Putting the Clock Back

The debate about altering the clocks surfaces twice a year on the operational dates and then faces away. I am in two minds.

On the one had I am persuaded by the novelist, humorist and parliamentarian A P Herbert. He pointed out that, because of Britain's naval and navigational expertise, it was internationally agreed that the zero meridian should pass through our country, from which all others would derive their time and longitude. He argued that we should be proud of this and so stick to GMT throughout the year.

On the other hand, in Germany shifting the clocks back and forth is, I understand, referred to as "energy saving time." If this is accurate then, since I wear vests in the winter, only boil just sufficient water in the kettle, walk, cycle or travel by public transport as much as possible and do all sorts of other things to save the planet, I suppose I ought to be in favour of shifting the clocks on and back too.

But it is a faff. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be for businesses, factories, shops and schools to shift their working hours back or forward on a given date, so that from today, for example, standard office hours would become eight to four instead of nine to five. That would permit the rest of us to potter along as our biological clocks dictate and preserve the planet a the same time.

Fewer Prisoners

Given Ken Clarke's welcome realisation that prison does not, after all, work, I suppose it makes sense to to cut the funding to the prison service, though it would perhaps be wiser to wait until the cut in numbers has actually materialsed before cutting the staff.

However, if fewer offenders are to be sent to prison there will clearly be more on probation, performing community service or otherwise compensating for their crimes. This surely needs more qualified and experienced workers to supervise and guide them. So a cut in funds to the probation service makes no sense at all.

Although I am no expert I understand that there are rehabilitation programmes outside prison that are very effective, but they do cost money. Failing to provide it not only means that non-custodial sentences are ineffective (and held to ridicule by the tabloids) but unreformed miscreants cost more money in the future.

The coalition is rightly trying to curtail short term thinking in the City. Long term thinking in the prison and probation services would be equally welcome.

Not on the Buses

The Comprehensive Spending Review has, I believe, included a 20% cut in the subsidy to bus services. This is a retrograde step. Surely a government with a progressive and "green" transport policy should be promoting public transport and discouraging private transport.

The free bus pass for the over 60s has however been retained. Although I am a recipient of this bonus I would have been quite happy with the re-introduction of a token payment of say 30p or even 50p a journey. Several of my contemporaries, some far less comfortably off than I, take the same view.

Somehow the coalition seems frightened of upsetting the "grey vote." They should not be: we are tougher than they think.

A Pat on the Back

There have been no posts for the last few days as I have been on a walking holiday in Cornwall. Consequently I have missed the bulk of the news and comment on the Comprehensive Spending Review. However, I did catch one brief clip on television from the end of the speech and have seem the photograph republished several times in newspapers.

I have argued consistently in this blog that these cuts are economically unnecessary and ideologically driven, and that Liberal Democrats in government should distance themselves from them as far as possible. Some Liberal Democrats, even former radicals, have told me gravely that, because of Collective Cabinet Responsibility, that is not possible, though that same Collective Responsibility does not seem to prevent the Tories from not only distancing themselves from electoral reform, but allows them to campaign against it.

Be that as it may, Collective Responsibility does not require that, after having given a speech misguided in its purpose and harmful to the most vulnerable in our society, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should receive a pat on the back from the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, heirs to the party of both Keynes and Beveridge.

I suspect that picture will haunt us throughout this parliament, just as Nick Clegg's ill-judged remarks about "savage cuts" damaged our reputation in the general election campaign.

BBC World Service

For years I have cringed when British Politicians have claimed that this that or the other British institution is "The best in the world and the envy of he world" when it patently isn't. Paradoxically, the one institution that actually is the best in the world and the envy of the world is the BBC, and yet it its constantly under attack from the Tories.

Rumour has it that the World Service is to receive a cut of 25%. If this is true it is incredibly stupid. In the over-all scheme of things expenditure on the World Service is a flea-bite, and yet its reputation for comprehensiveness and impartiality does more for British prestige than all our possession of Trident, our seat on the Security Council, our allegedly Rolls Royce of a diplomatic service, our "punching above our weight" or whatever else our politicians like to boast about.

If I were in charge. rather than a cut I would give the World Service a rise of 20%, then leave them to get on with the job they do so well.

Them and Us

From page xi of Will Hutton's introduction to his latest book"Them and Us":

The greatest danger to the new government is its repudiation of Keynesian economics in circumstances that demand more Keynesianism than at any time since the 1930s. There has to be a willingness to spend, borrow, reshape finance and protect investment at all costs.

Yet on the coming Wednesday, with Liberal Democrat support, the coalition government is to announce details of its proposals to do exactly the opposite. It is hard to avoid despair.

Another World

Yesterday I did the first stint of some temporary part-time teaching of economics at a local School of Management. One of the perks of the job is a free copy of the Financial Times, which I accepted in order to pass the time on the bus-ride home, as I'd had to leave in the morning before my Guardian had been delivered.

The FT front page headline concerned a "tax blow" to "pension pots." Apparently the amount on which you can claim tax relief on contritions to your pension is to be reduced from £225 000 (per year!) to £50 000. and once your pension pot has reached £1.5 million you can't have any further tax relief at all. The majority of page three (I wonder why newspapers choose page three for the topic thought to be of major interest to readers) was devoted to illustrations of how this blow would "impact on high earners," along with a section on "how to avoid being caught out."

All the illustrations assumed a pension of 1/60th of salary for each year worked. My own teacher's (public service) pension is based on 1/80th of salary for each year worked.So much for the alleged gold plating.

When I finally got round to reading it I found that the Guardian devoted only one inside column (on page 34) to this devastating news. It included a comment from Brendon Barber, general secretary of the TUC, that even further reform is needed since, because of different rates of tax paid, "it costs a higher rate taxpayer just 60p to put £1 into their pension because they get 40p tax relief. But a standard rate tax payer ... gets only 20p relief, so it cost them 80p to save £1." Oddly, the Financial Times doesn't seem to have mentioned that.

In a "Viewpoint" article the Guardian's financial diarist pointed out that tax relief on pensions "costs" the Treasury £19 billion a year, and that 25% of it goes to the top 1.5% of earners. The FT doesn't seem to have mentioned that either.

This modest reform is to be welcomed and the coalition government is to be congratulated on not being quite so relaxed as Labour about people not only becoming becoming filthy rich,but also staying that way.

The intriguing thing to me is to wonder what exactly people do with these enormous pensions. The real purpose of a pension is to avoid destitution once one's working and earning life is over. Though far from gold plated, my own teacher's pension gives me a very comfortable lifestyle, and I can't really think what I'd do with more. Perhaps the real purpose of these enormous pension pots is to feather the nests of children and grandchildren, hardly conducive to promoting fairness, or even equality of opportunity, and therefore not a proper object for any tax relief at all.