Tories build fewest homes since Second World War

This article in today's Daily Telegraph shows that the Tories since 2010 will have built the fewest homes since the war. 

"new-build housing completions in England between 2010 and 2019 are set to be approximately 130,000 per year. That is well below the 147,000 of the 2000s or 150,000 of the 1990s, and half of the level in the 1960s and 1970s....

The picture becomes even worse when you factor in population size. In the 1960s, the new-build construction rate in England was roughly the equivalent of one home for every 14 people over the decade. In the 2010s, that ratio was one to 43, more than three times higher."

While this is shocking and helps explain our awful homelessness and affordability problems the only answer on offer from the Tories is to "encourage" home ownership.

Hello? Look at the chart that they used above to illustrate the problems. You can see for yourself that the major reason for the decline in house building is the collapse of Council housing (see the green).  The Private sector and Housing associations never filled this gap.

If you want to solve the housing crisis in the UK then you have to allow Councils to build homes at scale and give them the government subsidy to make them good quality and truly affordable. 

Can you be a Socialist and a Patriot?

Hat tip to Ipswich Labour Councillor and former soldier Alasdair Ross, for his post on Lord West, who is a former Labour government minister and 1st Sea Lord (Head of Royal Navy).

Lord West confirmed to Alasdair at a "Labour Friends of the Forces" reception that he had told the Daily Telegraph his views of Tory minister Michael Gove, who suggested that you cannot be a Socialist and a Patriot by promising to teach him in a boxing ring - that you can.

Gove's ill judged comments remind me of the Daily Mail's foul attacks on the Patriotism of Labour Leader Ed Miliband by attacking his father Ralph Miliband, as a man "who hated Britain".

As the poster above reminds us, Ed's father was risking his life for Britain in the Royal Navy during the D Day landings, while a few years before, the owner of the Daily Mail was praising Hitler and the fascist Blackshirts.

Of course you can be a socialist and be a patriot who wants to defend your country against militarist or Nazi aggression. However, being proud of your country doesn't mean you think it is perfect and  that you don't want to change it for the better.

I would also add that in my view, if you are a socialist (as I define), you just have to be also an internationalist. 

My final comment is that during Easter 1982 I was a 19 year old officer cadet in the territorial army and went on a familiarisation course with 29 Commando Regiment in Plymouth. During the course we visited the naval base and went on a tour of one of the ships based there called HMS Ardent. It was an interesting break from very arduous exercises and its crew were very friendly and welcoming.

A few short weeks later during the Battle for the Falklands, HMS Ardent was struck by 17 bombs in less than 22 minutes and was sunk, killing 22 (10%) of its crew. Its captain was the last man to leave the ship. His name was Alan West, who later became Lord West. A man who has actually some life experience to back his views, unlike Mr Gove, that you can indeed, be a socialist and a patriot.

"Workplace safety law is top life saver" says Daily Telegraph

A very surprising article by a Torygraph Leader writer. What next I wonder? "Paying taxes is good for you!"? Hat tip TUC Risks e-letter 

"Britain’s workplace safety law has probably saved more lives than any other piece of legislation, an article in the Telegraph has said.
Telegraph leader writer Philip Johnston noted: “Health and safety has become synonymous with nanny statism, interfering jobsworths, ludicrous litigation and risk aversion.

And yet the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA), which is 40 years old this summer, has arguably saved more lives than any other piece of legislation, including the ban on drink driving or the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars. It may well have reduced deaths by 5,000 or more.”

He added: “Forty years on, the Act has achieved what it set out to do, which is to insist upon high standards of health and safety in places of work. All we need do now is to apply the law with the common sense that inspired it in the first place.” The article mirrored comments earlier this year by HSE chair Judith Hackitt.

In a January blog she wrote: “This year will mark 40 years since Health and Safety at Work Act received Royal Assent. Arguably it is one of the best pieces of legislation on the statute books – although we know it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. It has protected millions of British workers, and driven sharp reductions in incidents of occupational death, serious injury and ill health.”

This week the government’s latest attempt to weaken the lifesaving law, measures in the Deregulation Bill to exempt most of the self-employed from HASAWA’s scope, returned again to the House of Commons.

Ÿ  HSE news release.Ÿ  The Telegraph.Ÿ  IOSH news release.

Union members £4,000-a-year better off, government report

Check out this article in the Telegraph (of all papers) which is about a UK Government report that
"An average trade union member earns £4,000-a-year more than non-unionised workers". Now this is in part due to more professionals joining trade unions but the research also showed that there has been a decade of better pay deals for union members compared to non union employees.

The UK is an unequal country and for a long time more money has gone to senior management and less in wages. While  minimum and living wages are important the only way to reverse this trend is for strong, independent trade unions to freely bargain with employers to get fairer pay for workers.  Quite simple really. The more of us in the union the better the deal we will get.

I hope that readers enjoy my favourite YouTube clip of all time. (or this clip or this clip)

Annunities: are they so Bad? AMNT Open day 2014

The answer is of course YES. A little late but this post is from the AMNT (Association of Member Nominated Trustees) open meeting held in London last month. 

Rob Yuille (picture) from the Association of British Insurers (also known as the ABI or more simply by those in the know as "the enemy") defended pension annuities. 

The well known left wing revolutionary rag "The Daily Telegraph" in a recent editorial called for everyone to be given a cheque when they retire for the full value of their pension fund instead of being forced to buy annuities from insurance companies.

Rob made a valiant attempt to justify annuities and to be fair they do have their strengths such as being secure, personalised, with options and apparently good value compared to international alternatives.

The weaknesses of course are legion but even Rob accepted that they can be expensive, inflexible, confusing and dependent on uncertain market gilt yields. The current returns are of course pitiful.

I pointed out that recently I had tried to help a work colleague who was being made redundant understand what was her pension provision. She was a warden in a sheltered scheme for the elderly but did not understand at all her three different defined contribution pension pensions pots. 

She was just over 55 and for some reason had recently (in her terms) "cashed in" one of her pension pots. She had no concept of protecting her pension against inflation, nor protecting her partner if she died early or the commission she had paid (it was 5% of a £20k pot). 

I think that the current pension system totally fails people like her. I don't think that annuities are at all suitable products for relatively low paid and financially unsophisticated workers.

There is a role for annuities with the wealthy and I think if truth be known, the pension industry does not want to deal with these millions of tiny DC annuity holders. 

The pension annuity market is clearly broken and we desperately need an alternative.  Since the State is (rightly) busy forcing workers to be auto-enrolled into pensions then it has a duty to ensure that they are not being ripped off and sold a dud when they retire.

"Pensions will not exist by 2050"

It seems that the Daily Telegraph has a silly season in December as well as August (some would argue it actually lasts 12 months).

Michael Johnson, a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies is quoted here as warning that private pensions will soon cease to exist since young people see having immediate access to money more important than long term retirement plans.

I need to check with Michael that he has not been misquoted since the Telegraph has been writing some complete hysterical drivel about pensions lately. The reasoning is also a bit odd and Michael is usually pretty "bang on" about private pensions (not public sector pensions).

Young people have always wanted ready access to their money and been reluctant to save for your retirement. That is why you and your employer need incentives to join a pension and (like taxes) for it to be made compulsory. 

Also young (and older) people are not being completely stupid about not saving for their pensions. This is because for many the pension they are currently offered or have access to is just completely rubbish. They are being ripped off for a hugely expensive product that offers them no certainty in retirement.

While I think everyone should save for their pensions I can understand why so many make the understandable (and even rational?) choice not to save.

Auto-enrolment and universal pensions will make a difference. But unless people have the confidence to invest in a product that gives them some sort of guarantee of financial security in their old age then I think many won't bother. This future burden on the taxpayer should be the key issue for the Telegraph.

 I suspect that Michael is being polemic in order to bring attention to a real serious problem.

Yet his reported solution is wrong. Saving in a short term ISA is not the answer but an affordable and sustainable defined benefit scheme for the private sector is.  It is also going to have to be compulsory (at some stage).

Unless we sort this out I suspect we will soon be seeing future articles glamorising the workhouse for pensioners.

The Madness of "Mark to Market" Accounting: Destroying our Pension Futures

Last week I heard that one of our employers wants to meet my trade union branch to "discuss" closing their defined benefit pension scheme. At the same time an union pension trustee colleague sent me this link to an article by the "Daily Telegraph" on defined benefit  schemes struggling to stay open.

The article itself was as usual for the "Torygraph" ill informed and biased, shaped by the self interest of it's owners and its advertisers' but what I found interesting was in a on-line comment by "mchenry" about final salary schemes.

I support mchenry's argument that a key reason why private companies have been closing their  pension schemes and therefore creating "penury for millions of ordinary workers in the future" is not to do so much with people living longer or the (mistaken) past taxation of pension funds but instead it is "a frankly insane requirement to value long term liabilities spread over decades via volatile short term measurements". This is the legal accounting requirement of pension schemes called "Mark to Market" (or even more laughable - "Fair value") Accounting.

What this means is that pension fund liabilities (the promises made so far by the scheme to pay pensions now and in the future) which may be spread over the next 60 years are costed using completely daft and inappropriate means. UK Government bonds which are currently on a 200 year all time historic low have to be used to price the future cost of pensions to the scheme even if this notional cost is decades and decades from now.

Would you take out a £150k mortgage to buy a house if depending on events entirely out of your control this mortgage liability could just jump up in a matter of months to £300k? Also if your credit rating was based on your ability to pay all your loans and mortgages off immediately - would you be declared bankrupt?

Which is all completely and utterly bonkers.

"Mark to market" accounting makes it appear that perfectly good pension schemes are in massive deficits. These "deficits" have also been completely unpredictable and volatile in recent years and months. Since the so called "deficits" must appear on the company accounts, no wonder some finance directors  panic.

Not only this but because of these entirely artificial measurements the investment policy of pensions schemes is being driven entirely off course by this "funny money" calculation.   Schemes may be tempted to take all sort of riskier investment options or even buy totally unnecessary insurance policies to reduce these artificial "deficits".

Look, there are huge problems and challenges that defined benefit schemes need to face. But we need to deal with the real problems of uncertain market returns and longevity not stupid accounting rules  no matter how well meaning. Unless we sort this out millions and millions of Brits will be spending the latter part of their lives in the misery of abject poverty.

Our Part Time London Mayor

Health and Safety Christmas Myths

Check out the list of Christmas "myths" (or rather complete porkies and distortions) about health and safety. This "Top 10" list was  compiled by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). 

The same old (dare I say) chestnuts are here - such as children being banned from having snowball fights and carol singers being classified as a health and safety risk.  This is indeed a load of old nonsense but this has nothing to do with safety regulations.  Some organisations just use 'elf n' safety as an excuse. While many Tory politicians and their media just make things up about safety issues in order to make cheap political points.

If trivialising health and safety wasn't such a serious issue you would be amused by the attempt of the Daily Telegraph who covered the story here as some sort of attack on "health and safety killjoys" yet completely missing the point that the problem is not the safety regulations but myth making and grossly inaccurate reporting by...(amongst many others)... The Daily Telegraph.  See their coverage here of Brownies being banned from carol singing. Never mind the rubbish put out by its political stable mate the Daily Mail. 

Finally check out this piece of common sense written last year by IOSH Chair, Rob Strange.