This is Rwendland's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Rwendland's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Paul, the way the Power Engineering industry magazine report the 40-year CfD idea may give you a useful quote to use: UK offers 40-year subsidies to encourage new nuclear builds Feb 19, 2013 ... The move is a reversal of an agreement made in 2010, under which ministers promised that no nuclear plants would be built in the country with public subsidy. Cost overruns for new nuclear build around the world as well as the exit of a number of utilities from the UK in recent years led the government to backtrack on its position. In an effort to ensure that the price of electricity remains below the politically symbolic number of 100 pounds ($155.21) per MWH, ministers are proposing contract extensions with state subsidies from the original 20 years to 30 and 40 years.
Off this topic, but I see that Nuclear Engineering International are reporting that despite all its problems the NDA intend to keep THORP running at Sellafield until 2018. What a wasted opportunity to get rid of it and save some money. And to continue producing more civilian plutonium when we don't know what to do - except keep spending money looking after it - with the 100+ tonnes we already have seems crazy.
Dear Mike I wonder if you've looked in detail at the effects on low income families of your suggestion that "tax credits are a mistake" and your "simple solution and that is to raise the tax threshold for the low paid". Can I illustrate the effect on a 2 adult + 2 child family, where 1 adult works 38 hours at about NMW? I'll compare it with a no tax credits regime with first £10,000 income tax and NI 0%, 20% tax thereafter: scheme: pay - tax - NI + CB + WTC + CTC = weekly-money 2007/8: 210.00 - 18.95 - 12.10 + 30.20 + 38.41 + 81.13 = 328.69 10k-taxfree: 210.00 - 3.54 - 1.94 + 30.20 + 0 + 0 = 234.72 So replacing tax credits with a large tax-free allowance reduces this family's money from £328/week to £234/week. The plain facts are that parents in NMW jobs do not get enough money to support children in a modern-day non-poverty environment that limits social-exclusion. The NMW would have to go up a lot to avoid this situation without something like tax-credits. I'd like to see NMW go up a lot, but that route runs into the dual problems of pricing jobs out of existance and encouraging more EU immigration. Really large NMW increases has to be pan-EU to avoid large population movement within the EU. (Example loosely based on table 1.6b of the 2007 Tax Benefit Model Tables. Unfortunately DWP have not produced 2008 edition yet, but tax credits for this family increase a lot in 2008 as part of Brown's anti child poverty drive.)
1 reply
Peter, what do you mean by "proper AGM"? I cannot see anything in the rulebook about a national AGM (to which I presume any member could attend). BTW a little relevant interesting legal info about "unincorporated associations" and property/debts can be found at: and pages 111-113 of:
1 reply
No mention that I see of the GS trustee responsibilities, or that legal cases against the Labour Party are in the GS's name (on behalf of the members). The very resposibilities that, I presume, caused David Pitt-Watson to duck out once he properly understood them. Rather a serious omission I think.
Toggle Commented May 7, 2008 on Labour Party readvertises GS post at Peter Kenyon
1 reply
Further to my Fabian Society comment, Fabian Society affiliates (Associate Members) can support candidates opposing official Labour Party candidates for public office, as they can be members of any political party. Here is the Fabian Society rule: "Full membership is available to those who are eligible to be Labour Party members (ie, both Labour members and those who are not members of any party, unless barred from Labour membership). Members of other political parties are welcome to join as Associate Members, who receive all of the benefits of membership except for participation in Fabian Society elections). We welcome members from outside Britain." As the Fabian Society is officially affiliated to the Labour Party as a Socialist Society (wheras the LRC isn't), perhaps you should apply more heat to this issue?
1 reply
The new LRC membership rules seem similar to the rules the Fabian Society have had for years - indeed the Fabian Society goes further by allowing Tories etc have Associate Membership. So these comments do seem somewhat harsh. Flicking thru the latest Fabian Review I see invited articles by Iain Dale and Mark Oaten - not sure if they were paid to write these or it's self-publicity. Seems to me you should perhaps be more worried about the Fabian Society than the LRC!
1 reply