Chocolate Wars

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/ and others are enjoying a political non-spat between Ed Miliband (of the new/old Labour) and David Cameron (current Prime Minister). Typical is: Political exchanges don’t come much more important than this – Ed Miliband has picked a fight with David Cameron over cheap chocolate.
In an interview for Parliament’s magazine The House, Miliband has taken umbrage with a pre-election complaint made by Cameron in 2006 about the problem of cut price chocolate orange bars taking the place of real fruit in WH Smith’s, to the detriment of the nation’s health. It was used as an example of irresponsible capitalism as Britain faced an obesity crisis.
“Look, if he can’t sort out the chocolate orange, he’s not going to be sort out the train companies, the energy companies, the banks, is he?” Miliband said in the interview.
He has a point – I would love (not) to have a Prime Minister who delays encouraging the EU to sort out the Euro worries without destroying the world economy to pick off a personal irritant. Wouldn’t we all like to zap the people who annoy us? Or as Alex Massie puts it: Let me suggest that a man who thinks this – will not consider any aspect of your lives beyond the proper interfering purview of government.
It’s rather like in the old days when I was working in Zambia. You needed Bank of Uganda permission to export dead animal parts derived from hunting. One document I liked to see was the Certificate of Non Endangered Species. Of course no one told the poor (now deceased) rhinoceros of that!

It makes the Paris Bourse look like a parish council

An open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Published in the Express – see below for a link to the original and the comments).
Tuesday December 13,2011
By Frederick Forsyth Dear Madame Chancellor,
Permit me to begin this letter with a brief description of my knowledge of, and affection for, your country.
I first came to Germany as a boy student aged 13 in 1952, two years before you were born. After three extended vacations with German families who spoke no English. I found at the age of 16, and to my pleasure, that I could pass for German among Germans.In my 20s I was posted as a foreign correspondent to East Germany. in 1963, when you would have been a schoolgirl, just north of East Berlin where I lived.
I know Germany, Frau Merkel, from the alleys of Hamburg to the spires of Dresden, from the Rhine to the Oder, from the bleak Baltic coast to the snows of the Bavarian Alps I say this only to show you that I am neither ignoramus nor enemy.
I also had occasion in those years to visit the many thousands of my countrymen who held the line of the Elbe against 50,000 Soviet main battle tanks and thus kept Germany free to recover, modernise and prosper at no defence cost to herself. And from inside the Cold War I saw our decades of effort to defeat the Soviet empire and set your East Germany free.
I was therefore disappointed last Friday to see you take the part of a small and vindictive Frenchman in what can only be seen as a targeted attack on the land of my fathers.
We both know that every country has at least one aspect of its society or economy that is so crucial, so vital that it simply cannot be conceded. For Germany it is surely your automotive sector, your car industry. Any foreign-sourced measure to target German cars and render them unsaleable would have to be opposed to veto point by a German chancellor.
For France it is the agricultural sector. For more than 50 years members of the EU have been taxed under the terms of the Common Agricultural Policy in order to subsidise France ‘s agriculture. Indeed, the CAP has been the cornerstone of every EU budget since the first day. Attack it and France fights back.
For us the crucial corner of our economy is the financial services industry. Although parts of it exist all over the country it is concentrated in that part of London known, even internationally, as “The City”.It is not just a few greedy bankers; we both have those, but the City is far more. It is indeed a vast banking agglomeration of more banks than anywhere else in the world.
But that is the tip of the iceberg. Also in the City is the world’s greatest concentration of insurance companies. Add to that the brokers, traders in stocks and shares worldwide, second only, and then maybe not, to Wall Street. But it is not just stocks. The City is also home to the exchanges of gold and precious metals, diamonds, base metals, commodities, futures, derivatives, coffee, cocoa… the list goes on and on. And it does not yet touch upon shipping, aviation, fuels, energy, textiles… enough.
Suffice to say the City is the biggest and busiest marketplace in the world. It makes the Paris Bourse look like a parish council set against the United Nations and even dwarfs your Frankfurt many times.
That, surely, is the point of what happened in Brussels. The French wish to wreck it and you seem to have agreed. Its contribution to the British economy is not simply useful nor even merely valuable. It is absolutely crucial. The financial services industry contributes 10 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product and 17.5 per cent of our taxation revenue. A direct and targeted attack on the City is an attack on my country. But that, although devised in Paris, is what you have chosen to support. You seem to have decided that Britain is once again Germany’s enemy, a situation that has not existed since 1945. I deeply regret this but the choice was yours and entirely yours. The Transaction Tax or Tobin Tax, you reserve the right to impose, would not even generate money for Brussels. It would simply lead to massive emigration from London to other havens. Long ago it was necessary to live in a city to trade in it. In the days when deals can flash across the world in a nano-second all a major brokerage needs is a suite of rooms, computers, telephones and the talent of the young people barking offers and agreements down the phone. Such a suite of rooms could be in Berne, Thun, Zurich or even Singapore. Under your Tobin Tax tens of thousands would leave London. This would not help Brussels, it would simply help destroy the British economy. Your conference did not even save the Euro. Permit me a few home truths about it.
The euro is a Franco-German construct. It was a German chancellor (Kohl) who ordered a German banker (Karl Otto Pohl) to get together with a French civil servant (Delors) on the orders of a French president (Mitterrand) and create a common currency. Which they did. It was a flawed construct. Like a ship with a twisted hull it might float in calm water but if it ever hit a force eight it would probably founder. Even then it might have worked for it was launched with a manual of rules, the Growth And Stability Pact. If the terms of that book of rules had been complied with the Good Ship Euro might have survived. But compliance was entrusted to the European Central Bank which catastrophically failed to insist on that compliance. Rules governing the growing of cucumbers are more zealously enforced. This was an European Bank in a German city under a French president and it failed in its primary, even its sole, duty. This had everything to do with France and Germany and nothing whatever to do with Britain. Yet in Brussels last week the EU pack seemed intent only on venting its spleen on the country that wisely refused to abolish its pound. You did not even address yourselves to saving the Euro but only to seeking a way to ensure it might work in some future time. But the Euro will not be saved. It is crumbling now. And since you have now turned against my country, from this side of the Channel, Madame Chancellor, one can only say of the euro: YOU MADE IT, YOU MEND IT.
The full article (and the comments) may be found  on http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/289553/Frederick-ForsythAn-open-letter-to-German-Chancellor-Angela-MerkelAn-open-letter-to-German-Chancellor-Angela-MerkelAn-open-letter-to-German-Chancellor-Angela-Merkel

Time to Make Noise (2)

I copied my correspondence on noise with the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sport to Tim  Yeo, my M.P.
I received the following e-mail response:

Dear Cllr Riley,
Tim is currently in Suffolk so has asked me to thank you for sending him a copy of your letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding your concerns about its proposal to deregulate Section One of the Licensing Act 2003.
Tim has written to the relevant Minister about this.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Williams
Parliamentary Assistant to Tim Yeo MP

It’s nice to receive support from a high level.

Time to Make Noise

 

Brett River Valley

Please write to:
Nigel Wakelin
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH
Or email  regulated_entertainment_consultation@culture.gsi.gov.uk
Why – because The Department of Culture Media & Sport wishes to deregulate
Schedule One of the Licensing Act 2003 (http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8408.aspx).
Boring as this sounds it will affect everyone in Hadleigh and beyond. Licensing protects our town from event promoters destroying our rights to peaceful enjoyment.
The Department’s  proposals, would mean that no licence permissions would be needed for any entertainment event/activities for up to 5000 persons. Activities such as amplified live or recorded music, whether indoors or outdoors, could take place in a whole host of different venues – whether in night time economy areas or residential/rural areas. There would be little or no prior scrutiny or enforceable control measures such as limitations on timings, area or frequency.
The local, transparent and inclusive licensing system, which has determined and mediated many contested licence applications since 2005 in a balanced and fair manner would be undone at a stroke.
What does it mean for us: well for a start there will be no curfew, so events would no longer stop at 11 p.m. but instead could run through the night. There will be no limitation on noise so, for example, a rave at the Football Club could run for days and be heard all over the town.
If the Department gets its way then any complaints will be dealt with on a reactive basis and it’s quite possible that the Council and the Police will have had no prior notice of the event and so find it difficult to track down the persons responsible for the nuisance.
We have until the 3rd December to let the Department know our views!.
Babergh are responding (see http://www.babergh.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BE20FA1A-E4DC-4003-99EB-C40EDA05A55D/0/L94.pdf) and we should support them by writing vigorously to the department as indicated above.
Remember we have nothing to lose but the peaceful enjoyment  of our town! The more noise we generate now will save us from enduring excessive noise in the future

Listening to the Market

The current political book in the market place is Brown at 10 by Anthony Seldon. Amazon has it at £10.39 [Hardcover] being a 31% discount on the recommended retail price  of £14.99. Surfing around on Amazon will also let you buy it for £7.56. It is 10,644 in Books on Amazon Bestsellers’ Rankings
Similarly Back from the Brink: 1,000 Days at Number 11 by Alistair Darling  is
discounted down from £19.99 (Hardcover) to £10.39 (48%) . Shopping around will
find it for £9.11. However it is 54 in Books on Amazon Bestsellers’ Rankings
Meanwhile Ed: The Milibands and the making of a Labour leader by Mehdi Hasan and James Macintyre  is on the market for £9.97 down from £16.99  (41%). Careful shopping will find it new for £9.46. It is 34,297 in Books  on Amazon Bestsellers’ Rankings.
So what’s the lesson – well markets can go up and they can also go down but these books are heading for Poundland, the local charity shop or else they will be released into the wild (see http://www.bookcrossing.com).

To the barricades!

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6342 reads as follows:  At present the British Parking Association is lobbying hard to make vehicle keepers liable for parking penalties. The BPA are responsible for the very vague Part 3 Chapter 2 Clause 56 in the Protection of Freedoms Bill entitled “Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges”.
The clause reads “Schedule 4 (which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving the vehicle when the charges were incurred) has effect.”
British law provides the protection of innocence until proven guilty (paraphrasing the Magna Carta). Even the EU enshrines this in the The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Clause 56 seeks to apply criminal powers to a civil matter.
Clause 56 will make the keeper guilty UNLESS they can prove their innocence and MUST be removed from the bill before parliament.
The Honest John column in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph contains the following comment:  “In case readers are unfamiliar with Clause 56, it will allow any member of the British Parking Association to pursue any registered keeper of any car for any parking penalty the BPA cooks up. It is an outrageous licence to support”.
Please sign the petition and circulate as appropriate.

Social Housing For All Saturday 4thJune 2011

Today’s Daily Telegraph  reports  that there are up to 6,000 people in social housing with an income greater than £100,000.

A range of options is now being considered to free up this housing, which ministers say is being kept from those in need. Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, told The Daily Telegraph: “With so many people in housing need languishing on the waiting lists which doubled under Labour, it’s right to consider whether people on £100,000-plus salaries should get their rent subsidised by the taxpayer. Social housing is an expensive and scarce resource which should be targeted on supporting those in real need.”

The Conservatives use the example of Frank Dobson, the Labour MP who was still living in his council house, despite being a Cabinet
minister under Tony Blair and drawing a six-figure salary.

Bob Crow, the militant leader of the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers), chooses to live in a council house in London despite his pay and perks package as union general secretary totalling more than £140,000. The rent is estimated to be around £150 a week – a figure that would be much higher in the private sector. His spokesman recently said that Mr Crow makes “no apology” for living in social housing.

Under the plans Mr Crow would be among those being asked to move out of social housing.

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555223/Rich-to-lose-their-subsidised-council-homes.html

Transatlantic differences Sunday 29th May 2011

The Economist of May 19th 2011 under the heading “Decoding DSK – What his fall says about transatlantic differences in attitudes to sex, power and the law” has an interesting commentary on US and European attitudes to the Strauss-Kahn affair. How much privacy should public figures enjoy? What are the possible consequences of a culture of silence? Will other misdeeds such as corruption, misuse of public assets and outright theft be hidden?

One fact is beyond doubt. In America a lowly African immigrant hotel chamber maid obtained a swift response from the police to her complaint of sexual assault. Her alleged assailant’s innocence or guilt will be determined by the court. But the authorities did not refrain from arresting the head of the IMF, nor from demanding that he be kept in jail on remand. Could we have expected this in Great Britain or in Continental Europe? The full article may be found on http://www.economist.com/node/18713896

Hot on the heels of DSK comes the revelation in the NY Times on 29th May that Board members at the IMF  are not subject to the ethics officer’s oversight. There is one set of ethics guidelines for the rank-and-file staff and another
for the elite executive directors who oversee the organization.