Ed Miliband Has Wrecked The Labour Party.

[L00b]

There's a nice little graph here

Interesting that it does not specify the ratio of fuel duty to fuel litre price.

 

1995: 73%

1996: 77%

2000: 77%

2005: 66%

2007: 67%

 

#just sayin'

[Hillpig]

Notwithstanding L00b's very lucid and accurate analysis above, you have also missed another point.

 

Milliband has clearly recognised the need for politicians to take a stand against the vested interests that threaten to wreck our country. You might like to compare and contrast today's scourges such as the energy companies/ high level bankers/ BBC executives/ multinational companies with a dislike of paying tax with the Trades Unions of the 1970s. They do have quite a bit in common.

 

I think that Ed has recognised this and the energy strategy is simply a sign of things to come. If he can tackle today's vested interests effectively, he might just become electable.

 

It won't be easy for him. We've seen today how different parts of the establishment align themselves to defend against any threat. A bit like a Trade Union for the rich and powerful. I hope that he succeeds.

 

The "vested interests" rely on the country to be prosperous. If it is not then the "vested interests" themselves suffer.

Leaving the energy companies aside for one moment

1. High level bankers and BBC remuneration was allowed to happen under a Labour government.

2. Multi national companies have no duty to site the HQs in this country and will naturally site them in countries that are tax friendly. It is up to governments to ensure that international regulation reflects modern situations.

3.If "Ed" thinks that he has any power over multi nationals he is more stupid than he appears, which is saying something.

4. Please define "vested interest".

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2013 at 16:05 ----------

 

It addresses it square on: regardless of whether it was NuLab's Milliband or, in an alternate reality, Tories' <pick a minister>, pressing the private energy industry into investing into renewables/alternative energy sources was long overdue, and becoming compulsive in view of long-in-the-making international treaties governing G8/G20 emissions. Labour was in charge at the material time, so it fell to Milliband.

 

The private energy sector got their hands on hitherto taxpayers' funded energy infrastructure for peanuts under Thatcher, and made a tidy sum on it until then, without a shadow of any investment into furthering/replacing that energy infrastructure (when that has always incumbed to them ever since the privatisation), what other choice was there than to compel them?

 

It's the scourge of UK industry/investments in many sectors, and has been for a very, very long time: invest as little as possible, essentially under short-term imperatives/projected gains, never look at the big picture. Then get overtaken by the (foreign) competition (e.g., in many specialist industrial sectors, the Germans, who do look at the big picture and the long-term) and race to the bottom.

 

I've lived it at the coal face in several traditional UK industries, one of which emblematic of Sheffield for at least a century (industrial cutting tools). And which is now less than a shadow of its former self, surviving on ultra-specialism. But the Chinese and Indians will nab that as well soon enough, now that they've got the know-how to go with their production capacity.

 

Putting aside policies steering the national economy towards services (a grave msitake, but well), that's exactly why industrial UK plc and transport UK plc are where they are: years behind the Continent, because private investors are happy raking it in, without investing to maintain/improve/renew the revenue-generating apparatus.

 

And? Why should the Gvt be held responsible for boardrooms investment decisions?

 

The Gvt is one stakeholder amongst very many, just-as-relevant others.

 

Moreover,

 

(i) notwithstanding the point you completely missed about "R&D" costs (do you understand what R&D means?), R&D expenditure is heavily tax-incentivised, has been for a long time. Lest you forget.

 

(ii) are you familiar with such corporate management concepts as capital expenditure, write-down periods and costs amortization?

I don't see it as an attack, but a loud/close warning shot. The ensuing squeals attest that it's been heard, and hopefully it will sharpen relevant minds.

 

I'm certainly more right than centre-right in my political outlook (but still a fair bit to the left of Attila the Hun ), and I make no bones about it. But I agree with the principle (rather than the actual policy proposed) behind Milliband's announcement. Because it's apolitical.

 

Whatever the circumstances, Milliband was the responsible minister at the time. To make no mention of this in his speech makes him a hypocrite.

 

The privatization of the energy industry was a resounding success, shareholders have been admirably compensated as I know to my benefit. More money has been invested in R&D under privatization than would even been contemplated under public ownership. However, I would be content to see a return of the industry to public ownership as long as governments stayed at arms length and it was not used as a political football like the NHS. Education etc.

 

I take your third paragraph to be a critique of investment in companies and short termism. There is some merit in your comment and I agree that the German model of small to medium sized businesses concentrating on quality, organic growth and long term planning is one we should seek to emulate.

 

I am familiar with the terms in your 4th paragraph, and also with the tricky nature of big company accountants. I am also aware that the way to deal with them is not to stand on a political platform shouting the odds and threatening actions that will never take place.

[L00b]

The "vested interests" rely on the country to be prosperous. If it is not then the "vested interests" themselves suffer.

Then the "vested interests" might wish to stop offshoring just about everything possible upstream and downstream from the UK-based point-of-sale (such as manufacturing, warehousing, after sales support, this-that-the other and all the employment that goes with it, and profits on which tax is aggressively avoided to the maximum borderline extent) because that results in a vicious rather than virtuous circle, wherein the country is simply being bled dry of its wealth.

 

Maximising profits is a laudable (nay, primary) goal of any private company, and that is not in dispute. But when that goal is attained at the expense of the very fabric which allows prosperity and indirectly sustains that company and others, that's the stage at which the snake starts eating its tail.

 

I.e. effectively what happened in the UK when the rush to Chinese manufacturers started. Since compounded by the financial crisis.

More money has been invested in R&D under privatization than would even been contemplated under public ownership.

Noone can say that for sure, and I have plenty of evidence that points to the contrary.

 

I have worked at the coalface of R&D in many sectors for 15+ years, and have worked with several companies heavily involved in energy production/distribution/infrastructure R&D: I can tell you that none of the big league UK energy companies invest much at all in R&D. Their small (and mostly unknown) suppliers do, though, in this and other countries. Mostly those of other countries, regrettably.

 

E.g. German and Danish wind turbine manufacturers have done the bulk of R&D heavy lifting in that sector over the past 2 decades and a bit, and have had the EU (and elsewhere) wind turbine markets sawn up since then. I should know, I've worked for a few. Google Vestas, e.g.

 

But that would have happened regardless of whether the UK energy grid/infrastructure had stayed nationalised. Nationalised industries routinely don't make/improve/invent their own machine tools, turbines, etc. : they just buy them in, after tender, from those people who know best about them and do so. Same with the big league private energy companies: at their scale, there's only so much vertical integration worth pursuing, before it becomes economically unviable.

 

Still...sounds like we are converging/finding some common ground

[Hillpig]

Then the "vested interests" might wish to stop offshoring just about everything possible upstream and downstream from the UK-based point-of-sale (such as manufacturing, warehousing, after sales support, this-that-the other and all the employment that goes with it, and profits on which tax is aggressively avoided to the maximum borderline extent) because that results in a vicious rather than virtuous circle, wherein the country is simply being bled dry of its wealth.

 

Maximising profits is a laudable (nay, primary) goal of any private company, and that is not in dispute. But when that goal is attained at the expense of the very fabric which allows prosperity and indirectly sustains that company and others, that's the stage at which the snake starts eating its tail.

 

I.e. effectively what happened in the UK when the rush to Chinese manufacturers started. Since compounded by the financial crisis.

Noone can say that for sure, and I have plenty of evidence that points to the contrary.

 

I have worked at the coalface of R&D in many sectors for 15+ years, and have worked with several companies heavily involved in energy production/distribution/infrastructure R&D: I can tell you that none of the big league UK energy companies invest much at all in R&D. Their small (and mostly unknown) suppliers do, though, in this and other countries. Mostly those of other countries, regrettably.

 

E.g. German and Danish wind turbine manufacturers have done the bulk of R&D heavy lifting in that sector over the past 2 decades and a bit, and have had the EU (and elsewhere) wind turbine markets sawn up since then. I should know, I've worked for a few. Google Vestas, e.g.

 

But that would have happened regardless of whether the UK energy grid/infrastructure had stayed nationalised. Nationalised industries routinely don't make/improve/invent their own machine tools, turbines, etc. : they just buy them in, after tender, from those people who know best about them and do so. Same with the big league private energy companies: at their scale, there's only so much vertical integration worth pursuing, before it becomes economically unviable.

 

Still...sounds like we are converging/finding some common ground

 

Indeed, at the end of the day no matter where you stand politically, we, as a nation, need to make things work.

 

One mistake I think some contributors make is thinking too "nationally" multi national, as their name implies have few or little national allegiances. Governments must work together to consolidate taxation and other laws so that "havens" are eliminated.

 

I read with interest your statement regarding heavy equipment, it reflects the fact that where we once led the world we now lag behind, it is this type of industry that we must recover.

[blake]

18 months before the poll, Labour are on course to just cruise it by a narrow margin if they don't do anything stupid. Even the Tories know this and a lot of them fear that the coalition may have diluted the Tory brand.

 

nobody knows just what exactly the Tories are supposed to be for any more. They have paid the price, for going into government with a bunch of cretins.

[Happ Hazzard]

If Labour win this country is finished forever. Seriously. We are entering the end of days. How can a country function when people that just take can outvote the people that contribute to society? If you deducted the votes from people that are net recipients from the state over their lifetime, would Labour even have a single seat?

[Mecky]

If Labour win this country is finished forever. Seriously. We are entering the end of days. How can a country function when people that just take can outvote the people that contribute to society? If you deducted the votes from people that are net recipients from the state over their lifetime, would Labour even have a single seat?

 

Bye then boo boy

[Happ Hazzard]

I'm not going to kill myself just because Labour get back in.

[LeMaquis]

They have paid the price, for going into government with a bunch of cretins.

 

What alternative did they have? They didn't have a majority. And it says something that they needed cretins to agree to vote for their policies.

[avidcameron]

I'm not going to kill myself just because Labour get back in.

 

Oh well,I guess I will still vote Labour regardless.