Corporates: the rip-off continues
Thursday 6 June 2013
 The company's profit after tax was £699 million compared with £761 million last year, while operating profit fell from just under £2.35 billion in 2011/12 to just under £2.22 billion. Revenue rose from just over £6 billion to just under £6.2 billion. Yet, as we recorded earlier, the five top "executives" at Network Rail have walked away with more than £350,000 in bonuses for the financial year 2012/13. Head honcho David Higgins got the biggest payout, pocketing £99,082 to add to his already over-generous salary of £577,000. Group finance director Patrick Butcher (right), ripped off rail users for £67,658, to add to his already excessive salary of £394,000. Robin Gisby, managing director for network operations and Simon Kirby, the managing director for infrastructure projects, both on £371,000, each got bonuses of £63,708. While Paul Plummer, the group strategy director, received a payment of £59,759, to boost his £348,000 salary. After their actual performance, and the Swiss referendum backing executive pay curbs, together with the EU proposals on bankers' bonuses, corporate Britain is looking even more exposed. So often, we are told that these special people must be paid pots of money because of their special skills, yet what is actually happening is that corporate placeholders are using the system to rip-off their customers, while delivering mediocre performance. Where we have a company such as Network Rail, where the debt is underwritten by the taxpayer, this is effectively a public-sector operation. The management have invested no capital, and are taking no personal or financial risks. That the "bosses" should then walk away with high six-figure salaries is intolerable. It is a travesty of what is claimed to be capitalism. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 06/06/2013 |
Energy: push-me, pull you policy
Thursday 6 June 2013
 It also happens to be the 69th anniversary of D-Day – the invasion of Europe, which is just about as relevant – or perhaps more so. The invasion was a major turning point in the fight against tyranny, and this current move has more in common with that, than a totally artificial PR stunt devoted to a movement that aims to enslave us all. Harrabin's whinge, though, is that, if there were to be a major fall in the number of wind farms being built, "this would present a problem for the government's long-term legally binding targets on cutting CO2 emissions". And that is precisely the effect feared, with local communities being are to be given more powers to block onshore wind farms. The upside, though, is it saves us having to acquire more examples ofthese - although if the windmills do go ahead, communities are to be offered greater incentives to accept them. Since the communities are allowed to decide on how the money is spent, we might get the best of both worlds – more nut splitters and a scrap metal bonanza. However, the BBC is doing its best to gild the lilly, telling us that the measure will see a five-fold rise in the benefits paid by developers to communities hosting wind farms. The current £1,000 per MW of installed capacity per year thus increases to £5,000 per MW per year, for the lifetime of the wind farm. Subsidies worth about £100,000 a year from a medium-sized farm could be used to reduce energy bills. For example, a scheme run by the wind farm company RES at its Meikle Carewe operation, near Aberdeen, will see local residents get £122 off their annual electricity bills. Strangely, though, what the BBC doesn't mention is that, if a community gets £100,000 a year, the developer will get £2 million a year in subsidies on top of £2 million for their electricity, representing a 20-fold increase in cost to the wider community. As always, therefore, people are being bribed with other people's money. On top of that, of course, the communities suffer loss of property values, nuisance and loss of amenity value. Yet scenery is a valuable asset, fuelling a £60 billion tourist industry. This is to be thrown away in order to make a few windmill developers very rich. Fortunately, the added "community bribe" is being seen as a deterrent by the wind industry. Maria McCaffery, chief executive of trade association RenewableUK, says the proposals would signal the end of many planned developments and that was "disappointing". She adds: "Developing wind farms requires a significant amount of investment to be made up front. Adding to this cost, by following the government's advice that we should pay substantially more into community funds for future projects, will unfortunately make some planned wind energy developments uneconomic in England". Welcome though this is, it all adds to the incoherence of the government's energy policy, upon which North Jr remarks on his facebook thingy. We have a push-me, pull-you policy, facing both ways and trying to go different directions at the same time. And, entertaining though that might be, it is never a good idea. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 06/06/2013 |
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Posts
