Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Nick Clegg's Lintilla moment...

****

Crisis is an essential ingredient in modern politics - without crisis, without some dread threat to civilization as we know it, people will go home, put the fire on and have a cup of tea.

As a result politicians invent existential threats - crises that threaten the very essence of modern society:

There are  just 100 days to stop the UK Independence Party becoming a permanent major force in British politics, Nick Clegg warns today.

And this of course is a crisis, a threat to something good and kind - in this case the opportunity for Nick and his friends to get nice, well-paid sinecures over in Brussels and for others of Nick's pals to siphon across lovely 'European Grant Funding'.

The problem here is that the crisis is entirely artificial. And UKIP only become a 'major force' in British politics if we indulge their rather eclectic range of self-contradictory policies - championing liberty when it suits an audience (smoking and drinking) and promoting bans or controls when it doesn't (burkas and immigrants).

What Nick Clegg has done - his Lintilla moment - is switch on the crisis inducer:


LINTILLA:
It’s a crisis inducer. Set it to ‘Mark Nine’ and… Hurry! They’re after us!

ARTHUR:
Who?

LINTILLA:
No one! Come on! Through the tunnel! They’re coming!


We really don't have only 100 days to save the universe (or Nick's future EU sinecure) from the dread UKIP. They're maybe going to get a few more MEPs and the Lib Dems might lose most of their MEPs. But that's it really. Nothing else will change. We will have elected a slightly different set of essentially pointless (but very expensive) politicians who can - as we've seen with e-cigs - simply choose to ignore the public's opinion knowing they aren't subject to any proper scrutiny as individual politicians.

Still Nick Clegg has activated his crisis inducer, got big headlines in sympathetic newspapers and got his dwindling troops agitated and active.

There is no real crisis just an artificial and pathetic flap.

....

Thursday, 2 February 2012

The "housing crisis" that isn't...

****

I'm pretty sure it will be all over the airwaves and will generate acres of printed commentary in such places as the Guardian - the National Housing Federation (NHF), lobbyists for the social housing sector, are scaring us about the "worst housing crisis in a generation" (whatever that may mean). Here's the stuff about Bradford:


Figures released yesterday by the National Housing Federation showed 20,800 people in the district are languishing on the waiting list. 

Frightening figures there - how will we ever provide for this enormous demand?

It's not a simple as this because Bradford doesn't have a housing waiting list, we have what's called a "choice-based lettings system". And that system has over 20,000 people registered with it. But not all of them are actually looking for houses right now:

...the figures represent the number of people registered with the choice-based letting system operated by Incommunities* – not the number of people actively bidding. This figure was around 6,100 in June last year, according to Incommunities’ figures.

So there are actually only 6000 people looking for a council house in Bradford right now - still quite a lot but nowhere near the scale of "housing crisis". The churn rate in social housing means that Bradford has at least 2000 social properties coming onto the rental market each year and, as the article points out, we anticipate 400 or so new social lets each year for the next few years. Given that not all the people in that 6000 are in what we'd call "housing need" (they are in a house adequate to their needs but would like a different, bigger, better located one) the idea that Bradford cannot provide right now for those looking for social lets is probably nonsense.

This doesn't stop the NHF lobbying away for more government cash to be hosed in the direction of its members so they can build houses. Since the mid-1980s this has been the development model in the social rented sector - housing associations get loads of grant with which they lever extra borrowing and then jump up and down on planners to require developers to provide "affordable housing". And, quite rightly, the current government has set about shifting the model from funding by government grant to funding through rents.

Wise observers will note that this doesn't end government support - higher rents mean higher housing benefits payments - but it means that the social housing sector has to start to be more business-like in its development strategies. Sadly, the NHF is using these changes to make out that there is a massive housing crisis that can only be solved by huge increases in cash grants for housing associations and local councils.

Not only is there not a housing crisis, there isn't the prospect of a housing crisis - at least in Bradford.

....


*Incommunities is the housing trust to which the Council transferred its housing stock about ten years ago

...

Friday, 16 December 2011

Is there really a housing crisis?

****

I'm just not sure how much of a problem we actually do have. For sure in London and some parts of the South East, rents and income have diverged - to the point where their affordability is open to question.

But the "there aren't enough houses" crisis - this would suggest rapidly rising rents everywhere. Which doesn't seem to be the case:


Private rents in England and Wales fell for the first time in 10 months in November, according to the latest buy-to-let index from property services firm LSL.

Average rent dropped by 0.4 per cent to £717 month, down from October’s figure of £720 per month. It is the first time there has been a month-on-month fall since January.


OK there are seasonal factors and rents have risen in some regions - but this doesn't suggest that, right this minute, there's a crisis level shortage of housing.

....

Monday, 8 August 2011

Let them have their holidays...

What’s the problem with holidays? Or rather with politicians taking holidays?

OK so there’s image of the politician lying in the sunshine, bottle of San Miguel in one hand, trashy crime novel in the other while markets tumble, riots unfold and the self-righteous (who of course never ever take a holiday) take to the airwaves to score cheap political points about such indulgence.

I know also that politicians are superhuman beings who can stay up all night, work at least seven days each week and remain alert, relaxed and attentive enough to make decisions of great moment whenever called upon to do so. In some cases decisions that amount to life or death.

Clearly such paragons of our workaholic age don’t need a holiday do they? And if they do dare to take a break, to slip away for a day or three, those self-righteous immediately look for the opportunity to call for the paragon to be dragged back from the little break so as to attend to some momentous happening.

Yet these same self-important folk would be the first to complain if their bosses told them they couldn’t have the essential two-week break over Christmas or rang them up with questions and queries every five minutes – interrupting the recharging of batteries at that nice tapas bar on the banks of the Betis in Sevilla.

We’re in a pretty sorry state if we can’t cope for a fortnight without our leaders. And what exactly are these leaders going to do when we’ve shamed them into coming home early from holiday? Hold a meeting. That’s all they’ll do. Or maybe three or four meetings (often dubbed “summits” but that’s just an effort to make a meeting sound useful or important). And those meetings will finish with a press conference where the leader will make reassuring noises that change precisely nothing.

Let them have their holidays.

....

Saturday, 30 July 2011

Let's hope the lad's value holds up....

In what must be one of the more bizarre twists in the story of the banking crisis Christiano Ronaldo is being used as collateral. Or so Süddeutsche Zeitung reports:

The daily reports that the Bankia group of savings banks, which financed Real Madrid’s acquisition of the Portuguese player, is now seeking to borrow funds from the European Central Bank. In response to the ECB’s demand for guarantees, Bankio are putting up… Ronaldo and the Brazilian Kaka, who also plays for the Madrid football club. In 2009, Real borrowed 76.5 million euros to pay transfer fees of 100 millions euros to Manchester United, and 60 million to Milan AC.

Which (and those who make comparisons between Manchester United's financial position and that of the two big Spanish clubs should note this) is a pretty sound bet since:

Bankia would first have to become insolvent. Thereafter, Real would have to default on its loans, which are secured by advertising and television revenues. It goes without saying that Real Madrid is in debt to the tune of several million euros. However, in Spain football clubs have a history of obtaining publicly funded bailouts — just like the country’s banks.”

Real Madrid are, just like those big banks, 'too big to fail' so Ronnie's as safe an asset as you can get (so long as he keeps playing).

....

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Mick and Gerard discuss the banking crisis...

****
Mick is a gardener – a fictional gardener to be sure but he could be real. Mick cuts grass, trims bushes, digs over and plants up flower beds and, for doing this, gets paid by grateful customers. Being an honest citizen, Mick tots up all he earns in a little book and subtracts from that the amount he spends – on diesel, maintenance and insurance for the pick-up, on gardening gloves, on the fuel for the mowers, on sharpening the tools (and replacing them when they’re broken or worn) and on a host of other bits and bobs he buys to do the job.


When he buys stuff for customers, maybe bedding plants or some compost, Mick adds a little margin for his trouble. Not a lot or else folk would stop asking him to buy things. And this is carefully recorded in his little book.

Once a year Mick gives the book (and a shoebox filled with receipts and so forth) to Gerard, his accountant, so the tax can be done. Gerard checks Mick’s adding up and subtracting, adds in a little advice (‘you do know you can claim for that, don’t you’) to justify the £300 he’s charging Mick (who will, of course, dutifully write that amount into his little book). Once all the form filling is done, Mick has a bill for taxes which he pays since, being sensible and organised, he’s set aside a little each week in anticipation of this tax bill.

With this done, and by way of thanks, Mick takes Gerard down to the pub for a celebratory (if the paying of taxes can ever be a celebration) pint or two. And they get to talking like you do when you’ve had a beer.

Now Mick knows that Gerard – unlike him – is an educated bloke, been to university and accountant school, knows some long words about money. And Mick, who as a good citizen, makes sure he watches the news most days, asks Gerard about the banking crisis. After all, not only is Gerard an educated bloke, but he’s an accountant. And that means money. Gerard must be able to explain what all went wrong.

However, Gerard isn’t at all sure. For him, the bank is just a place through which money flows – mostly away from him and his clients. For sure, Gerard knows about borrowing – paying a price for having something now rather than waiting until we can afford it was the way Gerard’s shopkeeper dad always described it. And he knows that the banking crisis is something to do with borrowing. Or rather, the consequence of borrowing – debt. So he tells Mick this.

Now Mick, too, understands borrowing and debt. He’s got a mortgage – not a big one – and he had to take out a loan to buy the pick-up he uses for work. Mick appreciates how borrowing means that – at a price – he can have something now, like the pick-up or somewhere to live that he would otherwise be unable to afford. But he has another question for Gerard: “where does the borrowing come from,” asks Mick?

Gerard takes a long sup of his pint – he would have sucked on the stem of his pipe but they banned that in pubs – and thinks. “Did you ever watch Jimmy Stewart in ‘It’s a Wonderful Life”, asks Gerard?

“Oh yes,” said Mick, “one of my favourite films – a Christmas classic!”

“Good,” replied Gerard, “then you’ll remember the scene with the run on the bank when all the Savings & Loan customers crowd in to get their money out?”

“Absolutely, and at the end Jimmy Stewart and the others dance round the room with Papa Dollar and Mama Dollar in a wire paper tray!”

“Well during that scene, George Bailey – he’s the Jimmy Stewart character – explains to the crowd that the money isn’t in the bank, it’s in other people’s houses and businesses. It’s been lent out and these folk are paying it back with a little added as the price of having the money before you’re earned it.”

“Oh yes,” smiled Mick, “and George used his wedding cash to pay out on the run and the Savings & Loan stayed open.”

“Correct, correct,” Gerard leant back on his chair beginning to relish the explanation, “the problem is that modern banks – unlike that in the film – have made a really big bet. They’ve bet that everyone won’t arrive at once asking for their deposits back and have lent £10 for every £1 they have on deposit. In effect they’ve magicked 90% of the money we use from out of thin air.”

“But people still pay back,” Mick was fascinated by this exposition, “so the new money isn’t a problem until that stops?”

“Yes, or until people want to take more money out. You need another pint?”

“I think so,” Mick’s mind was spinning a little – he could see how his little business worked. And even how the bank’s role in lending money worked – but how could they lend so much?

Gerard returned from the bar and Mick was straight in, “but how could the bank take such a big risk, make such a massive bet?”

“I think,” said Gerard, “that it’s to do with deposit protection. In the film, the deposits were at risk, people stood to lose their savings if the bank closed. Today, the Government guarantees the deposits in banks – your and my money simply isn’t at risk so the bank can take whatever big bet it wants with the money.”

“So it wasn’t just the banks, it was government too,” spluttered Mick.

“And there’s more,” explained Gerard, “not only did government guarantee the deposits so banks could lend £10 for every £1 they had on deposit, most of that extra money wasn’t lent to folk like you to buy pick-ups and houses but was lent to the government. The same government who set the rules that made the lending possible.”

“Now you’re losing me,” Mick frowned, “the government gets all those taxes from people like me, why does it need to borrow?”

“You know you keep that little book, the one you give to me once a year so I can prepare your accounts and your tax return?”

“Yes.”

“You know how you’re very careful to make sure that what you take in exceeds what you spend?”

“Absolutely, I’d go bust otherwise.”

“Well the government doesn’t think it has to do that..."

"You what?"

"...most years in recent times governments, here in Britain, in the US and in Europe, have spent more than they raised in taxes. I know that’s hard to comprehend given how much we pay in tax – nearly half of all we earn – but governments didn’t think they had to worry because they’d set the rules so those nice banks would provide the cash. Government simply borrowed more and more each year.”

“So the government fixed the banking system so the banks could lend more, then borrowed that money to fill in the hole in their budget? Sounds like a criminal enterprise to me! Why did it go wrong?”

“Just like in the film, people started wanting their money out. The banks all lent money backwards and forwards between them – like a carousel with dollars on. One day some of them decided to stop the carousel, to stop passing the money round.”

“And…?”

“The system seized up. Banks were threatened, for a minute the whole thing looked like it might collapse. But the governments had a plan, instead of getting the banks to create new money by lending £10 for every £1, they would simply make up some new money of their own, give it to the banks and then borrow it back.”

“Sorry, say that again,” Mick was amazed

“Yes,” said Gerard, “they called it ‘quantitative easing’ but all it did was provide cash for the banks so they didn’t have to stop lending. And the government needed that lending, not to help your business like they said, but because otherwise they’d need to make big cuts in public spending or have a huge increase in taxes.”

“So let me get this right, the government allowed banks to lend more money than they had on deposit by protecting those deposits, then when people wanted their money out, the government printed more money and put it into the banks so the same government could go on borrowing? Where do we live, fairy land?”

The mournful sound of the pub bell sounded as the landlord called time.

“Guess I’d better scoot,” said Gerard, “been great talking and thanks for the beer.”

“Cheers," said Mick, “I’m hoping for some afters so I’ll stick around. There’s a couple of people here I’d like a word with and the place needs all the cash it can earn to keep going. One last question.”

“OK.”

“So all this inventing of money by the banks and the government,” muses Mick, “at some point it has to be earned by someone doesn’t it?”

“I suppose so. Probably us. We’ll be paying a load of taxes just to pay the banks back for lending the government all that money the government gave to the banks to keep them lending.”

Gerard smiled wryly, stood up and left. Mick was left wondering. Maybe Gerard was wrong, perhaps the chatty bloke on the telly from the Bank of England was right and we’ve nothing to fret about, there’ll be some hard times but it will turn out OK. But maybe not, maybe if all the money goes on paying back yesterday's debts, if the government keeps on borrowing and even printing more cash, maybe we’ll never pay it back. And that would be wrong Mick thought. We have to pay our debts.

....