency’s funding for maintaining flood assets has fallen by 14%. Downward adjustments have also been made to intended revenue spending commitments.” Councils had suffered budget cuts of more than 40% since 2010, leaving them with little or no option but to reduce or withhold funding to drainage boards, other organisations and landowners who managed river levels, the document suggests. Referring to the threat to more households as a result of cuts, the experts say: “Annual flood and storm damage costs are approximately £1.1bn, according to the Association of British Insurers, and those households at significant risk [of flood damage] through a reduction in our capacity to manage water levels could increase from 330,000 today to 570,000 in 2035.” It is further proof that ministers were being told before last month’s floods that cuts had left large parts of Britain in greater danger. After much of the north of England and Scotland endured misery over Christmas, ministers had admitted that flood defences were inadequate in many areas, but insisted that extreme weather was to blame, not government cuts. But the experts challenge this view, saying savage reductions to local authority funding had not only had a devastating effect on flood defences but may have added to costs in the long run because the result had been a far faster deterioration than would otherwise have occurred. GUARDIAN

UK commuters spend up to six times as much on rail fares as European passengers
Action for Rail, a campaign by rail unions and the TUC, said some UK workers were spending 13 per cent of their monthly wages on rail travel. By contrast, the average amount of salary going on a monthly season ticket for a similar journey is two per cent in Italy, three per cent in Spain and four per cent in Germany. In France, which is the closest to the UK for cost, commuters still spend nearly a third less on season tickets than their counterparts in the UK, said the report. A survey of more than 1,700 adults for the campaign group found that three out of five believed train services in the UK were poor value for money, with a similar number supporting public ownership.The research was published to highlight protests at more than 60 railway stations by campaigners and rail workers to mark the return to work after the festive break, with fares having increased at the weekend. Aslef general secretary Mick Whelan said: "Taking the railways back into public hands is a popular policy. The vast majority of voters - Conservative included - are fed up with paying sky-high fares so the privatised train companies can take their slice. Commuters travelling into London from Kent and Sussex know their £5,000 a year season tickets would be much cheaper under public ownership." Tickets this year rise by an average of 1.1 per cent in England, Wales and Scotland, affecting 1.7 billion rail journeys made in the UK each year. But the rise means fares have risen at three times the rate of wage pay packets since David Cameron was elected Prime Minister in 2010, according to an analysis by Labour. TELEGRAPH

Five of the largest banks paid no corporation tax in 2014, despite making billions of pounds in profits
JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Nomura Holdings and Morgan Stanley paid no corporation tax at all. The research into the financial reports found that seven banks, which also included Goldman Sachs and UBS, used tax benefits as well as losses generated during the banking crisis to reduce their corporation tax bills. Unlike some countries, the UK does not have a time limit restricting how long a company can hang on to past losses before using them. The seven banks paid a combined £20m in corporation tax in 2014, even though they had profits of £3.6bn on revenues of £21bn, the news agency said. The banks employed 33,000 staff. The ability of big banks to offset current profits against previous losses was reduced by the government in the 2014 Autumn Statement. In December 2014, Chancellor George Osborne said that the "amount of profit in established banks that can be offset by losses carried forward" would be limited to 50% of their profits in the 2015-16 tax year. Also, from January 2016 banks will have to pay an 8% surcharge on their profits. That is being introduced as an alternative to the Bank Levy on bank balance sheets - first introduced by George Osborne in January 2011 - which is now being cut back over the next six years. But banks were given better news in the 2015 Budget when Mr Osborne said corporation tax was to be cut to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020. BBC NEWS

Wednesday, 6 January 2016

Wednesday, January 06, 2016 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , ,
Chris has it all explained by a banker...

SOURCE BBC NEWS: Banking culture inquiry shelved by regulator FCA
The FCA had planned to look at whether pay, promotion or other incentives had contributed to scandals involving banks in the UK and abroad. The Treasury denies involvement in the decision - which some commentators have suggested was politically motivated. Banks around the world have faced huge fines from regulators for their involvement in numerous scandals. In May the news agency Reuters calculated that 20 global banks had paid £152bn in fines and compensation to customers since the 2008 financial crisis. The decision to drop the inquiry comes six months after FCA boss Martin Wheatley - who was originally hired because of his reputation as a tough regulator - was effectively sacked by Mr Osborne following two tumultuous years in the role. Many in the City had found Mr Wheatley's approach too combative and raised concerns about some of the language he used in reference to the banking industry. Percival Stanion, head of multi-asset strategies at Pictet Asset Management, also suggested that it was "no coincidence" that the investigation was being dropped at a time when HSBC was reviewing whether to keep its headquarters in London. HSBC has been a vocal critic of the bank levy, which Mr Osborne reduced in his summer budget following the general election. This will be seen by many as further evidence that regulators and the government have decided to take a softer line with the banks and bring the "banker bashing" era to a close.


OUR RELATED STORIES:

As of 2014, the £20bn paid out by the banks for their PPI mis-selling is more than all their taxes paid since 2008

The bailout of our banks continues. Not from the taxpayer, but from your pathetic savings interest rates. See the BofE data

Financial Reporting Council says just 2% of bank and building society audits are up to scratch

The Interest Rate Swaps that screwed 40,000 small and medium sized businesses: how the regulator allowed the banks to be judge and jury for their own dodgy deals

RBS accused of seizing small business assets and selling them at knock-down prices to an RBS subsidiary

The government wants you to think we made a profit on sale of Lloyds Bank shares. Actually we made a thumping loss!

How re-mortgaging covered up the theft of Britain's growing wealth in the boom, and helped cause the bust


Sunday, 3 January 2016

Sunday, January 03, 2016 Posted by Jake 1 comment Labels: , , , , , , ,

In December 2015 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) ditched its Banking Culture Review. In its 2015/16 plan the FCA promised this “Culture Review” of banks stating: 


“In 2015/16 we will conduct a new thematic review on whether culture change programmes in retail and wholesale banks are driving the right behaviour, in particular focusing on remuneration, appraisal and promotion decisions of middle management, as well as how concerns are reported and acted on.” 

A review into whether bankers are Paid, Praised, and Promoted too much for doing the wrong things? And how they treat whistleblowers telling on these wrong things? What's not to like?

Was this FCA U-Turn due to road blocks raised by banking lobbyists and their little helpers in government? Or is it a realisation that the bankers are not responsible for their misdeeds. A realisation that bankers are suffering too, suffering from Affluenza? A realisation that the real cultural problem is actually somewhere else?

“Affluenza” is an affliction brought on by having too much money. The Affluenza Defence pleads that the malefactors have so much money and are so molly-coddled they can’t tell right from wrong. The defence attorney asserts the poor rich things, brought up by weak indulgent guardians, earnestly believe money can make any problem go away. Therefore, having been deprived of a conscience due to this surfeit of cash and lamentable guardianship, the affluenza-afflicted individuals can’t be held responsible for their acts. The fault lies not with the perpetrator, but with the money and the carers.

It is a defence successfully deployed to avoid retribution on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the USA a wealthy youth escaped jail, getting away with probation, having been convicted in a Texas court for a reckless intoxicated (by booze) crash resulting in the deaths of four people. The Guardian newspaper reported:
"During the sentencing phase of Couch’s trial, a defense expert argued that Couch’s wealthy parents coddled him into a sense of irresponsibility – a condition the expert termed “affluenza”. "

In the UK wealthy bankers get away scot free for mischief resulting in a reckless intoxicated (by bonuses) crash that caused The Great Recession. Their fines paid by shareholders (collapsing shareprice and dividends) and customers (higher profit extraction). 

The bankers had been in trouble before this crash and got themselves into trouble again after it, convicted of various frauds and scams including LIBOR frauds, Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) scandals, Interest Rate Swaps Agreements (IRSA) scams, and more. Clearly a deeply ingrained cultural problem. But, following the Affluenza argument, perhaps not among the bankers.

Like spoiled children around the world, the British banking industry has learned by repetition they can get away with anything. Once their guardians have got past all the scolding and finger wagging, they quietly pour water over their reforming zeal, put away their punchy pronouncement, and everyone carries on more or less as before. 

The grim truth is ripping off people is legal in British law. Consumer protection legislation states so long as the ‘average consumer’ is not cheated just about anything goes. The ironically named Office for Fair Trading even provides a helpful flowchart, to ensure even the most weak witted merchant will understand what their ripping-off rights are. In the simplest of terms the flowchart shows the above "average consumer" is protected, the below average is not.  Most things in nature follow the Normal Distribution, which means half the population is 'below average' and so is fair game.
Annotations in RED are by us.
The “Culture Review” of bankers was cancelled not to protect the bankers. It was cancelled to protect the guardians – the regulators, the courts, and the law makers in Parliament. Not because it would expose their powerlessness in the face of bankers' reckless greed and ruthless lobbying, but it would reveal something far worse. It would have revealed to all us ripped-off Britons that the banking culture is absolutely in keeping with the culture in ripped-off Britain.

Share This

Follow Us

  • Subscribe via Email

Search Us