Politics news Updates India

Friday, February 9 2018

Fixation of seniority/year of allotment of promotee IAS officers of Tripura cadre for the Select List of 2007-A, 2009 and 2011

Home » Tripura » You are reading » Fixation of seniority/year of allotment of promotee IAS officers of Tripura cadre for the Select List of 2007-A, 2009 and 2011 Fixation of seniority/year of allotment of promotee IAS officers of Tripura cadre for the Select List of 2007-A, 2009 and 2011 – reg. F. No.14014/07/2004-AIS-I Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) Dated 08.02.2018 ORDER Whereas, this Department in the wake of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana order dated 01.02.2010 in CWP No.15798/2009 in the case of Praveen Kumar, an State Civil Service officer of Punjab cadre Vs Union of India and as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, issued notification dated 18.4.2012 for making amendment in the respective seniority regulations for IAS/IPS/IFoS. These amendments were however made applicable to the Select Lists prepared as per the ratio laid down in the case of Praveen Kumar and accordingly, seniority/year of allotment of the officers included in the said Select Lists were determined as per the amended seniority regulations. 2. Consequent upon dismissal of SLP No.4930-4931 of 2016 and Review Petition No. 001428 -001429/2017 filed by DoPT in the case of F.R. Jamadar and other connected court cases filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs viz. CA No.4419 of 2016 —UOI Vs Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Ors, CA No.8199 of 2016 —UOI Vs Arvind Kumar Sharda & Ors, CA No.8200 of 2016 —UOI Vs Keval Krishna Indoria & Ors, CA No.1396 of 2016 —UOI Vs R.A. Sanjeev and WP (C) No. 301 of 2016 -N.K.S. Chauhan Vs UOI, this Department vide OM No. No.14014/14/2014-AIS-I dated 21.8.2017 has decided to apply the amended seniority regulations prospectively i.e. w.e.f. 18.04.2012. 3. This Department vide OM No.14014/14/2014-AIS-I dated 03.11.2017 has decided that Seniority/year of allotment of officer appointed after 18.4.2012 against the vacancies arisen between 1.2.2010 to 18.4.2012 may be fixed as per pre-amended seniority rules throughout the Cadres. 4.Further, this Department vide OM No.14014/14/2014-AIS-I dated 22.01.2018 has also decided to count the service of the officer rendered in the rank of Deputy Collector or equivalent upto the 31st December of the vacancy year against which he has been appointed to the IAS. 5. And whereas, the seniority /year of allotment of officers appointed by promotion to IAS of Tripura cadre from Select List 2007-A, 2009 and 2011 notified during the period from 1.2.2010 to 18.4.2012/ prepared against the vacancies arisen during the said period have been reviewed and re-determined by applying pre-amended seniority rule 3 (3)(ii) of IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 read with clarification dated 21.08.2017, 03.11.2017 and 22.01.2018 as under: Weightage Formula as per pre-amended Seniority Rules is as under:- Completed years of qualifying service Weightage in years

Friday, February 9 2018

Fixation of seniority/year of allotment of promotee IAS officers of Karnataka cadre for the Select List of 2008-A, 2009, 2010 and 2011

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) Dated 08.02.2018 ORDER Whereas, this Department in the wake of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana order dated 01.02.2010 in CWP No.15798/2009 in the case of Praveen Kumar, an State Civil Service officer of Punjab cadre Vs Union of India and as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, issued notification dated 18.4.2012 for making amendment in the respective seniority regulations for IAS/IPS/IFoS. These amendments were however made applicable to the Select Lists prepared as per the ratio laid down in the case of Praveen Kumar and accordingly, seniority/year of allotment of the officers included in the said Select Lists were determined as per the amended seniority regulations. 2. Consequent upon dismissal of SLP No.4930-4931 of 2016 and Review Petition No. 001428 -001429/2017 filed by DoPT in the case of F.R. Jamadar and other connected court cases filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs viz. CA No.4419 of 2016 —UOI Vs Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Ors, CA No.8199 of 2016 —UOI Vs Arvind Kumar Sharda & Ors, CA No.8200 of 2016 —UOI Vs Keval Krishna Indoria & Ors, CA No.1396 of 2016 —UOI Vs R.A. Sanjeev and WP (C) No. 301 of 2016 -N.K.S. Chauhan Vs UOI, this Department vide OM No. No.14014/14/2014-AIS-I dated 21.8.2017 has decided to apply the amended seniority regulations prospectively i.e. w.e.f. 18.04.2012. 3. This Department vide OM No.14014/14/2014-AIS-I dated 03.11.2017 has decided that Seniority/year of allotment of officer appointed after 18.4.2012 against the vacancies arisen between 1.2.2010 to 18.4.2012 may be fixed as per pre-amended seniority rules throughout the Cadres. 4.Further, this Department vide OM No.14014/14/2014-AIS-I dated 22.01.2018 has also decided to count the service of the officer rendered in the rank of Deputy Collector or equivalent upto the 31st December of the vacancy year against which he has been appointed to the IAS. 5. And whereas, the seniority /year of allotment of officers appointed by promotion to IAS of Tripura cadre from Select List 2007-A, 2009 and 2011 notified during the period from 1.2.2010 to 18.4.2012/ prepared against the vacancies arisen during the said period have been reviewed and re-determined by applying pre-amended seniority rule 3 (3)(ii) of IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 read with clarification dated 21.08.2017, 03.11.2017 and 22.01.2018 as under: Weightage Formula as per pre-amended Seniority Rules is as under:- Completed years of qualifying service Weightage in years

Friday, February 9 2018

Extension in service to Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, IAS (BH-81), as Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar

Main Secretariat, Patna, Bihar- 800015. Subject : Extension in service to Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, IAS (BH-81), as Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar – reg. Sir, I am directed to refer to letter dated 02/02/2018 from the Principal Secretary to Government, Govt. of Bihar on the above cited subject and to convey the approval of the Central Government to the extension in service of Shri Anjani Kumar Singh. IAS (BH:81), in the post of Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for a period of three months beyond 28/02/2018 w.e.f 01/03/2018 upto 31/05/2018 by invocation of the third proviso of Rule 16(1) of the All India Services (Death Cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. 2. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Yours faithfully,

Friday, February 9 2018

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB’s vulnerable on Brexit how come the majority of its GE17 gains from CON were in Leave areas?

January 6th, 2018 And how come that the majority of CON gains were in Remain areas? One of the ongoing narratives over the past year has been that Labour is particularly vulnerable on Brexit because about two-thirds of its constituencies voted leave in the referendum in June 2016. This has continued even though Labour made inroads into the Conservative base on June 8th and only lost 5 seats. What is interesting is looking at the referendum outcomes in the 28 seats that Labour gained from the Conservatives in the general election. Remarkably 15 of them were in areas that voted LEAVE. These were: Bedford

Angus Deaton on the Under-Discussed Driver of Inequality in America: “It’s Easier for Rent-Seekers to Affect Policy Here Than In Much of Europe”

Sunday, February 11 2018

Angus Deaton on the Under-Discussed Driver of Inequality in America: “It’s Easier for Rent-Seekers to Affect Policy Here Than In Much of Europe”

In an interview with ProMarket, Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton talks about the connection of rent-seeking and monopolization to rising inequality. Angus Deaton In December, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, embarked on a coast-to-coast tour of the United States. Alston’s fact-finding mission, conducted at the invitation of the federal government, resulted in a grim report that declared the US “the world champion of extreme inequality” and highlighted the vast inequities that plague American society: The US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries, yet 40 million of its inhabitants live in poverty , its infant mortality rates are the highest among developed nations, and Americans lead “shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy.” The US also has the lowest rate of social mobility of any rich country, rapidly turning the American Dream—its national ethos—to “ an American illusion .” Rising inequality has been the focus of countless articles , books and debates in recent years, as more and more empirical studies show that in the decades since 1980, income gains have gone overwhelmingly to the top 1 percent and 0.1 percent. Much of the debate, however, is concerned with the implications of inequality: Does rising inequality negatively affect economic growth ? Does it undermine democracy ? Did it contribute to the rise of populist politics in America and around the developed world? Those, says Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton, are the wrong questions to ask if we wish to understand inequality. In fact, he suggested in a recent piece for Project Syndicate , it’s possible that the term “inequality” itself might be ill-fitting. A better term might be “unfairness”: Inequality, he argued, is the consequence of economic, political, and social processes—some good, some bad, and some very bad. The key to addressing its rapid increase is to address the processes that can be deemed “unfair.” Examples are plenty. In his piece, Deaton focuses on several processes and policies that have allowed the rich to get richer while holding down middle- and working-class wages. Among them: rising health care costs , market consolidation , diminishing labor power , and corporations’ political power . These processes do not stem from “unstoppable processes” like technology or globalization, argues Deaton, but are the result of rent-seeking. Deaton, the recipient of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Economics, is one of the world’s foremost experts on inequality. The groundbreaking research on US mortality rates he conducted together with Anne Case revealed an increase in midlife mortality rates among white non-Hispanic Americans, led by death related to drugs, alcohol and suicide—what they called “deaths of despair.” To better understand the connection between inequality and rent-seeking in America, we spoke with Deaton, a Senior Scholar and the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professor of Economics and International Affairs Emeritus at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Economics Department at Princeton University. In his interview with ProMarket , Deaton discussed the connection of rent-seeking and monopolization to rising inequality, and explained why he believes it’s easier for rent-seekers to influence policy in the US than in Europe. 1) This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length. Q: In a recent piece for Project Syndicate, you argued that contrary to popular opinion, inequality is not so much a cause of certain economic, political and social processes, but a consequence of them. Can you elaborate? I just think that thinking of inequality as some outside cause of economic outcomes is not very sensible. The economy is a set of processes and policies, and the interaction between these processes and policies produces various outcomes. Inequality is one outcome among many. A sensible way of thinking about it is to focus on some things that are going on, like for instance monopolies or monopsonies. If they’re unregulated, monopolies might be very effective at squeezing stuff out of consumers and workers to make profits for the monopolists. That’s a process of rent-seeking which would transfer resources upwards, from relatively-poor people to people who are much better-off, thus increasing inequality but also slowing economic growth and making the market less efficient. Under those circumstances you would get a correlation between inequality and slower growth, but it’s the monopolies that are causing both, not one causing the other. Q: In recent years you have devoted more attention to rent-seeking. What is the relationship between inequality and rent-seeking in America? Monopoly, I think, is a big part of the story. Both monopoly and monopsony contribute to lower real wages (including higher prices, fewer jobs, and slower productivity growth)—just a textbook case! But there are things like contracting out, which are making it much harder at the bottom, or local licensing requirements—mechanisms for making rich people richer at the expense of stopping poor people starting businesses and stifling entrepreneurship. There are also more traditional mechanisms other than rent-seeking, like the tax system. All these affect the distribution of income very directly. One of the things that seem to be going on more than it used to be is rent-seeking that’s redistributing upwards. Rent-seeking doesn’t have to redistribute upwards—when there were powerful unions, I am sure there was a fair amount of redistributing downward. It used to be that there was a lot of rent-seeking that went to workers. For instance, a lot of rents used to go to the autoworkers in Detroit for instance, [as part of] the Treaty of Detroit—“there’s no real competition, so we make crappy cars, but we’ll share the rents with workers.” Now they’re not sharing the rents with the workers anymore. I think one of the reasons people are worried about inequality is that rent-seeking has turned almost entirely in favor of the elite. “Monopoly, I think, is a big part of the story. Both monopoly and monopsony contribute to lower real wages (including higher prices, fewer jobs, and slower productivity growth)—just a textbook case!” Q: Would you describe rent-seeking as the main problem facing the American economy today? I’d say the main problem is that the living standards of the working class are not rising anymore. That’s linked to the “deaths of despair” aspect, the work Anne Case and I have been doing on people dying in middle age, which we have tied to a very long-term wage stagnation that’s been going on for over half a century and destroyed working class life in America. I think the deep question here is: Does American capitalism, or liberal democracy as it is today, continue to work for ordinary people? That seems to me the really big issue. Are we back to where we were in the 1930s and 1940s, when we thought maybe this wasn’t the case? After the Second World War it was clear that in American and British and European social democracies market capitalism worked well for nearly everyone. There was a huge increase in living standards, even for people who were not particularly well-educated. The question now is whether that is stopping, and what are the forces that might make this thing not work anymore, of which rent-seeking would be one. To me, the most plausible stories are stories that involve rent-seeking. Mancur Olson said a long time ago that this is what would happen in mature capitalism, and you could make an argument that this has been happening all along but the Second World War sort of stopped it for a while. I don’t like stories that say inequality is bad, inequality is the problem. I wrote a book called The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality , in which one of the things I pointed out is that periods of great progress are usually periods of rising inequality because none of these things are evenly doled out. Rising inequality can be a sign of real progress, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening now. Q: Which sectors of the American economy, would you say, seem particularly rife with rent-seeking behavior? The health care system in the US is certainly an important one. Its effects work partly through prices, but a lot of it also works through wages, because so much of health care is provided by employers and because people don’t see it—they think they’re getting free health care from their employers. It’s an exquisitely designed rent-seeking mechanism, where you can seek large rents without most people understanding what you’ve done. It also seems extremely well-engineered to lower take-home wages and make a bunch of people in the health care sector a lot better off. I am less expert on other sectors, but much has been written on rent-seeking in the financial sector. Q: Are you in favor of a single-payer health system in the US? Can a single-payer system reduce opportunities for rent-seeking? Yes, and I believe so. That is why I favor it, in spite of the potential problems and costs. “I think it’s easier for rent-seekers to affect policy here than in much of Europe. You cannot run for Congress unless you have a deep-pocketed backer, and that’s not true in Europe. It’s also very difficult to be a member of Congress if your views are not pro-corporate, whereas in Europe it’s much harder for corporations to affect policy—it would take much longer and you have to be much more subtle about it.” Q: Is rent-seeking a problem unique to the US economy? It’s interesting, you always have to use Europe as a counterfactual, because a lot of the forces that operate here operate there. I think they operate a lot of more fiercely here. I think it’s easier for rent-seekers to affect policy here than in much of Europe. You cannot run for Congress unless you have a deep-pocketed backer, and that’s not true in Europe. It’s also very difficult to be a member of Congress if your views are not pro-corporate, whereas in Europe it’s much harder for corporations to affect policy—it would take much longer and you have to be much more subtle about it. It’s one of the protections you get from a civil service that is very highly professionalized and doesn’t turn over very much. They may be only loyal to their conception of what public service is, but they’re not easily influenced because they don’t turn over every time there’s an election. What happens in the EPA now could not happen in Britain, for example. But then there has also been a lot of wage stagnation in Britain as well. Q: Particularly in The Great Escape, you’ve presented passionate defense of globalization. The last two years, of course, have seen a fierce backlash against globalization in the US and developed countries, with both politicians and scholars suggesting that globalization played a key part in the increase in inequality within developed nations, as well as other economic phenomena such as stagnating wages and rising market power. Do you believe that globalization has been unfairly maligned? Yes. It has obviously played a role in all this, but globalization is our friend; it moves out the possibility frontier. So our job is not to kill the golden goose, but to design policy to share the eggs more reasonably. Q: What are some possible remedies to American rent-seeking? I think we have to do a lot of serious rethinking about antitrust. Q: Does that mean tougher enforcement, or as some have suggested, a reframing of current antitrust policy away from solely focusing on consumer welfare to confronting the political power of corporations? Both. But I am not very optimistic. Q: Why? Because the forces against are very strong. I see the problem, I don’t see easy solutions. But resistance to rent-seeking is an issue that both the right and left can get behind. You’ve got libertarians on one hand and left-wingers on the other hand that would agree that rent-seeking is a really bad thing. They may not agree that free market capitalism is a good thing, but they can agree on disliking rent-seeking. Maybe there’s something of a consensus to be built there. As I said, I am not very optimistic. But I am very excited that a lot of people in economics are working on things like increasing margins, monopoly, and rent-seeking—that’s terrific. This is what needs to be done. Disclaimer: The ProMarket blog is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts represent the opinions of their writers, not those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty. For more information, please visit ProMarket Blog Policy . Related posts:

Wednesday, February 14 2018

Tripura State Government: Pre-planned attack launched by IPFT(NC) group miscreants on Sri Ramendra Debbarma, CPI(M) candidate for 12-Takarjala (ST) constituency and CPI(M) Local Committee office at Takarjala

Tripura State Government: Pre-planned attack launched by IPFT(NC) group miscreants on Sri Ramendra Debbarma, CPI(M) candidate for 12-Takarjala (ST) constituency and CPI(M) Local Committee office at Takarjala Tripura State Government: Pre-planned attack launched by IPFT(NC) group miscreants on Sri Ramendra Debbarma, CPI(M) candidate for 12-Takarjala (ST) constituency and CPI(M) Local Committee office at Takarjala. Communist Party of Indio (Marxist) Tripura State Committee Melarmath, Agartala – 799001 , 2323448. 2325365, Fall- 2310875, email [email protected] 9th February, 2018 The Chief Electoral Officer Tripura, Agartala Sub:- Pre-planned attack launched by IPFT(NC) group miscreants on Sri Ramendra Debbarma, CPI(M) candidate for 12-Takarjala (ST) constituency and CPI(M) Local Committee office at Takarjala. Sir, A heinous incident of attack on CPI(M) candidate for 12-Takarjala (ST) constituency Sri Ramendra Debbanna and Sub Divisional Comminee office at Takarjala has been carried on IOday at about to.OO a.m. (0 11.00 a.m. by IPFT(NC) group miscreants. While going to Amarendranagar to anend an eieclion programme, Sri Ramendra Debbanna, CPl(M) candidate from 12-Takarjala(ST) conslituency was obstructed and attacked by IPFT(NC) group miscreants. They ransacked one of the vehicles of Sri Debbarma. The tied to damage the other vehicle also, While resisting the attackers, 2 of the CPI(M) workers got serious injury. They are now under treatment in Bishramganj Hospital. Thereafter, the IPFT(NC) group miscreants rushed to Takarjala and all on a sudden without any provocation they launched attack on the CPI(M) Local Conunittee office at Takarjala and totally demolished it. The demolished office is situated velry near to the Takarjala PS. Unfonunately, this attack took place in front of the police of Takarjala PS who did not prevent the miscreants. In this attack one Ranjan Debbarma, CPI(M) worker received grievous injury. He is urgently shifted to G,B. Pant Hospital with head injury. While meeting in a deputation with you on 6th February, 2018, I expressed such probability of setting in unrest and violent situation in the state by the opposition. This incident of attack by the IPFT(NC) group, which is a electoral alliance partner of the BIP, vindicated our assumption. Under this circumstance, we strongly demand that, you should ltreat 12-Takarjala(ST), 17-Golaghati(ST) and 41 -Ampinagar(ST) constituencies as most sensitive constituencies and take active measure for maximum deployment of paramilitary forces in these constituencies for area domination forthwith for the sake of free fair and smooth holding of election. Thanking You,

Wednesday, February 14 2018

Document For Tripura Assembly Election 2018 – LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

Document For Tripura Assembly Election 2018 – LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT Document For Tripura Assembly Election 2018 – LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT – VISION DOCUMENT 2018 1. Providing one job opportunity to every household through a multi pronged approach of: 2. Reviving industries 4. Bringing foreign and domestic investors 5. Promoting IT industry 6. Providing opportunities of entrepreneurship. 7. Tere are about 50,000 vacancies in the state government. We will fll up all these vacancies within a year through a transparent process. 8. Ensuring the implementation of 7th Pay Commission for all employees of the state government in the frst cabinet meeting itself. 9. Enhancing minimum wages to Rs. 340 per day to meet the national standards and observing implementation of Minimum Wages Act. 10. Phase wise regularization of all contractual government employees working in state government departments. 11. BJP recognizes that the allowances (bhatta) being provided to various people in the state of Tripura is inadequate even to ensure basic sustenance. To better the lives of the marginalized people in the state BJP will bring all allowances to a minimum of RS. 2000 in a phased manner without putting undue burden on the state exchequer. 12. Te government will resolve the problem of 10,323 teachers keeping humanitarian considerations in mind. 13. Upgrading and digitising the Employment Exchange of Tripura. 14. Te government will remove job related uncertainties from the minds of the teachers working under SSA and RMSA etc. 15. Launch a scheme for unemployed engineers and PG Management degree holders for taking government contracts. 16. Providing the unemployed youth with skill development through Skill India necessary for industries and also giving them fscal assistance for setting up businesses. 17. Reviving shut down rubber, jute, paper and bamboo processing units to provide jobs and the establishment of new industries in these sectors. 18. Introducing a scheme to provide interest-free short-term loans to SHGs. 19. Establishing Placement Cell in every technical and professional training institute for job placements in relevant industries. 20. Implementing stringent laws against forceful donations or contributions from organized as well as unorganized sector labour. 21. Implementing a special programme for providing protection, social security and uplifment of unorganized labour force like rickshaw /autorickshaw / e-rickshaw drivers, carpenters, cobblers, barbours, loaders and unloaders, vegetable and fruit vendors, midwives, domestic workers, etc. http://www.stategovernmentnews.in/document-tripura-assembly-election-2018-labour-employment/ 2018-02-14T08:15:56+00:00 admin Tripura Tripura 7th Pay Commission,Tripura Assembly Election 2018,Tripura LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,Tripura State government News Document For Tripura Assembly Election 2018 - LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT - VISION DOCUMENT 2018 1. Providing one job opportunity to every household through a multi pronged approach of: 2. Reviving industries 3. Establishing new industries 4. Bringing foreign and domestic investors 5. Promoting IT industry 6. Providing opportunities of entrepreneurship. 7. Tere are about... admin [email protected] Administrator State Government Employees News Tripura 7th Pay Commission , Tripura Assembly Election 2018 , Tripura LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT , Tripura State government News Related Posts

The British Conservatives and the Price of Division - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Tuesday, February 13 2018

The British Conservatives and the Price of Division - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Saga of Brexit Politics in 2018 The first way to view the crisis is legal. The European Union is the product of treaties, directives, and regulations. John Adams, one of the architects of the American revolution, would have approved. In seeking to differentiate the infant United States from Britain—with its monarchy, empire, and unwritten constitution—he called for “a government of laws and not of men.” These rival cultures are evident in the Brexit negotiations. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, points to the legal realities of what can and cannot be done. David Davis, the UK’s Brexit secretary, regards the rules as irritants to be sidestepped or adjusted. To him, everything is amenable to a political deal. It is as if the two sides cannot agree on how to add two and two. Barnier says “they make four;” Davis says: “let’s talk about it.” Barnier invokes the laws of arithmetic; Davis sees room for compromise. Barnier refuses to budge; Davis regards that refusal as no more than a negotiating tactic. No wonder Barnier now says that he has “some problems understanding the UK’s position” and that the current talks may break down. If there is to be a transition agreement within the next few weeks, let alone a long-term deal, the fudge must end. Formal agreements will need legal precision. Precision will require hard choices. For example, the prime minister says that she wants the UK to leave the customs union, and keep the Irish border open, and avoid the erection of trade barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The trouble is, there is no way to craft a formal agreement that achieves all three objectives. One of them must be abandoned. The UK must either stay in the customs union, or revive border controls on the island or Ireland, or erect trade barriers in the Irish Sea between different parts of the UK. EU negotiators are reported to suggest that Northern Ireland remain in the customs union. This implies trade barriers in the Irish Sea—something that would be complete anathema to Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, whose support the Conservatives need at Westminster to sustain their majority in Parliament. Theresa May is likely to reject this—but has yet to propose an alternative because her ministers cannot agree on what hard choice they should take in order to convert vague aspiration into clear legal language. If the differences inside Britain’s cabinet were essentially tactical, then some kind of agreement might be worked out that kept the cabinet—and Conservative MPs more generally—together. Difficult decisions could be sold to the party, if they could be presented as the best, or least bad, route to a common long-term objective. The trouble is that there is no such underlying consensus. This brings us to the second way to view the current crisis: through the prism of history. The Conservative Party is the democratic world’s longest-living and most successful political party. Created in its (relatively) modern form after the Great Reform Act of 1832, it has been in office for most of the past 186 years. Its periods in opposition have normally been quite short. On only three occasions has it been in the wilderness for a decade or more: in the middle of the nineteenth century, near the start of the twentieth century, and, more recently, following the party’s crushing defeat in 1997. Each time, the party paid the price of division—and the character of the division was fundamentally the same: leading Conservatives could not agree whether their party was at root a party of enterprise and Europe, or one of nation and tradition. In the 1840s, the battle was over the import of corn, then mainly from Europe. Should Britain abandon tariffs so that people could enjoy cheaper bread—or maintain the tariffs to protect landowners and agricultural jobs? At the start of the twentieth century, the party divided over tariff reform, with the supporters of free trade at odds with those who wanted to give preference to imports from the empire over those from other countries, above all, Europe. At the end of the twentieth century, as today, the dispute was over the UK’s relationship to the EU. Indeed, the essential truth about the 186-year history of the Conservative Party can be reduced to a single sentence: when the impulses of nation and enterprise have found common ground, it has been virtually invincible; but when those two impulses have been at odds, it has been unelectable. Today, the schism is as deep as ever. Theresa May has deferred the moment when she must decide what she wants from the Brexit negotiations because she is reluctant to take sides in the dispute about her party’s fundamental purpose. When she is finally forced to choose, she is bound to offend a significant group of Tory MPs and put her government in peril. Be prepared for a bumpy ride. More on:

Thursday, February 15 2018

Outsourcing firms and the paradox of time travel | SPERI

12 February 2018 Outsourcing firms and the paradox of time travel Analysis of Carillion’s accounts reveals the complex interplay between the firm’s present and future, and sheds new light on which other large outsourcing firms are ‘levered on the future’ Adam Leaver, Professor in Accounting and Society, Sheffield University Management School In the 1985 film ‘Back To The Future’, the hero Marty McFly travels back in time, accidentally becomes embroiled in his parents’ lives and almost causes them to split, threatening the existence of his future self. This ‘ grandfather paradox ’ is one of many thought experiments around time travel which explore the unanticipated consequences and doom-loops associated with attempted interventions in time. In my last blog about Carillion I made the following point – that the firm has become something like a portal, moving income and obligation through time and space to advance elite interests, who are increasingly imposing their own hedonic preferences on the rest of us. I wanted to further develop this idea in the context of Carillion and the financialised firm more generally. But here is a quick explanation by way of an example to show what I mean by ‘the firm is a portal’… When a firm securitises its future income streams, it pulls that income forward in time. It may also use a variety of holding companies and clever accounting wheezes to realise that income in jurisdictions which are most tax efficient. The firm here is like a portal: it materialises future income in the present in a jurisdiction of its choosing, that would normally remit over a number of years in a specific locale. Banks do this kind of thing all of the time, but so do many non-financial firms, and not just through their securitisation practices. For example, Carillion effectively ‘pulled income from the future’ when they booked profit based on forecasts and estimates. Revenues were recognised with reference to the stage of completion of construction contracts implied by the proportion of costs incurred to the balance sheet date compared with the estimated final costs of the contract at completion . Where this was difficult to estimate, they booked revenues and costs based on forecasts of what they believed the total profitability of the contract would be (see p.95-97 in Carillion’s 2016 accounts ). In other words, annual profit was imputed as a proportion of the imagined future profit of each contract. The job of the profit and loss statement is not to follow cash (that’s what the cashflow statement does), but rather to render the operating activity meaningful for investors to make an assessment of the company’s performance. So there is some justification for this kind of accounting when cashflows are lumpy. Nevertheless, it is unusual that the profit and cash profile of a company should diverge so markedly as in the case of Carillion (see Figure 1). It is difficult to guess motive, but booking profit in this way (or at least not impairing total contract profits earlier) allowed Carillion to pay large dividends which looked feasible from a profit and loss point of view, but was not sustainable from a net operating cash perspective. Figure 1 shows the full extent of the divergence: between 2012 and 2016 Carillion’s accumulated post-tax profit was recorded as £668.9 (*£611m using the restated 2016 figures published in the September 2017 earnings update), even though it generated net operating cashflows of just £166.4m (*£29.9m, in the restated figures) over that time period. It then paid out £398.4m (*£370.9m in the restated figures) in shareholder distributions over that time; which was 59.6% (*60.7%) of total accumulated net profit, but 239.4% (*1240.5%) of accumulated net operating cash. Figure 1. Source : Company accounts, various years Note : these figures differ from those in the House of Commons briefing paper because we use a net rather than gross cashflow from operations figure. The net operating cashflow figure is a closer comparator to the net profit figure because it also accounts for financing costs and tax paid. Note : ‘Net operating cashflow’ = Cash generated from operations minus financial income received/paid, acquisition-related costs and taxation payments. Note : ‘Dividends paid’ includes dividends paid to equity holders of the parent and to non-controlling interests *Note : the restated 2016 figures were published in the September 2017 earnings update. Dividends and buybacks are paid from hard cash not ‘on-paper’ profits, so it is likely Carillion used debt to pay-out to shareholders; another inter-temporal transfer. Debt allows you to bring forward cash today in exchange for a creditor claim on future income. That debt was (at least notionally) secured against the assets of the firm. But as noted , a sizeable proportion of those assets (37.7% in 2016) were intangible, mostly goodwill. And the valuation of goodwill is also premised upon future estimates: its value is supposed to reflect the net present value of the forecast earnings of the underlying cash-generating assets, so goodwill also includes assumptions about discount rates, growth rates and cash flow forecasts. Carillion therefore borrowed money – secured against assets the value of which depended on the accurate forecasting of future cashflows and discount rates – and paid out dividends, which were affordable according to profit figures calculated as a percentage of expected total contract value. Carillion were in effect ‘levered on the future’. But the summonsing of a benign future in the present can affect perceptions of risk and change strategic calculations in the present in a way that makes the future summonsed much less likely to occur. This is the grandfather paradox of fair value accounting. By paying out dividends against aspirational profits, using debt secured against assets whose value depends on the accuracy of the company’s own forecasts, it hollowed out the firm in the present, made it less able to adjust to unanticipated events and thus undermined its own forecasted future. The flipside to bringing cash forward by borrowing against an expected future is that it has the capacity to hollow out the firm’s shareholder funds. When dividends exceed net operating cashflow and are paid out of debt, shareholder funds adjust downwards just as other liabilities increase. Shareholder funds as a percentage of total liabilities fell from 26.1% to 16.5% between 2012 and 2016 (on the non-restated figures). Second, it is likely that the fragile financial position increased the present costs of future liabilities and created an unwanted feedback loop with assets priced on a net present value basis. The fragility meant Carillion could not attract traditional bank loans, and instead relied on a liability structure which included a private placement borrowing of £361m, £170m of convertible bonds, a £112 Schuldschein loan, as well as a £790 million Syndicated Multicurrency Revolving Credit Facility (2016 accounts, p.46). Bank loans and overdrafts were largely floating rate, LIBOR-linked and unsecured (p116). This will have increased borrowing costs and added risk because the private placements were largely dollar denominated, which left them exposed to currency fluctuations after the Brexit vote. All of this increased the firm’s costs of capital and thus (likely) the discount rate, which will have put downward pressure on contract and goodwill valuations. The rising present costs of capital undermined the forecasted future profit, which must have fed through into impairments in the present. The present and future thus interact in a self-reinforcing and damaging way, reminiscent of processes like downward liquidity spirals in financial markets. Third, the problem with inscribing profits in the way Carillion did, is once it was recognised that those profits were unlikely to materialise, adjustments concentrate in very narrow time-spaces, which create bankruptcy risks. One less-recognised risk of fair value accounting is that it creates ‘go-to-zero’ risks which are sudden and lethal. Operational problems about delays, rising contract costs and diminishing margins led to a review of contract performance. The outcome of that review was that the firm impaired or made provisions for £1045.5m of faltering contracts in one accounting year, recognising that past profits had been booked too optimistically. The likelihood of diminished future cashflows were also recognised via a £134 goodwill impairment; joint venture receivables were also written down £147.5m (Carillion interim report 2017, p.31). Even in 2016, an actuarial re-measurement of net defined benefit liabilities of the pension fund wiped out £439.7m of shareholder funds (although this was later restated at a lower rate). The hollowing of the firm in the present on the basis of an expected future meant the company was unable to deal with these developments. With shareholder funds hollowed out and its cash position parlous (all of the cash it reported on its balance sheet was claimable by its creditors ), writedowns on a small number of contracts cascaded through the balance sheet, leaving it insolvent. A number of questions remain. Why did Carillion continue to pay dividends despite its weak cash generation and depleting shareholder funds? Carillion’s dividend policy was linked to its ‘earnings per share growth’ (p.125), so it may be that senior management were afraid that any change to that policy might give investors cause to ask questions about the robustness of Carillion’s earnings figures. It might also be that senior management believed that the dividend became the lens through which investors assessed the stability of the firm; another form of signalling. But one overlooked possibility is that senior management were responding to what they perceived to be the interests of a relatively concentrated and thus powerful bloc of shareholders. Close to 40% of Carillion’s shares were held by just 7 firms (see below). I have not done the research, but this ownership pattern may be common to many firms reliant directly or indirectly on the state, and where there might be (wrongly as it turned out) a perception that these companies would not be allowed to go to the wall. Figure 2. Source : Carillion 2016 accounts A second question is whether Carillion was uniquely vulnerable. Here I’ve devised four tests to assess the extent to which other outsourcing firms are ‘levered on the future’. These are: A ‘weightlessness test’ which looks at the percentage of total assets accountable for by goodwill. This: i) is a measure of futurity: how much of the firms’ present value is accountable for by goodwill, ie the net present value of future cash flows, over and above book value ii) examines what might be recoupable to future creditors in the event of bankruptcy; where goodwill is inseparable from the firm as it ceases to become a going concern. A ‘goodwill impairment test’ which divides goodwill by shareholder funds. This gives some sense of how much intangibles would have to be impaired to wipe out shareholder funds completely. A high multiple means a relatively low impairment would bankrupt the firm. A test for ‘contract impairment risk’ which looks at the relation between net income and net operating cashflow. A positive figure suggests a firm is over-booking profit, a negative figure means a firm is cash generative despite what is reported in the Profit and Loss statement. A ‘distributional affordability’ test which adds dividends and buybacks and assesses whether those distributions are affordable out of net operating cashflow. The results are below (click to enlarge): Figure 3. Source : Compustat Note : Figures differ slightly from Figure 1 due to different source data. On weightlessness, Capita has the largest proportion of goodwill relative to total assets of the five. Carillion, Serco and G4S have similar profiles; Atos is the least ‘intangible’ company. On goodwill impairment risk, again Capita looks most exposed – with goodwill more than four times its total stockholders’ equity in 2016. That means a goodwill impairment of around 25% would wipe out the firm’s equity. Carillion and Serco have similar profiles to each other but are still risky at 1.1 to 2.1 times more goodwill than shareholder funds; G4S is risker still with goodwill to equity of around 1.7 to 2.6 times; Atos has the lowest ratio of the five. The ‘contract impairment’ test shows why Carillion rather than the other firms were the most shorted stock on the FTSE index. Carillion is the only firm that consistently reports net profits higher than its net operating cashflow, suggesting an adjustment was always imminent, and also explains their parlous cash position. All other firms were (healthily) generating more net operating cash than net profit, suggesting the law and accounting experts were working overtime on their tax efficiency. Finally, Carillion were making distributions in excess of their net operating cashflow in all years bar one – again, another indicator that their business model was unsustainable. This is risky, not just financially but legally if the firm is drawn into a difficult discussion about its compliance with the 2006 Companies Act. So there is a mixed picture here. Carillion was clearly the riskiest, given its contract impairment risk and its propensity to make distributions in excess of its net operating cashflows. But all of the other firms are levered on the future in particular ways. The big question is whether there are enough redundancies in their business models to survive unanticipated shocks. Certainly the decline of stockholder equity in all firms, bar Atos, should be of concern. Here’s a few things to consider: Impairments may be driven by the discount rate as much as faltering operations. One reason we should fear movements in the stock market, particularly if driven by concerns that the era of cheap money is coming to an end, is that this could significantly affect the discount rate in goodwill and contract valuations. Goodwill as a proportion of total assets is now much higher in many firms; and if firms lever up against that – then any discount-rate driven impairment could prove to be hugely disruptive. That’s worth knowing in the context of Brexit and its uncertain implications for interest rates. Business models – and the means by which they account for their activities – have morphed to accommodate cheap credit; they are now dependent on it. It remains to be seen whether there are enough redundancies in these firms to withstand significant movements in the cost of capital. Another lesson from Carillion is what this tells us about the firm in general. I have suggested the firm has become ‘portal-like’, shifting income and obligation in time for elite advantage. This is undeniably the case for Carillion (up until it collapsed) where a small bloc of influential shareholders were able to extract income in excess of net operating cash, facilitated by a board whose bonuses were earnings per share linked. The firm is being treated instrumentally – less a site of accumulation and more a site of inter-temporal income consolidation and extraction; a potentially disposable intermediate vehicle between debt markets and investors, and thus a repository for elite risk. This kind of instrumentalism was at the heart of other examples of elite extraction, such as BHS and Thames Water. This inter-temporal shifting of income and obligation makes companies like Carillion a little bit like a bank. They were certainly engaged in the process of maturity transformation. More indirectly, they may even have been creating credit in the way that they booked profit. Perhaps the lesson of Carillion is that it might be time to start regulating companies dependent on state contracts like we do banks, and compel them to hold regulatory capital to prevent the kind of moral hazard which allows elites to dump liability on the state? Finally, as a post-script, the Carillion case invites us to reassess what we understand by financialization. It is undoubtedly true that firms have always gamed accounting rules, and so practice of this kind should not automatically be thought of as ‘financialized’. But what Carillion and numerous other examples of corporate failure now show, is that firms do not necessarily need to accumulate capital to make elites rich. Financial instruments can be put to the task of extracting cash not accumulating capital in a more predatory form of capitalism. Scholars of financialization perhaps need to engage with this reality a little more and explore how financial instruments, measures, logics and practices make one class of person rich at the expense of another through a process of de-temporalisation and extraction. Because the outcome of this process is not one that will necessarily be felt in real time by all, but will be observed through the slow-motion degradation of living standards and opportunities of the young.

UK has ‘huge misunderstanding’ over post-Brexit customs: Senior MEP – POLITICO

Thursday, February 15 2018

UK has ‘huge misunderstanding’ over post-Brexit customs: Senior MEP – POLITICO

Notify me of new posts by email. Capt Europe Philip Hammond, a great man who only wants to do the best for his country, he’s a genuine patriot and hero of the European Union Posted on 2/13/18 | 12:59 PM CET bluebell Is this because the Croats want to have the same opportunity for settled status for their citizens that the other 26 member states would enjoy. Unlike citizens from the other 26 remaining EU states, Croats do not have an automatic right to live and work in the U.K. because of temporary restrictions imposed after the Central European state joined the EU in 2013. The restrictions, which currently run until June 30, 2018, can be extended by London for another two years. If that happens, as expected, then Croats would not be able to benefit potentially from Prime Minister Theresa May’s offer of “settled status” in the U.K. after Brexit. Posted on 2/13/18 | 1:03 PM CET Capt Europe Jeez, trolling has reached a sorry state when trolls are accusing trolls of being a 3rd party troll. Posted on 2/13/18 | 1:07 PM CET bony This MEP displays typical eu mind-set of hiding under a blanket whenever a monster enters the room in hope there not see. The single market is great big German barrier preventing competition which cannot survive in the future. The fact it is being used to bludgeon the Brtts into staying in its jail serves only to compel the British people to not only accept the war room agenda the eu has orchestrated but compel the UK to set itself up as a bastion for those currently entrapped in jail. Posted on 2/13/18 | 1:13 PM CET bony This MEP displays typical eu mind-set of hiding under a blanket whenever a monster enters the room in hope there not see. The single market is great big German barrier preventing competition which cannot survive in the future. The fact it is being used to bludgeon the Brtts into staying in its jail serves only to compel the British people to not only accept the war room agenda the eu has orchestrated but compel the UK to set itself up as a bastion for those currently entrapped in jail Posted on 2/13/18 | 1:13 PM CET That's right Very clear and correct. What transpires so far from the UK is ignorance. Maybe that’s going to be their main post-brexit export? Posted on 2/13/18 | 2:14 PM CET Steuersklaverei ‘The problem with the U.K. is that they’re so clear on what they don’t want and then not clear on what they really want’ The UK is very clear on what it wants but the EU does not want to give it. The EU is trying the cognitive dissonance tactics explained by Varoufakis in his ‘Adults in the Room’. Posted on 2/13/18 | 2:14 PM CET bluebell @That’s right“What transpires so far from the UK is ignorance. Maybe that’s going to be their main post-brexit export?” Why would the UK try to export into what is patently an overly saturated market already? Posted on 2/13/18 | 2:28 PM CET dc Danuta Hübner as a former member of totally disgraced totalitarian communist party imposed on Poland by Soviets which involved ki1ling and t0rturing thousands of Polish citizens which opposed that, certainly knows a lot about raising barriers and oppressing citizens. But this time there are no EU tanks that could be sent to London to impose Brussels will by brutal force. Posted on 2/13/18 | 2:33 PM CET sgu66 bluebell Though of course, those Croats that receive sponsorship through the immigration system are able to achieve settlement in due course, something that may well be the way forward for all EU nationals in the future; no automatic right to enter, but if the job they will be doing is covered through the relevant immigration rule, then they receive the relevant benefit of that route (main difference between a Croat and a non-EEA national is the qualification level for which their role needs to meet). Posted on 2/13/18 | 3:17 PM CET tpk @Steuersklaverei “The UK is very clear on what it wants but the EU does not want to give it. The EU is trying the cognitive dissonance tactics explained by Varoufakis in his ‘Adults in the Room’.” The only people understanding the Brexit position are people in Telegraph forum and some here. EU, USA, Japan, CBI are staring in wonder on UK and wonder if May will decide for a Hammond or Johnson Brexit. Posted on 2/13/18 | 3:56 PM CET tpk @bluebell Why would the UK try to export into what is patently an overly saturated market already? LOL, like that one

Saturday, February 17 2018

Karnataka State Government : CM Siddaramaiah presents record 13th state budget

Home » Karnataka » You are reading » Karnataka State Government : CM Siddaramaiah presents record 13th state budget admin February 17, 2018 Karnataka State Government : CM Siddaramaiah presents record 13th state budget 2018-02-17T06:06:11+00:00 Karnataka No Comment Karnataka State Government : CM Siddaramaiah presents record 13th state budget Bengaluru : Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who also holds the Finance portfolio set a record of sorts on Friday by presenting his 13th state budget as well as the 6th budget of the present Congress Government. Updates of the budget speech: Basava Research centre to be set up in Mysuru University Special privileges for the welfare of Devadasis in the state announced To reduce scarcity of water for Bengaluru, BWSSB gets Rs 340 crore sanction to develop Tippagondanahalli and Hessarghatta lakes Tax on Jet fuel reduced by 5% to support central government’s UDAN scheme ‘The Boat House’ program announced in coastal regions to promote tourism ‘Arogya Karnataka’ program to be launched by the end of year Rs 5-lakh insurance coverage announced for state journalists under Madhyama Sanjeevini scheme ‘Arogya Karnataka’ programme to be launched by February last week Rs 5-lakh reward announced for inter-caste marriages involving Dalits Allocation of Rs 2,281 crore towards welfare of minorities in state 14 roads linking to ITPL will be developed Youth empowerment and sports department gets Rs 237 crore allocation Rs 5,371 crore allocated for welfare of Women and Child development in the state Rs 50 crore allocation for Bellandur lake rejuvenation Rs 5 crore allocated for construction of permanent memorial for slain policemen Public bicycle programme to be launched in state capital State guesthouse to be built at Rs 20 crore in Tirumala to benefit state pilgrims Raita Belaku to empower 70 lakh dry land farmers across state with economic independence KSRTC to get 10 double-decker buses for inter-city transport Multi-storeyed parking lots to be set up in 5 different Bengaluru locations CCTV cameras to be installed in 1,000 BMTC buses under Nirbhaya scheme Agriculture research centre and agriculture college to be set up at Muddebihal at Chamrajnagar resp. Rs 312 crore allocation for the development of 77 lakes in Bengaluru Rs 120 crore allocated for maintenance of Indira Canteens in BBMP limits Rs 600 crore allocation for Krishi Bhagya Rs 24 crore special package announced for minor millets Farm loan waiver hiked to Rs 1 lakh 6th pay panel recommendation accepted Farmers can avail Rs 10 lakh loan at 3% interest rate Rs 1,091 crore allocation for horticulture department Rs 2,099 crore allocation for minor irrigation sector in the state Rs 5,080 crore allocation for agriculture sector in the state Rs 15,929 crore allocation for water resource department in budget State GSDP has risen by 8.5% compared to 7.6% in 2016-17 Prime focus on employment generation Power of democracy such that farmer’s son is presenting the budget http://www.stategovernmentnews.in/karnataka-state-government-cm-siddaramaiah-presents-record-13th-state-budget/ 2018-02-17T06:06:11+00:00 admin Karnataka budget 2018,Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah,Karnataka state government,Karnataka State Government Budget Karnataka State Government : CM Siddaramaiah presents record 13th state budget Bengaluru: Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who also holds the Finance portfolio set a record of sorts on Friday by presenting his 13th state budget as well as the 6th budget of the present Congress Government. Updates of the budget speech: ... admin [email protected] Administrator State Government Employees News

Saturday, February 17 2018

Tamil Nadu Government : PENSION – Contributory Pension Scheme – Accumulations at the credit of subscribers to the Contributory Pension Scheme (both Employees and Employers Contributions) – Rate of interest for the financial year 2017-2018

Home » Tamil Nadu » You are reading » Tamil Nadu Government : PENSION – Contributory Pension Scheme – Accumulations at the credit of subscribers to the Contributory Pension Scheme (both Employees and Employers Contributions) – Rate of interest for the financial year 2017-2018 Tamil Nadu Government : PENSION – Contributory Pension Scheme – Accumulations at the credit of subscribers to the Contributory Pension Scheme (both Employees and Employers Contributions) – Rate of interest for the financial year 2017-2018 – Orders – Issued FINANCE [PGC-I] DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.16, Dated 18th January 2018 (Heyvilambi, Thai-5, Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2049) ABSTRACT PENSION – Contributory Pension Scheme – Accumulations at the credit of subscribers to the Contributory Pension Scheme (both Employees and Employers Contributions) – Rate of interest for the financial year 2017-2018 – Orders – Issued. Read the following:- 1. G.O.Ms.No.330, Finance [PGC-I] Department, dated 01-11-2017. 2. G.O.Ms.No.11, Finance [Allowances] Department, dated 10-01-2018. ORDER: In the Government Order first read above, orders were issued fixing the rate of interest for the accumulation at the credit of the subscribers to the contributory Pension Scheme at 7.8% (Seven point eight per cent) for the period from 1st October, 2017 to 31st December, 2017. 2. In the Government Order second read above, the rate of interest for accumulation at the credit of subscribers to the General Provident Fund [Tamil Nadu] were fixed at the rate of 7.6% (Seven point six per cent) with effect from 1st January, 2018 to 31st March, 2018. 3. The Government now direct that the rate of interest on the accumulation at the credit of the subscribers to the Contributory Pension Scheme shall carry interest at the rate of 7.6% (Seven point six per cent) with effect from 1st January, 2018 to 31st March, 2018. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) K.SHANMUGAM