Ed Vaizey

MP for Wantage and Didcot

Website | Blog

Archive for October, 2008

Is the BBC iPlayer left wing?

Sunday, October 12th, 2008

A local Conservative colleague from South Oxfordshire was concerned that David Cameron’s conference speech - and others - was not on the BBC iPlayer.  So he e-mailed the BBC, and this was the reply.

Dear Patrick
>
Thank you for taking the time to contact BBC iPlayer Support.
I understand you are enquiring as to why it takes so long for ‘David
Cameron’s Conference’ speech from the 1st October.

Unfortunately we experienced technical difficulties with this particular
programme when we tried to upload it onto the site.  The technical team
tried to get the issue resolved as soon as possible.  Unfortunately we
were unable to do it within the 7 days availability and therefore we have
passed the amount of time in which we can make it available.

I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

If you have any other enquiries then please do contact us again.

Once again thank you for taking the time to contact BBC iPlayer Support.

Regards
Vicky

So there you have it.  The BBC iPlayer is not technically configured to host centre-right speeches!  Does any one know if Gordon Brown’s conference speech made it on?  Bet it did.

Constituency Friday

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

Every week when Parliament is sitting, I spend my Friday in the constituency.  It’s always a packed programme, and this is what I did yesterday.  I visited Lombard Medical Technology, another world-beating company based in Didcot.  I can’t give financial advice but this seems a company worth backing.  They make stents, which allow surgeons to effectively shore up the aorta to avoid an aneurism bursting.  They take an hour to fit, instead of the seven hours of open heart surgery common at the moment, and the patient recovers in 48 hours rather than 6 months.  This company will one day be huge, and it is all starting in Didcot. Then off to the Didcot Community lunch, to hear Emma Dolman, the manager of our new £7 million arts centre, tell us about the exciting programme she has put together.  The to the Age Concern AGM, to take questions with Evan Harris and Andrew Smith.  Back for my surgery in Wantage, with at least ten cases, then on to Wallingford for a meeting with Churches Together, to discuss trade justice.  The owner of the Wallingford Tea and Coffee company, Stephen Kitching, gave a wonderfully subversive talk, pointing out that the local diocese won’t stock his coffee or tea, because they will only take Fair Trade coffee or tea.  Stephen points out that all his tea and coffee is ethically traded, but the Church won’t budge.  Even God has now got bureucracy…

Newsnight and the Credit crunch

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

It’s not good for my health, but every night I watch Newsnight on the credit crunch.  Each piece seems to revel in the credit crunch, and every “editor” uses, at some point, the stock phrase “after twenty years of free market economics”.  The implication, of course, is that free markets are to blame for the credit crunch, and the solution is an end to capitalism.  Kirsty Wark has gone the furthest, and been the most absurd, by trying to force the shadow chancellor, George Osborne, to admit that the 1986 City big bang caused the credit crunch.  Er, no.  Big Bang turned London into the world’s leading financiial centre, and “free market economics”, over the last twenty years, have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.  By contrast, socialism crippled countires like the old Soviet Union. I think we will find when we are through this, that Government meddling is at least partly to blame, not least Clinton’s decision to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to run down their reserves in order to indulge in risky lending. 

Did the Democrats cause the Credit Crunch?

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

An interesting backlash is developing, which blames the Democrats for the credit crunch.  Dennis Sewell has a provocative article in the Spectator HERE http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2189196/clinton-democrats-are-to-blame-for-the-credit-crunch.thtml .

But much more persuasive is this article from the New York Times, dated 30 September 1999, when Clinton was still President.  It is so prescient, I thought it was a hoax, until I found it online on the New York Times’ website.  it is worth a read…particluarly the phrase:  “In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=2&sq=Fannie%20Mae%20Corporation&st=cse 

“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

‘’Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,'’ said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ‘’Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'’

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

‘’From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'’ said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ‘’If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'’

Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Thoughts on the Reshuffle

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

Well, well, well.  Peter Mandelson is back, much to the pleasure of my good friend Benjamin Wegg-Prosser (see his comments http://wpbenjamin.livejournal.com/).  There has been a lot of comment on this reshuffle, so let me add my two pennies worth.

I think this reshuffle shows just how desperate the Prime Minister is.  I agree with Ben that Mandelson is a man of talent, but bringing him back will not solve the economic crisis.  In fact it could be argued that Mandelson was better placed staying in Europe, where he could fight the corner for free trade as protectionist instincts grow with the coming recession.  It is also very Victorian to have such a senior Minister in the Lords, and Mandelson will find it difficult to have influence there.  Finally of course, Brown and Mandelson will fall out - it is inevitable - and that will lead to more carnage.  It won’t silence the Blairites if things continue to go wrong, and it has mightily annoyed the Brownites.  I think Mandelson has simply forgoten what a nightmare Brown is to work for. He will remember in a few weeks’ time.

Brown would have been better to sack Darling and replace him with Balls.  Whatever one thinks of Balls - and he is almost as unpopular as Mandelson - Brown could at least have signalled to the City that he had his man in at the Treasury.  The appointment of Paul MYners is interesting, and I am sad to see him leave the Tate, where he was a good chairman. And a third peerage for Stephen Carter, showing what a disaster that appointment was, and the new job looks even more odd, straddling DCMS and BERR.

The National Council for Econoic Advisers looks unweildy.  A Department for Energy and Climate Change is a masterstroke, the one good idea Brown has had in eighteen months…