The thorny issue of abortion

A Parliamentary Select Committee seems to have recommended little or no change to the Abortion Act provisions. This may come as little surprise, given the strength of opinions on all sides in the ongoing debate.

Surely, however, we can agree three things:

- that abortion should be legally available for cases where pregnancy is the result of rape, where the mother’s health is at risk or where the eventual birth would result in a baby with massive handicaps and the prospect of a short life of pain.

- that medical advances have raised the prospect of keeping alive babies born at less then 24 weeks of gestation – the current maximum. Two Conservative members of the committee have written a minority report, claiming that babies born from natural miscarriage younger than this are surviving, that evidence presented to the contrary to committee was out of date and witnesses with vested interest were suppressing evidence.

- that there were over 200,000 abortions last year, pushing the total to over 6 million since 1967. Advocates of the present or more liberal provision point out that the vast number of these were in the early weeks of pregnancy. The overall impression is that abortion is becoming something of a “late contraception”. This fact has concerned many, who did not envisage such a thing happening when the Act was passed in 1967. The group contains Lord Steele, one of the promoters in 1967. To their credit, the Government is already talking of better sex education and more freely available contraception, although they are also coming under pressure to reduce the number of medical signatures needed from two to one.

Abortion must concern us all, whatever significance we give to the unborn foetus. No abortion is entirely free from risk to the mother’s physical or mental health, - the same is true, of course of childbirth.The emphasis on contraception is surely better than the “abortion on demand” position we have effectively reached, where in some cases no counselling is given and where the second doctor to sign routinely does so without seeing the “mother”.

What is needed is a more thorough investigation of the whole issue than can be done by a lay parliamentary committee, supported by evidence that may be from vested interest.

A One-man band?

All true Conservatives are pleased with the "bounce back" in the polls. It reflects, I think two things. That the leader now seems better advised on issues and what statements to make about them, and it also reflects the thinking and approach revealed during the party conference.

I was aware of a fair number of friends, members and supporters over many years, who were giving up on the party because of gaffes and mistakes during the spring and summer. It will be interesting to hear their views now.

The conference showed fresh thinking, and the speech by David Cameron, showed how it all cohered. It also showed impressive older and newer shadow cabinet members sure of their brief and singing in unison.

Since the conference the Conservatives have continued to set the agenda with policy statements which have completely undermined Brown's attempts to talk up his image. But there is a danger, in that they have largely been speeches by the leader. Surely with such a good shadow team the other members should more regularly be presenting policy? Everyone now knows who David Cameron is, but how many non-Conservatives know who his team are. Theresa May is embarked on a national meet the people effort, which is good.

Some of the morning briefings and statements ought to be given by other shadow cabinet members, although with David Cameron present.

What's 300,00 between friends?

The Government announced this morning that the figure of immigrants since 1997, which they peddled for a while, was out by 300,000. The "true" number was 1.1 million, rather than 800,000. Presumably the "true" figure is the number of immigrants who have arrived and are still here? Some may have gone elsewhere.

But by some strange alchemy these 1.1 million contribute 8% of the work force of 29.1 million. Simple mental arithmetic suggests the figure should be about 3.8%.

Are they implying that and event bigger figure than 1.1 million were in place before 1997, in order to make up the 8%, i.e. had arrived during the Thatcher/Major years? Or are they from the E.U., who have freedom to travel to work anywhere in the Union?

Or are there further immigrants to be found?

We may learn the answer eventually, or it may be a misunderstanding by me. In either case we must be slightly worried. Either the Statistical estimate is still not accurate, and the numbers are admittedly difficult to produce, that is out by a factor of 50%, or the presentation is such as to confuse most people - does the word "spin" come to mind?

Synthetic tears

Over the week-end expectations arose that David Cameron would support moves for English only votes at Westminster on English matters, following a model proposed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

The response was predictable! Labour ministers shouted that the danger was that Scottish independence would be nearer, with a threat to the Union. What they are really upset about is that Rifkind's proposal might give some impetus to the Scottish Nationalists, and harm the chances of Labour ever again regaining control in Scotland. It would also, of course, reduce the chances of Labour having a majority at Westminster on English matters. The tears about the proposal are Labour ones for Labour, the risk being as great for the Labour party as for the Union.

The other argument they advance is the sadness that Scottish MPs would lose votes/control over England, but this has already happened the other way round - since Devolution English MPs have been unable to vote on Scottish and Welsh local matters, so more MPs at Westminster (English) have lost much more constitutional power than what is proposed under Rifkind. It is also true that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on English "local" matters, which are of no relevance to them, but cannot vote on Scottish matters which are of relevance.

The Rifkind solution is one slightly messy way to answer the West Lothian question.

Another one, supported by localists and also by the Daily Telegraph is to devolve the same power to English counties that Scotland has, and presumably devolve the same power to Wales and Northern Ireland. The main objection to this is that England, alone, will be the only part of the UK without its national government, and furthermore will imply the kind of butchery that the EU has been trying to impose on us to weaken the power of national interest.
Why should the English have to suffer a loss of national identity and pride?

There is a further possibility - that we consider a federal structure- that there be a federal government in London (with departments perhaps dispersed around the UK), and four national
assemblies, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland dealing with the local matters at present decided in Scotland - a measure of friendly comparison and competition might even be a healthy thing. This would allow "local" autonomy on issues capable of local determination.

Sorry New Labour, but you began the process with ill-conceived legislation to suit your own purposes, and it ill suits you to try to perpetuate your advantage and the accompanying anomalies! The half-baked and rushed devolution was of your making.

Why is New Labour so inefficient and incompetent?

Is inefficient and incompetent? Yes, despite all the spin and deceit, the only thing that they are able to do is to spend vast sums of money. (See “The Bumper Book of Government Waste” by Matthew Elliott and Lee Rotherham – you will be amazed at the size of the waste – they estimate £100 billion. The Tax Payers Alliance also includes regular examples on their web site.)

But it’s not just the waste of money (although Defra were spending vast sums on consultants when they cut the maintenance at Pirbright!), it is the incompetence in running departments – the Home Office was by no means the only one not fit for purpose- look wherever you will.)

Why is this?

In part it is their lack of coherent ideology. They achieved office without having thought what their policies would be. Soundbites like New Labour, the Third way, Cool Britannia, Britishness have little operational meaning. The person who said “The man who aims at nothing in particular hits exactly that every time” was surely right.

They have not stopped campaigning since 1997, or well before that, so much of their spinning, and now “pinching Tory clothes”, is to drive the Tories to destruction and irrelevant permanent opposition. This does not make for efficient government!

Business management used to have a description “management by lurch” – no medium term, let alone long term, plan, but rather attending to the most pressing problem briefly before going on to another. With New Labour we have government lurch – at the moment, because of the ill-thought-out and rushed devolution policy which suited Labour after 1997, we now have Britishness promoted by a Scottish elected prime minister and cabinet. We have seen new “wheezes” in education to overcome the failure of teaching and examinations, gimmicks in crime policy, and the endless response to problems one of “We’re talking about that” as if talking is guaranteed to solve everything.

We now have a presidential system grafted on to and corrupting a cabinet parliamentary tradition, and a former prime minister who was one of the worst attenders at the House of Commons. His deeds and pronouncements were largely calculated to improve his own image and international standing. The presidential system works only if there are checks and balances, and if he is willing to listen to a wide dispersion of opinion, rather than his small circle of acolytes. While Blair was on the throne, we had an over-powerful chancellor next door, who not only decided how much funding each department should get but also interfered with directions of spending within the department. Perhaps I should have described the Blair years as a duumvirate presidency?

Peter Oborne in his recent book makes a strong case for the arrival of a professional political class. Even if you don’t accept his full thesis, the facts are very clear – many of the present cabinet have reached their powerful position without ever having worked outside the Westminster village. They generally know nothing about how business functions, or many other things in the real world. Their preoccupation is pulling political levers in the simplistic belief that they can predict the consequence of their actions. It may be a reflection on their lack of knowledge and a distrust of the traditional civil service that they have expended vast sums on consultants and have created ever more powerful quangos which they seek to control.

(I make no mention of the influence of Trade Unions, who increasingly fund New Labour since the honours fiasco. They have had significant successes, such as withstanding the Government’s wish to make new occupational pensions available only at 65, as in the private sector and as for old age pensions. While they continue to fund New Labour we may expect policy concessions in their direction, and the battles of the 1980s may have to be fought again before we sink into un-competitiveness.)

Too serious to be funny?

In the year 2007 the Lord came to Noah and said, "The earth has become wicked again. I must end things again. Build me an ark and save two of every living things, along with a few good humans." He gave Noah CAD drawings, and told him he had six months before unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Six months later The Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard, - but no ark! "Noah, I'm about to start the rain, where's the ark?" he demanded.

"Forgive me, Lord, but things have changed. I needed Building Regulations Approval, and I've been arguing with the Fire Brigade about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbours claimed I should have obtained planning permission before starting, even though I explained that it's a temporary structure. We had to get Ministerial approval.

Getting the wood was another problem. All the decent trees have Tree Preservation orders on them, and we live in a Site of Special Scientific Interest set up to protect the spotted owl. I tried to explain that I needed the wood to save the owls, but no go!

I started gathering the animals, and the RSPCA sued me. The County Council, the Environment Agency and the Rivers Authority ruled that I couldn't start building until they had conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. I am still trying to resolve a complaint from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on how many BMEs I'm supposed to hire for my building team. The trades unions say I can't use my sons, but must hire CSCS accredited workers with ark-building experience. Now Customs and Excise have seized all my assets. claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

I'm sorry, Lord, I can't build it in less than 10 years."

Suddenly the skies cleared, the threatening clouds rolled away, the sun shone and a rainbow stretched across the sky. In wonder Noah looked up. "Lord, you mean that you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord, "It seems that the government beat me to it.!"

Give me better ammunition!

The Sunday Times (apologies to readers who have read this for themselves) today refers to a memo sent by Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary on behalf of the Prime Minister, early in October. The document has been leaked.

It concerns the disappointing performance by the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), and instructs civil servants to improve on the quality of briefings, particularly in finding good third party endorsements of government policies, including quotations from members of the opposition. It even details form and font of submissions, and "They should be pithy, punchy and immediately to the point." They should be also 'just in time', right up to the minute.

The writers should begin preparing virtually a week ahead, on Thursdays before next week's PMQs on Wednesday. On Mondays there is to be a sifting, in the light of what appeared in the media over the week-end, and forwarding what are to be expected as the likely issues.

Leaving aside the question of whether the material is fairly obviously party political, and shows further politicisation of the civil service, there is a further question.

Since a team of civil servants, covering all departments, are spending a large part of their working week in assembling information, and (rather less) private resources are devoted to preparing the questions by the opposition, there is the question of cost.

Are PMQs worth this expenditure of resources? Has it become a game, some journalists actually giving score assessments out of ten, a knockabout, a bear-pit for personal abuse? Little light is thrown on any topic - Tony Blair failed regularly to answer a single question, often quoting or misquoting something about the Conservative Government 15 years before, as if this was an answer.

There is need for the Government to be put on the spot, and made to defend themselves. Will they always answer with abuse when they are in difficulty, and answer rationally only anodyne questions from their own supporters?

What emerges from PMQs is a verdict on a leader - Blair wiped the floor with Ian Duncan Smith, but met his match in William Hague, and perhaps drew with Michael Howard. So far Brown has not "performed" well against Cameron.

It may be partly temperament. Blair could get away with his charm and charisma, but Brown seems to lack both. Does this mean of itself that Blair is a better prime minister? There must be better ways, perhaps time, to decide who is a good prime minister.

Regionalism by stealth

We thought that the Prescott nightmare was over (although we saw that wasteful and largely impotent regional assemblies continue).

What we have now is creeping regionalism, with the worse feature that power is being exercised without accountability.

We know that the ambulance service has been fighting a rear-guard action, and lost? Their colleagues in the police will surely follow. Two emergency services will be based on remote Birmingham, 40 miles away.

The City Region, a product of the same nightmare, is still possible, and would be just as remote.

The Business Link, set up to provide business advice and other services is being reorganised to fit in with regional development agencies.

Most of all is the dominance assumed by Advantage West Midlands, controlling £400 million of taxpayers' money, this is the RDA which like others will be granted the regional housing and planning powers from the still-born regional assemblies.

Our lives will be very much under the power of these unelected mini-governments. We got out of the regional assembly frying pan (at least elected) into "quangoland". When things like this happen, is anyone surprised that the turn-out at elections, especially local ones, is so low?
People clearly feel that there is little point in voting.

The expenses of representing

The expenses incurred by MPs and paid for by us in the last year totalled £87.6 million. This figure and those for all individuals have just been released. This represents an increase of 5% on last year.

The highest individual sum claimed was £185,421 by the MP for Dewsbury, an increase of £52, 986 on last year. This increase could be attributed to the fact that the Labour MP was in a seat deemed to be marginal, or perhaps he genuinely has worked harder in his constituency. Virtually all the top ten spenders were Labour MPs in marginal seats.

The overall average was about £135,000. The lowest figure, again, was by Phillip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering, with £44,551, a reduction of £5,025 on what he spent last year. He apparently uses no paid staff, secretarial or researcher.

To indicate the directions of expenditure, the following were the highest under particular heads:
Stationery: Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, claimed £49, 107 (must have excellent artwork!) The previous year she was highest in postage, and nick-named "the postage stamp queen."

Car mileage: Labour MP for Rossendal and Darwen, who claimed £13,851 ( for something like 27,000 miles? Well they do have long holidays/recesses!

Staffing costs: Labour MP for Brent North claimed £119,193 (- he found the very best secretary and researcher?) Margaret Beckett, the Deffra mis-manager, who employs her husband to run her office at Westminster, charged £102,680.

It would be instructive to find out how much of the costs were actually campaigning costs - certainly some of the postage and stationery costs could well have been under this heading, and the big spenders tended to be from marginal seats.

With all the other perks they receive, meals and drinks included, it is tempting to think of there being waste in all this. But am I being too cynical?

The time bomb

The Government has admitted that its estimate of the liability for public sector pension commitments has risen to more than £620 billion, from the previous official estimate last year of £530 billion, an increase of 17%. (When you bear in mind that other reputable experts have put the estimate as between £960bn and £1,025bn, the real figure is likely to be higher than the Government admits.)

What is this liability? It is the lump sum that would have to be invested at present rates of return to finance the "pensions" of the public sector. There will be no investment of course, it is purely notional, as the pensions are largely funded out of future taxation, - taxing young Peter to pay the pensions of old Paul.

So the future has been further mortgaged by Brown as Chancellor, there will also need to be found huge lump sums eventually to buy the hospitals and other structures built by private industry but not yet paid for.

It is little wonder that Brown is now cutting back on the spending on public services, but this is because he has seriously underestimated the growth in annual expenditure and debt which has to be revealed in the Budget statements, even if with spin. These other huge future commitments he is leaving for someone else to clear up.

Public sector pensions are still "final salary" based and indexed to inflation, unlike the private sector which has had to close down most of such schemes since the pension raids By Brown. Public pensions are still in many cases available for retirement at 60. (There was a time when such advantages were acceptable because of the generally poorer salaries in the public sector. This is no longer true.) They are also largely unfunded - paid for out of taxation.

The "burden" has been greatly increased in the last 8 years or so, with large increases in public sector salaries (e.g. doctors') and a vast increase in the civil service and other areas. We not only have to meet their salaries as they work now, we have to pay them larger pensions when they retire, and indexed until they die.

Clearly, if money were not so short, we should consider setting up a fund out of budget surplus.

We should also consider abolishing perks such as retirement at 60, as the Old Age pensionable age has been raised.

Above all, we have to do something to reduce the size of the swollen public sector, - we may not want to impoverish doctors and others, but we surely need to do something about the vast increase of about 500,00 "pen pushers" in the civil service.

Transport policy - an admission of failure?

The Government has announced that the experiment of allowing the hard shoulder to be an additional usable lane on the motorway has been l extended to further motorways. It seems that much time will be saved and less damage done to environment and, wonder of wonders' the rate of accidents might go down.

This is from the Government which cancelled motorway projects in the pipeline when they came into power, and swallowed the nostrum of some of their "green" cronies that "If you build more motorways, you'll only encourage more cars and motorists!"

So fully did they seem to swallow the anti-car philosophy, that they have enthusiastically embraced lower maximum speeds, removed lanes for the use of occasional buses, installed revenue raising speed cameras, and charged exorbitant taxes on fuel which are to be topped up by road pricing to price people off the roads. This was not so much "If you can't beat them, join them" as "If you can't beat them, get rid of them."

Given where people live and where they work and shop, and the absence of reasonable convenient public transport, the car is the last possession that many will want to give up. We may need better public transport but we also need a fit-for-purpose road system. This small admission by the Government, we must hope, is a sign that they may have at last come to see how people live and work, and they may cease to do more damage to our economy through their road-hate attitude. We may even come to rejoice in roads fit for the 21st century!

What are the LibDems afraid of?

I understand that at a recent hustings arranged for their two leadership contenders, the press duly turned up in order to report what was said.

The two candidates each gave a (prepared?) ten minute speech,but afterwards, before a question and answer session, the gentlemen of the press were quietly escorted out and excluded from the remainder of the meeting.

What were the organisers afraid of - that one or both candidates might give the game away, might say something that we suspect but have not yet heard? The press were probably miffed because they had taken the trouble to be present, and they could be forgiven it they feel that they will not be going to future events like this.

It is reminiscent of (President) Blair arriving to speak at a public meeting during the election campaign from which the public were excluded. In fact the entire audience seemed to have been supporters bussed in for the occasion.

Blair at least had the excuse that he didn't want to be interrupted by opponents,- at Telford when he came there were plenty of Conservatives outside to "greet" him, but do the Libdems honestly feel that the press were going to heckle or disturb? Their's was not a very liberal act!

The Health Service - do we need an independent monitor?

Rrecently we have had detailed something of the failures in Kent hospitals, - where patient relatives had been complaining of the conditions for several months, if not years. Earlier this month a retired professor was in hospital at Bodwelwyddan for one week. She left earlier than medical staff thought desirable because of the state of toilets and showers, and subsequently wrote and circulated a report which eventually reached the national media. The chief executive said "The trust is continually monitoring cleanliness and is not complacent about infection control."

There may be monitoring, there and in Kent, but when do the results reach anyone able to crack a whip? Mr. Johnson, at the top of the pyramid seemingly doesn't know what is going on until the final report of an enquiry. Well, he is new.....

The Observer on Sunday in its News Briefing contained an item by Denis Campbell. He reports on a survey finding by "Which", the consumer organisation. It seems that of the people who have a bad experience of the NHS, only about one in six actually complains formally. Of the 83% who do not complain, 57 % didn't bother because they thought no difference would result, and 32% because they were concerned that future care could be affected. Of those who did complain, 27% were satisfied with the outcome and only 15% pleased with the result.

We have been fed a diet of self-congratulation by the Government, and especially the reduction in waiting times. In fairness to them, waiting times do seem to be shorter, but we discovered early on that figures for first appointment could be manipulated in various ways. In my own case, I was offered an appointment at about 48 hours notice, which I could not accept. I then had to wait a further three years.

It is surely time that we had independent monitoring, and a monitor with teeth which is able to expose what might otherwise be covered up. We live with a politicised health service, and one which for most people is a monopolistic supplier. We need either or both of two things - ability of patients to vote with their feet by shunning indifferent service, and the presence of a powerful independent watchdog.

Hand-wringing

The Sun newspaper revealed this week that serious offenders released early because of prison overcrowding committed more violent offences. Of the most dangerous criminals out on licence, and theoretically under supervision, 83 were charged with serious offences, compared to the figure of 61 last year.

Serious offences in this connection means things such as murder, manslaughter, attempted homicide, rape or attempted rape or any other serious violent or sexual crime with a maximum penalty of 14 years or more.

One in ten high or medium-risk criminals were returned to prison for crimes committed or otherwise breaking their release conditions.

In one sense this is an admission that, even in this age of electronic supervision and communication, inadequate resources means that it is difficult to keep track of the prisoners after release. Indeed, the Sun article , also refers to a 30% rise in the proportion of sex offenders who did not report their location to the police.

In essence, however, the problem is one of the Government's own making. Despite the Tory Opposition and others repeatedly warning them, and numbers of prisoners rising inexorably to the capacity level, the Government made inadequate provision for building new prisons. This was compounded by the inefficient way the Home Office went about deporting foreign nationals in our prisons. We learn that almost 1 in 7 prisoners is a foreign national, - over 11,000! The Human Rights act and the judiciary have prevented some repatriation on grounds of hazard, but the almost complete failure is a sign of incompetence.

Despite frequent public statements of intention, or even action, on these issues, the Government has signally failed. The hapless Justice Minister, Maria Eagle, could only metaphorically wring her hands and claim that protecting the public was of "paramount importance"

Have Sandwell found the alchemist's gold?

The Tax Payers Alliance reports on a job advertisement in last week's Guardian (-where else?)

Sandwell were advertising for a Welfare Rights Team Manager (£36, 636 - £39, 132), to oversee a team of 40 staff, who provide domiciliary services including the encouragement of taking up rights.

There is nothing to object to, if the claims are legitimate and are not leading to over-dependence on benefits. What is of concern is the way the council sees part of its purpose: "Our Welfare Rights service has an excellent reputation and has huge success in creating wealth for residents of Sandwell. During the last 12 months benefit gains of over £21 million have been generated for people living in the borough. We want to build on that success and are reshaping and refocusing our services to do that."

Leaving aside the fact that the wealth has not been "created", but merely extracted from other people, some of who are not much better off than the recipients of the wealth transfer, the TPA goes on to describe the approach and the advertisement as the worst non-job they have noted in months of investigation - "in making dependency sound attractive, Sandwell Council is creating the problem rather then working to cure it."

If a fraction of the money was devoted to encouraging possible recipients into the labour market, perhaps with re-training or elementary education, then those involved could have self-pride and dignity rather than a submissive dependence, and would actually be helping to increase the sum of national income and consumption.

And to use the term "wealth creation" comes close to suggesting that if we all gave money to others and they to us then everyone would be better off and our national wealth increased.

A small child once suggested to me that if the government printed more money and gave everyone some we would all be able to buy more. This, he was assuming, was the alchemists way to produce gold.

Brian R.

...never planned an election....

The Guardian on 22nd October reported that the Labour Party , which didn't really intend an election, spent of possibly more than £1m when all costs are included.

Three million letters were printed,- the first of a series, to key voters and supporters. These were ultimately pulped.
A media centre in London was in the process of being constructed. Furniture and equipment for it had been ordered and had arrived by lorry at the venue, after Bottler had pulled the plug. This centre was for daily press conferences during the campaign.
Hundreds of poster sites had been booked and paid for. (The Tories had also done so, but will use theirs for a campaign for a referendum.)
Staff had been recruited at union headquarters to campaign in marginal seats.
"Opinion Leader Research" had spent "hundreds of thousands of pounds" on polling, perhaps the very polling that Bottler claimed he did not consider.

These were the costs faced nationally. In addition many thousands of pounds had been spent, especially in marginals, in sending out thousands of letters seeking the support of members and supporters. (Because of the postal strikes most of these reached their destinations after the election had been been "called off".

The sums above are in many cases the best estimates of Guardian researchers and others, with official reluctance to confirm them.

The Conservative Party also spent significantly in the week before the election was called off. The best estimate here is under £200,000, some of which was on poster sites which will now be used in a campaign for a referendum.

But the Labour Party, already £20m in debt and facing a drop in large personal donations as a result of the "cash for honours" crisis, spent at least another million pounds before Gordon Brown pulled the plug. Let no-one claim that election planning was not serious, or that he had no particular reason for calling it all off.

Brian R.

When is a report not a report?

To nobody's surprise Labour and Conservatives at Westminster are in dispute again - this time about how soon the ministers knew of the findings of the report into the C-difficile deaths at Kent Hospitals.

The Convervatives are claiming that the Department received reports as early as 3rd May 2007, and a further one on 12th September. Mr. John,son, Secretary, claimed to have received the report on 9th October. His Department adds that the report of 3rd May was an outline of the final report, lacking conclusions or recommendations.

Leaving aside the fact that we do not what difference there was between the September draft and the October published report, it is probable that Mr. Johnson is telling the truth, that the final report arrived on his desk in October.

But are we being led to believe that there was no suggestion of culpability in May or September, that Mr. Johnson was ignorant of the fact that in two years over 1,100 patients had been infected, of whom 90 had died principally due to the infection? In which case who deceived him?
Is he also suggesting that in little over four weeks the September report was enlarged to include details and recommendations, and went through the printing process?

I suppose he could claim that until he knew the facts he could do little to prevent patients becoming infected at the rate of about 2 per day, and dying at the rate of about one every 8 days? But did he not not know enough, certainly by September, to close wards, and suspend those in charge? Certainly there seemed to have been no suspensions until the media became aware of the problem at the hospital.

We give great powers to Ministers, and we certainly expect decisive action. What point is there in preliminary reports or draft reports if they do not prompt action in such terrible cases?

At what stage does a report become a report for action?

How does Shropshire do it?

Daniel Kawcznski, M.P. for Shrewsbury, is about to take on Parliament!

He has discovered that Shropshire is badly under funded in terms of grants towards education in the county. (Telford and Wrekin fares better, as the Government regards it as a deprived area.) In fact with funding at £3,551 per child, it benefits as 145 our of 149 LEAs - virtually bottom in the amount it receives. The national average is £3,888, while the City of London receives £7,090, or almost twice per child that Shropshire receives.

But within the Shropshire figure generally junior schools fare worse and secondary schools better, reflecting the greater need for staff specialisation smaller classes and equipment. Daniel was invited into one primary school in Shrewsbury, which was bottom nationally for funding, receiving only £2,409 per child compared with the national average of £3,120 for primary children, or about 23% less! The consequence for the school is that it is unable to buy essential books or to give adequate care individual care to children with particular needs and problems.

This is something of a disgrace, and reflects the concern of Labour with its heartland and votes in the name of deprivation. The Shire counties contribute disproportionately more to government revenue, but pockets in them are in danger of receiving poor education facilities, despite the heroic efforts of the staff, - all the name of re-distribution!

Brian R.

The fat cats get fatter

The Guardian today quotes Philip Hammond on the large bonuses paid to Treasury staff, now including Revenue & Customs. It seems that over the past 5 years £53m has been, and £21.5m in 2005-06 alone.

The Guardian estimates that up to 150 senior Treasury officials might have received bonuses averaging £4,000 in 2006-07, while 80,000 staff shared the remainder. Some bonuses were as little as £100, for having to work during brief crises.

It is to be hoped that those who have overseen the shambolic tax credits system, where payments of £1.7bn were made and then reclaimed from struggling families in 2006-2007, did not participate in the "goodies".

This was all in the name of reducing costs, and theses bonuses were not consolidated nor counted towards pensions entitlement - so it's alright then. But what about the tax credits "victims", - did those responsible for causing these problems also receive bonuses, or did the troubles not come into the calculation at all?

Credit where it is due, but...

I have recently become aware of the figures for RECORDED crimes, - those that are reported and the police pursue to some extent or other, for the period April-June 2007. The figures relate to England and Wales.

All types of crime seem to be diminishing - crime generally by 7%, robbery by 9%, sexual offences by 9%, criminal damage by 10%. The one exception is the number of drug offences, which increased by 14%, up from 48,300 in 2006 to 55,000.

Recorded crimes are those which the public bothers to report, in some cases in order to obtain a crime number for insurance purposes, or the police bother to prosecute in some way. If there was no insurance, people may not have bothered and the crime will have gone unreported and there may also have been cases where the police decided not to proceed, because of the time and form-filling involved.

We must not be churlish. If the figure is falling for all types except drugs, then this is something to rejoice about. But wait for the Labour publicity machine to claim all the credit!

What are we to make of the drugs increase? The Home Office claims that there is no real increase but merely shows the police more willing to issue cautions for cannabis possession. In which case, with the Prime Minister talking (which he is good at) of reversing the classification of the drug back to category "B", we may expect more prosecutions? Perhaps he will also consider changing the therapies at the drug centres where all sorts of incentives, including hard drugs, have been offered.

Drugs do not just affect the the dug taker, and future costs of treatment and rehabilitation, important though these things are, they are also a major cause of other crimes - especially burglary and robbery generally. The addict, often unable to work, needs a significant income to support his addiction.

We'll give the Government at least two cheers when they get their policies and actions on drugs into some sort of rational and effective state. They have pinched many of the Tory policies already, and they could do a lot better if they pinched the drugs policy as well!

Brian R.

Further into the red!

The balance on the Government's account between Income and expenditure has worsened again. The deficit in September was th highest ever recorded for that month. This year at £6.9bn, compared with the expectations of analysts of £6.3bn, was 21% higher than the figure of £5.7bn last year.

The August deficit was also a record sum for that month.

In September Government receipts (- taxation of various sorts, etc.,) were up 4.8% as compared with September 2006, but current spending rose by 6.2%. Long ago Mr. Micawber realised what happens if this sort of gap continues.

The new Chancellor has already revised upwards the borrowing need for the financial year from the £34bn, made in the March Budget, to £38bn. He had hopes that a strong growth in Government receipts during the autumn would hold further expansion in debt under some sort of control, but September must be worrying for him, and us.

It again brings into sharp relief the preposterous claim that the statement by George Osborne could imply a failure to fund by a few million a highly popular tax cut. If their forecasts are so wildly optimistic on their own budget deficit, it ill becomes them to protest.

The growing accumulated deficit, and the consequent cuts in public services in all directions, is of concern for a number of reasons. High deficits means upward pressure on interest rates, which are already sensitive. They also mean that if the economy slows markedly then Government will be in a greater fix, as incomes and tax takes begin to fall.

What will they do with their time?

It seems that our MPs could have an extra 12 days away from Parliament over the next year. The Government apparently has run out of legislation to put before them. This should add up to about 90 days, or 18 five-day weeks, or more than a third of the year. We recognise that this is not "holidays", although they will see more of their families. The will clearly do some more work in their constituencies, including electioneering.

We ought to be relived that the Government legislation production line is slowing down, as much of the legislation is rushed and badly badly thought out, and contains more and more burdensome regulation. So why don't they actually give more time to what they put through at present? A proper consideration and debate would avoid the need for guillotines, and the legislation would probably be more efficient. Why don't they give more time to private members bills or questioning,etc., which can be more beneficial to electors than much of the official verbiage? There are strict limits on frequency and length of these debates - just watch to see how often a discussion of the new EU consti/treaty will be allowed. There was little or no debate on it before Bottler Brown rushed off the the Conference.

In 2002 the Government announced that it would shorten the summer recess. This was dropped without fanfare in 2005. This year members returned in October, as used to be the case. It is yet another example of the democratic deficit, which is growing. The Executive (largely yes-men of the Prime Minister) rams through its wishes with minimum debate and supporters are whipped into order with dire threats.

I make no mention of the increasingly high allowances MPs grant themselves, the high salaries and the gold plated pensions. Now, with less attendance required, you might imagine that there would be some embarrassment. I would be very surprised to see it! They are so full of their own importance.

No, Gordon, a slight untruth!

It seems that in the recent Prime Minister's Questions Bottler Brown, desperate to support his flagging cause, claimed that Labour targets had led to a decline in deaths from cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Rachel Joyce, a hospital doctor and Conservative Spokesperson for Harrow West (- would have been p.p.c. and fought the election there if Gordon hadn't bottled the election?), in her blog points us to evidence from the British Heart Foundation.

Gordon's nostrums have done no more than continue a trend which started in the 1970s. In Cardiac disease alone the real take-off was during the Thatcher years. The slow decline in smoking is the cause Dr. Joyce indicates for all such diseases.

It's a re-run of the "fifty quarters of unbroken economic growth" which he claimed, as if he was in control during 20 quarters under the Conservative Government.

We are used to the Libdems in their "yellow peril" taking credit for anything good which happens, but Bottler surpasses them in taking credit for things that happened even before he brought his policies in!

Veritas

Who could lead the LibDems?

There may be some candidates, but who is up to leading the Libdems? They are a collection of people who have progressed by encouraging protest and opposing one of the large parties. They have postured that they are somehow a central party between the other two, and therefore safe from the excesses of the others. This was never entirely true, although some people believed them, but now the other two have re-positioned themselves across the centre of politics.

I was a Liberal councillor in the days before they joined the Social Democrats, but in three years I failed to discover what the Party believed. The Liberals have a tradition of freedom of the individual (although it is selective - valid in personal behaviour in sexual matters, for instance, but not in the economic sphere or education), while the Social Democrats have a tradition of coercion of the individual after majority voting (the earlier Social Democrats in Germany were almost Marxist!).

The LibDems have no coherent philosophy, no obvious core, which differentiates them from the other two parties, and the two wings are almost as far right as the Conservatives go and almost as far left as Labour go. So apart from using phrases such as "greater equality" (whatever that means), greater personal freedom, opposition to war, joining the United States of Europe, with all sorts of unresolved conflicts between them, how can you summarise their position? How do they differ from New Labour and its incomprehensible sound bite and failed"Third Way"?

The new Leader has quite a task in hand, and although the party will doubtless give a period of honeymoon eventually they will pull apart because of the internal incompatibilities.

Honesty or efficiency?

The Labour Party, like the LibDems, are very good at claiming credit where it does not belong to them or does not belong entirely. We have only to think of sayings such as "50 quarters of economic growth", The Health service in the best condition ever", "School results improving annually".

The public seems to have swallowed statements that are repeated unchallenged so often that it becomes almost a kind of brain washing.

But let us give them their assertions, and ask a different question, "How far are we prepared to tolerate a government based on spin, lies and deceit, so long as it is successful ?" To judge from recent polling results, for many people the answer is "A long way". How else can we explain the proportion of people who think Bottler Brown is the best prime minister, or the strongest.

Do personal failings, including dishonesty no longer matter?

Fifty years ago if a minister were found out in some sexual immorality demotion or resignation would be expected. In the past twenty years two party leaders committed adultery, but continued as leaders.

Fifteen years ago two Conservative MPs were hounded out because they had taken money from a member of the public to ask questions in the House of Commons. For one at least, his parliamentary career is over. In the past ten years one minister gained a large mortgage by lying on his application form that he was borrowing no money anywhere else, when he was. He left the cabinet, but within months was back. More recently another minister misused his rights as a minister, resigned, but was back in the cabinet within six months. These two “offences” would probably have resulted in prosecution for ordinary members of the public, certainly exclusion for local councillors, unless they too had powerful friends. We do not mention a prime minister who misled parliament and who apparently performed favours for donors to his party funds.

Does it matter if our politicians profit from their positions? Should lying or abuse of power no longer require our elected representatives to stand down, so long as enough people think they’re doing a good job? Is there any place for honesty or honour?

The polls, the polls...

At last, from the recent ICM poll, more people would vote Conservative now than Labour.

But they should not order the champagne yet! Experts are saying that even if the Conservative vote is 7% higher than Labour this would translate into only a single figure majority at Westminster . There is much more to be done! The system is weighed against the Tories - smaller Labour constituencies and fewer votes wasted in large majorities, and tactical voting means that people will switch between LibDems and Labour, which have everything in common ultimately. Last week, in a Council by-election a Conservative majority of nearly three hundred was overturned by the LibDems for this reason - the second in a month.

Experts have also calculated that if Bottler Brown had called an election in November, the Tories would have gained about 10 seats from LibDems, but none from Labour, despite some wafer thin majorities in marginals. Bottler's overall majority would have been unchanged.

Also giving concern for the Tories is the subsidiary polls behind the main one. Despite the overall lead in the main poll, 43% to 36%, Labour are still regarded as more competent on the economy and Brown is still regarded as a more desirable person as prime minister, - Cameron is by some margin still regarded as weak.

If Brown succeeds in re-inventing himself soon with a new vision, - look out for spinning and photo-shots, or if Cameron blows it again, Labour could have a resurgence. If the economy turns down early next year, or the hapless new chancellor has to backtrack on some decisions, then the mantle of economic competence could be blown, and the Tories make real progress.

Encouraging for the Tories are the signs of restlessness in the non-Brown part of the Labour party. If this could break out into a major split.......

On top of everything else is the new European treaty, in which horse-trading/editing may have caused changes since the initial draft. Will the red lines be shown to be what they are, - worthless, and shall we have a referendum to bolster Brown's fortunes? We live in interesting times!

Is it fair?

A number of Labour MPs in marginal seats are complaining at the financing of activities in their seats by Lord Ashcroft. They are urging the Government to cap spending by individuals between elections, as well as during elections.

The official Tory position on this, I believe, is to agree, so long as the same applies to each Trade Union. Significantly the CWU, the union at loggerheads with Royal Mail, has donated £4.5m to the Labour cause over the past four years, half to the party centrally and half to campaigning for the Government. How many Trade Unions are there?

Robert Halfon, ppc for Harlow, in a letter to the Guardian which has not yet been published, complained that sitting MPs in marginals like his (Labour majority 97), have a built in advantage. MPs have been receiving £18,000 annually (recently with a £10,000 bonus added) to communicate with electors, and also £7,000 postal expenses and a fully staffed office also funded by the taxpayer. It seems that his opponent regularly writes unsolicited letters to constituents, and has the third highest postage bill at Westminster.

So with such allowances, plus Trade Union help, it is doubtful if Lord Ashcroft at best does more than level the playing field. But expect Labour to try to defeat Lord Ashcroft while allowing their troops to have the other advantages.

Brian R.

Chewed finger nails and a cancelled election

Underlying Brown's dithering is the possibility of the governing party virtually to dissolve Parliament at any time to their best advantage. In theory the monarch could refuse but.....

There is a movement towards a fixed term for Parliament, and the LibDems are apparently are likely to bring forward a bill to this effect.

Most of the component parts of our country have one - the Scottish Parliament, The Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all the various councils at various levels throughout the UK. Why should the National Parliament be any different? (It should also be said that most of the countries of similar age and sophistication to us also have fixed terms.)

It has to be said that since 1945, of the fifteen parliaments, only two, 1959-64 and 1992-97, have run their full course. Others have been foreshortened for one reason or another, usually because of polling returns, but not always. Eden in 1955 sought a personal mandate, when the parliament was over 3 years through, but unlike Gordon Brown did it immediately on coming into office, and in 1974 Heath after a similar period went to the country because of the severity of the miner's strike.

(What is virtually unique about the situation created and then rejected by Gordon Brown is both the size of his present majority, and the apparent trailing and disarray of the Tories. In vainglory he could have been returned with a much larger majority, and be praised as the equal or Blair, and perhaps just as enticing he could have banished the Tories from power for several more years or even permanently. The stakes were high.)

It has to be said that even fixed terms do not prevent one of the built in advantages to the party in power - of a favourable budget just before the election. Earlier this year we had the spectacle of the Labour control at Telford & Wrekin, already suffering from its association with Blair, was largely discredited by its bias and incompetence. It accordingly tried to buy votes by keeping rates down by plundering financial reserves. This would cause problems in the future but the immediate goal was re-election. When you hear a politician talking of "for the good of the nation"(Brown), or "for the sake of the community", beware - it's almost certainly the opposite!

Another advantage of the controlling party at Westminster is the ability to go before unpleasant events known to them become known and experienced by all. The hope is that although they may be seen as rats, many people will forget after another five years.

It has been objected that there may be a "hung parliament", or the controlling party may lose seats in by-elections and struggle. But if this is the will of electors, then shouldn't our elected representatives just get on with it? Gordon Brown's big tent should include everyone, and the LibDems are always ready for coalition - they want PR because they would be likely to be a junior party in government almost permanently.

If all politicians knew that they were there for Four(five?) years, they would get on with things and not deceive the electorate.

Published by Veritas

Ventriloquism?

As his nervous pupil read out his first Pre-Budget statement, the tutor sat smiling behind him, from time to time positively beaming with approval.

Pupil Darling had been so instructed that words he uttered could have been those of Gordon Brown himself. Was the speech actually written by Gordon Brown, - it has all his hallmarks.

If Darling was honest enough to warn that turbulence might be coming ( code for rising unemployment and falling incomes and growth), there was still the refrain that the Economy has been growing for so many years, even under the Conservative period by some mysterious alchemy attributable to Gordon Brown.)

As usual it was selective and calculated to deceive. The UK is not “the fastest growing major economy in the world” which he claimed. Even leaving out the economies of China, India and Russia, which are hardly minor, and the OECD expects seventeen of its members to grow more rapidly than the UK.

The UK figures are bloated by high salary increases in the very enlarged public sector, (where their salaries are heroically assumed to be the value they add!), and using an inflation figure, the CPI, which seriously underestimates the real increase in GDP which is due to inflation and not to increased output and consumption. Very worryingly, our productivity figures are declining, in part due to the low figure in the public sector, our education and training is falling below rapidly behind those of competitors, and our investment in the manufacturing sector is very low.

The claim to high employment sounds impressive, so long as the increase due to immigration is included. He was noticeably less forthcoming on unemployment, even with the figures massaged because of the number on various other benefits rather then registered as unemployed. We are familiar with the number of NEETS – young people not in education, employment of training), which would otherwise put many more on the unemployment numbers. The economic activity rate for people of working age reached a peak of 80.7% in 1990. In 2007 it is 78.8%.

As usual, it was also a matter of the things which were not mentioned. Somehow he forgot to mention that we are saving barely 3% of our personal incomes (in double figures under the last Conservative Government), and that our growth has not been export-led, but consumption-led, and consumption financed increasingly by credit! This is a very unhealthy situation, if the “turbulence” comes!

As usual, also, was the attempt to hide things away in the small print, in the hope that any initial pleasure will somehow remain when the Chancellor has been rumbled. Specifically, council tax payers, who have seen their council taxes rise by nearly 100% over the past 10 years, must expect their council taxes to rise by nearly 30% in the next five years. So a “Band D” taxpayer, on average paying £1,321, will find that by 2013 he will be paying £1,691. If those on relatively fixed incomes, like the elderly, are struggling now, they will almost certainly find it harder in 2013!

Reflection on the Pre Budget Statement will have shown that there are few gainers, for example existing widows/widowers with inheritance tax, if they had not done any tax planning. To whatever losses we calculated from the taxes he increased openly, we must now add council tax increases. The stealthy taxman lives on. The teacher has taught his pupil well!

Not me, gov, - not guilty!

For many people Gordon Brown is like McCavity the cat – never there when anything goes wrong. He is now working this trick on an even larger scale, trying to sell himself as someone who was never there when the Blair government made so many mistakes (ignoring the power he wielded then), and when the Economy turns down it will be the hapless Darling who will be stuck with the blame for Brown’s mismanagement.

But are we doing him an injustice by trying to tie him in with what went before?

After all, did he not single-handedly end the recent Foot and Mouth epidemic, acting like some world-statesman, and saving farmers from great disaster? Well, he certainly did take professional advice this time, thus avoiding the vast slaughter that Blair caused before. But we can’t let him get away with this unchallenged. A report by Dr. Anderson, asked to investigate the Government’s response to the crisis, is likely to blame Defra’s negligence for the cause of the outbreak at Pirbright. There will be criticism with the expected paean of praise! But Gordon is not guilty – the guilty one is one of the hapless series of Agriculture ministers, while Gordon was only Chancellor! No, it’s McCavity again. Brown cut the Defra budget, and one of the victims with a low priority was maintenance, despite concerns over the state of the drainage system. Gordon and Defra are still hoping to pin the blame on Merial, the private firm which uses the site, but at the very least Defra is the regulatory authority for the whole industry and failed to guard the standard.

Ah, well, its only 8 farms (so far) and the Government will compensate them. O not it’s not, - hundreds of sheep and cattle farmers throughout the country will have lost millions of pounds through travel restrictions and no markets. It is just emerging that some Scottish hill farmers have so many unsold (and not exported ) lambs that have lost all value now with the result that many will be used for bio-diesel fuel!

Well, you can’t blame McCavity for the Northern Rock fiasco, which the Chancellor had to settle. The blame is being directed by the Government at the Bank of England, with Mervyn King the fall guy, and latterly the select committee is less than happy with the Financial Services Authority. Anyone is guilty but McCavity! But in 1997, when to great praise he made the Bank independent, he added the FSA and took away the Bank’s traditional function of regulating the banking system. The result is that there has been confusion. The Bank was also apparently constrained by directives from Brussels against intervention secretly to support private sector organisations. There is confusion caused by McCavity’s policies, which was reinforced by the Chancellor’s actions in promising a massive guarantee on funds deposited. (Guess who nudged the Chancellor, and then made the hapless largely rescind to a maximum of £35,000 per account – little more than previously, when it was realised what a blank cheque had been offered?)

The list goes on;

- inadequate funding for the authorities who should have ensured that drainage was maintained, and that flood defences were adequate

- selling off gold reserves at rock-bottom prices, now costing us £1.5bn.

- denying defence funds sufficient to equip our troops in battle, with the result of needless deaths.

- complicated welfare benefits – difficult to understand, expensive to run, producing countless errors and creating a “benefit class”.

- pumping money into teaching, health and police, without reform and trying to control them from the centre by targets and form-filling. Little wonder that productivity is declining and that it takes all the ingenuity of the government statistical mis-service to conceal what is going wrong.

McCavity is trying to reinvent himself, by saying that he was not there in the past, but unfortunately his fingerprints are everywhere.

Brian R.

Your sums do not add up - we say so

“Their sums do not add up”, “There’s a black hole”, “They’re opportunists”. This orchestrated clamouring by New Labour has been used whenever political opponents steal a march on them, that is show some sign of defeating the complete destruction that New Labour has planned for them. Of course New Labour do not have to produce their own costings or the figures on which they base the accusations. Any smear will do.

The latest protest, over the financing of proposed reductions in house purchase tax and inheritance tax, is just the latest in a long line.

Of course, all forecasts made by chancellors and their advisers come with a health warning, and the same is true of shadow chancellors. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown was reasonably accurate in forecasting growth, although his successor has had to revise the forecasts for the present and next years somewhat drastically at the half-way point. As Chancellor, however, Gordon Brown was notoriously over-optimistic on borrowing – the Treasury has over the past few years has had to borrow increasing amounts of money to balance the budget. Mr. Darling has had to double the expected deficit for the present financial year from £4bn to £8bn. The deficit for August was the worst ever recorded for that month, - somehow the Government forgot to mention this. The end result is that there is an accumulated deficit over the past few years of well in excess of £40bn, and our Government has the largest pro-rata budget debt in Europe! Other countries have been reducing their deficits, but ours is increasing. In fact Prudence has so far left the scene that we did the unthinkable, - we actually increased our deficit in favourable economic conditions, and now, if the expected turbulence (short hand for down-turn) comes……..

Two things have to be said about the “risk” they claim George Osborne is taking.

Firstly that no-one knows how many non-doms there are , but if you take the pessimistic guess New Labour uses, rather than the pessimistic/conservative reduction on published figures used by George Osborne, the Tory promise would have a shortfall of about £2.5bn.

Nobody knows whether there will be this shortfall and the forecast wipe-out of all public services New Labour would have us believe. (A senior figure in the Treasury has advised that Mr. Darling’s figure should be treated with “a great deal of caution”.)

Secondly, to put this in perspective, the black hole in the Government’s own deficit has doubled since the Budget earlier this year, and by almost double the black hole Osborne is accused of. In addition, the Tory “deficit” represents about half of one percent of total Government expenditure. Bearing in mind that New Labour’s own estimate, by Sir Peter Gershon, of what could be saved by the elimination of waste would be about £21bn, and that the 2007 Budget contained £59bn for “other”, unspecified expenditure, while £2.5bn is a large sum it is small in relation to the vast amount that the Government actually spends.

The claim that “sums do not add up” is a smear that cannot be substantiated, but New Labour hopes that if it is repeated often enough it may succeed. The Shadow Treasury Team know that the smear is likely to greet any proposal they make which damages New Labour and cannot be answered by appealing to accepted figures, and they have surely tested every figure they have relied on as best they can?

STM

Mr. Brown's Vision - can we catch it?

In an effort to reduce the criticism of the shambles of the on-off autumn election, Gordon Brown said he would carry on and present his New Vision for Britain. What exactly is this vision?

Can we judge from his leaden conference speech? Hardly, as the vast majority was the usual re-heating of old statistics and statements. The list following is a selection of some of them, with year they were first floated by him or Tony Blair, and how many times since they have been aired.

- Hospital matrons – 2000 – twice before

- Cancer screening and fast-track treatment - 2000

- 12 months maternity leave 2004 – six times

- Full employment - 2003 – three times

- Support for teachers over expulsion – 1994 - at least three times

- Clear pathway into skilled work for all school leavers – virtually annually since 1998

- British jobs for British workers – 2006 – three times

- Child support agency – 1999 – four times since, twice in 2007

There were many others which had been mentioned at least once before. In all honesty it was a struggle to find anything new and significant. There did not seem much new vision in what was seen by many as a lack-lustre speech. The Times on July 8^th, 2007, talked of Brown’s brain and hand not being always connected – there was already plenty of sign of him talking, but not acting, of having good intentions but not implementing them. Is this another sign of his dithering?

Is there a clue in George Osborne’s reaction to Darling’s Financial Statement ( - really yet another campaigning speech to restore the polls?)? The taunt was that the Tories were producing the new ideas and vision, were in control of debates, and Labour merely following. If this is so, the new vision does not seem to have been worked out yet.

The suspicion must be that the new vision will be the same old approach – talking about devolving power and control, and giving more choice, but action still following as the same old top-down, target-driven, lever pulling centralised control, with Gordon Brown unable to give up personal control over anything.

In the end, of course, his talk of a new vision, may just be his way of trying to explain away the on-off election. He has no vision, and is inflexible. Or could it be that this is yet another New Labour sound-bite, like “Third Way”, or NEW Labour itself, - a peg to hang policies on or a button to press?

posted by STM

My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen

It's like a boxing match:
In the Red Corner - the present champion, with the clunking fist - strong (although nail biting and dithering) and riding roughshod over friend and enemy alike, canny and tricky(trying to pretend that he had no part in the failures over the last 10 years).
But lacking any sort of technique or policy, he will slug things out as before.

In the Blue Corner - the challenger, made some mistakes, inexperienced at the political game, but coming good in recent days. Intelligent approach and would win on style. Honest (what you see is what you get) Has a better supporting team, and more thought-out policy/strategy.

Who will win, and by what means, in this clash of styles? Is it important?

Isn't this a little demeaning - to treat the election as a single contest, when there 600+ other contests on the same day? Perhaps, but to judge from the newspapers it seems like a presidential election and the supporting bouts serve only to give a numerical victory, and the other victorious contestants are then largely ignored (for the last ten years) until they are whipped into action by the Champions seconds!
Brian R.

European Union - a socialist construct?

Is it a coincidence that the European Union, with its almost permanent left wing majority, has produced government like that of Blair/Brown in England:

over-centralised and bureaucratic,
over-regulated and sclerotic
undemocratic and with an ultimately ineffective parliament

In short - remote, indifferent to people (even focus groups), and self-serving.

Posted by S.T.M.

Should an early elecation be called?