Bolitics The New Condem Government

[avfc89]

to compare the damage done with sky to that by dirty desmond's celeb glossies is either to deliberately mislead or woefully naive.

see I don't think so

Thanks to hello magazine we have young girls growing up wanting to be like Katie Price ..and that is far far worse than anything Murdoch has ever done

I thought the Tories were always big believers in the individual's choice; I guess not in certain areas

[snowychap]

Is the vice captain of the team of liars being paid off or pulled closer to the bosom of the coalition?

Simon Hughes gets higher education role

The coalition yesterday opened the door to reshaping its plans to help disadvantaged children enter higher education when it appointed Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, to a new role of advocate for access to higher education.

The unprecedented unpaid appointment was agreed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg before Christmas, and follows the huge controversy that followed the Commons decision to treble tuition fees from 2012.

In an admission that he is losing the propaganda war, Cameron, in his letter appointing Hughes, claimed there was a "material risk" poor schoolchildren would be put off by "misinformation" from applying to higher education institutions or staying on to study A-levels.

Hughes is being asked to frame an effective message to communicate to low income families on how the government's aid package will help potential students deterred by the risk of huge debt.

It was also being stressed that Hughes will have the power to make policy recommendations for what should replace the abolished £560m education maintenance allowance aimed at helping poor children into further education. EMA subsidised young people in England who remain in education after the age of 16 by up to £30 a week if they came from poorer families.

Ministers claimed studies showed 90% of the 600,000 young people in receipt of EMA would have continued their studies anyway, and a better targeted replacement was required. The current EMA scheme is due to close to new applicants in January.

Hughes will also advise on the future shape of the planned £150m national scholarship fund. The coalition said it wants to look at a model of a foundation year for young people with high potential, but lower qualifications.

Hughes is also to be asked to look at ways in which universities charging more than £6,000 in fees annually will be obliged to meet obligations to make sure students from poor backgrounds are not deterred by fees as high as £9,000 a year.

The higher education minister, David Willetts, has already written to the Office of Fair Access asking it to draw up plans requiring universities charging more than £6,000 to set out schemes to ensure poor students are not priced out. The Willetts letter has been dismissed as vague by the National Union of Students.

However, the terms of reference of Hughes's appointment, released today, make it clear that the fundamentals of the trebling of tuition fees will not be open to any change. It states: "The advocate will focus on the effective communication and delivery of the government's policy programme, within the current budgetary parameters." Hughes is to be asked to prepare an initial communications strategy by the end of January.

But the terms of reference suggest his policy input may become more open ended, as it also states he will be asked to "develop with the government, particularly the Department for Education and the business department an engagement strategy which will allow young people to input into policy development on access to education".

His appointment will be for six months and he will report to the social mobility task force.

In accepting the post, Hughes did not pretend he could reopen the fundamentals of the tuition fee deal, saying "Parliament has settled the maximum university fee level in England from 2012 and we now have a critically important task to ensure that every potential student has access to all the facts about the costs, benefits and opportunities of further and higher education.

"I will work with every person of goodwill to ensure that from 2011 we have the best system of educational advice, information and support in place, designed to benefit all potential students and to ensure that disadvantaged young people increasingly gain access to further and higher education."

Hughes risked the wrath of his local Southwark constituency party when he defied its call to vote against the rise in tuition fees, and instead abstained.

Before the vote he had been influential behind the scenes in pressing for a broader access package for disadvantaged children.

The appointment represents a personal political risk for Hughes as he is likely to be lambasted by Labour as "the most useful of useful idiots" for taking up an appointment to sell such an unpopular policy that he had found impossible to support.

Labour sources said that it is a Conservative-led government that has trebled fees, propped up and supported by Lib Dem MPs and that no amount of window dressing can change the fact that these Tory policies will damage the least advantaged students and young people.

Labour claims Cameron is also developing a habit of hinting at policy U-turns, such as over school sports funding or Bookstart, but failing to come up with any specifics.

In his letter of appointment the prime minister told Hughes: "In the heat of the recent debate some of the elements of the package have been obscured and there is a material risk that young people – particularly those from disadvantaged groups – may be deterred from applying to university (or continuing their studies to gain university entrance qualifications) as a result of being misled about those financial impacts of the package."

Cameron said this risk applied especially to those aged 15-16 who will make decisions in the coming months on whether or not to stay on for A-levels.

"For them to be deterred from entering university as a result of misinformation would be a tragedy for them."

Coalition sources claimed Hughes has the political credentials to communicate government policy and reassure poorer students that the rise in tuition fees should not deter them from applying to elite universities.

[peterms]

Coalition sources claimed Hughes has the political credentials to communicate government policy and reassure poorer students that the rise in tuition fees should not deter them from applying to elite universities.

Those credentials presumably consisting of a period of public handwringing followed by abstaining, his local party having requested he vote against.

What will his argument be? Look, I was against this, and I made my views known forcefully. We managed to gain some concessions. Parliament has decided, though, so we have to accept that. The task now is to make this policy the best it can be, within the awful financial context bequeathed us by the last government. I hope my involvement will help to bring about some further improvements which will bring real benefit to people. And of course, I've made it clear that I will not accept payment for this work.

Translated: We're stuffing the poor to pay the rich, and I feel a bit grubby about it. Still, I've been told that if I help smooth over the cracks in party unity, there'll be a job for me in a few months' time, and I can claim credit for any marginal improvements in the policy and also credit for opposing it. I shall try to appear concerned, grave, and statesmanlike, while playing the "healer" role. I shall advance my standing with Nick and Dave, and I can point to the lack of personal payment as proof of my unimpeachable integrity.

[JulieB]

I don't do politics at all but I'm just reading on Money Marketing's website about the PMs forecast about 2011 being a bit of an annus horribilus.

Apparently 6.5 million UK citizens are unaware that even the VAT is going up to 20% next Tuesday. Flip knows how much fuel is going to cost.

What's making me angry is the continued squeezing of affordable credit to private individuals and SMEs by the Banks....and I'm becoming ever increasingly suspicious of exactly what's taking place behind the scenes.

We have an outgoing regulator whose key people often leave their cushy well paid jobs at HQ FSA Canary Wharf or the Treasury to take up positions on the board of banks...it's a scandal that this is allowed it's not being monitored at all and these people & the organisation they represent are given absolute rights of unaccountability to Parliament & the Law!!

Hot on the tracks of the recent MP's debate regarding the FSAs ill thought out Retail Distribution Review (RDR) which in it's present form looks destined to decimate the population of independent financial advice sector - making way for most people seeking advice from - yes you guessed it - the Banks! We have the impending Mortgage Market Review (MMR)

Whilst base rates have been 0.5% LIBOR at 0.78% lenders have been having a field day by making never before seen margins on loans & mortgages at well above LIBOR. Credit card interest rates have unbeleivably actually risen during this sustained period of historical low rates making the banks even more dosh to build up their balance sheets. As people have been unable to re-mortgage they have been forced to very often cover debts with more debt at yes you guessed it - higher interest rates.

The FSA despite being a failed regulator & on it's way out has put forward proposals in it's mortgage market review to make secured mortgages even tighter and more restrictive, particularly for the self employed. Anyone see the catch? Entrepeneurs in the past have secured their capital to open business ventures very often by using the security in their own properties by re-mortgaging, by making mortgages more difficult to obtain this will stifle credit at lower interest rates. This will force people to raise credit from other sources in the shape of commercial & personal loans, credit card debt etc. Whilst mortgages become more difficult to obtain you will still be able to borrow longer term at much higher interest rates using credit cards & personal unsecured & secured loans. Of course who who will be the winners in all this - yes you guessed it - the Banks and their widening profit margins!

I think a few commentators as well as thankfully some MPs on the Treasury Select Committee are starting to catch on to what's actually happening here and what's really driving these changes. It's worth noting that the new independent regulator the CPMA destined to be made of up 2/3rds of the present FSA staff with their apparent bias towards the Banking sector. How can an independent regulator be made up of so many ex bankers & staff who are destined to become bankers?!! Little wonder the recent FSA reports into RBS & the other High St collapses post Lehman brothers have been kept secret & considered a whitewash by Parliament, who themselves are now fighting to find out exactly what went on and who was to blame.

Call me cynical but to me the whole thing stinks!!

[Gringo]

What's making me angry is the continued squeezing of affordable credit to private individuals and SMEs by the Banks....and I'm becoming ever increasingly suspicious of exactly what's taking place behind the scenes.

The squeeze is just starting

ToryGraph"]Fresh mortgage drought warning as banks lending targets withdrawn

Under the terms of the bail-out deal struck with Government at the height of the financial crisis, Britain’s biggest high street lenders were set targets for how much they must lend to housebuyers.

These targets were imposed to ensure that ordinary people could still borrow money during the recession, and have helped stimulate the property market over the past two years.

But these lending targets are due to be withdrawn at the end of February 2011, when the state-owned banks Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland will be free to set their own lending levels.

[JulieB]

I think the problem was summed up rather well by one of my colleagues - "the banks are simply too big to regulate" and whilst many are calling for these huge institutions to be broken up globally, as well as in the UK & more competition to be injected into the sector, the banks themselves are fighting tooth & nail to stop this happening. As soon as they get a whiff of too much interference they threaten to move offshore, taking their taxes and jobs with them. At a time of public sector job cuts & high un-employment they have the government by the short & curlies currently it seems to me, so they carry on regardless.

Little wonder then that a fair few of the High St Banks are now in open defiance of the FSA's latest dictate regarding compensating the victims of mis-sold payment protection insurance - & what has been the penalties imposed by Mr Hector "Be Afraid" Sants?......... Absolutely Nowt!!

[drat01]

Cameron it seems has "escaped" from paying the correct amount of Tax on his inheritance from his father due to the way they conveniently structured his estate. He really is taking the piss when he claims we are all in this together.

Cameron inherits £300,000 tax free from his father, who left estate worth £2.7m

[JulieB]

With all due respect Cameron was never liable to pay the Inheritance Tax (IHT) - his fathers estate was - and in any case anything passed over to his spouse is exempt anyhow - IHT only kicks in on 2nd death above the Nil Rate Bandings. IHT is a voluntary tax & by careful planning, seeking good advice and the use of assets quailfying for Business Propety Relief or by gifting assets into Trust or using Trusts in Wills it can be largely avoided. However what is amusing is that HMRC are proposing to restrict IHT planning & close some of the loop holes, which Cameron senior has obviously utilised in the meantime.

Even the Housing Minister is getting worried about ridiculous amounts of Mortgage Regulation on the horizon Enter Mr Grant Shapps

[markavfc40]

Cameron it seems has "escaped" from paying the correct amount of Tax on his inheritance from his father due to the way they conveniently structured his estate. He really is taking the piss when he claims we are all in this together.

Cameron inherits £300,000 tax free from his father, who left estate worth £2.7m

Well at least it will help him cope with the rise in VAT and the loss of child benefit. They live in another world don't they.

[Awol]

Inheritance tax is a shameful invention full stop. You're taxed your whole life and then taxed again on what you manage to leave behind for your family - quite sick really.

[drat01]

With all due respect Cameron was never liable to pay the Inheritance Tax (IHT) - his fathers estate was - and in any case anything passed over to his spouse is exempt anyhow - IHT only kicks in on 2nd death above the Nil Rate Bandings. IHT is a voluntary tax & by careful planning, seeking good advice and the use of assets quailfying for Business Propety Relief or by gifting assets into Trust or using Trusts in Wills it can be largely avoided. However what is amusing is that HMRC are proposing to restrict IHT planning & close some of the loop holes, which Cameron senior has obviously utilised in the meantime.

Sorry Julie but that is just "not cricket". You say it can be "avoided" as though that is something to be proud of. Cameron and his cloisters holidaying chancellor keep trying to con the people into believing that we should all be in this together and all paying our bit to assist with the impact of their cuts. Its obvious though that Cameron et al are full of DS (and BS). Cameron does not need the money, nor does his family, by "avoiding" as you put it he basically is just taking monies that should be paid.

[drat01]

Inheritance tax is a shameful invention full stop. You're taxed your whole life and then taxed again on what you manage to leave behind for your family - quite sick really.

Not at all. It's a tax that has been part of the UK since 1796.

The 0% threshold is a reasonable amount for most people in the UK

[Awol]

Inheritance tax is a shameful invention full stop. You're taxed your whole life and then taxed again on what you manage to leave behind for your family - quite sick really.

Not at all. It's a tax that has been part of the UK since 1796.

The 0% threshold is a reasonable amount for most people in the UK

The length of time it has been around is irrelevant. If you manage to save enough to put yourself into the inheritance tax bracket why the hell should the State be allowed to take it from you?

[TrentVilla]

The length of time it has been around is irrelevant. If you manage to save enough to put yourself into the inheritance tax bracket why the hell should the State be allowed to take it from you?

Fair enough, Cameron obviously shares you view.

Now he is in a position to change things, so do you think we can expect him to change the law in this regard?

[snowychap]

Even the Housing Minister is getting worried about ridiculous amounts of Mortgage Regulation on the horizon Enter Mr Grant Shapps

Didn't 'innovation in the mortgage market' help us to where we are today (or were at the end of 2008)?

[JulieB]

Didn't 'innovation in the mortgage market' help us to where we are today (or were at the end of 2008)?

Erm not exactly in my book. It was surely more to do with the reckless way banks & other institutions gambled with mortgage books

& decided they could lend to people who could clearly ill afford the mortgage payments. Entirely under the noses of non existent regulators.

Most responsible lenders & old fashioned building societies who did what it says on the tin didn't go down because they managed

their lending books properly - only the lenders who lent in a totally irresponsible manner went down the pan, interestingly

enough every single one of the building societies who demutualised & transformed themselves into banks.

No one's saying that the lenders should go back to irresponsible lending but shutting the stable door when the horse has already bolted

& over regulating an already depressed market is not going to do anyone any good at all!

[snowychap]

Erm not exactly in my book. It was surely more to do with the reckless way banks & other institutions gambled with mortgage books

& decided they could lend to people who could clearly ill afford the mortgage payments.

I'd guess that was all 'innovative' whilst it worked.

Most responsible lenders & old fashioned building societies who did what it says on the tin didn't go down because they managed

their lending books properly...

Really? Or was it that they didn't quite get to the stage where their bluff was called?

No one's saying that the lenders should go back to irresponsible lending but shutting the stable door when the horse has already bolted

& over regulating an already depressed market is not going to do anyone any good at all!

Are they not? How otherwise would one expect to get back to the levels of lending from 2007/8 (in the near future)?

Is it depressed or is it just either depressed in relation to the levels it got to or even ground to a halt because of those bolted horses.

If one intends to get a new stableful of horses, it would be wise to deal with the stable door problem, wouldn't it?

[JulieB]

I'm not arguing with you Snowy - My take on this is that their are sinister reasons behind extra mortgage regulation as I've made clear earlier.

I was recently at the NW B of E quarterly meeting & it was only too clear that I am not alone in my suspicions. I'm talking from an inside perspective as I've been dealing with mortgages & financial services for a fair number of years.

If you choose to accept it all as fine & dandy then so be it, but by the time politicians & the general public realise the consequences in reality, this regulator will have long since dissappeared off the scene & all we'll be left with is alot of tutting & hand ringing & no one to blame!!

[snowychap]

I'm not arguing with you Snowy - My take on this is that their are sinister reasons behind extra mortgage regulation as I've made clear earlier.

I was recently at the NW B of E quarterly meeting & it was only too clear that I am not alone in my suspicions. I'm talking from an inside perspective as I've been dealing with mortgages & financial services for a fair number of years.

I don't doubt that there are dark forces at work.

There's money to be made and people involved ergo the interests of the many will be discarded and each interest group will be trying to see themselves right.

If you choose to accept it all as fine & dandy then so be it, but by the time politicians & the general public realise the consequences in reality, this regulator will have long since dissappeared off the scene & all we'll be left with is alot of tutting & hand ringing & no one to blame!!

I'm not quite sure what you think the consequences will be.

Most of what you have posted has concerned the plight of the IFA and the tightening of credit.

I'm sorry if I'm not likely to protest about the former and if I'm only really concerned about the latter where it regards SMEs (that are likely to assist in employing people and therefore help those who have chucked in their cash, metaphorically, to save their jobs and livelihoods).

I don't know where you get the idea that I am accepting anything - I rather think you appear to be fully in favour of the fine and dandiness that pervaded these areas of the economy before (and, anecdotally, still do - I know one person in recent times who got a dodgy mortgage from NatWest, for example).

[Awol]

The length of time it has been around is irrelevant. If you manage to save enough to put yourself into the inheritance tax bracket why the hell should the State be allowed to take it from you?

Fair enough, Cameron obviously shares you view.

Now he is in a position to change things, so do you think we can expect him to change the law in this regard?

No, he won't change anything. Lib/Con/Lab are all the same thing, even the nominal differences expressed in manifestos are happily binned once they get to power.

They all rule on the behalf of bankers, big business and the EU. The ideal of democracy that our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought for is dead.

Our people don't have the guts to resurrect it, X factor and controlled media filled with bullshit is all they want. Happy new year.