Alex Singleton, on the Telegraph Three Line Whip yesterday, in a few words virtually demolishes the government white paper on international development, as being cliches and self-congratulations.
He criticises much of what passes for aid by quoting from Dr. Marian Tupy, an African Aid expert.
Between 1975 and 2005 Africa received $24.60 per person per year in aid. China received only $1.50 and India $2.11. The developed world has concentrated on Africa in some measure.
Over the same period India grew by 3.5% a year, and China by 7.9%, while Africa shrank by 0.16% per year, - it is becoming poorer, despite the vast sums pumped in in aid.
There may be problems in Africa associated with tribal boundaries which do not correspond with boundaries designed by the long gone colonial powers. Most of us would suspect that Africa has too many corrupt leaders, who have salted away aid, misdirected it or spent it on vainglorious projects.
Whatever the reason, if aid has made any contribution at all, in alleviating disasters for instance, it has many no contribution to development.
Earlier this week I mentioned the recent Conservative thinking - vouchers, that is bottom up development, rather than the wasteful top-down aid.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Mislaid....
We have known for some time that this government is careless with prisoners. Three years ago Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, admitted that more than one thousand foreign prisoners were wrongly released, as there had not been consideration for deportation.
We also know that many prisoners have been released very early, to free up places in our over-crowded prisons, and that many of them have gone on to commit very serious offences.
Now it seems that almost 1,000 criminals, including murderers and rapists who should have been re-imprisoned are still at large, and that at least 59 have committed new offences, including rape and robbery. One of those missing last year, Dano Sonnex, killed two French students last year.
The police, government and probation service are all trying to pass the blame. It may be that all should hold their hands up as guilty, but the fact remains that dangerous men are free to roam our streets and commit further serious crimes.
We also know that many prisoners have been released very early, to free up places in our over-crowded prisons, and that many of them have gone on to commit very serious offences.
Now it seems that almost 1,000 criminals, including murderers and rapists who should have been re-imprisoned are still at large, and that at least 59 have committed new offences, including rape and robbery. One of those missing last year, Dano Sonnex, killed two French students last year.
The police, government and probation service are all trying to pass the blame. It may be that all should hold their hands up as guilty, but the fact remains that dangerous men are free to roam our streets and commit further serious crimes.
Don't speak out of turn, in fact don't speak at all
A dinner lady last week in Essex was suspended from work and facing disciplinary action for breaching confidentiality - she told parents, accidentally as she assumed that the school would have told them, that their daughter had been severely bullied at school.
Their daughter had been tied up to a fence during the lunch time break and whipped with a skipping rope. The dinner lady intervened to release her.
The mother and the suspended dinner lady met and had a conversation by chance in the local Beaver Scout group.
The family had received a communication from the school which said that the daughter had been hurt by other children, but no details were given. They were shocked when they heard the details and immediately removed the girl and her brother from the school.
Why were they not given the details by the school, or alternatively called in to the school? It would seem that the school was trying to conceal what had happened, in the hope that the whole matter would "go away".
This is the very worst aspect of our nanny state - withholding significant details and keeping us in the dark to ease their problems. There is a real problem of transparency and accountability.
Their daughter had been tied up to a fence during the lunch time break and whipped with a skipping rope. The dinner lady intervened to release her.
The mother and the suspended dinner lady met and had a conversation by chance in the local Beaver Scout group.
The family had received a communication from the school which said that the daughter had been hurt by other children, but no details were given. They were shocked when they heard the details and immediately removed the girl and her brother from the school.
Why were they not given the details by the school, or alternatively called in to the school? It would seem that the school was trying to conceal what had happened, in the hope that the whole matter would "go away".
This is the very worst aspect of our nanny state - withholding significant details and keeping us in the dark to ease their problems. There is a real problem of transparency and accountability.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Private education wins?
One of the greatest failures of the Blair/Brown area has been the failure to promote social mobility, the process by which children from poorer homes are able to increase their life chances by their own creativity and ability, aided by the educational system. Social mobility now is, in fact, less than before 1997
Advocates of grammar schools will point out endlessly how they, and others, were able to rise from severe deprivation to success because they won a place in a grammar school. Such schools were the greatest promoters of social mobility devised by man, and social mobility has diminished since ideologues succeeded in closing so many.
Now, as many people have pointed out, success has been to the private schools (curiously called public schools). This could well be reflected by the next intake of MPs in 2010, and the cabinet formed, that those who are confined to the (failing) state school system are unlikely to be reflected in great numbers.
In the period from 1944 until the late 1960s, grammar schools produced men and women of ability, and a series of our prime ministers, - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher.Now we seem destined to have prime ministers and cabinets overwhelmingly from the 7% of children who attended private schools and achieved results which took them to the best universities.
There are still many state school educated who achieve a mark in industry or commerce, but even there too the private schools are over represented.
The end result of the failed experimentation with comprehensive education has been the victory for private schools.
Advocates of grammar schools will point out endlessly how they, and others, were able to rise from severe deprivation to success because they won a place in a grammar school. Such schools were the greatest promoters of social mobility devised by man, and social mobility has diminished since ideologues succeeded in closing so many.
Now, as many people have pointed out, success has been to the private schools (curiously called public schools). This could well be reflected by the next intake of MPs in 2010, and the cabinet formed, that those who are confined to the (failing) state school system are unlikely to be reflected in great numbers.
In the period from 1944 until the late 1960s, grammar schools produced men and women of ability, and a series of our prime ministers, - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher.Now we seem destined to have prime ministers and cabinets overwhelmingly from the 7% of children who attended private schools and achieved results which took them to the best universities.
There are still many state school educated who achieve a mark in industry or commerce, but even there too the private schools are over represented.
The end result of the failed experimentation with comprehensive education has been the victory for private schools.
To cut or not to cut?
There is an on-going discussion about whether people in the public sector should have their pay cut, to make sure that they share some of the pain of those in the private sector who have lost jobs or are working for much reduced incomes.
As the public sector workers generally have better pensions (-final salary) and greater job security, there is an equity issue here. Until the last four years on average wages were greater in the private sector, but now wages are greater in the public sector, so the justification for better pensions, etc., has gone. At the moment public sector wages are still rising, while prices are falling, - the RPI is in negative territory, so they gain in two ways.
In addition under Blair/Brown employment in the public sector has risen by 17%, while in the private sector it rose by 10%. There are now 4.56 million workers in the public sector, so what happens to them has a significant effect on the economy.
Public sector union leaders cannot answer the moral case, so they fall back on "We are in the middle of a three year agreement, which cannot be changed midway" type of argument. This is valueless - private sector workers thought that they had a legal deal but that collapsed in redundancy.
At the very least public sector pay should be frozen, but there does also seem to be a case for temporary cuts.
With over four and half million workers in the public sector, any reduction in the wage bill will help the government achieve expenditure cuts, which everyone except G.Brown now seems to regard as vital to save us from a worse fate.
As the public sector workers generally have better pensions (-final salary) and greater job security, there is an equity issue here. Until the last four years on average wages were greater in the private sector, but now wages are greater in the public sector, so the justification for better pensions, etc., has gone. At the moment public sector wages are still rising, while prices are falling, - the RPI is in negative territory, so they gain in two ways.
In addition under Blair/Brown employment in the public sector has risen by 17%, while in the private sector it rose by 10%. There are now 4.56 million workers in the public sector, so what happens to them has a significant effect on the economy.
Public sector union leaders cannot answer the moral case, so they fall back on "We are in the middle of a three year agreement, which cannot be changed midway" type of argument. This is valueless - private sector workers thought that they had a legal deal but that collapsed in redundancy.
At the very least public sector pay should be frozen, but there does also seem to be a case for temporary cuts.
With over four and half million workers in the public sector, any reduction in the wage bill will help the government achieve expenditure cuts, which everyone except G.Brown now seems to regard as vital to save us from a worse fate.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Good thinking
Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow International Development minister, is reported to be considering the policy of giving "vouchers" for aid and education directly to the poorest people in the world, to be redeemed with any aid organisation or educational institution.
There are already suggestions of disapproval from some aid organisations at this proposal to give freedom of choice to recipients of aid. This is to be expected, as it is in some way competition with them and a possible yardstick against which they may be compared. (In the early days some of them spent a large proportion of money raised on palatial headquarters and high salaries, and even now some of their senior staff enjoy high salaries.)
I see a number of benefits of the proposal.
It may be expected to benefit poor people, rather than finishing up in a numbered bank account of one of the country's politicians. It will be focussed on deepest need, and we hope with identification to prevent the richer or stronger misappropriating the voucher.
It will give choice and self-esteem to the recipients, who are customers rather than being like a queue of supplicants like farm animals at feeding time.
A decent education will pay an enormous benefit in the long run, helping to life all countries out of poverty and dependence.
There are already suggestions of disapproval from some aid organisations at this proposal to give freedom of choice to recipients of aid. This is to be expected, as it is in some way competition with them and a possible yardstick against which they may be compared. (In the early days some of them spent a large proportion of money raised on palatial headquarters and high salaries, and even now some of their senior staff enjoy high salaries.)
I see a number of benefits of the proposal.
It may be expected to benefit poor people, rather than finishing up in a numbered bank account of one of the country's politicians. It will be focussed on deepest need, and we hope with identification to prevent the richer or stronger misappropriating the voucher.
It will give choice and self-esteem to the recipients, who are customers rather than being like a queue of supplicants like farm animals at feeding time.
A decent education will pay an enormous benefit in the long run, helping to life all countries out of poverty and dependence.
Idiocy!
Iain Dale today on his blog reports on a lack of common sense in local government.
West Sussex Council have undertaken to spend £80 a day to send a boy to the second choice school of his parents, because there is no bus. They live 350 yards outside the catchment area for their first choice school, which presumably is much nearer their home or for which there is a bus.
Isn't it kind of them? £400 per week for him to travel in comfort, or £16,000 each year or £80,000 over the school career in the lower school.
It's lunacy, but it could have been worse. Just imagine that there was a reciprocal movement in the opposite direction if West Sussex adopted the lottery!! (Was it them or Brighton which espoused this other nonsense?)
It would be interesting to discover what the hard pressed ratepayers think about this, as they scrabble together money to pay their ever increasing rate demands.
West Sussex Council have undertaken to spend £80 a day to send a boy to the second choice school of his parents, because there is no bus. They live 350 yards outside the catchment area for their first choice school, which presumably is much nearer their home or for which there is a bus.
Isn't it kind of them? £400 per week for him to travel in comfort, or £16,000 each year or £80,000 over the school career in the lower school.
It's lunacy, but it could have been worse. Just imagine that there was a reciprocal movement in the opposite direction if West Sussex adopted the lottery!! (Was it them or Brighton which espoused this other nonsense?)
It would be interesting to discover what the hard pressed ratepayers think about this, as they scrabble together money to pay their ever increasing rate demands.
The milch cows
The Sunday Telegraph revealed yesterday that parking fees and charges levied by local councils have more than doubled since 1997, from £5.5. billion in 1997-98 to £12.6 billion in 2007-08.
In many cases this was in an attempt to keep down council tax increases or keep within the government imposed caps. This was frequently because government block grants were mean. The government has even made a virtue of it, denying all responsibility but claiming it is good if it makes people walk.
To make a virtue out of a vice is cynical, because many people live some distance away from their work place, having chosen not to re-locate after changing jobs because of HIP charges and stamp duty, as well as the traditional financial and non-financial costs.
Not only do increases make another drain on poorer people in the nature of a regressive tax, it also introduces anti-competitive elements in retail markets. Some can compete with supermarkets and their free parking only by keeping parking charges low. Another consequence is that side streets within walkable distance of the town centre become free parking areas.
As government stealth taxes go, this is one of the worst.
In many cases this was in an attempt to keep down council tax increases or keep within the government imposed caps. This was frequently because government block grants were mean. The government has even made a virtue of it, denying all responsibility but claiming it is good if it makes people walk.
To make a virtue out of a vice is cynical, because many people live some distance away from their work place, having chosen not to re-locate after changing jobs because of HIP charges and stamp duty, as well as the traditional financial and non-financial costs.
Not only do increases make another drain on poorer people in the nature of a regressive tax, it also introduces anti-competitive elements in retail markets. Some can compete with supermarkets and their free parking only by keeping parking charges low. Another consequence is that side streets within walkable distance of the town centre become free parking areas.
As government stealth taxes go, this is one of the worst.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Time to take the adjective away?
Peter Oborne, in the Daily Mail today, repeats his thesis about the lying political class. Blair is castigated, and Keith Vaz is added to the list of offenders, for continuing in parliament even when documentary evidence revealed that he was lying.
Surprisingly, Oborne confesses that when G. Brown became prime minister Oborne actually expected him to be more truthful. Those of us who were used to his "brownies" since 1997 were less sure. So often he came up with pronouncements which depended on carefully constructed bases, which were never admitted or acknowledged, or special definitions or using different measures of inflation in a single comparison. He has virtually ruled out the difference between investment, which sounds virtuous, and expenditure, which is unpopular. He arbitrarily left indebtedness off the balance sheet and cheerfully ignored anything which did not suit his case.
Recently in PMQ, of course, he has lost face. His attempted deceits have been rumbled very quickly, by the IFS and by people like Faser Nelson.
He told Blair that there was nothing the latter could say that Brown would ever believe, and many of us now say the same about Brown. He is just not able to speak the truth in a straight forward way. The inability has spread to some of his acolytes, especially Balls and Knight.
Some of the lying or deception is trivial, - Blair could not have seen Milburn play for the Toon, but some is very serious and it happens often enough to suggest that the long held convention that members are honourable and do not lie has now been abrogated.
Being caught out in a lie is no longer a reason to be suspended or sacked, or Vaz would have gone long ago.
Given that the many expenses fiddles involved behaviour according to the (lax) rules set, some rather dishonourable people will continue, at least to the next election. The relative few who were guilty of fraud have gone or will go, and ought to be prosecuted.
Now we know that lying regularly occurs, perhaps we should petition parliament to drop the title honourable or right honourable until they demonstrate that they are just that.
I am not optimistic. The recently introduced Parliamentary Standards Bill has a clause which offers prosecution and even jail for any member caught lying, but Jack Straw and others are already rowing back on this!
We have a bunch of elected representatives whose behaviour and morality would not be tolerated on the Stock Exchange or in the board rooms of banks and large businesses. It is about time that they earned the adjective "honourable".
Surprisingly, Oborne confesses that when G. Brown became prime minister Oborne actually expected him to be more truthful. Those of us who were used to his "brownies" since 1997 were less sure. So often he came up with pronouncements which depended on carefully constructed bases, which were never admitted or acknowledged, or special definitions or using different measures of inflation in a single comparison. He has virtually ruled out the difference between investment, which sounds virtuous, and expenditure, which is unpopular. He arbitrarily left indebtedness off the balance sheet and cheerfully ignored anything which did not suit his case.
Recently in PMQ, of course, he has lost face. His attempted deceits have been rumbled very quickly, by the IFS and by people like Faser Nelson.
He told Blair that there was nothing the latter could say that Brown would ever believe, and many of us now say the same about Brown. He is just not able to speak the truth in a straight forward way. The inability has spread to some of his acolytes, especially Balls and Knight.
Some of the lying or deception is trivial, - Blair could not have seen Milburn play for the Toon, but some is very serious and it happens often enough to suggest that the long held convention that members are honourable and do not lie has now been abrogated.
Being caught out in a lie is no longer a reason to be suspended or sacked, or Vaz would have gone long ago.
Given that the many expenses fiddles involved behaviour according to the (lax) rules set, some rather dishonourable people will continue, at least to the next election. The relative few who were guilty of fraud have gone or will go, and ought to be prosecuted.
Now we know that lying regularly occurs, perhaps we should petition parliament to drop the title honourable or right honourable until they demonstrate that they are just that.
I am not optimistic. The recently introduced Parliamentary Standards Bill has a clause which offers prosecution and even jail for any member caught lying, but Jack Straw and others are already rowing back on this!
We have a bunch of elected representatives whose behaviour and morality would not be tolerated on the Stock Exchange or in the board rooms of banks and large businesses. It is about time that they earned the adjective "honourable".
Younger and younger....
The Daily Telegraph revealed BMA figures yesterday which must concern all of us, that drunkenness is reaching to younger and younger children.
For the age group 12-15 years, last year 4,441 were admitted to hospital for emergency treatment after drinking.
For the age group 16-17 years, the figure was 7,766 patients.
For those under 12 years of age the figure was 181. Every 48 hours on average a child less than 12 is treated in hospital for binge drinking. In fact like their older counterparts, most admissions are on Friday and Saturday nights. Every week-end children of this age group will be brought to hospital after passing out in the street. Ten years ago this would have been an occasional thing, but now it is virtually every week-end.
A consultant paediatrician reported that the youngest patient he had encountered was aged just 8 years old. He had been found unconscious in the street.
The concern is that these youngsters are likely to be doing long term damage. There is already a significant rise in liver damage among the under 35s. They are also by-passing the pleasures of youth for a drunken binge-filled unconsciousness.
Questions arise?
Where are they getting the drink, or the money to buy? Who is guilty or aiding and abetting?
What has happened to parental guidance and discipline, or appropriate education in school?
Is it now time to follow the advice of some who recommend a minimum tax per unit of alcohol, to thwart the opportunity of youngsters buying the cheapest and most potent drinks?
For the age group 12-15 years, last year 4,441 were admitted to hospital for emergency treatment after drinking.
For the age group 16-17 years, the figure was 7,766 patients.
For those under 12 years of age the figure was 181. Every 48 hours on average a child less than 12 is treated in hospital for binge drinking. In fact like their older counterparts, most admissions are on Friday and Saturday nights. Every week-end children of this age group will be brought to hospital after passing out in the street. Ten years ago this would have been an occasional thing, but now it is virtually every week-end.
A consultant paediatrician reported that the youngest patient he had encountered was aged just 8 years old. He had been found unconscious in the street.
The concern is that these youngsters are likely to be doing long term damage. There is already a significant rise in liver damage among the under 35s. They are also by-passing the pleasures of youth for a drunken binge-filled unconsciousness.
Questions arise?
Where are they getting the drink, or the money to buy? Who is guilty or aiding and abetting?
What has happened to parental guidance and discipline, or appropriate education in school?
Is it now time to follow the advice of some who recommend a minimum tax per unit of alcohol, to thwart the opportunity of youngsters buying the cheapest and most potent drinks?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
