Andrew Marr

For Orphans of Liberty.

Andrew Marr rocks!

On TV, just now, Andrew Marr asked The Goblin King whether he would stand down as PM if the other members of the Cabinet asked him to do so. The Goblin King replied "No." (and then waffled for a bit). Andrew Marr's interrupted his waffle with this: "So you'd take the pearl-handled revolver and shoot them?"

I do hope this makes it into the official transcripts.

UPDATE 1: The official transcript reports Andrew Marr as saying "So you'd take the revolver and shoot them?": it isn't quite as funny without the "pearl-handled" (scroll seven-eights of the way down).

UPDATE 2: Marksany heard him say "pearl-handled" as well.

Andrew Marr gets a bonus point for interrupting to point out that the Tories, UKIP and BNP are "very different, of course" when The Goblin King tried to lump them together, but this was barely audible.

Yup, I didn't imagine it ...

You can scroll three-quarters of the way down the transcript of Andrew Marr's inteview with David Cameron to read the full exchange, or just watch Andrew Marr interrupt Dave's wafflings with a glorious, technicolour "It sounds like UKIP are right" about half-way through this video:

As to Dave's contention that "... the more people who vote Conservative on June 4th, the greater the pressure there will be on Gordon Brown to hold that referendum that he promised" ... doesn't he mean "the more people who vote UKIP"?

I was surprised to hear them say this

Andrew Marr interviewed David Cameron this morning, and asked him whether he would have a referendum if the Tories won the next General Election after the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution had already been ratified.

Dave just waffled and waffled of course and refused to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Unless my ears were deceiving me, Andrew Marr hit back at the waffle by saying "So UKIP are right, then." The transcript should be available here soon and I hope that they leave that bit in.

Also nice was seeing Selina Scott tell Charlie Kennedy that she wanted there to be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution.

David Cameron's cunning plan to sort out insolvent banks

From today's interview with Andrew Marr*

Well what matters most of all is safeguarding the depositors in a bank like Bradford & Bingley. That is the absolute key. And I think what obviously is preferable is a private sale, so the business is a going concern. But I think what we've got to do in this country is get away from a situation where the only choice if you can't have a private sale is to throw the whole thing onto the taxpayer, nationalise it and have the taxpayer bearing all of that burden and bearing all of that risk...

And that is why we've been saying for a year now, because remember Northern Rock went over... went under a year ago, that we should have a situation in Britain where we have the ability for the Bank of England to take over a failing bank and to reconstruct - safeguarding the depositors and then making sure that those bits of the business that can be sold are sold. And in the end, then the bill effectively is picked up not by the taxpayer [but by the creditors]**...

So instead of nationalising [an insolvent bank], instead of the taxpayer taking all the risk, the Bank of England holds it, the Bank of England safeguards those deposits and then it works out with the business ... what bits can be sold as a going concern and what you're left with. But the key, the key at the end...the absolute key is that if at the end of that process there is a bill to be paid, the bill's paid by the creditors*** - by the banks and others that lent money to that business - and not by the taxpayer"

This method is more or less what I suggested, er, a year ago.

* Please note "The Andrew Marr Show" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

** Actually he said 'debtors' rather than 'creditors' at this stage, but AM kept interrupting him so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

*** It must be blindingly obvious that when any business goes bankrupt, shareholders get wiped out and other creditors get a pro rata share of the loss. It is vitally important at this stage to realise that there are different types of creditors. The order of priority in a liquidation is set by law, and the rules are broadly sensible. There is nothing wrong with having special rules for banks that say depositors, employees and trade creditors get priority, and that losses are borne by long-term bondholders****.

A failing bank can be sorted out even more simply and smoothly by being forced (at gunpoint if necessary) to write its mortgage receivables down to the truly recoverable amount (bearing in mind loan-to-value ratio, loan-to-income multiples, when the mortgage was originally granted and whether the borrower has ever missed a payment) and then simply replacing every £1 of long term nominal debt (that might have a market value of only 50p anyway) with a replacement debt with a face value of 50p, and compensate those bond holders by issuing them with more shares.

Hey presto, bank recapitalised - don't forget that a bank's capital is merely a balancing figure of assets (outstanding mortgages plus actual value of the business as a going concern) minus nominal debts. If you write down the book value of mortgage assets by 10% and reduce the nominal value of the debts by 50% (or whatever lesser figure might be required), all of a sudden, the bank is soundly capitalised again. We are beyond the stage of fixing this with rights issues, I don't think people will fall for that any more.

If the write-down was overcooked, then the shares that the bond holders are given will rise in value and they will recoup some of their losses.

**** There are all sorts of clever names for 'long term bonds', like 'deferred shares', 'preference shares', 'covered warrants', 'collateralised debt obligations', 'permanent interest bearing shares' and so on ad infinitum. Do not let this confuse you.

Andrew Marr demolishes Gordon Brown (2)

The last comment here presumably related to today's interview, rather than the one they did back in May, which prompts me to read the transcript* thereof.

Think what you will**, it strikes me that Andrew Marr has a genuine, deep-seated loathing of the The Goblin King. I'd warmly recommend anybody to read the full transcript, if you have five minutes to spare, but here are a few highlights:
.....................

AM [introducing his interviewee] Right now he's in some trouble with the Tories, romping ahead in the opinion polls and a daily diet of his own supporters saying "it's time to go." The pressure is on Gordon Brown to demonstrate this week that he's got what it takes to revive his leadership in the country... Prime Minister, good morning.

or .....................

TGK: We're looking at a number of things. I mean we stopped the speculative trading in what you call "short-term sales". Unfortunately, AM didn't interject with "Get your f***ing jargon right, you twat! It's called 'short selling', not 'short term sales'", but hey ...

or .....................

AM: Year after year, you stood on conference platforms and you said "No return to boom and bust", "No stop go," erm, "prudence". You could not say that. You could not stand up this week and say "No return to boom and bust" because there would be a sort of sickening silence.

TGK: Yeah, but we were talking about 15% interest rates and 3 million unemployed, 10% inflation. That was the old days.

AM: But we had huge boom based on inflated property prices and we now have a bust.

TGK: [waffles] We had 15, 18% interest rates at one point. Our average is about 5, 6% interest rates and mortgage rates. We have...

AM: Highest unemployment for 10 years, highest inflation for 16 years.

TGK: I'm sorr... I'm sorry, we have created 3 million jobs and that is, that is not correct. The inflation...

AM: Employment... unemployment figures are.

TGK: The... the unemployment figures...

AM: The highest for 10 years.

TGK: No, I don't accept that. The issue is that the unemployment figures are based on two separate analyses and more jobs have been created even as I accept unemployment is going up. As far as the other figures you mention, I think it's true...

AM: Inflation is the highest for 16 years.

or .....................

AM: A lot of your own people, your own ministers and own MPs say that's the trouble; it's always somebody else's fault. It has not been a great year for you, it has not been a good year, and yet it's always somebody else to blame. You never seem to either apologise or confront the fact that you might have had some failures yourself.

or this for a closer .....................

AM: And you will be here by Christmas?

.....................
* "Please note "The Andrew Marr Show" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used."

** Yes, this might be a fix - Andrew Marr may be just pretending to give The Goblin King a hard time so that people have sympathy with him, but I doubt it somehow.

Outbreak of commonsense

In among all the others lies obfuscation and large gummint dross in this morning's Andrew Marr interview, Dave The Chameleon showed a small glimmer of intelligence with his idea that it was silly to have prisons in inner cities where property values are high - these should be sold off and the money could be used to build a much larger prison out of town. Transcript here.

In other words, although the Prison Service might not pay rent for such buildings, a serious cost accountant resets the clock and asks "If the Prison Service had £x millions in the bank, would it buy or rent in an expensive area or a cheap area?" And if the Prison Service chooses to use valuable buildings, that should be treated as notional income and expenditure.

Having grasped the concept of notional costs, we should extend this to ALL government buildings, including council estates and offices in Whitehall, which leads to all sorts of interesting conclusions.

Funnily enough, the gummint kicked off the idea of Asset Management Plans, whereby all local authorities were supposed to value their properties and work out notional rents, but it was never really followed through - which is why there are so still many government offices in the centre of London which are worth billions.

Andrew Marr interviews Lord Darzi

Lord Darzi is always hailed as some great health guru.

He's not.

I watched this interview this morning and he's just another lying, deluded Nulabour stooge.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

"ANDREW MARR*: Let's turn to the wider political picture. Would it be unconstitutional, you're Mr. Constitution, would it be unconstitutional for the Labour Party again to change leader without there being a General Election?

JACK STRAW: It would technically be unconstitutional, thank you for the...but it's not going to happen. Look, it's only 11 months... "

Wot?

That's a Big Fat Lie if ever saw one. And assuming it's not a Big Fat Lie, how the hell did The Goblin King become Sub-prime Minister?

* Per the BBC website "Please note 'The Andrew Marr Show' must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

Lord Michael Levy on Andrew Marr

Lord Levy, now busily hawking his memoirs, said quite emphatically that it was inconceivable that The Goblin King and Jack Dromey, the Party Treasurer, did not know about the so-called secret loans of £15 million-odd that Labour received to fund the 2005 General Election campaign. Transcript available here soon, hopefully.

Right. There are very strict deadlines for reporting actual campaign expenditure to El Comm. Labour duly reported exenditure of £18 million (see page 58). Labour (like all other political parties) also have to submit annual accounts to El Comm, which they signed off at the last minute of 30 June 2006. Note 8 on page 14 (download from here) shows GE expenses of £15 million (the discrepancy is largely because the £18 million includes expenditure by local branches and so on).

Right, as any fule kno, the accounts summarise money in and money out. They are appear to have got the 'money out' side about right, ergo, the 'money in' must either be income or loans. Again, Note 28 on page 21 of the accounts lists all the soft loans from Sainsbury, Evans, Noon, Patel etc.

So what's so secret about them? Well, until early 2006, it was not common practice or compulsory to publish the lenders' names, but hey, even before then, surely the senior Party figures would have known - as Lord Levy said, all the money went into the normal Labour Party bank accounts. It was a tad underhand taking soft loans rather than donations - the difference being that you have to report the names of donors but not the names of lendersto El Comm - but far from being a crime or anything.

In other words, it's not the loans that were secret (the fact that a Party is in debt has to be shown in the accounts), it was merely that the names of the lenders did not have to be published.

So, seeing as The Goblin King had the nerve to stand up in Parliament and deny that he knew about them makes him a Big Fat Liar. And a stupid one to boot, because he is trying to deny something that a) is true and b) was not an offence anyway.

The precise exchange at PMQs on 30 April was as follows (video here*)

Douglas Carswell "The Prime Minister claims he had no knowledge of the dodgy loans used to fund the 2005 election campaign which he ran. Lord Levy has revealed that the Prime Minister knew everything. Is Lord Levy lying?"

The Goblin King:"I knew nothing of these loans."

* Via The Daily Brute

Andrew Marr demolishes Gordon Brown

A lot of people think that Andrew Marr is far too soft on The Goblin King. Having watched several interviews over the years, I strongly suspect that Marr despises him with a passion.

Today's killer question was dead simple;
"Well let's just continue with the economy for one further round, which is that a lot of people would say actually what's happened over the last ten years is we've had a huge boom on the back of vastly inflated housing prices, and unsustainable personal borrowing, and as Chancellor you never tried to stop that happening. You went along for the ride and you didn't warn people. And that's what's gone wrong now."

The Goblin King just waffled the usual waffle about low interest rates, high employment, economic problems in the USA, hard working families blah blah blah. It is difficult to tell whether he really is that out-of-touch with reality.

But this is the whole point! Marr summarised the whole 'Brown Bubble' in one short question!
----------------
What could The Goblin King have done to prevent this? Let's jump in a time machine back to 1997 and imagine that the new government had had the nerve to scrap all property related taxes*, total annual revenues est. £30 billion. Remember that UK gross government debt under Maastricht criteria was around £400 billion when Nulab took over and stayed at that level under the spending splurge really took off in 2002-03, since when it has been increasing by about £40 billion a year, so cutting taxes by £30 billion while the economy is growing is not particularly reckless.

As a quid pro quo, and to prevent property price bubbles, they could have introduced a Property Bubble Tax. Very briefly, the tax would be charged at 10% of the difference between property values at the end of each year and their values as at 1997 (I have a cunning plan how to do work this out, but that's not important right now).

Such a tax would have acted like a much higher interest rate on the speculative element of property prices; I'd guess instead of trebling they might have gone up in line with average incomes, in other words up by 60% - 80%.

The total revenues raised by the tax might end being more or less than the current revenues from property-related taxes of about £60 billion, that's not so important. If it raised little or nothing, then great, it's achieved its aim of keeping property prices low and stable (and prevented the corresponding credit bubble). If it raised more, then great as well, we could use the money to cut the really bad taxes like VAT, Employer's National Insurance and on increasing the tax-free personal allowance.

And as property prices reflect people's expectations about the economy, it would be counter-cyclical in the down-turns as well, in other words, right now, when prices are falling again - especially in commercial property - at least people would see automatic tax cuts.

* Here's the list, for clarity; Council Tax, Business Rates, Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax, TV licence fee, Capital Gains Tax, VAT on domestic fuel, Insurance Premium Tax, s106 agreements, 'roof taxes' and anything else you can think of, less subsidies for land and property, such as Council Tax Benefit, agricultural land subsidies, VAT zero-rating for new residential construction etc etc.

William Hague is a deceitful, evasive half-wit

Andrew Marr kicked off by asking him, quite reasonably:

"Now we all understand why the Conservative Party doesn't like this treaty and why you want a referendum. What we don't understand is what you're going to do if this goes through Parliament and becomes law, and you're returned to power. Are you then going to pull Britain out of this treaty that you regard with such distaste?"

I watched the original interview, and I have read the transcript on the BBC website* and I struggle in vain to find anything like a "Yes", a "Perhaps", a "We'd have a retrospective referendum, like in 1975" or a "Don't know", let alone a straight "No".

* Apparently I have to 'credit The Andrew Marr Show' for using this excerpt. Fair enough, I just did.