Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

I think you're allowed three secret murders as PM.

Presumably as we all know about Kelly , he wasn't one of Blairs 3 :-)

[coda]

MP Peter Lilley has received more than $400,000 in oil company share options. Analysis shows full extent of climate sceptic's financial interests in oil industry and places committee role under further scrutiny

[peterms]

The Torygraph apparently ran a story earlier about Margaret Hodge.

The nature of the story is evident from the title of the link, the full version of which includes "Labour-MP-Margaret-Hodge-challenged-over-family-firms-tax".

http://www.telegraph...-firms-tax.html

But the link now goes to

Sorry

We cannot find the page you are looking for.

[Seat68]

some jedi mind trick shit going on there.

[BOF]

Shouldn't this be called "The Condem Government" now ? #leavesnevertobeseenagain

[mjmooney]

I think just "The Con Government" would do.

[Awol]

So is there any value in these promises to legislate and force energy companies to automatically give consumers the lowest possible tariff? Sounds good on the face of it.

[Xann]

Google - energy policy shambles Cameron

[Awol]

Google - energy policy shambles Cameron

Thank you, but I could have figured that one out myself, was more looking for people's opinions on here. Heard them talking about it on Radio 4 this morning and even they couldn't seem to pick holes in it and generally thought it was a good plan - particularly simplifying and reducing the number of tariffs to four per company.

Given the BBC default setting is that any coalition policy = world ending, I thought maybe it was actually a good thing.

[snowychap]

I'm not sure that it will do quite what Cameron suggested in PMQs a few weeks ago but the simplification is probably something good (I went on to one of those comparison sites for my mother a couple of weeks ago and there were something like 112 possible tariffs to choose from when selecting the one she was currently on).

I think the policy is pretty much an Ofgem proposal, isn't it?

[peterms]

So is there any value in these promises to legislate and force energy companies to automatically give consumers the lowest possible tariff? Sounds good on the face of it.

The hype was that this would save people money. Ofgem had said that people might be able to save between £70 and £160 by switching to the cheapest tariff.

The proposals however don't seem to require companies to reduce prices to what is currently the cheapest tariff. Instead, they require them to offer only four tariffs, and put people on the cheapest.

If companies wish to keep their income the same, they will set the tariffs at a level which will do that. This may be the same as the lowest current tariff, but I doubt it, since there are so many tariffs right now. I suppose this will mean that for any firm, the cheapest tariff after this measure will be dearer than the cheapest tariff now.

Does the proposal not simply redistribute minor sums between consumers, rather than reduce the amount collectively paid to these companies?

[tonyh29]

I think the policy is pretty much an Ofgem proposal, isn't it?

I suspect if it goes tits up it will be an Ofgem proposal and if it works it will be a Tory proposal .. with Ed saying nothing until he suddenly realises he may find a band wagon to jump onto

[snowychap]

I suspect if it goes tits up it will be an Ofgem proposal and if it works it will be a Tory proposal

Probably spot on.

[snowychap]

The hype was that this would save people money. Ofgem had said that people might be able to save between £70 and £160 by switching to the cheapest tariff.

The proposals however don't seem to require companies to reduce prices to what is currently the cheapest tariff. Instead, they require them to offer only four tariffs, and put people on the cheapest.

If companies wish to keep their income the same, they will set the tariffs at a level which will do that. This may be the same as the lowest current tariff, but I doubt it, since there are so many tariffs right now. I suppose this will mean that for any firm, the cheapest tariff after this measure will be dearer than the cheapest tariff now.

Does the proposal not simply redistribute minor sums between consumers, rather than reduce the amount collectively paid to these companies?

That the companies themselves (or rather their special advocate, Angela Knight - yes that's the one, the former spokeswoman for banks) are not getting in a tizz would seem to back you up.

[chrisp65]

I am currently on the cheapest tariff possible.

The energy companies will have two choices.

1) they can reduce millions of bills to match mine and lose a load of income, or,

2) they can alter my tariff to be less splendiferous, averaging out the good and the bad, protecting their income and complying with this rushed legislation causing my bill to go up as a direct result of Cameron opening his mouth before forming a coherent policy.

[Awol]

I think the policy is pretty much an Ofgem proposal, isn't it?

Almost, from what I can gather the government have added the element of compulsion in law, which was lacking from the ofgem proposal.

[peterms]

Some discussion of it here. (Should go to the right point in the programme, if not, it's at 2 hrs 43 mins 50 secs).

Basically Minister tells MPs it will save people money, but the consultant they interview says it will do away with the cheaper tariffs, mean that people who have shopped around will no longer be better off than others and will pay more, people who don't shop around may be better off, and that the proposals do nothing about the real reason why prices are higher than they need be, which is that the industry is so dominated by the big 6 that it's simply not competitive.

[peterms]

MPs' expenses: top Tory in secret deal

A senior Conservative MP investigating Britain’s social care system secretly arranged for the owners of a chain of nursing homes to buy his London flat – which he now rents back at taxpayers’ expense, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Stephen Dorrell, the former health secretary who now chairs the House of Commons health committee, made a £70,000 profit from the controversial deal which has not previously been publicly declared.

Last night, Mr Dorrell admitted he had arranged for his friends Linton and Denise Connell to buy the flat near the Commons so that he could rent it back from them after a crackdown in the wake of the 2009 MPs’ expenses scandal.

After being approached by The Daily Telegraph about the arrangement last night, Mr Dorrell said he would be declaring it to fellow MPs on the health committee, which started the inquiry into social care in June this year.

Mr Dorrell, a health secretary in John Major’s government between 1995 and 1997, is an influential voice in elderly care, one of the Government’s most controversial policy areas.

Labour last night questioned Mr Dorrell’s arrangement. One MP, John Mann, said he should consider his position as committee chairman, adding: “[His committee] will want to know what is going on. This raises questions about his independence. He needs to demonstrate that he has no links, personal or professional, to these landlords.”

Last night a spokesman for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) – which released details of Mr Dorrell’s deals and those of more than 300 others on Monday – said that it appeared no rules had been broken because MPs are only banned from renting from family members and companies in which they have an interest.

But the disclosure that a senior Conservative has been caught up in the controversy over expenses will raise further concerns that 51 MPs have been allowed to keep their rental details secret.

Information released by Ipsa shows that Mr Dorrell is renting a second home from Linton and Denise Connell in central London, paying the pair £17,033 in 2011-12, which works out at £1,400 a month.

Mr and Mrs Connell, whom Mr Dorrell described as his friends, are both directors of St Cloud Care, which runs a string of homes in Worcestershire providing care for 300 people.

Mr Dorrell, who is on a visit to Scandinavia with the committee, said last night that he had lived at the one-bedroom flat in Westminster for 33 years, initially renting it from his family before buying it in 2007. According to his expenses files, which were disclosed by The Daily Telegraph in 2009, he attempted to claim £758 in July 2006 while the “flat was being refurbished” but was refused.

After buying the flat, he claimed for the interest on his mortgage for three years until 2010 when he arranged for the Connells to buy the property after new Ipsa rules banned MPs from claiming mortgage interest. Land registry records show that Mr Dorrell bought the flat, which is in a mansion block, for £280,000. He sold it to the Connells for £350,000.

Mr Dorrell said he had not declared the relationship in the register of members’ interests because he was not deriving any financial benefit from the arrangement. Mr Dorrell said he was “perfectly happy to explain it to the committee, there is no financial interest because it’s an arm’s-length rent.”

He said: “This is a flat that I occupied for 33 years and at one stage was owned by my family – because when I got into the House of Commons you were not allowed to have a mortgage, so I rented from them.

“Then I bought it on an interest only mortgage, because that was the rule at the time, and that ended. So I arranged for a third party to buy it. We had an independent assessment of the rent and it is rented at arms length.”

Linton Connell declined to answer questions emailed to him by The Daily Telegraph.

Mr Dorrell described the Connells – who live in a £1 million property they bought in 2002, 15 miles from Mr Dorrell’s constituency home in Charnwood, Leicestershire – as his “friends”.

In 2010, Mr Connell sponsored Mr Dorrell’s son £25 to go on a cycle ride, telling him: “Good Luck! Matt’s in the Himalayas now. You’ll both have stories of your epic adventures to tell one another! The Connells.”

St Cloud describes itself on its website as “a family run business and we take pride in creating a caring and friendly environment.” However, some of its six homes were criticised by the Care Quality Commission during inspections in September. The CQC said of Holmwood care centre in Kidderminster that “improvements” were required in three areas, including “standards of caring for people safely and protecting them from harm”.

Mr Dorrell has said he is open to the idea of a fit and proper person test on care home ownership.

[Risso]

The Torygraph apparently ran a story earlier about Margaret Hodge.

The nature of the story is evident from the title of the link, the full version of which includes "Labour-MP-Margaret-Hodge-challenged-over-family-firms-tax".

http://www.telegraph...-firms-tax.html

But the link now goes to

Good letter from Priti Patel to Hodge basically calling her a liar over her £20m 'tiny' shareholding in Stemcor. Her hypocrisy is absolutely mind-blowing.

[snowychap]

So why did the Torygraph pull it? Did Hodge get some sort of injunction?