We hear of lost or mislaid confidential data so often, that we shrug our shoulders and it barely registers. We are aware of massive lapses by Government departments which seriously challenge their claim to be building massive secure databases which can interact safely.
Computer experts warn us that if human being can design "secure" systems, the other humans can defeat them. Perhaps the best example is Bletchley Park and the Enigma code used by the Germans in WW II.
www.openrightsgroup.org has assembled a very full list of failures and errors, not only by central government, but also by local government and private companies. Their list over the past twelve months records almost one every week.
To illustrate their list, to following incidents are logged for the two months in 2008:
18th February, 2008 Haringey Council - very personal details of 20,000 people
14th February, 2008 Black Country Hospital - 5,000 records on a stolen lap-top
27th January, 2008 NHS data on 1.7 million patients, on a stolen lap-top
26th January, 2008 records on over 1,000 Scottish students lost in the post
19th January 2008 RN/RM/RAF records of applicants lost in stolen lap-top
18th January, 2008 personal patient details of 4,000 patients lost by Stockport PCT, on a USB drive dropped by an employee.
There can't be many who have any confidence in the Government's ability to manage the huge databases they are setting up. We should be concerned at the details they are collecting about each of us in a sinister way, and even more if they can't stop other people coming into possession of the data illegally.
Friday, 29 February 2008
Who has all the best ideas?
This week the Government has adopted two Conservative policies.
First, we had the proposal by the new minister that private companies be invited to do what the Government has failed to do, to reduce the number of people capable of work but languishing on incapacity benefit.
The companies would be paid, perhaps as much as £60,000, for each person successfully transferred to work. "Successfully" here means still in work after a stipulated time. It is a no-win no-fee system sometimes used by lawyers. Having berated Tories when they proposed it, but now desperate to show some success, any success, Tories should repent over the sinner who repents.
The sinner here, of course is G. Brown, who was at least partly responsible for the exile of Frank Field for thinking the unthinkable and suggesting reform, and dismissing any idea of reform of the welfare system until now he and we cannot afford it.
Second, we have the words of the Immigration minister that after investigating the Australian model on control of immigration, the Government was minded to introduce a points system to control the degree of non-EU immigration into the UK. Having described the policy when the Tories advocated it as "racist", it is good to know that wise people of New Labour have now reversed their judgement. They wouldn't admit this, of course.
Michael Howard and later David Cameron can take comfort and strength that the Government has now fallen into line, even if the system they are advocating is very inflexible in terms of a regular evaluation of skills needed.
So full marks to the Tories, who certainly seem to be winning the battle for ideas. Time will tell if New Labour really understands and is sympathetic to what they seem to be proposing. They have such a tendency to interfere and micro-manage that you wouldn't bet on the policies lasting long or being intelligently applied.
First, we had the proposal by the new minister that private companies be invited to do what the Government has failed to do, to reduce the number of people capable of work but languishing on incapacity benefit.
The companies would be paid, perhaps as much as £60,000, for each person successfully transferred to work. "Successfully" here means still in work after a stipulated time. It is a no-win no-fee system sometimes used by lawyers. Having berated Tories when they proposed it, but now desperate to show some success, any success, Tories should repent over the sinner who repents.
The sinner here, of course is G. Brown, who was at least partly responsible for the exile of Frank Field for thinking the unthinkable and suggesting reform, and dismissing any idea of reform of the welfare system until now he and we cannot afford it.
Second, we have the words of the Immigration minister that after investigating the Australian model on control of immigration, the Government was minded to introduce a points system to control the degree of non-EU immigration into the UK. Having described the policy when the Tories advocated it as "racist", it is good to know that wise people of New Labour have now reversed their judgement. They wouldn't admit this, of course.
Michael Howard and later David Cameron can take comfort and strength that the Government has now fallen into line, even if the system they are advocating is very inflexible in terms of a regular evaluation of skills needed.
So full marks to the Tories, who certainly seem to be winning the battle for ideas. Time will tell if New Labour really understands and is sympathetic to what they seem to be proposing. They have such a tendency to interfere and micro-manage that you wouldn't bet on the policies lasting long or being intelligently applied.
Pro-life or anti
The Office for National Statistics has recently published a report on conception and childbirth.
It seems that conceptions outside marriage are now at 56%, even if the actual births outside marriage are slightly lower.
The report also shows that of the 866,000 babies conceived in Britain in 2006 just 78% made it to the maternity ward.
While a few were lost to "natural miscarriage" and even fewer to illegal abortion, it seems that 22% of them were ended by legal abortion. We thus had 190,000 legal abortions in 2006.
If the procedures are carried on equally seven days a week, every day of the year we have 520 abortions in this country. The number is large enough to suggest that for some mothers termination is a substitute for contraception.
It seems that conceptions outside marriage are now at 56%, even if the actual births outside marriage are slightly lower.
The report also shows that of the 866,000 babies conceived in Britain in 2006 just 78% made it to the maternity ward.
While a few were lost to "natural miscarriage" and even fewer to illegal abortion, it seems that 22% of them were ended by legal abortion. We thus had 190,000 legal abortions in 2006.
If the procedures are carried on equally seven days a week, every day of the year we have 520 abortions in this country. The number is large enough to suggest that for some mothers termination is a substitute for contraception.
Allowances again...
Perhaps because they have something to hide, or feel that their use of funds cannot be justified, some MPs are now considering awarding themselves an increase in salary to replace the old allowances.
The situation certainly needs major change, with some MPs claiming two or even three times in allowances what they receive in salary. Various notorious cases have been mentioned - free taxi rides for the wife to go shopping, claiming for a second house when the first house is within one hour of London by train, claiming for a second home which is already fully owned, and overgenerous payments to helpers. All this ignores considerable other expenses, such as postage and communications.
The answer is surely complete transparency. The problem is that in the private sector the employer is keen to spot anyone "trying it on", whereas MPs are their own employers but using the funds of other people (-taxpayers). They have every incentive to award themselves more and more, and also to conceal what they are taking.
They cannot be permitted to transfer all allowances to salary, because in the end there are such differences between them. The MPs from Orkney or the Highlands, or Cornwall, clearly will need an additional house in the London area, even if their travel is paid for them. They certainly can't return home each day! So where do you draw the line? Free accommodation for those living more than 50 miles from London during parliamentary sessions? It would be nigh impossible to find an agreement.
Like it or not, they must accept that something like the present system is necessary, and if so those who pay must be much more aware of what is going on.
The situation certainly needs major change, with some MPs claiming two or even three times in allowances what they receive in salary. Various notorious cases have been mentioned - free taxi rides for the wife to go shopping, claiming for a second house when the first house is within one hour of London by train, claiming for a second home which is already fully owned, and overgenerous payments to helpers. All this ignores considerable other expenses, such as postage and communications.
The answer is surely complete transparency. The problem is that in the private sector the employer is keen to spot anyone "trying it on", whereas MPs are their own employers but using the funds of other people (-taxpayers). They have every incentive to award themselves more and more, and also to conceal what they are taking.
They cannot be permitted to transfer all allowances to salary, because in the end there are such differences between them. The MPs from Orkney or the Highlands, or Cornwall, clearly will need an additional house in the London area, even if their travel is paid for them. They certainly can't return home each day! So where do you draw the line? Free accommodation for those living more than 50 miles from London during parliamentary sessions? It would be nigh impossible to find an agreement.
Like it or not, they must accept that something like the present system is necessary, and if so those who pay must be much more aware of what is going on.
The lottery is coming?
The Times reported this week that it calculates that as many as 100,000 children will miss out on their first choice of secondary school this summer. This is about 20%. (It is hard on them, but perhaps a measure of success that 80% do get their first choice.)
In parts of London where good schools are prized, and in areas where there are grammar schools, the figure can be as high as 50% who do not get their first choice. (This suggests that good schools are recognised as such, and that grammar schools are also seen as good schools. There is thus considerable over-application to these schools.)
It has recently been reported that over-application has been appearing for three years at primary level also.
All this suggests three things:
1) Parents are not deceived, - they know which schools are failing. Some have committed themselves heavily to private education which they can barely afford. Others have moved.
2) Social engineers who introduce a lottery, to spread the misery of bad schools, (-they would say to spread the advantage of excellent schools, while everyone else goes to good schools,) run the real risk of reducing the overall quality across all schools. A few students of outstanding ability who need the stimulus of like minded fellow students, could find themselves surrounded in a school by students with social and educational problems which completely discourage them.
Given that IQ levels are spread like an inverted "U" shape, the normal distribution, this is quite likely. Conversely there is a (small) statistical chance that a few schools may have predominantly able and motivated students whose influence counteracts the few problems, and that they will come to be something like a grammar school. How long will the social engineers tolerate this, before the statistical chances start reducing the standards here also.
3) Other factors are ignored. For instance, parents with three children of secondary age, could find their children at three different schools, with a logistical nightmare each day and a consequent increase in travel costs and environmental damage.
Unless the Government and educational authorities can really make progress in solving the many social and educational problems which are presently leading to illiteracy, innumeracy and a considerable lack of motivation, "solving" the problems by lottery can only reduce the overall level of educational achievement, thus impoverishing everyone.
In parts of London where good schools are prized, and in areas where there are grammar schools, the figure can be as high as 50% who do not get their first choice. (This suggests that good schools are recognised as such, and that grammar schools are also seen as good schools. There is thus considerable over-application to these schools.)
It has recently been reported that over-application has been appearing for three years at primary level also.
All this suggests three things:
1) Parents are not deceived, - they know which schools are failing. Some have committed themselves heavily to private education which they can barely afford. Others have moved.
2) Social engineers who introduce a lottery, to spread the misery of bad schools, (-they would say to spread the advantage of excellent schools, while everyone else goes to good schools,) run the real risk of reducing the overall quality across all schools. A few students of outstanding ability who need the stimulus of like minded fellow students, could find themselves surrounded in a school by students with social and educational problems which completely discourage them.
Given that IQ levels are spread like an inverted "U" shape, the normal distribution, this is quite likely. Conversely there is a (small) statistical chance that a few schools may have predominantly able and motivated students whose influence counteracts the few problems, and that they will come to be something like a grammar school. How long will the social engineers tolerate this, before the statistical chances start reducing the standards here also.
3) Other factors are ignored. For instance, parents with three children of secondary age, could find their children at three different schools, with a logistical nightmare each day and a consequent increase in travel costs and environmental damage.
Unless the Government and educational authorities can really make progress in solving the many social and educational problems which are presently leading to illiteracy, innumeracy and a considerable lack of motivation, "solving" the problems by lottery can only reduce the overall level of educational achievement, thus impoverishing everyone.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Hospitals imposing stealth taxes
The Daily Telegraph reported this week that English NHS hospitals in 2007 charged visitors and outpatients the sum of £10.3 million, a rise of 5.25% on the previous year, to park cars.
The two highest money raising hospitals, Southampton University and Norfolk and Norwich University, raised £1.4 million and £1.2 million respectively.
Hospitals are claiming that once they have met the costs incurred by those who operate the parking for them, usually local authorities or private companies, any residue will be devoted to medical purposes.
The hospitals need the money because their budgets are being slashed, - they are always short of what they need. In this way they are saving the NHS money.
But the patient and visitors have to pay! They have to pay often because there is no other place to park, given the location of the hospital. They are confronted by a monopoly supplier of parking.
Taxpayers are already paying thousands of pounds each towards an under-performing NHS which does not meet standards in other European countries, and when they or their loved ones are ill, they are required to park or else use expensive taxis. . The vice-chairman of the Patients Association described it as "an absolute scandal".
The two highest money raising hospitals, Southampton University and Norfolk and Norwich University, raised £1.4 million and £1.2 million respectively.
Hospitals are claiming that once they have met the costs incurred by those who operate the parking for them, usually local authorities or private companies, any residue will be devoted to medical purposes.
The hospitals need the money because their budgets are being slashed, - they are always short of what they need. In this way they are saving the NHS money.
But the patient and visitors have to pay! They have to pay often because there is no other place to park, given the location of the hospital. They are confronted by a monopoly supplier of parking.
Taxpayers are already paying thousands of pounds each towards an under-performing NHS which does not meet standards in other European countries, and when they or their loved ones are ill, they are required to park or else use expensive taxis. . The vice-chairman of the Patients Association described it as "an absolute scandal".
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Leaders of the FBU, the Fire Brigades Union, are increasingly concerned at the growth in attacks on firefighters while they are engaged on duties. Indeed, the general secretary of the union described the attacks as "recreational activity with very serious consequences."
The seriousness is shown not only in the words expressed by FBU leaders, but in the fact that some crews are now supplied out with "spit kits" to collect DNA of offenders and also CCTV units are fitted to engines.
How strange then that at a time when the FBU is reporting increased attacks, 1,500 assaults in 2007, compared with 1,300 in 2006, the Government is quoting a fall from 1,300 to 400.
They have the same starting point, 1,300 in 2006, but very different figures for 2007. The FBU are reporting an increase of 15%, while the Government are insisting there was a decrease of 68%.
The two sets of figures differ by such an extent that one side must have changed the figures, or categories of figures, for some reason of their own.
Who would you suspect is manipulating the figures? I know what I think!
The seriousness is shown not only in the words expressed by FBU leaders, but in the fact that some crews are now supplied out with "spit kits" to collect DNA of offenders and also CCTV units are fitted to engines.
How strange then that at a time when the FBU is reporting increased attacks, 1,500 assaults in 2007, compared with 1,300 in 2006, the Government is quoting a fall from 1,300 to 400.
They have the same starting point, 1,300 in 2006, but very different figures for 2007. The FBU are reporting an increase of 15%, while the Government are insisting there was a decrease of 68%.
The two sets of figures differ by such an extent that one side must have changed the figures, or categories of figures, for some reason of their own.
Who would you suspect is manipulating the figures? I know what I think!
How to test where your political views lie on the spectrum!
Recently Harriet Harman in an interview affirmed that she saw Fidel Castro as a hero. Her view is presumably shared by the 69 MPs who signed a motion in Parliament in praise of the Communist hero, - 65 Labour, 2 Plaid Cymru, 1 LibDem and George Galloway. Most of these are known to take left wing stances on other things as well.
They feel that he has made great strides in Health and Education, and above all has withstood the 44 years of US embargo.
The other side of the picture were the death penalties for those who tried to escape the socialist heaven, imprisonment of dissidents, strict controls on the press, imprisonment of homosexuals and a ruined economy which needed years of economic and other aid from Russia. Above all, Castro was prepared with Russia to contemplate a nuclear first strike against the US. In fact what unites those on the far left is an almost pathological hatred of America
He probably did not murder as many of his own citizens as other socialist leaders, - Mao, Stalin, Honecker, and others, but he has all pervading informers, and a repressive regime.
So the Left are not prepared to condemn what under Communist rule is very similar to what happened under the Nazis (National Socialists), even mass liquidation, but use the word Nazi or
Fascist as terms of abuse.
For those who of us who condemn both extremes, including all the horrors of totalitarianism, our view is more even-handed, and you can say that ours is more central in the spectrum of political ideologies.
Is it that the right and left are essentially the same in their extremes, - happy to concentrate power in few hands and to control or deny dissidence for the good of public order, that they are sworn enemies?
If you want to know where you are on the spectrum, ask yourself which you regard as more heinous, the barbarities and terrors of the left or those of the right.
They feel that he has made great strides in Health and Education, and above all has withstood the 44 years of US embargo.
The other side of the picture were the death penalties for those who tried to escape the socialist heaven, imprisonment of dissidents, strict controls on the press, imprisonment of homosexuals and a ruined economy which needed years of economic and other aid from Russia. Above all, Castro was prepared with Russia to contemplate a nuclear first strike against the US. In fact what unites those on the far left is an almost pathological hatred of America
He probably did not murder as many of his own citizens as other socialist leaders, - Mao, Stalin, Honecker, and others, but he has all pervading informers, and a repressive regime.
So the Left are not prepared to condemn what under Communist rule is very similar to what happened under the Nazis (National Socialists), even mass liquidation, but use the word Nazi or
Fascist as terms of abuse.
For those who of us who condemn both extremes, including all the horrors of totalitarianism, our view is more even-handed, and you can say that ours is more central in the spectrum of political ideologies.
Is it that the right and left are essentially the same in their extremes, - happy to concentrate power in few hands and to control or deny dissidence for the good of public order, that they are sworn enemies?
If you want to know where you are on the spectrum, ask yourself which you regard as more heinous, the barbarities and terrors of the left or those of the right.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
On tap
The last blog discussed the effects of considerable drinking from a very young age, and possible causes.
The present drinking binge mat have a further set of consequences. Alcohol is not only cheaply and readily available, but it is available right through the night.
There has been a rise in consumption of alcohol, to the extent that the UK now buys more units each year than France does, in fact 33% more. Germany still buys 50% more than us, but their consumption has been falling since at least 1999, while ours has been rising. Our deaths from alcohol have doubled since 1991
Hopes that liberalising the sale of alcohol, thus creating a "relaxed Mediterranean cafe culture" have not so far been realised.
Drinking still seems to be an evening thing, the street in central Oxford now known as "Vomit Alley", is usually living up to its name by 11 p.m.
The Police also report, however, that offences of assault, criminal damage and harassment between 3 a.m and 6 a.m. have risen by 22% since 24 hour drinking was introduced, though the rates at other times during the day were slightly down. In the middle of the night the incidences of violence rose by 5% in the first year.
One intention of the legislation was to smooth out the peak problems of drunkenness at pub closure at 11 p.m. There may be a slight improvement at this time, but if so it has merely pushed much of the problem further into the night. Over the time period 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. there has been a 1% rise in drink related crime in 30 police forces surveyed.
Crime survey figures, which the Government likes to rely on, indicates a rise of about 6% in violent attacks since liberalisation. Prior to liberalisation the trend had been one of decrease.
In the year following liberalisation the number of deaths attributable to driving while under the influence of drink or drugs reached its highest level for 30 years.
Most of the statistics were presented during 2007, and relate to the first year of operation, - December 2005 to November 2006. It is possible that in time the situation may stablise and trends begin to become downward once again.
For the moment police forces, struggling with limited resources and other commitments, are having to divert resources from daytime to nighttime deployment, which is not a desirable situation for them or the community.
The present drinking binge mat have a further set of consequences. Alcohol is not only cheaply and readily available, but it is available right through the night.
There has been a rise in consumption of alcohol, to the extent that the UK now buys more units each year than France does, in fact 33% more. Germany still buys 50% more than us, but their consumption has been falling since at least 1999, while ours has been rising. Our deaths from alcohol have doubled since 1991
Hopes that liberalising the sale of alcohol, thus creating a "relaxed Mediterranean cafe culture" have not so far been realised.
Drinking still seems to be an evening thing, the street in central Oxford now known as "Vomit Alley", is usually living up to its name by 11 p.m.
The Police also report, however, that offences of assault, criminal damage and harassment between 3 a.m and 6 a.m. have risen by 22% since 24 hour drinking was introduced, though the rates at other times during the day were slightly down. In the middle of the night the incidences of violence rose by 5% in the first year.
One intention of the legislation was to smooth out the peak problems of drunkenness at pub closure at 11 p.m. There may be a slight improvement at this time, but if so it has merely pushed much of the problem further into the night. Over the time period 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. there has been a 1% rise in drink related crime in 30 police forces surveyed.
Crime survey figures, which the Government likes to rely on, indicates a rise of about 6% in violent attacks since liberalisation. Prior to liberalisation the trend had been one of decrease.
In the year following liberalisation the number of deaths attributable to driving while under the influence of drink or drugs reached its highest level for 30 years.
Most of the statistics were presented during 2007, and relate to the first year of operation, - December 2005 to November 2006. It is possible that in time the situation may stablise and trends begin to become downward once again.
For the moment police forces, struggling with limited resources and other commitments, are having to divert resources from daytime to nighttime deployment, which is not a desirable situation for them or the community.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
On the binge
At the end of 2007 a number of observers and reports suggested that binge drinking has now reached very serious levels.
In December The Daily Telegraph, using official data on alcohol-related admission to NHS hospitals in
This represents a rise of 31%, or nearly a third in the last two years. In 2003/04 there were 147,659 such admissions, in 2004/05 there were 170,130, while in 2005/06 the figure had reached 193,637. Drinking liberalisation, that is availability 24 hours per day, was introduced during 2005/06 and may have contributed, but there was an increase even before this. These figures for 2005/06 included 4,000 young people aged less than 14. Girls are less able to withstand the effect of alcohol, and they now amount to 60% of all under-age admissions due to alcohol.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has calculated that these admissions cost in 2005/06 about £32 million in a year. This figure includes only the cost of admissions. There will be an addition figure to cover policing costs, as officers are transferred to night duty and leaving the day under-covered, and the figures do not include accidents and violence related to drunkenness but not requiring hospitalisation.
Quite apart from immediate hospital and other costs, there are three more serious long term consequences.
1) In 2005/06 6,517 people died from excessive drinking in
2) On alcohol treatment programmes the number under-18s has increased from 4,781 in 2006 to 6,707 in 2007, a jump of 40%. Among 12 to14 year olds the rise has been even more dramatic, - a rise of 62%, from 592 to 953.
3) The have been steep rises in cirrhosis of the liver. Since 2000 the number of sufferers has risen by 95%, by 36% in the two years 2004-06. About 5,000 people each year die from liver disease, and a further 17,000 die prematurely for reasons of alcohol consumption. Doctors are now seeing liver damaged patients at younger ages, even as early as late teens or early twenties.
Since 1970 alcohol consumption has increased by 50%.
The total NHS costs of treating alcohol-related injuries and diseases is estimated to be about £1.7 billion, which added to the estimate of £7.3 billion police costs, means about £9 billion annually.
Such are the “facts”. Why this has all happened is partly a matter of conjecture.
- The alcoholic strength of wine has increased on average from about 9 % in 1978 to 12.5% in 2007, which must have some contribution.
- The price and availability makes alcoholic drink more accessible to younger people, - a 22 pence can of larger from the supermarket is frequently mentioned. Pubs offer “happy hours” where drinks are much reduced in price, - to act as loss leaders and enticing drinkers.
- It is possible that liberalisation has made things worse, - the police opinion is that it has led to more crime and disturbance, but the affect on binge drinking is not yet known. The new era began just two years ago.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
a G.C.S.E. in Franglais?
We were misinformed yesterday, - the Government is not seeking to abolish the oral test as part of language exams on the grounds that it imposes stress on students.
But we were almost right. To alleviate stress, (the poor darlings!), there will be instead a series of much shorter oral tests. The difference is that while the final oral test originally conducted by visiting examiners, more recently conducted by the class teacher and recorded on tape for quality purposes, will be replaced by a series of tests, with grades/marks set by the school itself and no moderation except possibly occasional quality control.
Given that schools and teachers will have every incentive to be generous in marking the tests, the cynic could be forgiven for thinking that this could be another aspect of dumbing down. If you were the teacher and in line for a promotion soon, would you give poor marks to many students? If you were head of department, or head teacher, would you want to have language recruitment problems when students discover that the language is too hard?
This is another element of continuous assessment, and the dropping of another element of relatively objective testing. While admitting that "final"tests do impose stress, (although is this a bad thing?), what is proposed runs severe risks and offers little in objectivity.
Is it any real surprise that countries like Germany, starting English when children are 8 and continuing until 18, make a better fist of foreign languages than we do, who start languages at 11 or 12 and then water down any objective testing of spoken ability?
But we were almost right. To alleviate stress, (the poor darlings!), there will be instead a series of much shorter oral tests. The difference is that while the final oral test originally conducted by visiting examiners, more recently conducted by the class teacher and recorded on tape for quality purposes, will be replaced by a series of tests, with grades/marks set by the school itself and no moderation except possibly occasional quality control.
Given that schools and teachers will have every incentive to be generous in marking the tests, the cynic could be forgiven for thinking that this could be another aspect of dumbing down. If you were the teacher and in line for a promotion soon, would you give poor marks to many students? If you were head of department, or head teacher, would you want to have language recruitment problems when students discover that the language is too hard?
This is another element of continuous assessment, and the dropping of another element of relatively objective testing. While admitting that "final"tests do impose stress, (although is this a bad thing?), what is proposed runs severe risks and offers little in objectivity.
Is it any real surprise that countries like Germany, starting English when children are 8 and continuing until 18, make a better fist of foreign languages than we do, who start languages at 11 or 12 and then water down any objective testing of spoken ability?
Monday, 18 February 2008
How to waste while saving waste
Last week the Taxpayers Alliance published some interesting figures on their website. These concerned the "success" of the Government in reducing the costs of Government.
In 2004 Gordon announced a cost reduction scheme, which he claimed would cut civil service posts by 70,600 by 2010 and save some £20 billion through this and other efficiency savings. This was in response to the Gershon report, which had pointed the way to such savings.
In October 2007, well before the target date, the new chancellor announced that the £20 billion cuts had been achieved. Unfortunately, the National Audit Office was quickly able to show that the true figure was nearer £5 billion. The new chancellor had been using the well-honed techniques of the old chancellor. Still, £5 billion is a considerable sum.
Even within this figure there are doubts. For instance, in many cases there was a reduction in service standards. In hospitals length of stays for treatment have been reduced, with patients discharged more quickly. Unfortunately the consequences are that emergency readmissions have soared and reduced the impact of savings through shorter stays.
Some half baked schemes for savings have actually generated extra costs. So in DEFRA cuts attempted by the Rural Payments Agency actually cost tax-payers £600,000 , quite apart from the delayed payment costs to farmers from the shambles. The hasty marriage of Inland Revenue with Revenue & Customs, and massive staff reductions, have resulted in lost data which has been expensive to neutralise and protect.
We would hope that most of the staff savings in all departments would be by natural wastage and staff transfer. In fact 7,717 civil servants were paid £432 million in redundancy payments. The Boss of the Government Commerce Department received £612,000, when he retired as chief executive, aged 54.
One problem is that a special high-paid section is in charge of delivering cost savings, working away and publishing long reports and plans. This unit has an even more highly paid boss.
The problem with a (Government) bureaucracy is that it is generally a cost increasing machine, even when it is trying to reduce costs. They, and the Government, are reluctant to dismiss colleagues except with generous severance packages. They are fighting institutions where the measure of success is size, whether budget or staff, because for salary or prestige reasons those at the top have no other ways of gaining or deriving personal significance. Each department and section is unique, and no competitive or comparison pressures help to keep costs down
Bureaucracy is one 0f the most significant cost raising machines known to us. Brown was always going to lose, especially as he operates a bureaucratic centralised system. Using bureaucracy to reduce bureaucracy is doomed to fail. We can only hope that the Conservatives, who a few years ago produced their own report under Lord James, will have learned the lesson.
In 2004 Gordon announced a cost reduction scheme, which he claimed would cut civil service posts by 70,600 by 2010 and save some £20 billion through this and other efficiency savings. This was in response to the Gershon report, which had pointed the way to such savings.
In October 2007, well before the target date, the new chancellor announced that the £20 billion cuts had been achieved. Unfortunately, the National Audit Office was quickly able to show that the true figure was nearer £5 billion. The new chancellor had been using the well-honed techniques of the old chancellor. Still, £5 billion is a considerable sum.
Even within this figure there are doubts. For instance, in many cases there was a reduction in service standards. In hospitals length of stays for treatment have been reduced, with patients discharged more quickly. Unfortunately the consequences are that emergency readmissions have soared and reduced the impact of savings through shorter stays.
Some half baked schemes for savings have actually generated extra costs. So in DEFRA cuts attempted by the Rural Payments Agency actually cost tax-payers £600,000 , quite apart from the delayed payment costs to farmers from the shambles. The hasty marriage of Inland Revenue with Revenue & Customs, and massive staff reductions, have resulted in lost data which has been expensive to neutralise and protect.
We would hope that most of the staff savings in all departments would be by natural wastage and staff transfer. In fact 7,717 civil servants were paid £432 million in redundancy payments. The Boss of the Government Commerce Department received £612,000, when he retired as chief executive, aged 54.
One problem is that a special high-paid section is in charge of delivering cost savings, working away and publishing long reports and plans. This unit has an even more highly paid boss.
The problem with a (Government) bureaucracy is that it is generally a cost increasing machine, even when it is trying to reduce costs. They, and the Government, are reluctant to dismiss colleagues except with generous severance packages. They are fighting institutions where the measure of success is size, whether budget or staff, because for salary or prestige reasons those at the top have no other ways of gaining or deriving personal significance. Each department and section is unique, and no competitive or comparison pressures help to keep costs down
Bureaucracy is one 0f the most significant cost raising machines known to us. Brown was always going to lose, especially as he operates a bureaucratic centralised system. Using bureaucracy to reduce bureaucracy is doomed to fail. We can only hope that the Conservatives, who a few years ago produced their own report under Lord James, will have learned the lesson.
We're all bankers now!
We each have a share, a fairly large share, in Northern Rock, once it became nationalised.
This will be a brief holding while the bank is in temporary public ownership (the "n" word is not mentioned by the Government.) "Temporary" here must be several months at least if,as expected the economy suffers some turbulence this year and next.
It would be difficult to sell when others are anxious about their own positions and until they see how the arrangement will work out. There will also have to be time for shareholders to undertake the threatened court action for justice in compensation at the takeover of their assets.
Further costs/losses may arise through payment of staff redundancies, - well over a quarter of staff could go. If they take their pensions with them this would involve further outlays. For those leaving and for those staying there might have to be payment into pension fund if it is in deficit.
If the bank has to foreclose on defaulting mortgage payers, it is possible that trying to sell the properties in a depressed housing market could mean that the bank receives less than the money owed by their borrowers.
There is a risk, and problems may take several months to be quantifiable. If assets are worth less than their book value, or potential buyers may suspect or anticipate that they will be, then buyers of the bank will pay a lower price, and tax payers will lose.
When the bank first found itself in difficulties, the cause was essentially two-fold.
In the first place the bank had grown rapidly by the "unwise" principle of borrowing short term and lending long term. It lacked sufficient deposits from investors and savers to finance long term mortgages of borrowers, so it borrowed money from the banking market which was returnable at short notice.
The policy came to grief, in the second place, through the sub-prime loans which had been sold on throughout out the world and which produced losses for many banks when the loans became worthless as American borrowers were unable to pay their mortgage interest and defaulted. As a defensive reaction the banks demanded higher interest rates in loans to other banks.
As a consequence, Northern Rock found that instead of being able to borrow cheaply from other banks and lend at higher rates to mortgage borrowers, the difference being a very acceptable profit margin, they now found that the margin had shrunk to almost nothing. Added to this as part of the general defensive retrenchment by many banks, they were prepared to lend fewer funds to others, even at the the higher interest rates. Northern Rock's strategy was in ruins, made worse when depositors panicked and queued to withdraw deposits.
So is it all just cruel luck?
No - the supervision plans put in place by Gordon Brown as Chancellor left responsibilities unclear. Previously the Bank of England monitored all banks, and would have seen the problem coming. The new system was tripartite, responsibility lying with Treasury, The Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England. Brown had created the possibility of a Northern Rock "failure" happening.
Brown added to this by dithering, perhaps because he thought he could blame it all on the Bank Governor and almost certainly because there was an election in his mind for October/November.
When LloydsTSB offered to take on Northern Rock, the offer was declined, perhaps because of the tax-payer guarantee to Rock depositors in the run up to an election.
After five months of dithering, when it became clear that Richard Branson was going to acquire a very valuable asset at knock-down price and bearing no risk, Brown pulled the plug.
The result is that tax-payers have to shoulder enormous risks, with £110 billion the latest estimate. Of course since uncle Gordon is helping his new chancellor some of the magic may rub
off. The economy could recover quickly and greatly, with no tax-payers' money lost, but I wouldn't bet on this!
This will be a brief holding while the bank is in temporary public ownership (the "n" word is not mentioned by the Government.) "Temporary" here must be several months at least if,as expected the economy suffers some turbulence this year and next.
It would be difficult to sell when others are anxious about their own positions and until they see how the arrangement will work out. There will also have to be time for shareholders to undertake the threatened court action for justice in compensation at the takeover of their assets.
Further costs/losses may arise through payment of staff redundancies, - well over a quarter of staff could go. If they take their pensions with them this would involve further outlays. For those leaving and for those staying there might have to be payment into pension fund if it is in deficit.
If the bank has to foreclose on defaulting mortgage payers, it is possible that trying to sell the properties in a depressed housing market could mean that the bank receives less than the money owed by their borrowers.
There is a risk, and problems may take several months to be quantifiable. If assets are worth less than their book value, or potential buyers may suspect or anticipate that they will be, then buyers of the bank will pay a lower price, and tax payers will lose.
When the bank first found itself in difficulties, the cause was essentially two-fold.
In the first place the bank had grown rapidly by the "unwise" principle of borrowing short term and lending long term. It lacked sufficient deposits from investors and savers to finance long term mortgages of borrowers, so it borrowed money from the banking market which was returnable at short notice.
The policy came to grief, in the second place, through the sub-prime loans which had been sold on throughout out the world and which produced losses for many banks when the loans became worthless as American borrowers were unable to pay their mortgage interest and defaulted. As a defensive reaction the banks demanded higher interest rates in loans to other banks.
As a consequence, Northern Rock found that instead of being able to borrow cheaply from other banks and lend at higher rates to mortgage borrowers, the difference being a very acceptable profit margin, they now found that the margin had shrunk to almost nothing. Added to this as part of the general defensive retrenchment by many banks, they were prepared to lend fewer funds to others, even at the the higher interest rates. Northern Rock's strategy was in ruins, made worse when depositors panicked and queued to withdraw deposits.
So is it all just cruel luck?
No - the supervision plans put in place by Gordon Brown as Chancellor left responsibilities unclear. Previously the Bank of England monitored all banks, and would have seen the problem coming. The new system was tripartite, responsibility lying with Treasury, The Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England. Brown had created the possibility of a Northern Rock "failure" happening.
Brown added to this by dithering, perhaps because he thought he could blame it all on the Bank Governor and almost certainly because there was an election in his mind for October/November.
When LloydsTSB offered to take on Northern Rock, the offer was declined, perhaps because of the tax-payer guarantee to Rock depositors in the run up to an election.
After five months of dithering, when it became clear that Richard Branson was going to acquire a very valuable asset at knock-down price and bearing no risk, Brown pulled the plug.
The result is that tax-payers have to shoulder enormous risks, with £110 billion the latest estimate. Of course since uncle Gordon is helping his new chancellor some of the magic may rub
off. The economy could recover quickly and greatly, with no tax-payers' money lost, but I wouldn't bet on this!
Friday, 15 February 2008
Free Health Care - ask Mrs. Mills
In late January the Sunday Times ran the story about Colette Mills, a woman with breast cancer.She had undertaken a challenge to the NHS about her treatment. Clinicians seem to have been agreed that the drug Avastin would have significantly increased her defence against the cancer spreading to other parts of her body. Taken with another drug, Taxol, it would have also have controlled the breast cancer itself.
The trouble is that Avastin is not available on the NHS.
She offered to pay for the drug, which would have cost her £4,000 a month, but the health authorities refused, on the grounds that allowing her to pay for some of her treatment would violate the fundamental principle of the NHS that treatment must be free at the point of of need.
She was in difficulty. She could not afford private treatment including Avastin, as that would cost £10,000 each month, a further £6,000.
The health authorities were adamant, and after a few months of argument it became too late for the drug to have any use for her.She is now doomed.
We are familiar with the NHS allowing people to die because the Govt. body, N.I.C.E, decided a drug should not be supplied, or because a regional health authority decided that it could not afford a drug authorised by N.I.C.E. The latter is, of course, part of the post-code lottery and must surely violate some other NHS principle.
Everyone knows that we contribute to our treatment in all sorts of ways, not least in prescription charges, charges for our keep in long stay, or equipment. The list could be extended.
The protest that the fundamental principle could not be broken was a refuge for the NHS authorities. The principle is broken in hundreds of ways daily, and they must surely have known this.
Mrs. Mills will have her life cut short because the NHS is underfunded, and because it pays lip service to a principle which it breaks very frequently.
The trouble is that Avastin is not available on the NHS.
She offered to pay for the drug, which would have cost her £4,000 a month, but the health authorities refused, on the grounds that allowing her to pay for some of her treatment would violate the fundamental principle of the NHS that treatment must be free at the point of of need.
She was in difficulty. She could not afford private treatment including Avastin, as that would cost £10,000 each month, a further £6,000.
The health authorities were adamant, and after a few months of argument it became too late for the drug to have any use for her.She is now doomed.
We are familiar with the NHS allowing people to die because the Govt. body, N.I.C.E, decided a drug should not be supplied, or because a regional health authority decided that it could not afford a drug authorised by N.I.C.E. The latter is, of course, part of the post-code lottery and must surely violate some other NHS principle.
Everyone knows that we contribute to our treatment in all sorts of ways, not least in prescription charges, charges for our keep in long stay, or equipment. The list could be extended.
The protest that the fundamental principle could not be broken was a refuge for the NHS authorities. The principle is broken in hundreds of ways daily, and they must surely have known this.
Mrs. Mills will have her life cut short because the NHS is underfunded, and because it pays lip service to a principle which it breaks very frequently.
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Are our schools too large?
The honest answer is, "not all". There are still some very good and smaller schools - the so called public (meaning private) schools tend to be smaller than our giant comprehensives.
In essence, unless arrangements are put into place, a large school is more likely to to let any who are reluctant students to slip through school with minimum effort. It is difficult to keep track of them and to provide them with the individual treatment required to stimulate any interest, and any who wish to bunk off and spend a pleasant day in the town with their friends will find it easier in a school so large that nobody knows all students.
In a recent blog about non-working parents, I repeated what many others have said, that children of parents living entirely on benefit are likely in turn to be themselves parents on benefit. There is no sense of pride, no ambition to succeed, no career to aspire to. Instead there is drift, and a drift about which a very large school is likely to be able to do little.
The difficulty is, as we saw, that in an average school 20% will be from such backgrounds. At school, even if they avoid disturbance in class, their lack of interest and inclination to study must have some effect on the remaining students, and they in turn may under-achieve.
Arrangements have been put into place, principally dividing a 2000 student school into two or three schools on the same site. The aim is to make the size more human-friendly, a smaller scale to which everyone can relate. There have also been attempts to maintain an academic orientated stream or streams, where any problem pupils are not involved, in the hope that more able students will be able to develop to their full potential.
So with schools cut horizontally by age groups and vertically by ability, is it really any longer a single school? Apart from sharing good quality sporting, musical and other facilities, is there any reason, except dogma which insists that they be on the same site?
Human beings are daunted by the scale of the super-comprehensives. They feel insignificant in comparison with the huge buildings and teeming people, and the fact that they barely know all the hundreds in their own part of the school, never mind the other parts.
The Volvo car company discovered many years ago that even without a production line and full division of labour, if workers in their small groups know, trust and look after their group interest, there is no loss in productivity. We are at our best when we relate with people of similar interest and being alongside. We are suspicious of, mistrust, less caring about, other groups. The other groups in the case of a "supercomp" are most of the school.
In essence, unless arrangements are put into place, a large school is more likely to to let any who are reluctant students to slip through school with minimum effort. It is difficult to keep track of them and to provide them with the individual treatment required to stimulate any interest, and any who wish to bunk off and spend a pleasant day in the town with their friends will find it easier in a school so large that nobody knows all students.
In a recent blog about non-working parents, I repeated what many others have said, that children of parents living entirely on benefit are likely in turn to be themselves parents on benefit. There is no sense of pride, no ambition to succeed, no career to aspire to. Instead there is drift, and a drift about which a very large school is likely to be able to do little.
The difficulty is, as we saw, that in an average school 20% will be from such backgrounds. At school, even if they avoid disturbance in class, their lack of interest and inclination to study must have some effect on the remaining students, and they in turn may under-achieve.
Arrangements have been put into place, principally dividing a 2000 student school into two or three schools on the same site. The aim is to make the size more human-friendly, a smaller scale to which everyone can relate. There have also been attempts to maintain an academic orientated stream or streams, where any problem pupils are not involved, in the hope that more able students will be able to develop to their full potential.
So with schools cut horizontally by age groups and vertically by ability, is it really any longer a single school? Apart from sharing good quality sporting, musical and other facilities, is there any reason, except dogma which insists that they be on the same site?
Human beings are daunted by the scale of the super-comprehensives. They feel insignificant in comparison with the huge buildings and teeming people, and the fact that they barely know all the hundreds in their own part of the school, never mind the other parts.
The Volvo car company discovered many years ago that even without a production line and full division of labour, if workers in their small groups know, trust and look after their group interest, there is no loss in productivity. We are at our best when we relate with people of similar interest and being alongside. We are suspicious of, mistrust, less caring about, other groups. The other groups in the case of a "supercomp" are most of the school.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
The next generation
The front page of today's "Daily Telegraph" has some shocking statistics.
Nationally about one in every five children lives in a household which is entirely dependent on state welfare benefits. This involves 2.2 million children.
This is an average figure, of course, and varies from something like 5% in Buckingham to 49.2% in Central Manchester. In places like Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and London approaching half of all children are living in such a household. Ours is the highest proportion in Europe.
One slight potential advantage could be that the children could be more likely to have a parent or parents at home. Having said that they are confronted with role models, who are unemployable by natural gift or inclination. Government research indicates that such children are likely in their turn to become benefit dependent adults.
This has to be seen as a failure of New Labour policy, and a contradiction that they have fulfilled their manifesto pledge to abolish child poverty.
It has to be said that these figures relate to household which are work-less and therefore entirely dependent on benefit. There are in addition many other households where low incomes from working are supplemented by tax credit benefits.
"Household" includes many single parent families, where the parent might want to work, but where income would be less than benefit, once things like child-care are paid for. (It should be remembered that income tax kicks in at a annual income little more than half of that on the minimum wage, and is more severe since the chancellor abolished the 10% band.)
This is becoming a long term and intractable problem. A start could be made by encouraging the able bodied back into work. This would involve provision for childcare help for single carers, to enable them to work full-time. It might also entail training for parents, even training in the "Three Rs", where language and numeracy improvement is required.
It also tends to support the Conservative proposals, based on American experience, to time-limit benefits and to put pressure on them to seek work. The Prime Minister boasts of how many jobs he has created, without admitting that a very high proportion have gone to foreigners and migrants. It is time that he did something to encourage native people.
Nationally about one in every five children lives in a household which is entirely dependent on state welfare benefits. This involves 2.2 million children.
This is an average figure, of course, and varies from something like 5% in Buckingham to 49.2% in Central Manchester. In places like Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and London approaching half of all children are living in such a household. Ours is the highest proportion in Europe.
One slight potential advantage could be that the children could be more likely to have a parent or parents at home. Having said that they are confronted with role models, who are unemployable by natural gift or inclination. Government research indicates that such children are likely in their turn to become benefit dependent adults.
This has to be seen as a failure of New Labour policy, and a contradiction that they have fulfilled their manifesto pledge to abolish child poverty.
It has to be said that these figures relate to household which are work-less and therefore entirely dependent on benefit. There are in addition many other households where low incomes from working are supplemented by tax credit benefits.
"Household" includes many single parent families, where the parent might want to work, but where income would be less than benefit, once things like child-care are paid for. (It should be remembered that income tax kicks in at a annual income little more than half of that on the minimum wage, and is more severe since the chancellor abolished the 10% band.)
This is becoming a long term and intractable problem. A start could be made by encouraging the able bodied back into work. This would involve provision for childcare help for single carers, to enable them to work full-time. It might also entail training for parents, even training in the "Three Rs", where language and numeracy improvement is required.
It also tends to support the Conservative proposals, based on American experience, to time-limit benefits and to put pressure on them to seek work. The Prime Minister boasts of how many jobs he has created, without admitting that a very high proportion have gone to foreigners and migrants. It is time that he did something to encourage native people.
Another good wheeze!
The new Minister of Culture, Andy Burnham, is announcing that after talks with Ed Balls, Minister for Children, plans are being made for all secondary students to have 5 hours every week on their timetable of "High Culture".
Consideration is so far advanced that they will shortly be inviting bids from Local Authorities to run pilot schemes.
And there will be extra finance to sweeten the pill - at £15 per student per year - you might get a good theatre visit, or even two, out of that, so the school will have to cover the other 38 weeks from present resources?
You would have to be a philistine to oppose this in principle, but there are several very important questions to raise.
Given that students will have a promised 5 hours of sport each week, all have cookery classes and there will be special citizenship classes, how will these all be fitted in without further diluting ordinary "academic" classes? High Culture may also involve peak- loading problems, as they make the promised films, prepare art exhibitions, go on visits, etc.
What will be the position of music and art classes, as well as English literature, especially for those who which to take examinations in these subjects? At the very least, it looks as if the High Culture and conventional arts classes may have a competition/coordination problem.
The recent estimate by the National Literacy Trust is that there are 5.2 million adults, or about 16% of all adults, who are functionally illiterate, that is that their command of English is at or below that level expected of an eleven year old child. (Even British graduates have been rejected by potential employers, in preference for foreign graduates, because of a lack of competence in English and Mathematics.)
We have been told endlessly that our education standards are slipping. However worthwhile the 5 hours a week on high culture, the Government's first priority is surely to deal with literacy and numeracy, and restrict high culture to the subject classes, - art, music and English, until such time as we can restore literacy and numeracy to what they were a generation or two ago.
It may be exciting for a young person to be behind a film camera, or directing creatively, but this must not be at the expense of basic education for them or others in the school. Perhaps the high culture could be after school? Here I suspect that £15 per year is not going to able to pay for sufficient teaching hours to enable five hours per week of classes.
Consideration is so far advanced that they will shortly be inviting bids from Local Authorities to run pilot schemes.
And there will be extra finance to sweeten the pill - at £15 per student per year - you might get a good theatre visit, or even two, out of that, so the school will have to cover the other 38 weeks from present resources?
You would have to be a philistine to oppose this in principle, but there are several very important questions to raise.
Given that students will have a promised 5 hours of sport each week, all have cookery classes and there will be special citizenship classes, how will these all be fitted in without further diluting ordinary "academic" classes? High Culture may also involve peak- loading problems, as they make the promised films, prepare art exhibitions, go on visits, etc.
What will be the position of music and art classes, as well as English literature, especially for those who which to take examinations in these subjects? At the very least, it looks as if the High Culture and conventional arts classes may have a competition/coordination problem.
The recent estimate by the National Literacy Trust is that there are 5.2 million adults, or about 16% of all adults, who are functionally illiterate, that is that their command of English is at or below that level expected of an eleven year old child. (Even British graduates have been rejected by potential employers, in preference for foreign graduates, because of a lack of competence in English and Mathematics.)
We have been told endlessly that our education standards are slipping. However worthwhile the 5 hours a week on high culture, the Government's first priority is surely to deal with literacy and numeracy, and restrict high culture to the subject classes, - art, music and English, until such time as we can restore literacy and numeracy to what they were a generation or two ago.
It may be exciting for a young person to be behind a film camera, or directing creatively, but this must not be at the expense of basic education for them or others in the school. Perhaps the high culture could be after school? Here I suspect that £15 per year is not going to able to pay for sufficient teaching hours to enable five hours per week of classes.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Questions for those in power
I paraphrase five principles of democracy put forward by Tony Benn some time ago.
1) How much power do you have?
2) Where does it come from?
3) In whose interest do you exercise it?
4) To whom are you accountable?
5) How do we get rid of you?
It is interesting to apply these questions to different levels of Government.
a) Local Council
The answers are 1) some on small matters, but much is doing the will of central Government
2) from electors
3) the electors - there is some discretion - Tories feel that they are best serving electors by operating efficiently, Lefties feel that they are serving electors by creating a particular kind of society - equality, environment, etc.
4) the electors, who are well able to see how well things are being done
5) by voting every four years
b) Parliament
The answers are 1) significant in terms of tone, but much now comes "down" from Brussels
2) electors and your political party
3) own electors partially, but also general society - ideologically
4) to electors, but they may be ignored until election time
5) At set intervals, unless there is an advantage to call an election earlier by the incumbent party of government.
c) Quangos (especially regional agencies which act increasingly as the instrument of central government.)
The answers are 1) considerable and increasing, in terms of budget and influence
2) from nominating body, especially central government
3) not clear - probably central government
4) central government
5) "we" don't - safe from removal so long as serving central government and are able to conceal your and their mistakes
d) Brussels
The answers are 1) European parliament - very little, Commission and ministers - extensive
2) from national governments
3) not clear - the European Union as a whole?
4) no-one directly
5) "we" don't - only at end of stipulated period, or change of national government.
I have tried to be fair, and I have to admit to preferring power to be as local as possible, exercised by local representatives who are answerable to voters are able to see what has been done in their name and remove administrations which do not serve the local community.
The categorisation above suggests that the higher the level of decision-making, and the larger the units, results in a lack of accountability and an arguable over-influence of minority views or the preferences of the decision makers over those of the community. The European Union is particularly undemocratic in the location of power. Members of the European Parliament are elected, but have not much more than a rubber-stamping power. In addition their constituencies are so large, - hundreds of thousands of voters, so there is little direct contact with most voters, who have voted for party rather than candidate.
1) How much power do you have?
2) Where does it come from?
3) In whose interest do you exercise it?
4) To whom are you accountable?
5) How do we get rid of you?
It is interesting to apply these questions to different levels of Government.
a) Local Council
The answers are 1) some on small matters, but much is doing the will of central Government
2) from electors
3) the electors - there is some discretion - Tories feel that they are best serving electors by operating efficiently, Lefties feel that they are serving electors by creating a particular kind of society - equality, environment, etc.
4) the electors, who are well able to see how well things are being done
5) by voting every four years
b) Parliament
The answers are 1) significant in terms of tone, but much now comes "down" from Brussels
2) electors and your political party
3) own electors partially, but also general society - ideologically
4) to electors, but they may be ignored until election time
5) At set intervals, unless there is an advantage to call an election earlier by the incumbent party of government.
c) Quangos (especially regional agencies which act increasingly as the instrument of central government.)
The answers are 1) considerable and increasing, in terms of budget and influence
2) from nominating body, especially central government
3) not clear - probably central government
4) central government
5) "we" don't - safe from removal so long as serving central government and are able to conceal your and their mistakes
d) Brussels
The answers are 1) European parliament - very little, Commission and ministers - extensive
2) from national governments
3) not clear - the European Union as a whole?
4) no-one directly
5) "we" don't - only at end of stipulated period, or change of national government.
I have tried to be fair, and I have to admit to preferring power to be as local as possible, exercised by local representatives who are answerable to voters are able to see what has been done in their name and remove administrations which do not serve the local community.
The categorisation above suggests that the higher the level of decision-making, and the larger the units, results in a lack of accountability and an arguable over-influence of minority views or the preferences of the decision makers over those of the community. The European Union is particularly undemocratic in the location of power. Members of the European Parliament are elected, but have not much more than a rubber-stamping power. In addition their constituencies are so large, - hundreds of thousands of voters, so there is little direct contact with most voters, who have voted for party rather than candidate.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Will he ever admit that he was wrong?
Last Week the Commons Accounts Committee was the latest to criticise the working of our tax credit system. Tax credits were Gordon Brown's pet wheeze to pay money to those on low income. He ploughs on, regardless, although his minister Yvette Cooper has apparently urged a new "efficiency focus", in English she called for the mess to be cleared up!
There are two sorts: (either will be paid into an appropriate account, with later adjustment for changes in situation. In fact, even now after several years of trying to operate the system, there are many cases where families have spent the money only to receive a demand for pull or partial repayment.)
1) Child Tax Credit: (The Government reckons that 9 out of 10 families with children will qualify for this, which is a sign of administrative complexity.) If anyone has responsibility for a child, whether or not the parent(s), he or she is eligible. If the responsibility is shared with somebody at a different address, the two must sort out who will claim.
2)Working Tax Credit: (for employed or self-employed on "low" pay, with extra if you are over 50, are disabled, pay for eligible child care, or you are responsible for one or more children or young people.)
Significantly, this is not an allowance against tax. although with the starting rate for tax-paying now so low that even those on the minimum wage and full time will be paying significant amounts of tax. It is in essence a negative tax.
For many years economists have debated negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. They have come to no conclusion, - not unusual for economists, and they have noted such problems as a disincentive for employers to pay more or for workers to look to better themselves.
The Commons Public Accounts Committee were concerned at the cost of the system, at the fraud and error, and at the sheer loss involved.
It seems that at least 10,000 civil servants are involved in administering the system, at a cost of nearly £600 million a year. Fraud and error are rife and now amount to £1 billion a year, and so far £2.3 billion has been written off as not recoverable.
It is an expensive scheme that has often plunged families into difficulty when they had to repay credits because the initial calculation proved wrong. It is a monument to one man's obsessional delusion, and it is costing us all dear.
There are two sorts: (either will be paid into an appropriate account, with later adjustment for changes in situation. In fact, even now after several years of trying to operate the system, there are many cases where families have spent the money only to receive a demand for pull or partial repayment.)
1) Child Tax Credit: (The Government reckons that 9 out of 10 families with children will qualify for this, which is a sign of administrative complexity.) If anyone has responsibility for a child, whether or not the parent(s), he or she is eligible. If the responsibility is shared with somebody at a different address, the two must sort out who will claim.
2)Working Tax Credit: (for employed or self-employed on "low" pay, with extra if you are over 50, are disabled, pay for eligible child care, or you are responsible for one or more children or young people.)
Significantly, this is not an allowance against tax. although with the starting rate for tax-paying now so low that even those on the minimum wage and full time will be paying significant amounts of tax. It is in essence a negative tax.
For many years economists have debated negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. They have come to no conclusion, - not unusual for economists, and they have noted such problems as a disincentive for employers to pay more or for workers to look to better themselves.
The Commons Public Accounts Committee were concerned at the cost of the system, at the fraud and error, and at the sheer loss involved.
It seems that at least 10,000 civil servants are involved in administering the system, at a cost of nearly £600 million a year. Fraud and error are rife and now amount to £1 billion a year, and so far £2.3 billion has been written off as not recoverable.
It is an expensive scheme that has often plunged families into difficulty when they had to repay credits because the initial calculation proved wrong. It is a monument to one man's obsessional delusion, and it is costing us all dear.
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Powerlessness and voting
In the previous blog message I advanced one reason why voters cannot be bothered to vote in elections - in many cases not even bothered to use the postal vote they have been given.
Here is another reason, - they feel that there is little point, that casting their vote will make little difference. This has been the case for some years, elections were won or lost mostly as seats changed hands in marginal seats. Where the seat is "safe" for one party, why bother?
Things have changed.
Most of us vote for representatives at four levels:
1) Town or parish councillor.
They work hard, but in the end have little power - they may be consulted on things like planning, but their views could well be disregarded at the next level up. It is perhaps the powerlessness which results in the situation that many councillors are returned without election or by co-option. In the case of my own Town Council, with 12 councillors, three each in four wards, in 2007 three were elected, seven stood but were returned without election, and two were co-opted.
2) Borough or county councillor.
There is more power at this level, but increasingly they operate under severe constraints from Whitehall. In planning matters, for instance, they suspect that if they refuse a planning application, there is every possibility that the applicant will merely go to appeal and someone higher up will overrule the council decision.
3) Member of Parliament.
This is where the real power resides? This is more illusion than reality. It is said that 80% of business is merely debating in a powerless way, decisions which have been made in Brussels. We have lost all major control of policy over Fishing, Agriculture, Trade and Environment.
4) Member of the European Parliament.
In fact the Parliament is a talking shop which merely rubber stamps decisions made elsewhere.
Since the European Comission and Council of Ministers, the real power centre, pours out vast quantities of legislation, the Parliament rubber stamps at high speed, perhaps hundreds of documents in a single day.
So the real power rests with unelected bureaucrats, commissioners and ministers appointed by prime ministers and sent from homelands. None of these is elected to office and power by the people of Europe. There is a real democratic deficit.
Is anyone surprised that people do not turn out to vote, when they can influence very little indeed. The politicians have made all sorts of assumptions - it is too far to walk to the polling station and it might rain, so let them vote by post, or on line, or in the supermarket.
The real problem, however, is that there is no incentive to vote, especially when politicians are held in such low esteem. It is impossible to change what is decided behind remote closed doors.
Here is another reason, - they feel that there is little point, that casting their vote will make little difference. This has been the case for some years, elections were won or lost mostly as seats changed hands in marginal seats. Where the seat is "safe" for one party, why bother?
Things have changed.
Most of us vote for representatives at four levels:
1) Town or parish councillor.
They work hard, but in the end have little power - they may be consulted on things like planning, but their views could well be disregarded at the next level up. It is perhaps the powerlessness which results in the situation that many councillors are returned without election or by co-option. In the case of my own Town Council, with 12 councillors, three each in four wards, in 2007 three were elected, seven stood but were returned without election, and two were co-opted.
2) Borough or county councillor.
There is more power at this level, but increasingly they operate under severe constraints from Whitehall. In planning matters, for instance, they suspect that if they refuse a planning application, there is every possibility that the applicant will merely go to appeal and someone higher up will overrule the council decision.
3) Member of Parliament.
This is where the real power resides? This is more illusion than reality. It is said that 80% of business is merely debating in a powerless way, decisions which have been made in Brussels. We have lost all major control of policy over Fishing, Agriculture, Trade and Environment.
4) Member of the European Parliament.
In fact the Parliament is a talking shop which merely rubber stamps decisions made elsewhere.
Since the European Comission and Council of Ministers, the real power centre, pours out vast quantities of legislation, the Parliament rubber stamps at high speed, perhaps hundreds of documents in a single day.
So the real power rests with unelected bureaucrats, commissioners and ministers appointed by prime ministers and sent from homelands. None of these is elected to office and power by the people of Europe. There is a real democratic deficit.
Is anyone surprised that people do not turn out to vote, when they can influence very little indeed. The politicians have made all sorts of assumptions - it is too far to walk to the polling station and it might rain, so let them vote by post, or on line, or in the supermarket.
The real problem, however, is that there is no incentive to vote, especially when politicians are held in such low esteem. It is impossible to change what is decided behind remote closed doors.
It's just words!
It seems that his barrister in court defending Gordon Brown over the falsity of his promise in the 2005 manifesto to hold a referendum on the European treaty/constitution said, "Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation."
In other words nothing written in a manifesto is a firm pledge, and the Labour Party reserves the right to pursue policies written there or elsewhere, or not declared even, as they think fit.
Perhaps in due course Brown will be found guilty of lying to the electors, but don't bet on it. Perhaps we shall have a referendum, but that seems even more unlikely from the indecent haste with which the European business is being rammed through parliament.
In any event we shall know that we cannot believe anything he says. Do you remember the sad words between him and Blair, "Nothing you could ever say to me could ever make believe a word you say."
And people are surprised that more and more people are turned off politics, and fewer feel any point in voting?
In other words nothing written in a manifesto is a firm pledge, and the Labour Party reserves the right to pursue policies written there or elsewhere, or not declared even, as they think fit.
Perhaps in due course Brown will be found guilty of lying to the electors, but don't bet on it. Perhaps we shall have a referendum, but that seems even more unlikely from the indecent haste with which the European business is being rammed through parliament.
In any event we shall know that we cannot believe anything he says. Do you remember the sad words between him and Blair, "Nothing you could ever say to me could ever make believe a word you say."
And people are surprised that more and more people are turned off politics, and fewer feel any point in voting?
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Why are they really protesting?
What has annoyed the MPs over the bugging of an MP's conversation with a prisoner?
Are they concerned about the right so of the prisoner? I doubt it, he is being considered for deportation to the US, he has "form", and apart from his own MP who visited him I doubt if many MPs are very concerned about his rights.
No, I suggest that the agitation is that the police, with politicians again knowing nothing, ("Not me Guv, I didn't know anything about it!" - the well rehearsed New Labour line when caught out breaking their own rules,) had the bare faced effrontery to actually record an MP.
These "Ubermench" MPs, honorable and not needing to be checked, are in this time of surveillance not to be subject to the thousands of interceptions and buggings to which mere mortals are submitted! Why not? At least one MP in the past 50 years has been detected as working for the Russians. They are venal! Who knows what other causes they serve? Why should they be exempt from surveillance?
We accept that Government might become difficult if phone lines between No 10 and the various departments were bugged (and why not e-mails also?). But, bearing in mind that they attempt too much and do it badly, perhaps they should be bugged.
Politicians are regarded as dishonest by many people, perhaps ranked above estate agents but not above many more groups. Let them be subject to surveillance - they don't have the same immunity as priests, doctors and lawyers.
Are they concerned about the right so of the prisoner? I doubt it, he is being considered for deportation to the US, he has "form", and apart from his own MP who visited him I doubt if many MPs are very concerned about his rights.
No, I suggest that the agitation is that the police, with politicians again knowing nothing, ("Not me Guv, I didn't know anything about it!" - the well rehearsed New Labour line when caught out breaking their own rules,) had the bare faced effrontery to actually record an MP.
These "Ubermench" MPs, honorable and not needing to be checked, are in this time of surveillance not to be subject to the thousands of interceptions and buggings to which mere mortals are submitted! Why not? At least one MP in the past 50 years has been detected as working for the Russians. They are venal! Who knows what other causes they serve? Why should they be exempt from surveillance?
We accept that Government might become difficult if phone lines between No 10 and the various departments were bugged (and why not e-mails also?). But, bearing in mind that they attempt too much and do it badly, perhaps they should be bugged.
Politicians are regarded as dishonest by many people, perhaps ranked above estate agents but not above many more groups. Let them be subject to surveillance - they don't have the same immunity as priests, doctors and lawyers.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
The cotton wool merchants
Hardly a day passes without a new nonsense arising from health and safety. This is a pity because practitioners are qualified and well-intentioned, and are arguably necessary in some areas of life such as the use of dangerous equipment.
Today, we are told that the traditional pancake race at Rippon will not take place after H & S considerations. Could it take place, if we laid rubber cushions (slip proof of course) along the whole course and wrapped the children in padded clothing, and if they wore safety helmets?
We also learn of the ballroom where old age pensioners will no longer be able to enjoy ball-room dancing, as the polished floor is too dangerous. How fast will they be dancing and how slippery is the floor, - is there an objective test?
These are two more nails in the coffin of ordinary people merely trying to enjoy themselves. If the organisers are concerned that any injuries will lead to litigation and compensation, could they not find a way round this by allowing adults to sign a waiver?
These are just the more ridiculous ice-berg tip of an enormous volume of ordinary and traditionally harmless pleasures being curtailed, or permitted at great cost.
Today, we are told that the traditional pancake race at Rippon will not take place after H & S considerations. Could it take place, if we laid rubber cushions (slip proof of course) along the whole course and wrapped the children in padded clothing, and if they wore safety helmets?
We also learn of the ballroom where old age pensioners will no longer be able to enjoy ball-room dancing, as the polished floor is too dangerous. How fast will they be dancing and how slippery is the floor, - is there an objective test?
These are two more nails in the coffin of ordinary people merely trying to enjoy themselves. If the organisers are concerned that any injuries will lead to litigation and compensation, could they not find a way round this by allowing adults to sign a waiver?
These are just the more ridiculous ice-berg tip of an enormous volume of ordinary and traditionally harmless pleasures being curtailed, or permitted at great cost.
Saturday, 2 February 2008
Why should we put up with poor schools?
George Osborne is now coming under fire for finding a school for his children outside the state system. He is repeating the "sin" of David Cameron before him, insearching out a good school for his children.
It has to be said that despite of "education, education, education", and billions of pounds of extra money pumped into education over the past 10 years, and countless changes of policy and gimmick, little has improved. In fact, with dumbing down of educational assessments, we now have employers unable to recruit graduates in part because they lack basic literacy and numeracy.
Those who scream at Cameron and Osborne, and others, are now resorting to lottery on school attendance, to make sure that all classes and family have an equal risk of suffering a poor school.
One proposal is to to resurrect the comprehensive schools by having all ability ranges but with streaming, that is to try to have something like the old grammar schools under the same roof. I have considerable doubts about this attempt to maintain an ideology.
The principle objection is the size of school implied. To have all abilities catered for separately, including a large sixth form, and across all the subjects, including artistic, musical, sporting, must mean a huge school for all subjects to be viable in number of students. Size is daunting, and many large comprehensives already divide into sections.
The other question is about ethos - whether the academic attitude to study can be maintained in a school where the vast majority do not share it.
But there is an alternative.
The Americans discovered in some states, and the Swedes seem to have accepted wholeheartedly, a revolution on the supply side.
Since 1993 in Sweden the Government will pay a fixed amount per pupil to any organisation, passing basic tests, which opens a school. So charities, churches, companies have opened schools. Hundreds of new schools were opened in the first few years.
The number of consequences is staggering.
- pupils choose schools and not the other way round. In fact schools are in competition, and the bad ones have to do something about their deficiencies. If a school does not meet aspirations, in standards, subjects offered, or ethos, children will go elsewhere.
- there are no waiting lists - if one school faces a demand surplus, they open another.
- Sweden, having no need of a vast bureaucracy, spends no more on education than the UK does, but it has a system was is child orientated, rather than producer orientated, and is very responsive to its society, rather than political ideologues.
There is an alternative - bad schools put right, changes arrive from bottom up, every child getting to the school of choice, and standards much higher than here. What are we afraid of?
It has to be said that despite of "education, education, education", and billions of pounds of extra money pumped into education over the past 10 years, and countless changes of policy and gimmick, little has improved. In fact, with dumbing down of educational assessments, we now have employers unable to recruit graduates in part because they lack basic literacy and numeracy.
Those who scream at Cameron and Osborne, and others, are now resorting to lottery on school attendance, to make sure that all classes and family have an equal risk of suffering a poor school.
One proposal is to to resurrect the comprehensive schools by having all ability ranges but with streaming, that is to try to have something like the old grammar schools under the same roof. I have considerable doubts about this attempt to maintain an ideology.
The principle objection is the size of school implied. To have all abilities catered for separately, including a large sixth form, and across all the subjects, including artistic, musical, sporting, must mean a huge school for all subjects to be viable in number of students. Size is daunting, and many large comprehensives already divide into sections.
The other question is about ethos - whether the academic attitude to study can be maintained in a school where the vast majority do not share it.
But there is an alternative.
The Americans discovered in some states, and the Swedes seem to have accepted wholeheartedly, a revolution on the supply side.
Since 1993 in Sweden the Government will pay a fixed amount per pupil to any organisation, passing basic tests, which opens a school. So charities, churches, companies have opened schools. Hundreds of new schools were opened in the first few years.
The number of consequences is staggering.
- pupils choose schools and not the other way round. In fact schools are in competition, and the bad ones have to do something about their deficiencies. If a school does not meet aspirations, in standards, subjects offered, or ethos, children will go elsewhere.
- there are no waiting lists - if one school faces a demand surplus, they open another.
- Sweden, having no need of a vast bureaucracy, spends no more on education than the UK does, but it has a system was is child orientated, rather than producer orientated, and is very responsive to its society, rather than political ideologues.
There is an alternative - bad schools put right, changes arrive from bottom up, every child getting to the school of choice, and standards much higher than here. What are we afraid of?
Friday, 1 February 2008
South Norfolk Council
I recently posted a blog about North Norfolk Council and their intentions to send bailiffs to sequester property of ratepayers behind with their payments. There had been large rises in council tax and hundreds would not or could not pay their tax.
This time I have praise for South Norfolk Council, for being able to freeze their council tax. They were able to to do this despite spending more on re-cycling and on personal services. No services were cut. The council leader attributed their decision to the adoption of sound and sensible policies. Council tax in 12 years previously had risen by 285%.
There is a further difference between the two councils. Norfolk North Norfolk is still run by the Libdems, while South Norfolk was won back from the Libdems by the Conservatives in 2007. Could there be a greater contrast?
This time I have praise for South Norfolk Council, for being able to freeze their council tax. They were able to to do this despite spending more on re-cycling and on personal services. No services were cut. The council leader attributed their decision to the adoption of sound and sensible policies. Council tax in 12 years previously had risen by 285%.
There is a further difference between the two councils. Norfolk North Norfolk is still run by the Libdems, while South Norfolk was won back from the Libdems by the Conservatives in 2007. Could there be a greater contrast?
Which is more serious?
This week, in the House of Lords, Lord Hoyle had to appear before their Lordship's disciplinary committee, chaired by Lord Woolf.
It was alleged that he had taken undeclared "cash for access" payments from lobbyists for arms dealers to meet the Defence Procurement Minister.
The disciplinary committee met to consider the matter on January 30th, and it is likely that we shall never know the facts, or even the verdict of the committee.
Derek Conway was being roasted at the same time. "Ah", said various MPs, but he has embezzled taxpayers money." They are quite right, and I do not defend him. But in terms of damage done to democracy, has the noble Lord if guilty, done any less than Conway? Or any less than the Tory MPs in the last decade who were pilloried for receiving money merely for asking questions?
Lord Hoyle may receive better treatment because he takes the whip of the controlling party, while Conway was convicted by a committee containing a majority of Lab0ur members, all too happy to make the most of a Conservative admitted misdemeanor, a misdemeanor which perhaps several others have come close to or even committed.
It was alleged that he had taken undeclared "cash for access" payments from lobbyists for arms dealers to meet the Defence Procurement Minister.
The disciplinary committee met to consider the matter on January 30th, and it is likely that we shall never know the facts, or even the verdict of the committee.
Derek Conway was being roasted at the same time. "Ah", said various MPs, but he has embezzled taxpayers money." They are quite right, and I do not defend him. But in terms of damage done to democracy, has the noble Lord if guilty, done any less than Conway? Or any less than the Tory MPs in the last decade who were pilloried for receiving money merely for asking questions?
Lord Hoyle may receive better treatment because he takes the whip of the controlling party, while Conway was convicted by a committee containing a majority of Lab0ur members, all too happy to make the most of a Conservative admitted misdemeanor, a misdemeanor which perhaps several others have come close to or even committed.
The inexorable process
The European Parliament has made plans to prohibit the sale of patio heaters. Quite what happens to those already in use is not clear.
Why was this act needed? In large measure it was because of the recent smoking ban. Many non-smokers, and I am in the number, felt that the smoking ban was an illiberal ban. Surely everybody would have been happy if pubs/restaurants had been given permission to be either "smoking allowed" or "smoking banned", as the decision of owner and traditional customers. We could have had drinking and eating places designated to one or the other. Workers and customers could have chosen which they would be associated with.
It is a nonsense to ban an activity which is elsewhere legal, but the anti-smoking lobby wanted complete victory. The result is that some pubs and restaurants installed patio heaters, as an outdoor comfort for smokers. (Some claim that the heaters are not very effective, but that is beside the point.) The result, according to the pub industry is that they stand to lose as much as £250 million pounds a year, if use of the heaters is banned.
There are two pieces of nonsense here.
The first is that the first illiberal measure has led to a second. I presume that I may still have a fire, and scouts a campfire, to warm my family in our garden (- or are these to be banned also?)
Then why may I not do it commercially?
The second is that the measure is a symbolic act that will make very little difference to the climate. If they wanted to make a real difference, they could stop organising environment conferences in exotic places like Bali, which are attended by experts like John Prescott and an entourage of officials at great expense and carbon emission. The end result of all the effort is a lot of hot air, in travel and in talking, but with little to show as a consequence. The emissions dwarf those of the patio heaters. Could the measure, I called it a symbol, really be a fig leaf to cover the impotence of governments?
Governments are failing to achieve the grand targets they set, and so they revise to even more difficult targets. If they got their act together, and arranged global collective policy, then they would not have to worry about patio heaters.
Why was this act needed? In large measure it was because of the recent smoking ban. Many non-smokers, and I am in the number, felt that the smoking ban was an illiberal ban. Surely everybody would have been happy if pubs/restaurants had been given permission to be either "smoking allowed" or "smoking banned", as the decision of owner and traditional customers. We could have had drinking and eating places designated to one or the other. Workers and customers could have chosen which they would be associated with.
It is a nonsense to ban an activity which is elsewhere legal, but the anti-smoking lobby wanted complete victory. The result is that some pubs and restaurants installed patio heaters, as an outdoor comfort for smokers. (Some claim that the heaters are not very effective, but that is beside the point.) The result, according to the pub industry is that they stand to lose as much as £250 million pounds a year, if use of the heaters is banned.
There are two pieces of nonsense here.
The first is that the first illiberal measure has led to a second. I presume that I may still have a fire, and scouts a campfire, to warm my family in our garden (- or are these to be banned also?)
Then why may I not do it commercially?
The second is that the measure is a symbolic act that will make very little difference to the climate. If they wanted to make a real difference, they could stop organising environment conferences in exotic places like Bali, which are attended by experts like John Prescott and an entourage of officials at great expense and carbon emission. The end result of all the effort is a lot of hot air, in travel and in talking, but with little to show as a consequence. The emissions dwarf those of the patio heaters. Could the measure, I called it a symbol, really be a fig leaf to cover the impotence of governments?
Governments are failing to achieve the grand targets they set, and so they revise to even more difficult targets. If they got their act together, and arranged global collective policy, then they would not have to worry about patio heaters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
