Support NeoGAF

[War Peaceman]

Superb article by the incredibly hit-and-miss Peter Oborne: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lie-and-cheat-we-are-heading-for-anarchy.html

It is worth reading it all, but some of the choice parts:

This is all going to get a great deal worse now that Chris Grayling (whom I suppose we must continue to refer to by his formal office as Lord Chancellor) is slashing legal aid and making judicial review financially unfeasible. Britain today has a two-tier legal system, just like health and education. You can either buy your way to expensive advice, or rely on state-funded representation. This works fine when the police can be trusted to tell the truth. But when they are prepared to lie it becomes a different matter.
Let’s now return to the three police officers (Insp Ken MacKaill, Det Sgt Stuart Hinton and Sgt Chris Jones) who, according to the IPCC, lied about Andrew Mitchell. Let’s remember that these men are all trusted with the power of arrest, with gathering evidence, and expect to be heard with great respect in court. Juries routinely convict on the basis of what they say. And yet the police chiefs they work for have refused to take action against them.

Traditionally, the police force has – quite rightly – demanded special protections. Assaulting a police officer is a special category of offence, with draconian penalties. Verbal abuse of a police officer is much worse than swearing at a stranger – which was the key reason why I felt it right that Andrew Mitchell should resign.

But surely there should be a reciprocal obligation, and the public should be entitled to demand reasonably high standards of honesty from the police. Those who lie and cheat, especially when providing evidence that can be used against criminal suspects in court, should themselves be punished exceptionally severely, and held up to public contempt.

Yet we know that this is not the case. Again and again, convenient strategies have been used for police officers found guilty of making up evidence, such as early retirement or sudden psychiatric problems. The Mitchell case is not isolated. It is just the latest of a number where the police have meddled with, altered, destroyed or fabricated vital material: think of the Hillsborough tragedy, the Lawrence inquiry, the aftermath of the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, and more besides.

Something has gone wrong with many British institutions over the past few decades. Parliament had its expenses scandal, the intelligence services were complicit in telling lies about Iraq, bankers nearly destroyed the economy, and journalists are still being brought to account for phone hacking. It is time to acknowledge that the police force faces a crisis of such gravity that it can only be solved by setting up a Royal Commission.

He is absolutely right. I particularly like the criticisms of Chris Grayling (and Clarke before him), one of our worst ministers, who seems to have mostly escaped criticism despite the coalition's atrocious ideas about legal aid.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The police really does need a proper, top-down bum-cleaning.

Re: legal aid, it's a tricky one I think. On the one hand, if the state insists on making the law and the legal system so complicated that it's unreasonable to expect a person not highly trained to understand it, they should offer some compensation to those that do need a lawyer to defend themselves.

On the other hand, it can be wildly misused, not just by individuals but by campaign groups and whatnot. I don't really know what the solution is, because neither cutting it nor the previous status quo are good, I think.

 

[War Peaceman]

The police really does need a proper, top-down bum-cleaning.

Yes, it seems very rotten, especially the Met. Or maybe the Met is rotten and most others are fine. It is very difficult to know. But given the attempts at introducing private police, I see no hope of this coming in the near future. If anyone were to do it, the conservatives would be the party to do it and they have failed at this.

Re: legal aid, it's a tricky one I think. On the one hand, if the state insists on making the law and the legal system so complicated that it's unreasonable to expect a person not highly trained to understand it, they should offer some compensation to those that do need a lawyer to defend themselves.

On the other hand, it can be wildly misused, not just by individuals but by campaign groups and whatnot. I don't really know what the solution is, because neither cutting it nor the previous status quo are good, I think.

The disadvantages of continuity and tradition. Well, actually, the disadvantages of increasingly unskilled legislators. I just cannot imagine any government in the near future fixing bloated legislation. It just seems an insurmountable task for modern small-minded politicians. Or maybe I am just being extra-cynical due to just rewatching Adam Curtis' Century of the Self.

In lieu of legal changes, I'd still rather fund to potentially protect individuals even if it can be abused rather than the proposed changes. Though it really doesn't have to be a choice between one or the other.

 

[CyclopsRock]

In fairness, legal aid can also harm individuals if they don't qualify but also can't afford lawyers to defend themselves.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

ACAB, yo.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

The solution is simple. Fighting cases of police misconduct should be added to the scope of no win no fee.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Encouraging and worrying borrowing figures today.

Encouraging because they are well under the OBR forecast, we are on track to borrow £105bn rather than the £120bn forecast in the budget. The worrying part is that stamp duty receipts shot up to £850m in September, which is just below what it was generating pre-crash. The warning lights in the BoE and Treasury should have been flashing today.

GDP figures will come in at around 0.8-1.0% on Friday. The PSF figures show too much of a gain in tax yields for it to be below this level.

If the recovery continues to gather pace I wouldn't be surprised to see the nation start 2014/15 with a deficit under £100bn with a forecast of a ~£75bn deficit after that. If it is along those lines then it would be a great achievement, getting the deficit down below 5% would be a fine achievement from the 12.5% inherited in 2010. The next part for the government is to get the recovery to feed through into people's wage packets. I can understand them not wanting to raise public sector pay above the current 1% limit because that is basically where all of the savings are being made, but I do hope that they can encourage the private sector to loosen the purse strings a bit and to get private sector employees to start asking for wage rises at or above inflation. The next part of the recovery is ensuring that people's disposable income starts to rise again, so that they save as well as spend.

On the jobs front, there have been some very encouraging signs, the JSA claimant count has gone down by just over 100k in the last three months, and the pace is accelerating, the bank's proprietary index is just under the highest it has been for job creation since 2006, and it points to jobs growth in all major sectors except oil and gas extraction, which may drag GDP down by 0.1% for Q3. By our measure, unemployment could dip below the BoE's 7% target by the second half of 2014, that's with a slowdown in built, without that it could happen towards the end of the first half. What we really need to see though is a sign that private companies are beginning to raise wages by at least 2.5-3%, that is when the we can call it a real recovery. Right now companies are still sitting on the cash because they expect this to be a short term blip, the government need to show that it is a sustainable recovery so that companies open up the taps on wage rises and investment.

 

[CyclopsRock]

As always, thanks for the detailed updated zomg!

Sounds pretty positive. I'm gonna demand a 400% raise this christmas (to £4.80 an hour) so fingers crossed!

 

[Jezbollah]

Thanks Zomg

 

[Nicktendo86]

The BBC has just posted that Grangemouth is to be closed. Well done Unite, put a load of people out if a job
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24631342

 

[CyclopsRock]

The BBC has just posted that Grangemouth is to be closed. Well done Unite, put a load of people out if a job
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24631342

Ouch.

"The company has said the plant, which has been shut down for a week because of the dispute, is losing £10m a month."

"Workers at the site had been given until 18:00 on Monday to agree to the changes, which included a pay freeze and downgrading of pensions.

Unite said half of the 1,370-strong workforce had rejected the proposed changes to contracts."

I wonder what they mean by "downgrading of pensions"? Going forwards or retroactive?

 

[TCRS]

Jesus christ. Why are unions in the UK so destructive?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Jesus christ. Why are unions in the UK so destructive?

Well, it was up to their members to vote against the will of the Unite management.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Well, it was up to their members to vote against the will of the Unite management.

As I understand it, about 49% of members voted to reject the deal and union rules say you don't need a majority, just a majority of who atually bothered to vote? Also, I'm sure Unite put pressure on it's members to reject the deal.

It's ok for Unite top brass though like Len on his £100k+ salary.

Edit: A lot of workers are stunned by this, I'd bet they never thought they would go through with closing the plant. This can't help the SNP's argument for independence either, this complex contributed a billion pounds to the Scottish economy which shows how potentially shaky the Scottish economy is.

 

[Jezbollah]

Just to clarify - it's the petrochemical part of the Grangemouth plant that has closed.

There is still a vote to be had for the rest of the plant (the refinery) - if we see a repeat of that vote then the entire plant will shut.

The plant as it is has been suffering massive losses, and it seems Unite were not prepared to advise their members at the site to changes as part of a plan to fix these losses - and in turn that means that rather than have changed employment terms, they're unemployed.

No win situation for all involved. Very sad.

 

[8bit]

There's a lot wrong here, but above all I'm surprised it wasn't raised during PMQs today and the Conservatives left the chambers before the urgent question on Grangemouth from the Greens.

But that's OK, we've got an ugly child to fawn over instead.

Oh and BASF are closing the Paisley plant, so it's not a good day for the Chemical industry in Scotland, without which I wouldn't be where I am now.

 

[pulsemyne]

Jesus christ. Why are unions in the UK so destructive?

Yes how dare the unions want to protect workers wages and pensions!

The fact is if the plant is losing money then it's most likely down to bad management and outdated processes as opposed to the workers wanting a small pay rise. Some people seem to have this misguided idea that unions are there to make crazy demands and lose people their jobs. It's no the 1970's you know.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yes how dare the unions want to protect workers wages and pensions!

The fact is if the plant is losing money then it's most likely down to bad management and outdated processes as opposed to the workers wanting a small pay rise. Some people seem to have this misguided idea that unions are there to make crazy demands and lose people their jobs. It's no the 1970's you know.

But it has ended up with them losing their jobs... The unions have not protected anything here. Zilch. What would be better, a three year pay freeze or no job at all?

Do you really think if a venture is profitable for a company they would just close it down because they can't implement a pay freeze? It's OK for the bigwigs at the helm of the union though, they get to keep their cushy jobs.

 

[War Peaceman]

But it has ended up with them losing their jobs... The unions have not protected anything here. Zilch. What would be better, a three year pay freeze or no job at all?

Do you really think if a venture is profitable for a company they would just close it down because they can't implement a pay freeze? It's OK for the bigwigs at the helm of the union though, they get to keep their cushy jobs.

I don't see what focusing on the 'bigwigs' at the union achieves? Just because they have high paid executives doesn't make them an irrelevant force, that seems illogical. (Note: I am not justifying such salaries either, if they are prevalent)

It is a union's role to push for better worker rights and pay. This is generally counter-balanced by the company's desire to keep costs lows and utilise labour 'efficiently', which often comes at the expense of the worker. The balance between these two is a very important part of responsible capitalism, and realistically this balance has overwhelmingly been in favour of business since Thatcher.

That is not to say that unions are faultless - as with any organisation they can become corrupt, unwieldy and socially bad. Indeed, if the government (and this applies to New Labour almost as much) did a better job in protecting worker wages/salaries and working standards, then unions would probably be less necessary anyway (though unions are likely needed as a pressure job to achieve this...).

Jobs are good for people but they can't be seen as some sacred cow that you must keep at all odds, despite pay freezes or pension changes. If the business was well run then they could have accommodated for this, made changes (which may have meant some level of staff turnover) or negotiated better. Instead it seems that a poorly run business failed and people are now, sadly, unemployed.

Business failure doesn't have to be a bad thing, providing that the government provides adequate and effective safety measures for the unemployed (they don't) and that the economic environment is ripe for replacement and improvement.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Jesus christ. Why are unions in the UK so destructive?

To be fair not all unions are like this. The unions involved with the restructuring of the UK automotive industry a few years back were incredibly flexible and wanted to save as many jobs as possible. In the end because of good relations between the unions and management the industry is healthier now than it has been for many years, and it is expanding. The unions played a big part in the renaissance of vehicle manufacturing in this country, without them I think we would have seen more factory closures in 2009/10 and the current manufacturing recovery we have seen in the sector would not have happened as the skills would have been lost for good.

In this case, from what I have read it is a personal beef between Unite barons and the management of INEOS who suspended the union rep without pay for misconduct after being involved with Labour's Falkirk selection scandal.

The whole situation in Grangemouth is horrible, massive loss of jobs for everyone involved and a massive loss of income for Scotland and skills for the wider industry. The union, in this case, is most definitely to blame, but I wouldn't blame every union for all labour disputes all the time, that isn't fair.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Yes how dare the unions want to protect workers wages and pensions!

The fact is if the plant is losing money then it's most likely down to bad management and outdated processes as opposed to the workers wanting a small pay rise. Some people seem to have this misguided idea that unions are there to make crazy demands and lose people their jobs. It's no the 1970's you know.

In this case the union was being incredibly unreasonable and inflexible. The reason the plant was losing money is because ethene feedstock is no longer a readily available to source from North Sea oil, at least in the quantities required, which meant massive expense to crack heavier chains down to ethene, that meant the plant was making massive losses as the price of the commodities they produce are set internationally by the market, but the price of the commodity they require is set by the cost to make it locally. To get around that the management proposed a rescue package where they would invest £200m on ethene importation facilities, but in order to do that they would have to freeze wages and cut costs in other areas like pension rights, no such thing as a free lunch and all that.

The union said that they wanted the free lunch, INEOS said it would not be affordable to invest £200m without cost cutting measures up front, and if the union called for a strike it would only exacerbate losses causing the plant to close entirely. The union said management were bluffing and balloted for a one week strike, they won the ballot and workers went on strike. They came back to the negotiating table after the strike, but the damage was already done and now the plant has been closed and liquidators have been brought in.

In this case the union are at fault, they should have taken a deal, maybe reduced the pay freeze to two years or something. They should not have gone on strike at the drop of a hat or bet that the management were bluffing about closure of a loss making plant.

The worst part is that the average wage of the people in question is around £50k, so it's not like the unions were sticking up for low paid workers against ideological management cuts. The solution proposed by the management seemed reasonable to most people, and it seems that the personal beef between Unite and the management at INEOS has led to the loss of almost 1000 jobs and possibly a further 1000 if a deal can't be agreed for the rescue of the refinery.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I don't see what focusing on the 'bigwigs' at the union achieves? Just because they have high paid executives doesn't make them an irrelevant force, that seems illogical. (Note: I am not justifying such salaries either, if they are prevalent)

It is a union's role to push for better worker rights and pay. This is generally counter-balanced by the company's desire to keep costs lows and utilise labour 'efficiently', which often comes at the expense of the worker. The balance between these two is a very important part of responsible capitalism, and realistically this balance has overwhelmingly been in favour of business since Thatcher.

That is not to say that unions are faultless - as with any organisation they can become corrupt, unwieldy and socially bad. Indeed, if the government (and this applies to New Labour almost as much) did a better job in protecting worker wages/salaries and working standards, then unions would probably be less necessary anyway (though unions are likely needed as a pressure job to achieve this...).

Jobs are good for people but they can't be seen as some sacred cow that you must keep at all odds, despite pay freezes or pension changes. If the business was well run then they could have accommodated for this, made changes (which may have meant some level of staff turnover) or negotiated better. Instead it seems that a poorly run business failed and people are now, sadly, unemployed.

Business failure doesn't have to be a bad thing, providing that the government provides adequate and effective safety measures for the unemployed (they don't) and that the economic environment is ripe for replacement and improvement.

ZOMG has explained in a far more elegant way than I ever could above, the blame with this particular fiasco lies firmly with Unite. I keep going on about the union bigwigs on their big salaries because they are the ones who tell the members to strike and reject all deals, in effect putting their necks on the line, while they are safe and cosy themselves.

 

[Jezbollah]

The thing is, in certain scenarios in life, you have to adapt to survive. Benefits in the 80s, 90s etc are now unsustainable - such as final salary pension schemes (which I gather the ending of which was one of the points in the Grangemouth saga) - millions of workers have had to cease their schemes, myself included in my old company in the City.

I guess I'm naive to think that as workers we should help out if our company comes to us and asks to adapt to help better our companies (and by proxy, our) future - and as Zomg mentioned a good understanding between workers in or out of a union and management can go places - the car industry for example.

I feel sorry for the workers that they've lost their jobs, but I don't feel sorry for Unite, who have mis-read and mis-played the situation badly. I also would wonder how many people would feel sorry if they heard that the average salary of those was £50k.

This story has lots more that needs to be read into .

 

[CHEEZMO™]

If only we lived in a society where the interests of the owners of the means of production and those of the workers themselves weren't at odds.

 

[phisheep]

If only we lived in a society where the interests of the owners of the means of production and those of the workers themselves weren't at odds.

Glad we don't. In such a society it is the third leg of the triangle - the customers - who lose out, and that's all of us as well.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Glad we don't. In such a society it is the third leg of the triangle - the customers - who lose out, and that's all of us as well.

Indeed. it's hard to imagine a scenario I'm which £600m losses on 4 years are deemed sustainable for the greater good. From whose pockets would these losses come?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Indeed. it's hard to imagine a scenario I'm which £600m losses on 4 years are deemed sustainable for the greater good. From whose pockets would these losses come?

Those losses wouldn't exist presumably because prices would be higher.

 

[Jezbollah]

So it looks like Unite will put forth a deal to agree with the Ineos plans for the remainder of those working in the facility in Grangemouth, and the BBC are reporting that they hope this will persuade the owners to reverse plans to close the Petrochemical plant who's closure was announced today.

I really wonder how the 800 or so that were involved in today's announcement feel about their Union right now...

 

[CyclopsRock]

So it looks like Unite will put forth a deal to agree with the Ineos plans for the remainder of those working in the facility in Grangemouth, and the BBC are reporting that they hope this will persuade the owners to reverse plans to close the Petrochemical plant who's closure was announced today.

I really wonder how the 800 or so that were involved in today's announcement feel about their Union right now...

Based on that BBC article, it seems that the office staff where overwhelmingly against Unite's stance, with the shop floor workers being overwhelmingly for the union stance (based on their voting before the announcement that they'd close it - maybe some of them changed their mind afterwards). So I imagine it'll depend who you ask!

 

[kitch9]

Yes how dare the unions want to protect workers wages and pensions!

The fact is if the plant is losing money then it's most likely down to bad management and outdated processes as opposed to the workers wanting a small pay rise. Some people seem to have this misguided idea that unions are there to make crazy demands and lose people their jobs. It's no the 1970's you know.

They need to be realistic, if a venture is losing money had over fist and looking to correct that to protect jobs then the jobs must come first. Its not like the plant is raking it in and it was a further money grab.

I know a lot like to blame Maggie for the miners plight but the unions refusal to listen to common sense played the biggest role in them losing their jobs whilst Scargill put down his megaphone went home and carried on quaffing Champagne.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

So it looks like Unite will put forth a deal to agree with the Ineos plans for the remainder of those working in the facility in Grangemouth, and the BBC are reporting that they hope this will persuade the owners to reverse plans to close the Petrochemical plant who's closure was announced today.

I really wonder how the 800 or so that were involved in today's announcement feel about their Union right now...

Well I hope that there enough goodwill to resolve this with few to no job losses and INEOS invest money to turn the plant around.

Unite haven't covered themselves in glory so far in all of this.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

On a different subject. We've been doing some sums today on a possible energy windfall tax for a couple of corporate clients, they seem to think John Major's intervention was preparing the ground for such an announcement in the December statement.

We think the government could raise £0.8-1bn with a special "one-time" levy on the energy sector which they may use to cut fuel duty by 2p. Populism is popular...

 

[Nicktendo86]

On a different subject. We've been doing some sums today on a possible energy windfall tax for a couple of corporate clients, they seem to think John Major's intervention was preparing the ground for such an announcement in the December statement.

We think the government could raise £0.8-1bn with a special "one-time" levy on the energy sector which they may use to cut fuel duty by 2p. Populism is popular...

2p? Oooohh might turn the heating up another bar.

On a serious note, if anyone has put your heating in yet here in the south there is something wrong with you/your insulation. It has not been the slightest bit cold, whenever I see people in hats and gloves I want to tell them to see a doctor to get their circulation checked out.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

2p? Oooohh might turn the heating up another bar.

On a serious note, if anyone has put your heating in yet here in the south there is something wrong with you/your insulation. It has not been the slightest bit cold, whenever I see people in hats and gloves I want to tell them to see a doctor to get their circulation checked out.

Fuel duty on petrol!

 

[pulsemyne]

But it has ended up with them losing their jobs... The unions have not protected anything here. Zilch. What would be better, a three year pay freeze or no job at all?

Do you really think if a venture is profitable for a company they would just close it down because they can't implement a pay freeze? It's OK for the bigwigs at the helm of the union though, they get to keep their cushy jobs.

Maybe the multi-billionaire owner could cough up some money for a pay rise for the workers. Maybe he could put some of his money towards the plant being restructured (estimated cost 300m) and not only save the jobs but also turn the place profitable. One thing is for certain, taking a dump on the workers wouldn't solve anything. A pay freeze will not help a company losing 10 million a month, all it does is piss people off. They are already losing the 10 million a month so if wages are the problem then they would have to be cut. It's a smokescreen for what is likely to be happening behind the scenes; an attempt to offload the plant to another company.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Maybe the multi-billionaire owner could cough up some money for a pay rise for the workers. Maybe he could put some of his money towards the plant being restructured (estimated cost 300m) and not only save the jobs but also turn the place profitable. One thing is for certain, taking a dump on the workers wouldn't solve anything. A pay freeze will not help a company losing 10 million a month, all it does is piss people off. They are already losing the 10 million a month so if wages are the problem then they would have to be cut. It's a smokescreen for what is likely to be happening behind the scenes; an attempt to offload the plant to another company.

1. That's not how he became a billionaire.
2. It would not be sustainable in the long term if the facility doesn't achieve baseline profitability even after the investment.
3. There is no such thing as a free lunch, the shareholders would want to see increased returns for increased investment.
4. The problem is the loss of a cheap source of ethene, which is what the investment would be about, even with it, the ethene won't be as cheap as before, hence the cost saving measures.
5. It looks like INEOS are going to make the deal and get the investment rolling, but the union rep could be sacked for misconduct, so it's not likely they were looking to sell.

 

[8bit]

Seems an agreement has been reached.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

--

The Daily Record seems to think there's a bit of creative book cookery going on at Grangemouth:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/grangemouth-bailout-ineos-screw-taxpayer-2528931

“If we actually look at the accounts of the chemicals operation for 2012, the actual basic profitability, it made £7million. The year before, it made £6million. That is basic trading.

“What they did was quite unusual.

“They said they were facing major financial difficulties. They then said they were going to write off£390million of plant and equipment at the site. That is extraordinary.

“But Ineos chemicals was not loss-making.

“They then said, if we write off this sum, we won’t be able to pay off the money we have borrowed from other Ineos companies. So they were released from repaying loans of £464million.

“The net effect was they made a gain, they actually made an exceptional profit. Ineos said, you don’t have to repay the loans, so the loans they wrote off were greater than the assets.

“The net effect was they made a profit on the write-offs of £69million.

“As a result of the write-offs, they also did something else. They reckoned they had a tax credit of £79million.

“We have two conflicting stories. One is that the company were doing badly. On the other side, they are saying we are going to recognise we have got deferred tax assets.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

0.8% GDP growth. Solid figure, detail shows it may be uprated to 0.9% as well.

Manufacturing and construction up as well. Solid set of figures.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Exactly as predicted, oil and gas extraction knocked 0.1% off the figure. Excluding oil and gas the GVA is up by 0.9% with it, GDP is up by 0.8% so the strong mining, extraction and quarrying elsewhere has masked the fall in oil and gas.

Otherwise it is a broadbased recovery.

One thing I hope the government look at is reclassifying the creative industries (animation, movies, music, games, graphic design) in production rather than services. All of these industries produce tangible goods but mostly on a digital level rather than physical one. The ONS needs to move with the times.

 

[CyclopsRock]

One thing I hope the government look at is reclassifying the creative industries (animation, movies, music, games, graphic design) in production rather than services. All of these industries produce tangible goods but mostly on a digital level rather than physical one. The ONS needs to move with the times.

Yup, definitely. We produce real products and, best of all, the UK´s creative industries are huge exporters too.

 

[pulsemyne]

Seems an agreement has been reached.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

--

The Daily Record seems to think there's a bit of creative book cookery going on at Grangemouth:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/grangemouth-bailout-ineos-screw-taxpayer-2528931

Not even slightly surprised.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Yup, definitely. We produce real products and, best of all, the UK´s creative industries are huge exporters too.

Massive exports and job creation, we estimate £12-16bn per year is exported by the creative industries and it supports around 1.5m jobs in the country directly and in support industries such as costume design, set design, tertiary education and others. Honestly the creative industries could, jointly, become one of the most important to Britain over the next five years. What we make is in demand globally (look at GTA5!) and the government needs to cash in by supporting the industry better with funded university places and such for related degrees.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Massive exports and job creation, we estimate £12-16bn per year is exported by the creative industries and it supports around 1.5m jobs in the country directly and in support industries such as costume design, set design, tertiary education and others. Honestly the creative industries could, jointly, become one of the most important to Britain over the next five years. What we make is in demand globally (look at GTA5!) and the government needs to cash in by supporting the industry better with funded university places and such for related degrees.

100% agree, people always say Britain doesn't make anything anymore but we do, just new and different 'things'. We as a nation are great at adapting to the times and need to celebrate/nurture that.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Interesting little table I stumbled on earlier...

 

[SKINNER!]

Lots of Oxford graduates on that table.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Lots of Oxford graduates on that table.

16 out of 18 of the post-WW2 election winners. Brown went to Glasgow but he didn't win a GE.

 

[Sage00]

Gordon Brown went to Edinburgh actually.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Gordon brown never won a mandate from the public. He was appointed leader by the Labour party.

In other news, the composite PMIs point to an annualised growth rate of 4.8%, very strong performance in all sectors. Our figure takes into account a slowdown in oil and gas, while the higher 5.2% figure others are using does not, PMI measures manufacturing rather than production.

What's more is that the sustainability of the recovery is getting stronger as the weeks pass. Business investment is starting to rise again and our proprietary pay index was 51.2 for the month of October while the inflation index was 51.4 which means that gap is starting to close as well. People's disposable incomes are starting to rise.

Moving onto the December statement from the chancellor. Things we would like to see:

A continuation of the unemployment benefits freeze at 1% for a further year.

An uprating of the minimum wage in line with inflation (we think the market can take it this year) to £6.50/h from £6.31/h. That would mean the annual wage for a full time worker goes up from £13,120 to £13,520 - an increase of £400 per year, or £800 for a couple both earning the minimum wage.

A £750m-900m windfall tax on energy companies to fund 2p off the pump price, double whammy there, helps keep inflation down and helps with the cost of living.

Raising the public sector pay freeze from 1% to 1.5% for 2014/15 for people on the basic income tax rate. Keep it at 1% for the higher rate earners.

All new infrastructure programme and tentative funding approval for "a new runway somewhere in London" basically meaning Heathrow.

Reduction in charges for planning and housebuilding by local government. Building a new home in London costs £125k in labour and materials, councils add around £70k to that cost bringing the total cost close to £200k making lots of cheaper and affordable housing unprofitable for companies.

Announcement of new fracking licences and the final green light. Get that oil and gas output growing again. A reminder from the chancellor that the fall in oil and gas output has caused a 1.4% loss of GDP growth since 2009/10 and a huge loss in productivity.

Those measures would help a lot of people and it would help the economy get moving too. I think the boost in the minimum wage would be a good economic stimulus that the private sector can afford without requiring government help. Going up to £7.85 as has been suggested would lead to an immediate loss of jobs and rebalancing of prices towards the Swiss model. It may be a decent long term goal, but for now any large change would push us back towards economic contraction and higher unemployment.

 

[Jackpot]

Gordon brown never won a mandate from the public. He was appointed leader by the Labour party.

um, in the UK you elect the party not the leader. Anyone who voted for Labour back then and didn't realise they'd end up with Brown shouldn't have been voting full stop.

 

[Bleepey]

um, in the UK you elect the party not the leader. Anyone who voted for Labour back then and didn't realise they'd end up with Brown shouldn't have been voting full stop.

I keep hearing the right remind people of this like they are saying something that deligitimises him when ewe all know what Jackpot said.