2010/11/30

生活費用漲幅超通脹英國居之不易

生活費用漲幅超通脹英國居之不易 更新時間 2010年 7月 6日, 格林尼治標準時間09:01

文章圖片
↑英國過去10年日常必需品的漲幅超過通脹50%。

英國的一個調查報告顯示,一個人要想在英國把日子過到「可接受的生活水平」,一年至少需要1.4萬英鎊。

英國約瑟夫·隆特利基金會(JRF)所做的調查報告還說,對於一個由夫婦二人和兩個孩子組成的家庭來說,要過這種生活每年則至少需要2.92萬英鎊。

這些數字顯示,英國最低工資和最低收入標準之間的差距越來越大。

JRF說,產生這一現象的主要原因是生活必需品價格的上漲。並說,新政府應當參考這些數字制定發展與解決貧困的政策。
「可以接受」

JRF的數字主要反映了自2008年以來英國家庭生活必需品價格的上漲幅度以及對「可以接受的生活標準」的新定義。

例如,電腦和互聯網服務現在已經成為一般家庭的生活必需品,而在國內某地度一周假也被認為屬於「可接受的生活水平」的一部分。

其他一些重要的調查數字顯示,雖然過去10年英國的通脹為23%,但生活必需品價格卻上漲了38%,其中包括食品價格上漲37%,公交車費上漲59%,社區稅上漲67%。

報告說,這項調查表明,一旦出現經濟不景氣,那些生活水平接近最低收入線的家庭就可能會出現生活上的困難。

而他們目前所面臨的最大困難是食品價格和稅收的上漲。

SOURCE

700萬英國人不工作靠補貼生活 被稱"不知羞恥一代"

2010-09-09 16:59:05

國際線上專稿:據英國《每日郵報》8日消息,根據英國國家統計局的最新調查數據,英國不外出工作的人口數量達到驚人的程度,65歲以下人口中,竟有730萬人從不工作。《每日郵報》將這些人稱為英國“不知羞恥的一代”。

根據英國國家統計局公佈的數據,目前約390萬個英國家庭所有成員都不工作。相關數據顯示,自1998年以來,所有成員都不工作的家庭數量飆升了22%;僅2009年一年內,這樣的家庭就增加了14.8萬個。調查同時顯示,單親家庭的成員不工作的可能性更大。

英國勞務和退休金部表示,調查暗示政府應儘快改革福利體系,讓人們通過工作獲得報酬。此外,還應對福利補貼發放人群進行排查,看這些人是否具備外出工作的條件。如果具備工作條件,應削減他們的福利金,以促使他們儘快工作,自給自足。

英國內政大臣克裏斯·格雷林7日晚表示,上述“驚人”數據是上一屆政府奉行的社會福利改革失敗的最好證明。格雷林說:“在英國的一些地方,一些家庭甚至兩代人都沒有工作。我們不希望未來的一代重蹈上一輩的覆轍。”

據悉,英國政府將於2011年啟動一個“勞動計劃”,強迫和鼓勵失業者儘快找工作,否則將面臨失去福利補貼的風險。(李傑)
source

Britain goes from dystopia to Arcadia in six months

While we will be eating caviar as a mid-morning snack, other countries will be wandering down trains with a paper cup
The economic figures are looking good, the recovery is more or less on track, and George Osborne allowed himself a mini-gloatette in the Commons yesterday when he made his autumn statement.

I was reminded strongly of a previous chancellor, who also painted a picture of Britain in glowing, sun-drenched colours. When you listened to Gordon Brown, you felt that we lived in a new Arcadia, a land where happy folk, secure in their jobs and incomes, look forward to a golden future, compared to the miserable wretches who live elsewhere.

Why, according to George, our growth rate was predicted over the next few years to be higher than Germany, France, Japan, the US, the eurozone and the EU as a whole.
While we will be living in palaces and eating caviar as a mid-morning snack, those other countries will be wandering down trains with a mangy dog and a paper cup, begging for the price of a cup of tea.

What was more, his figures were from the OBR, the office of budget responsibility – an independent body! They happen to have painted the same lush landscapes Gordon Brown used to depict.

Mr Osborne got, perhaps, a little carried away. As the deficit went down, we were going to save £19bn more than had been forecast. That was £19bn that wouldn't be going to private bond-holders and foreign governments. (Boo, hiss, bond-holders and foreigners. British debt for British debtors!). The theme was that the government had done everything right at exactly the right time. They had taken "decisive" action; I lost track of how many times he used that word. There was a slight problem, in that he had followed the Irish course while, over the past few years, lavishly praising the Irish government. He adopted a cunning response to MPs who pointed this out. He ignored them.

"The plan is working!" he cried. He sounded like Goldfinger. You half-expected him to add: "And you, Mr Bond, will be dead. Now if you will excuse me, I have important business in hand."

Alan Johnson, who followed, was rumbustious and effective. Mr Osborne had taken an "unprecedented gamble". "The chancellor is in the casino, but he hasn't spun the wheel yet!" he said. Things were not looking up. Instead they were looking down. Estimates of growth might be good, but not as good as they had been.

"Growth is going south!" he barked. And the rise in VAT would increase unemployment by 250,000.

But if he was pessimistic, Andrew Tyrie, who chairs the Treasury select committee, was positively glum. The savings ratio had halved, he said, miserably. Never invite this man to your party. He would arrive in a black cape, halt the merrymaking, and announce that a team of traffic wardens was working outside. And that more than one unit of alcohol during the evening would cause lasting health damage.
source

Public-sector job losses to be 160,000 fewer than feared, says OBR

Office for Budget Responsibility boosts government with optimistic growth prediction and says it has more than 50% chance of achieving deficit goals
Datablog: download the key data behind this report
Firefighters Protest Over Spending Cuts
 
Firefighters at a meeting of the Fire Brigades Union in November, to discuss concerns over public-sector cuts. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images
 
Public-sector job losses under the government's deficit-cutting plans will be much less punishing than first feared, according to Britain's fiscal watchdog.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said details of the government's four-year spending review, published last month, had enabled it to slash its estimate of public-sector job losses to 330,000 from 490,000. However, it believes that the government's policy to freeze public spending in 2015-16 could lead to further job losses of 80,000 that year unless welfare spending is cut further.

"We expect employment growth in the market sector will more than offset cuts in the public sector just as it did in the consolidation of the early 1990s," said the watchdog, which was set up by the chancellor, George Osborne, when he took office in May.
It delivered a further boost to the coalition government by saying that the probability of it achieving its deficit-cutting goals had increased since June.

The OBR cut its growth forecasts for coming years, although it remains markedly more optimistic than other forecasters, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As expected, the OBR upgraded its forecast for growth this year to 1.8% from 1.2% in June, reflecting the economy's surprisingly strong performance in the summer. This matches the OECD's latest prediction.

But for next year, the independent OBR cut its growth estimate to 2.1% from 2.3% – which is far more bullish than the OECD's prediction of 1.7%, and City economists' forecasts. When the OECD, the respected Paris-based thinktank funded by 30 countries, recently revised its estimates, it said the UK government's austerity measures would increase the "headwinds" facing the economy and "hamper growth".

The OBR, headed by Robert Chote, the former Institute for Fiscal Studies chief, is also significantly more optimistic about 2012 when it expects Britain's economy to grow by 2.6%, revised lower from 2.8% in June. This compares with the OECD's prediction of 2% growth.
Hetal Mehta, UK economist at Daiwa Capital Markets, said: "As expected, the recent run of upside surprises on GDP growth has led the OBR to revise up its forecast for 2010.

"The downward revision to 2011 growth is apparently thanks to consumers bringing forward their spending from the first quarter ahead of the VAT hike, although this was known at the time of the June forecast. In any case, it brings the OBR somewhat closer to the consensus, but we feel this is still on the optimistic side at over 2%. We expect growth of 1.6% in 2011," she said.

Douglas McWilliams, chief executive of the Centre for Economics and Business Research, echoed those comments. "We think the OBR is particularly over-optimistic on the consumer-side of the economy ... The key problem – one that seems to be pervasive in Whitehall to judge by these forecasts – is that people in government have no idea what is going on in the real world of business.

"They seem to think that a degree of economic momentum will continue regardless of the circumstances."

The OBR left its estimate for net borrowing this financial year virtually unchanged at £148.5bn (compared with £149bn in June). However, it said the coalition government now had a greater than 50% chance of achieving its deficit goals.
"The government has a slightly wider margin for error in meeting the mandate than appeared likely in June," it said.

It now sees borrowing as a percentage of gross domestic product at 10% this fiscal year, falling to 1.9% by 2014-15. Previously, it had seen the deficit at 10.1% of national output this year, dropping to 2.1% in the next four years.

The body was sanguine about the British contribution to the Irish bailout. "The only element that would score in the public finances would be the £3.2bn bilateral loan," it said. However, this would not affect Britain's borrowing position. "Any profit (on the interest) would reduce public-sector net borrowing. As the timing, duration and interest rate on the loan have not been announced, we could not score it in the current forecasts, but clearly the sums involved are too small to have any material effect on the outlook."
source

George Osborne sees the road to recovery despite report

New fiscal watchdog warns economic situation is delicately balanced, while Labour says government predictions are overly optimistic
Britain's Finance Minister George Osborne addresses parliament in London
 
George Osborne, centre, told the Commons that he would 'stick to the course' on the economy. Photograph: Reuters
 
George Osborne vowed yesterday to press ahead with spending cuts and tax rises, despite concerns that a report by the government's fiscal watchdog showed the recovery was delicately balanced and could be derailed if exports faltered or unemployment went up faster than expected.

The chancellor, who was accused of not having a plan B, told the Commons he would "stick to the course" following a report by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) that provided both ministers and opposition MPs with ammunition as they debated the fate of the economy.

Osborne said the OBR's independent forecast backed his view that the UK was likely to avoid a double-dip recession next year and grow steadily over the life of the parliament. It said the economy would grow by 1.8% this year – a substantial increase on the 1.2% previously expected, and greater than forecasts by international groups such as the OECD.
Osborne told MPs: "This is an uncertain world but the British recovery is on track. 

Employment is growing, one million more jobs are being created, the deficit is set to fall, the plan is working. So we will stick to the course. That is the only way to help confidence to flourish and growth to return."

The OBR report, made in response to the government's comprehensive spending review, also backed projections by the Treasury that the UK's annual budget deficit would be reduced from one of the highest in the G20 to one of the lowest following five years of austerity.

Osborne said the UK would avoid the fate of Ireland, which has agreed to accept an £85bn bailout, with £7bn from the UK.

The OBR also revised downwards its forecast for the number of job losses in the public sector, from 490,000 to 330,000, after a switch from cuts in Whitehall spending to cuts in welfare payments over the next five years.

But the OBR said growth over the next two years would be less than expected, giving support to opposition claims that austerity measures would hurt the recovery. Critics of the tax and spending plans said the coalition was gambling that exports would rise and businesses would dramatically increase employment to drive Britain out of recession.
Several business groups and City analysts joined the shadow chancellor, Alan Johnson, in calling the OBR's forecasts "overly optimistic" when the world economy was slowing and continental Europe was in the grip of a debt crisis.

Johnson characterised Osborne's approach as a "reckless gamble" that relied too heavily on exports and could lead to a "jobless recovery". He said the chancellor was attempting fiscal tightening at a rate that had only been attempted twice in living memory – both times by countries benefiting from strong growth.

Douglas Alexander, the shadow work and pensions secretary, will warn in a speech today that "In the current economic crisis, no country other than Ireland has attempted to cut so deeply, so quickly," he told MPs. "The chancellor has chosen to take an unprecedented gamble with people's livelihoods and the country's future, and he has done so on the basis of a fundamental deceit that when he assumed office the public finances were worse than expected. …

" The reckless gamble that members opposite support is still to come. The chancellor is in the casino, but he hasn't spun the wheel yet."

Osborne's austerity drive will make the return to pre-recession levels of employment "slower and more painful" than many people expect. With the dole queue shrinking by just 15,000 since the coalition came to power, it could take 15 years before numbers claiming out-of-work benefits drop below one million if present trends continue, he will say.

Most economists have spent the last three months downgrading forecasts for next year after surveys showed a slump in confidence among consumers and businesses. With house prices falling and much of the rise in employment attributed to part-time workers, consumer spending is expected to weaken.

The OBR forecast growth would moderate next year from 2.3% to 2.1%, as exports and business investment slowed.

According to analysts at Cambridge Econometrics, even this forecast was optimistic, while David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, warned the economy would struggle next year and unemployment was likely rise above the 8% predicted by the OBR.

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said Osborne "must have missed the forecast showing unemployment little better than static for the next three years". He added: "What is the point of economic policy if it does not include getting people back to work? And while the OBR report is full of uncertainty [about the economy] … George Osborne does not have the plan B any sensible chancellor should."

Osborne, who used his response to the OBR report to announce a review of corporation tax, said borrowing this year was expected to be £1bn less than forecast in June. He added: "On the OBR's central forecast, we will meet our fiscal mandate to eliminate the structural current budget deficit one year early, in 2014-15. And the same is true for our target to get debt falling as a percentage of GDP." Over the forecast period, Osborne said £19bn would be saved in interest payments on the national debt.
source

Philip Green to be target of corporate tax avoidance protest

• UK Uncut challenge billionaire Cameron efficiency adviser
• 'Tax avoidance' protest focuses on Green's Arcadia's stores
London protest at Arcadia owner Philip Green 
Students protest over tax avoidance and education cuts, outside a London Topshop, part of the group owned by Sir Philip Green, now also David Cameron's efficiency adviser. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi for the Guardian
 
Sir Philip Green, the retail billionaire and efficiency adviser to the government, is to become the target of a nationwide campaign by protesters opposed to government cuts and alleged tax avoidance.

High street stores belonging to the businessman's group, including Topshop, Dorothy Perkins and Miss Selfridge, will be among those that protesters focus on in the run-up to Christmas.

Plans to disrupt Arcadia Group stores were devised by UK Uncut, a fast-expanding group of activists who have closed down more than 30 Vodafone shops in the past six weeks by mobilising through social networks.

UK Uncut's Twitter hashtag, #ukuncut, has become the rallying point for opponents of the government's austerity cuts. It was used widely by protesters who this month clashed with police during two large demonstrations against the proposed increase in student tuition fees.
The group started up when activists decided to target Vodafone on 27 October, claiming that the company had avoided £6bn in tax, an allegation denied by Vodafone. The protest, organised through Twitter, went viral and over some weeks more stores closed.

About 20 UK Uncut activists met several times before deciding to make Green a target. They plan to call on activists to approach shops in the Arcadia Group, as well as Vodafone, from Saturday. They intend to start by congregating at Green's flagship store, Topshop, in London's Oxford Circus. In a sign of UK Uncut's expanding popularity, they have secured the backing of the Jubilee Debt Campaign, and of War on Want, two mainstream anti-poverty campaigns with almost 30,000 supporters between them.

Activists hope a campaign against Green's retail empire will drive a wedge between David Cameron, who selected him to review efficiency in Whitehall, and the prime minister's Lib Dem partners, who are calling for action against tax avoiders.

Green's document, published in October, reported "shocking" wastage in the government's procurement strategy. However, his suitability as a government adviser was questioned because of his alleged tax avoidance. The businessman banked the biggest pay cheque in corporate history in 2005 when his Arcadia fashion business, which owns Topshop, paid a £1.2bn dividend. The record-breaking payment went to his wife, Tina, who lives in Monaco and is the direct owner of Arcadia. Because of this arrangement no UK income tax was due on the gain.

Richard Murphy, director of Tax Research UK, estimated Green saved £285m by paying the dividend to his wife.

Arcadia's holding company is Taveta Investments, which paid £71m in tax in the last financial year. Beyond Taveta, based behind Oxford Street, London, the ownership trail goes offshore via a Jersey-based investment vehicle called Taveta Ltd.

Arcadia has declined to comment about the planned protests or alleged tax avoidance. Green previously said the tax issue was not "relevant" to a discussion about his suitability to lead a government spending review. "I contribute tens of millions of pounds [to the exchequer]. I employ 45,000 people and pay tens and tens of millions of pounds of tax," he said.

Tax avoidance has been estimated by the TUC to have lost exchequer about £25bn in revenue, including £13bn attributed to individuals.

"Philip Green is a tax avoider, and yet is regarded by David Cameron as an appropriate man to advise the government on austerity," said UK Uncut's spokesman, 26-year-old Daniel Garvin. "His missing millions need to be reclaimed and invested into public services not into his wife's bank account."
source

Injuries and arrests as anti-cuts protest in south-east London turns violent

Police forced to call for reinforcements as hundreds force their way into Lewisham Council meeting
Police tonight arrested several people outside Lewisham town hall in south-east London as demonstrators tried to gatecrash a meeting where councillors were voting to cut the council budget by £60m.

Officers had to call for help from the Metropolitan police's Territorial Support Group as 100 protesters tried to force their way into the building.

"Police have made a number of arrests for criminal damage and public order offences," the Met said in a statement. "A number of police officers were treated for minor injuries."
Sue Luxton, a former Green party councillor who was returning home from work at 6.45pm, said she saw 200 to 300 protesters, including a large number of students from Goldsmiths College.

"People were angry because the council had arranged for only 40 people to attend the meeting, although many wanted to be there," Luxton said. "About 100 people tried to rush in. I think the police were little overwhelmed. There were police with riot shields and police horses. The area was cordoned off – buses couldn't get through."

A YouTube video showed much pushing and shoving outside the town hall as police barred protesters holding "fight the cuts" placards and who were chanting: "Let us in."
Darren Johnson, a Green councillor, said he voted against the cuts along with two Conservatives. The Labour majority voted in favour while the Liberal Democrats abstained.
"There are better ways of doing these rather deep cuts in frontline services," Johnson said. "I spoke of the importance of reducing high salaries of officers and cutting budgets for consultants, PR and marketing. These cuts will mean the closure of an early learning centre and less street cleaning."

Local councils face large budget cuts after the coalition government significantly reduced local government funding in October's comprehensive spending review. Lewisham has to find savings of £60m in its annual £271m budget over the next three years. Mike Harris, the Labour vice-chair of the council, said: "Lewisham gets 82% of its income from central government. After the CSR, we expect our budget to be reduced by 29% which will have an absolutely devastating effect on local services. Tonight, protesters set off flames and attempted to storm the town hall. The sad thing is, people will get increasingly angry as the cuts begin to bite on the very poorest in society."
source

Tuition fees study challenges claim that changes are progressive

Analysis shows there will be less social mobility and nearly two-thirds of graduates will pay more for their degrees
Tuition fees protest in London 
Police detain demonstrators in Whitehall, following a student protest against plans to raise tuition fees. Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA
 
The coalition's planned reform of university funding will limit social mobility and see almost two-thirds of graduates paying much more for a degree, according to an analysis of the proposals published today. The report argues that its analysis undermines the government's claim that the changes are progressive.

The "triple whammy" of higher fees, real interest rates for loans and a longer period before the debt is written off is likely to represent a bad deal for taxpayers, argues million+, a university lobby group. The changes will leave between 60% and 65% of graduates worse off, with middle-income earners hit the hardest, it says.

Allowing universities to charge fees of up to £9,000 a year, with a basic threshold of £6,000, will result in many women ending up in debt for most of their working lives, while pupils from poor families will be put off applying, and mature students may also be deterred, it says.
A male primary school teacher from a middle-income home could find himself between £15,000 and £25,000 worse off than today, the analysis found. On average, graduates will be approximately £5,000 worse off, the thinktank argues, based on economic modelling carried out by international consultancy London Economics.

Million+, which represents 28 former polytechnics, said the findings discredited the coalition's insistence that the moves were progressive and would boost social mobility.
The report points out that, although ministers will raise the amount graduates must be earning before they start repaying loans – from £15,000 to £21,000 – the higher figure refers to earnings in 2015-16, when it will be worth less than in today's money.

And it claims that the changes – which will also see state funding for university teaching cut by 80% by 2014-15 – will leave taxpayers worse off because the government will have to borrow more to fund higher loans and pick up a bigger bill for debts that are written off after 30 years. Write-off costs are likely to rise from 27.5p in the pound to at least 36p, it estimates.

"It is difficult to see how the proposals provide a long-term, sustainable framework for the funding of higher education and universities in England," the report says.

It also accuses the government of using simplistic measures to define social mobility, such as the number of students on free school meals who go to Oxford, rather than assessing whether a having degree helps those from deprived backgrounds get better jobs.

An Ipsos Mori poll last week found that fees of £6,000 a year – the coalition's proposed basic threshold from 2012 – will lead to a dramatic fall in the number of students from disadvantaged families going to university.

"There is undoubtedly a real risk that participation in higher education and, in particular, participation by those from lower socio-economic groups and mature students will be undermined," the million+ report says.

Professor Les Ebdon, who chaired the group, said the findings showed there were "no real winners" from the proposals.

"Even where graduates benefit from making lower monthly repayments than at present, many more of them will never repay their loans," said Pam Tatlow, the chief executive of million+.

"The 25% of students who enter university in their 20s and as mature students are particularly adversely affected. A women entering employment as a primary school teacher at the age of 30 would … never repay and would still have outstanding debts of more than £21,000 at the end of the 30-year write-off period."

Dr Gavan Conlon, of London Economics, said: "There has been a very narrow focus on the loan system when considering progressiveness. What matters to students and their families is the total cost associated with participation in higher education."

Aaron Porter, the president of the NUS, said: "Rather than seeking to steamroller proposals through parliament without proper scrutiny, ministers should rethink this reckless approach and tackle the number of serious questions that require answers."
SOURCE

Nick Clegg claims fees debate could deter poor from applying to university

Pressure mounts on 57 Lib Dem MPs in coalition as Labour forces issue on plan to raise tuition fees to £9,000 a year

Nick Clegg
 
 
Nick Clegg has written to the NUS president arguing the new system is fair, ahead of the third tuition fees demonstration. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian
Ructions in the government over plans to raise university fees will be forced into the open today when Labour triggers a vote in the House of Commons that could bring about the first rebellion of the coalition.

MPs will debate the plan to raise tuition fees to £9,000 a year as students stage their third and largest national demonstration against the plans. Last night the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, wrote to the head of the National Union of Students appealing to students not to distort the debate over fees, saying that many believe wrongly that they will have to pay fees immediately instead of when they graduate. Clegg warned of potentially "tragic" consequences whereby the poorest would be put off applying at all.

Coalition MPs are under a three-line whip to attend the opposition day debate on a Labour-authored motion that falls short of opposing higher fees, but calls for the white paper on the future of universities to properly explain the plans before the Commons votes on the fee cap.
It is carefully worded so that Liberal Democrats in the coalition could vote against the rest of the government without ultimately killing off the planned increase in fees. If they do rebel, it could aid behind-the-scenes efforts to win concessions before the plans are voted on in parliament within the next two weeks.

John Denham, the shadow business secretary, said: "What we're trying to achieve is to show that parliament is being railroaded into a decision just on the fee cap when there are crucial questions on how the policy would work that haven't been answered with a proper white paper."

The Labour move comes amid mounting pressure on all 57 Lib Dems in the coalition. Yesterday a petition signed by 104 former parliamentary candidates for the Lib Dems, essentially representing the party's grassroots, called on Clegg to abide by the pre-election pledge to vote against higher fees. Research published today suggests that the higher fees will profoundly damage social mobility.

One option the leadership is considering is organising a mass abstention to avoid any damaging splits. A party source said that Clegg was still in "listening mode" while also pressing for more concessions and trying to avoid a full-scale rebellion. Clegg's letter to Aaron Porter, president of the NUS, argued that the proposed system was fair because it ends upfront fees for part-time students and raises the repayment threshold to when a graduate is earning £21,000. He warned it would be a "tragedy if we inadvertently allowed our debate about the methods to damage our shared goal" to encourage more students from poorer homes to go to university.

Analysis by the lobbying group representing new universities, Million +, suggests the reforms will limit social mobility and see almost two-thirds of graduates paying much more for a degree than they do now. The "triple whammy" of higher fees, real interest rates for loans and a longer debt write-off period is likely to represent a bad deal for taxpayers and will leave between 60% and 65% of graduates worse off, with middle-income earners hit hardest, according to the study.

Allowing universities to charge £9,000 a year will result in many women spending most of their working lives in debt, while pupils from poor families and mature students will be put off applying, it said.

Million+, which represents 28 former polytechnics, said the findings discredited the coalition's insistence that the moves were progressive. It claims the changes will leave taxpayers worse off because the government will have to borrow more to fund higher loans and pick up a bigger bill for debts written off after 30 years. Write-off costs are likely to rise from 27.5p in the pound to at least 36p, it estimates.
SOURCE

Students plan third and biggest education cuts protest

The largest of this month's three protests against education cuts is expected as thousands sign up for direct action around the UK


student-protest-education-cuts-topshop
 
 
Students on Oxford Street, London, protest last week against cuts in higher education spending and the salary of Topshop owner Sir Philip Green, now a government adviser. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi for the Guardian
 
 
Tens of thousands of school, college and university students are expected to protest against education cuts tomorrow, in the third day of demonstrations this month.
By this evening, over 5,500 people had signed up for a day of direct action in London alone, where the national campaign against fees and cuts has organised a march on parliament, and where last week thousands of school pupils and students were "kettled" by police for several hours.

Over the weekend NUS president Aaron Porter apologised for his "spineless" lack of public support for last week's demonstration, when tens of thousands of students walked out of lessons, but today's protests will have NUS backing.On the nationwide Facebook page for the demonstrations, over 24,000 students had indicated they would be protesting across the UK tomorrow. "Direct action", ranging from walking out of lessons to rallies is expected in over 40 towns and cities, with crowds of around 2,000 expected in Manchester, Bristol and Brighton.

Some 32 universities are still being occupied following last Wednesday's protests, with most planning to keep a small group in the seized buildings while fellow students march. Around 60-70 occupants from Newcastle University intend to join students and pupils from local sixth form and further education colleges on a marching through the city centre, with some 1,700 had signed up to the Facebook page for the event yesterday, with the demonstration planned to culminate in a mass snowball fight.

Hundreds of students occupying the administrative headquarters of Cambridge University were issued with a possession order this evening, which could force them to leave the building. Talks were in progress last night, as the students planned to meet with cohorts and around 900 school pupils near the university today to march through the city in protest against cuts. Students occupying Appleton Tower at Edinburgh University said they would be joined by school and college pupils for a march from Bristo Square to the Scottish parliament at Holyrood, with "hundreds" expected to join the protest.

Last week's demonstrations were noted for the large number of school and college pupils – some as young as 14 – who walked out of lessons to take part. Some estimates put the total number of protesters in the UK at 130,000.

While the protests were mainly peaceful, the London demonstrations saw a police van vandalised after thousands of students were 'kettled' by police on Whitehall, in central London, and later protesters were subjected to repeated charges by officers on horseback.
An NUS-organised protest against increases in tuition fees two weeks earlier saw a minority of protesters break into the Conservative Party's headquarters at 30 Millbank.

Simon Hardy from the national campaign against fees and cuts, said he met with the Metropolitan police today[mon] to discuss plans for the protest. Thousands of students are expected to gather in Trafalgar Square before marching on Parliament, where they will hold a rally. "What I'm concerned about is overreactions by the police," Hardy said.

"It's the position of the National Campaign against fees and cuts that there has been no violence from the protesters. "There's been vandalism, that's true, smashing a police van and smashing the Tory Party HQ windows, but the violence has overwhelmingly come from the police – there was batoning of students, there was a horse charge on Whitehall on the 24th.

"We're going to have stewarding to keep ourselves safe and maintain our right to protests, and we're not going to accept violence from the police as they try to intimidate people or to bully or harrass them, which is effectively what the actions were on Whitehall on the 24th."A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan police said there had been a lack of communication ahead of last Wednesday's protest, but insisted police were "more than happy to allow peaceful protests".

"As regards our tactics and the actual plan itself, the plan is flexible and its adaptable to what happens on the ground," she said.

"Containment remains a tactic that is open to us. We only use it if its appropriate and if its proportionate to what's going on on the ground.

"While we hope we don't have to use it, if the circumstances happen we may again have to consider it and use it."

But the head of the Metropolitan police's public order branch, Commander Bob Broadhurst, warned: "Schoolchildren have as much right as anyone else to protest, but young people are more vulnerable and likely to be injured if violence breaks out.

"We would ask parents to talk to their children and make sure they're aware of the potential dangers, as there is only so much police officers can do once they are in a crowd of thousands."
SOURCE

財長奧斯本稱英國經濟走上復甦軌道







2010年11月29日 星期一    
英國稅收與花費監督機構,預算責任辦公室(OBR)11月29號發表預測,將2010年的經濟增長預測上調至1.8%。財政大臣奧斯本回應說,英國經濟已經走上復甦的「軌道」,儘管國際環境還頗具「挑戰性」。

奧 斯本今天在議會對議員們表示,由於出口和投資的增長,英國經濟走上了「可持續發展」的道路,他說:【錄音】「在經歷了戰後最深入的衰退、和平時期最多的預 算赤字以及有生以來最大的銀行危機之後,經濟復甦將比以往任何衰退之後的復甦更加具有挑戰性。但是,預算責任辦公室的預測表明,英國的經濟復甦上了「軌 道」。經濟正在增長。正在創造更多的就業機會。赤字正在減少。正當市場擔憂整個歐洲的政府財政問題的時候,今天,我們看到,本屆政府正確的採取了果斷行 動,帶領英國走出財政危險區。英國正在經濟增長和收支平衡的過程中。」

今年五月成立的預算責任辦公室,是一家獨立的監督機構。雖然它上調了2010年的增長預測,但是將2011年的增長預測下調至2.1%,2012年預測也下調至2.6%。

預算責任辦公室還減少了公共部門失業的預測,從將來四年總共裁員49萬的預測減少至33萬。它還表示,2011年的總失業率可能會上升到8%的頂點,但是到2015年之前會下降至6%。

因此,奧斯本告訴議員們,將不會出現「二次衰退」現象。

奧斯本還宣佈政府正在為一代人決定最有意義的公司稅計劃。通過改革過時而又繁瑣的控制外國公司的條例,將讓英國成為對國際商業和投資來說,更有吸引力的地方。

他補充說,從2013年4月,高技術公司從新的商業專利上的獲利,將在繳納公司稅的時候享受10%的優惠。

對於經濟增長的預測,工黨堅持認為是他們之前經濟政策的結果。但是對於政府部門失業的減少,避免了工黨指責聯合政府不計後果的魯莽裁員。

英國勞工聯合會表示,2010年的失業率預測最高,奧斯本似乎忽略了,經濟措施如果不包括人們重新就業還有什麼意義呢?

但是,英國工業聯合會反擊說,預算責任辦公室的預測與工業聯合會的觀點一致,我們的經濟正在增長。這將重新平衡經濟,並帶動就業機會的持續增長。而且,財長的發言標誌了英國將有更具競爭力的公司稅的可能。 

希望之聲國際廣播電台記者成容、唐麗綜合報道
SOURCE

英國經濟復蘇或將遲緩 英鎊/美元29日小幅收低

英國預算責任辦公室(OBR)周一(11月29日)表示,預計經濟復蘇將"相對遲緩",2011年英國GDP增速或將為2.1%,此前預期為2.3%。

與此同時,英國債務管理局(UK Debt Management Office)表示,將增加2010/11年英國國債發行規模2億英鎊,至1652億英鎊。
推薦閱讀
歐洲債務危機850億歐元救助愛爾蘭計劃達成 歐盟擬新設更大救助基金
美議員再度施壓人民幣

此外,英國財政大臣奧斯本(George Osborne)表示,英國將自2013年4月起針對企業新商業化專利所產生的盈利征收10%的企業稅。

英鎊/美元紐約時段開於1.5590水平,早盤時段,匯價震蕩下滑,盤中刷新日內低點1.5527水平。午盤時段,匯價穩步反彈,最終收於1.5570水平附近。

從技術上看,英鎊/美元受阻於5日均線,MACD指標綠色動能柱放大,KDJ指標向超賣區域延伸。若匯價跌破1.5480水平,則下行目標將指向1.5320水平。若匯價突破1.5690水平,則反彈目標將指向1.5860水平。

北京時間04:56,英鎊/美元報1.5574/77。
SOURCE

英國威廉王子婚禮可能邀請流浪漢參加

2010年11月25日 09:41 中國日報網站

據英國《每日郵報》11月24日報道,英國王室23日正式宣佈,威廉王子與未婚妻凱特-米德爾頓的婚禮將於明年4月29日在威斯敏斯特教堂舉行,屆時,英國將舉行一系列慶祝活動,預計將持續數天時間。

***威廉要辦“人民的王室婚禮”

英國首相卡梅倫也已經證實,明年4月29日將成為英國的公共假期,而因為婚禮舉行日與雙休日和五一勞動節法定假日連在了一起,這意味著英國民眾在此期間可以連休四天。

“到那時,可以容納2000人的威斯敏斯特教堂將成為一個歡樂的海洋,包括流行歌手演唱會、街頭派對在內的各項慶祝活動將陸續在這附近上演,”一位不願透露姓名的王室高級工作人員説。威斯敏斯特教堂一直是英國君王安葬或加冕登基的地點。英國女王伊麗莎白二世1947年就是在這裡嫁給了菲利普親王,而威廉王子的母親、已故戴安娜王妃1997年的葬禮也於此舉行。

“這是一場‘人民的王室婚禮’,各國政要、達官顯貴可能不會進入威廉王子婚禮賓客的頭號邀請名單,因為他更加希望邀請他所接觸過的流浪漢、孤兒或是熱心公益事業的志願者來參加他的婚禮,”王室工作人員透露,“各國首腦這些大人物可能會由女王來招待”。

此外,王室消息人士還稱,正如之前外界預測的那樣,這場盛大的婚禮將主要由王室來埋單,而準新娘的父母只需要支付例如婚禮蛋糕、婚禮飾品這些“小錢”。

***長假或致50億英鎊損失

不過,這場能為民眾帶來連續四天假期的婚禮也引來了商業人士的擔心,他們認為長假可能會給英國經濟造成50億英鎊(約合525億元人民幣)的鉅額損失。因為婚禮之前的週末恰好是復活節,因此從4月22日到5月2日期間,英國商家將只有三天的正常營業時間。

英國僱主們表示,零售業因為長假而導致的滯銷將尤為嚴重。因為很多員工可能為了能夠連續休息而選擇在中間的三天工作日休年假,這將導致一些店舖或許要連關11天。

據英國工業聯盟估計,因為這次長假,各行業因為減産和支付員工加班費造成的經濟損失預計可達60億英鎊。儘管威廉王子的婚禮有益於拉動旅遊業的增長和相關紀念品的銷售,但是這只能帶來10億英鎊的額外收益,遠遠不足以彌補損失。

“這就是説,為了給威廉王子舉行婚禮,我們整個國家要花上50億英鎊,”英國小企業聯合會發言人史蒂芬?阿拉布裏提斯説。

此前,英國媒體曾樂觀估計威廉王子的婚禮將拉動英國低迷的經濟,尤其是帶動旅遊業的發展。

英國旅遊業界預測,婚禮可為旅遊業帶來7.5億英鎊的收入,其中包括遊客購買準新娘所佩戴的藍寶石戒指等紀念品以及到王室相關景點參觀的旅遊收入。

有數據顯示,英國每年接待大約300萬名海外遊客,但受全球金融危機的影響,今年4月至6月期間,訪英的遊客數量比去年同期減少了3%,連帶整體旅遊業收入下降。相關人士因此希望能借威廉的婚禮重新吸引大批海外遊客赴英國遊覽。

(來源:中國日報網 方穎 )
SOURCE

美國患了「英國病」?

Hong Kong Economic Journal
P30 | 專家之言 | By Barry Eichengreen
2010-11-13

美國衰落的徵兆十分明顯。大權濫用、政治兩極分化及耗費巨大的金融危機,都沉重地壓在經濟之上。現在一些專家擔心美國將要罹患「英國病」。

受困於緩慢的增長,今天的美國,仿如二戰後疲憊的英國,將被逼減少其國際責任。這將給諸如中國的新興力量提供機會,但也將讓世界處於一段地緣政治不確定的時期。

為分析這些前景,理解英國病的本質很重要。它並不單純是1870 年後美國和英國增長速度超過英國。畢竟,後起國家發展迅速完全正常,就像今天的中國。問題是英國在十九世紀末沒能帶領其經濟到新的層次。

英國從第一次工業革命的舊工業向現代部門轉換的動作遲緩,阻礙了大規模生產方法的採用。它也沒能採用依賴電能的精確機械,導致在組裝打字機、收銀機和汽車方面不能用機器生產的零件。在其他新興工業,比如合成化學品、燃料、電話通訊,也是如此,在這些領域英國都沒能建立立足點。

低成本的新興經濟力量的崛起,使得紡織、鋼鐵、和造船等舊工業的就業損失無可避免。但英國失敗的特別之處是,它沒能將這些十九世紀舊工業轉換成二十世紀新工業。

對症下藥技術須進步

美國會不會重蹈覆轍?要回答這個問題,就要理解英國缺乏技術進步性的原因。普遍接受的解釋是英國文化排斥勤勉和創新。在英國現代化的長河中,勤勉的人都被納入統治集團。從十九世紀中葉開始,最出色的人才都投身政治,而非商業。

從商店中提拔上來的企業經理人,據說只是二流貨。

如今我們大概能看到美國有類似的問題。用《紐約時報》大衛.布魯克斯的話說:「在幾十年的富足之後,美國偏離了這個國家一開始獲取財富所依靠的冷靜的實用主義……美國最聰明的人放棄了工業和技術行業,投身於更崇高但沒有生產力的領域,比如法律、金融、諮詢,以及非盈利活動。」實際上,這個所謂的英國衰落的解釋,經不起時間的考驗,並沒有系統性的證據證明英國的經理人低人一等。確實,讓公司建立者的子女以外的人擔當經理,結果適得其反。這使得平民能達到頂層。

今天的美國也找不到所說問題的證據,矽谷的眾公司並未抱怨缺乏有才華的經理,創業的,甚至是去汽車公司的MBA都不在少數。

競爭政策後天缺乏症

英國的衰落,普遍認為是教育系統出了毛病。牛津和劍橋始建於工業時代之前很久,造就了顯赫的哲學家和歷史學家,卻沒有多少科學家和工程師。

但這一論斷並不適用於美國,美國的大學仍然是世界領頭羊,吸引着全世界的科學和工程研究生赴美,其中許多還留在了美國。

還有人將英國的衰落解釋成金融系統的作用。英國的銀行成長於十九世紀初,當時工業的資本需求不大,主要是為外貿而非國內投資融資,這也使得需要資本的工業難以成長。

實際上,說英國青睞外貿甚於國內投資的實際證據也十分薄弱,無論如何,這段歷史業餘美國的現狀無關,美國是處在外國投資的接收端,而非投放端。

對英國未能維持強盛的最後一種解釋歸罪於經濟政策。英國沒能設立有效的競爭政策。為應對1929 年的需求崩潰,它設立起關稅壁壘。沒有了國外競爭,工業變得肚滿腸肥。二戰之後,兩大黨輪番執政導致了政策不斷收放,增加了不確定性,產生了長期財政問題。

這就是英國衰退最令人信服的解釋。

針對1930 年代金融危機,英國沒能建立連貫的政策。其政黨並未共同努力解決經濟問題,而是仍然互相掣肘。國家轉為內鬥。政治變得難以控制,政策反復無常,經濟愈加不穩定。

簡言之,英國的失敗在於政治,而非經濟。而不幸的是,這段歷史與美國的現狀十分類似。

加州大學柏克萊分校的經濟和政治學教授版權所有:Project Syndicate, 201 0.

Barry Eichengreen
SOURCE
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...