There has been much discussion recently about relying on the French for technology on nuclear generation of electricity.
It seems that as Blair and Brown have dithered over the issue, they have left themselves with little option but to go "nuclear". Other options were considered, but it seems that there is now little option for them.
Most other technologies generate power by burning fuels and thereby adding to the global warming gases. The exceptions, of course, are the renewables - wind, water, wave/tide and solar, and also nuclear.
1) Water in requiring massive reservoirs and gravity, is really only suitable for a few locations in the UK. It is generally reliable, but may imply reduced power in times of drought, so even if there were more suitable sites, there would have to be extensive alternative ways of producing electricity.
2) Wave and tide would be more reliable, although there would have to be ways of storing the twice daily tidal energy. There are suitable sites, but arguably not enough to be the sole source of power. Their major problems are the effect on wild-life in the case of barrages, and in the relatively little power of waves which would require many miles around our coast.
3) Solar power is an expensive option, in installation, and of reduced value in our climate with frequent cloud cover, although modern technology does allow some power take up even in very cloudy conditions.
4) So, many ecologists have pinned their faith to wind turbines. The UK as an island has a long coastline and seems to have wind on shore on a regular basis, so many of the thousands of windmills could be sited off shore. The technology is simple and well-tested. Currently the Government's plan is to build 7,000 round the coast to meet our EU demand that 15% of our energy be from "renewables" by 2020.
So wind power is the answer, then?
Well not quite. Experience of continental operators, early into the technology while we were dithering, is that the turbines operate on average at about 27.5% of capacity, because there are many times when the wind is just not strong enough. So the 7,000 would not be enough. Moreover, since prices per unit of electricity are quoted as if working at full capacity, when allowance is made for 27% capacity,wind powered electricity is expensive. Christopher Booker, (Sunday Telegraph, 23rd March 2008), includes calculations from an industry expert that wind power would cost £8.8 million per megawatt, while the cost per megawatt for the latest nuclear station in Finland is only £1.7 million, that is less than a quarter.
So if six nuclear power stations were built instead of the 70,000 wind farms the operating cost would be about a quarter. Construction costs, using the latest Finnish example, would be £80 billion for the windmills, and under £17 billion for the nuclear stations.
The logic is inexorable. Other countries seem to have solved the problem of re-cycling and storage satisfactorily, and the clean technology of nuclear seems much cheaper.
The only problem is that The EU has decided to impose targets for "renewables" as well, and nuclear does not count towards this!
Of course, given that the wind does not blow consistently there would have to be be sufficient other capacity to come on stream when the wind was too gentle! We are in a mess!
Monday, 31 March 2008
Friday, 28 March 2008
Council Tax, again.
It is clear that by stealth the Government is preparing vast data files on dwellings in England, as they did in other parts of the UK previously. The result is that council tax paid will increasingly depend on our house, - on improvements made, its condition and its location.
What is abundantly clear, from other parts of the UK where it has been already introduced, is that there is an element of stealth tax here, - that extra tax paid by some overwhelmingly exceeds the reductions enjoyed by others.
What is of concern is the basis. There is presumably a large egalitarian motive here. If so, it fails to achieve its purpose.
1) It takes no account of the household ability to pay. A family with a couple and 3 grown up children all working could add up paying the same as the hard-pressed widow next door in an identical house. Of course, this will be recognised and a bureaucratic means test will be added. People who are capital rich but income poor will bear a greater burden, whatever their means.
2) It takes no account of benefit from the community received by individual tax payers. So long as someone lives in a small house or flat, they will pay less.
3) It takes no account of preferences. If I decide to improve my house, as my main hobby, I shall be penalised. Even if I decide to maintain my house, the same applies. If I decide to change my life style, by buying a flat here, by selling my house here and buying a house abroad, I shall pay less tax.
The trouble is, in essence, that many years ago rates were held to be a charge and not a tax, and therefore could be completely unrelated to need or benefit received. It may be a simple solution, except in the future, but it has so many anomalies.
It fails the test of being fair, except by introducing all sorts of exceptions and special adjustments. For this reason, I assume, the LibDems are advocating local income taxes. This really a non-starter, however much it appeals to egalitarians, because it will inevitably become national and bureaucratic, non-transparent and remote.
There are a few complications to it, as there are to the LibDem income tax proposal because people work in one area and live in another, present VAT but the fairest tax would seem to be to replace the present council tax with a local sales tax, - those who spend most will contribute most, it can be set and changed vary easily in response to local needs and it is transparent in all purchases.
Why have the egalitarians set their faces against the sales tax? Are they concerned that Brussels will intervene? If so, perhaps it's time we challenged them!
What is abundantly clear, from other parts of the UK where it has been already introduced, is that there is an element of stealth tax here, - that extra tax paid by some overwhelmingly exceeds the reductions enjoyed by others.
What is of concern is the basis. There is presumably a large egalitarian motive here. If so, it fails to achieve its purpose.
1) It takes no account of the household ability to pay. A family with a couple and 3 grown up children all working could add up paying the same as the hard-pressed widow next door in an identical house. Of course, this will be recognised and a bureaucratic means test will be added. People who are capital rich but income poor will bear a greater burden, whatever their means.
2) It takes no account of benefit from the community received by individual tax payers. So long as someone lives in a small house or flat, they will pay less.
3) It takes no account of preferences. If I decide to improve my house, as my main hobby, I shall be penalised. Even if I decide to maintain my house, the same applies. If I decide to change my life style, by buying a flat here, by selling my house here and buying a house abroad, I shall pay less tax.
The trouble is, in essence, that many years ago rates were held to be a charge and not a tax, and therefore could be completely unrelated to need or benefit received. It may be a simple solution, except in the future, but it has so many anomalies.
It fails the test of being fair, except by introducing all sorts of exceptions and special adjustments. For this reason, I assume, the LibDems are advocating local income taxes. This really a non-starter, however much it appeals to egalitarians, because it will inevitably become national and bureaucratic, non-transparent and remote.
There are a few complications to it, as there are to the LibDem income tax proposal because people work in one area and live in another, present VAT but the fairest tax would seem to be to replace the present council tax with a local sales tax, - those who spend most will contribute most, it can be set and changed vary easily in response to local needs and it is transparent in all purchases.
Why have the egalitarians set their faces against the sales tax? Are they concerned that Brussels will intervene? If so, perhaps it's time we challenged them!
The clients of the state
The Conservatives recently released calculations they have made from National Satistics and from answers to questions posed in Parliament, especially by Chris Grayling, shadow Work and Pensions Secretary.
It seems that there are 70,000 families in Britain who are in receipt of benefits above £25,000 a year. Further, that there are 20,000 in receipt of more than £30,000.
This is at a time when the average full-time wage is just over £20,000, and the average annual household income is about £28,000. These are averages, which means that there are many below or even well below those figures for working full-time. (It may be, of course, that families on benefit have more children than the average "2.2" families, and the childrens' needs are reflected in the benefits payments.)
The welfare state is not providing the "safety net" for those temporarily in need and perhaps for those chronic health conditions. It is now supplying a permanent life style for many who would by health be capable of working.
What is worrying is that many recipients become welfare dependent, trapped as clients of the state. The loss of dignity and self-worth is barely compensated for by the benefits. Worse, about 2.2 million children are in families dependent on benefits, with all that that implies, and we now have second or even third generations of some families dependent on benefit.
Another aspect of concern is that the incidence of benefit dependency is not evenly spread. There are estates where the percentage surviving on benefit could be well above 50% - these disaggregated data were not available. What is clear is that there are certainly large regional variations. So, for instance, of those 60 areas where those jobless in number exceed those working, 25 are in the North West of England, 8 are in Wales and and the North East of England, 5 in Yorkshire and 5 in The Midlands.
Rochdale in Lancashire has 76% of working age population on benefits. This is the highest concentration, but other parts of northern industrial towns are not far behind.
There is an enormous problem here.
There is a considerable waste of human resources, which could benefit Society.
There is a tendency for benefit dependency to be long term, as the recipients become deemed as unemployable.
There is a tendency for dependence to be perpetuated between the generations.
Those of working age and on benefit must doubt their own worth and lack self pride.
What can be done?
(In the budget benefits for lone parents and workless families were boosted. At the same time the 10% tax band was abolished and thus impoverished those on low incomes. Both of these would act to increase dependency.)
The Government and the Conservatives both conclude that a large number of those on benefit are capable of working and need to be helped (back) into work.
The Government has proposed "fit notes" and regular medicals. The Conservatives have proposed in addition that fit recipients should do community work, both for their own self esteem and as a step back into paid work. (The community will also gain, of course.)
The problem is bound up with the problems of dysfunctional families, behavioural problems and educational failure. Somehow the State must grapple with all the problems simultaneously. Passing laws and setting targets will not do on their own. It requires policy changes in many areas of Government and some sort of revolution in how these social problems are treated. Ian Duncan Smith has suggested approaches to be adopted. Have the present Government, or a future Government, the vision and the courage to implement them?
It seems that there are 70,000 families in Britain who are in receipt of benefits above £25,000 a year. Further, that there are 20,000 in receipt of more than £30,000.
This is at a time when the average full-time wage is just over £20,000, and the average annual household income is about £28,000. These are averages, which means that there are many below or even well below those figures for working full-time. (It may be, of course, that families on benefit have more children than the average "2.2" families, and the childrens' needs are reflected in the benefits payments.)
The welfare state is not providing the "safety net" for those temporarily in need and perhaps for those chronic health conditions. It is now supplying a permanent life style for many who would by health be capable of working.
What is worrying is that many recipients become welfare dependent, trapped as clients of the state. The loss of dignity and self-worth is barely compensated for by the benefits. Worse, about 2.2 million children are in families dependent on benefits, with all that that implies, and we now have second or even third generations of some families dependent on benefit.
Another aspect of concern is that the incidence of benefit dependency is not evenly spread. There are estates where the percentage surviving on benefit could be well above 50% - these disaggregated data were not available. What is clear is that there are certainly large regional variations. So, for instance, of those 60 areas where those jobless in number exceed those working, 25 are in the North West of England, 8 are in Wales and and the North East of England, 5 in Yorkshire and 5 in The Midlands.
Rochdale in Lancashire has 76% of working age population on benefits. This is the highest concentration, but other parts of northern industrial towns are not far behind.
There is an enormous problem here.
There is a considerable waste of human resources, which could benefit Society.
There is a tendency for benefit dependency to be long term, as the recipients become deemed as unemployable.
There is a tendency for dependence to be perpetuated between the generations.
Those of working age and on benefit must doubt their own worth and lack self pride.
What can be done?
(In the budget benefits for lone parents and workless families were boosted. At the same time the 10% tax band was abolished and thus impoverished those on low incomes. Both of these would act to increase dependency.)
The Government and the Conservatives both conclude that a large number of those on benefit are capable of working and need to be helped (back) into work.
The Government has proposed "fit notes" and regular medicals. The Conservatives have proposed in addition that fit recipients should do community work, both for their own self esteem and as a step back into paid work. (The community will also gain, of course.)
The problem is bound up with the problems of dysfunctional families, behavioural problems and educational failure. Somehow the State must grapple with all the problems simultaneously. Passing laws and setting targets will not do on their own. It requires policy changes in many areas of Government and some sort of revolution in how these social problems are treated. Ian Duncan Smith has suggested approaches to be adopted. Have the present Government, or a future Government, the vision and the courage to implement them?
The Dictatorship could be complete...
In 2006, in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, the Government tried to slip through more powers for the Executive, including law by ministerial fiat. It failed.
But if we thought that we had heard the last of it, we must think again. This time they have hidden it at the end of the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill! If this passes, then we could be ruled by ministerial decree.
This is not too strong an expression.
Amendments to laws, even new laws could be made by ministers and cabinet. Laws could be ended, likewise - how long do you think this lot would tolerate habeas corpus in their struggle against terrorism, (with political opposition next?)
People could be arrested and imprisoned by ministerial decision.
Quite apart from the threat to our freedom, and that this Government has a record of rushing through ill-thought-out laws or redundant laws, the real danger is to the place of Parliament. The House of Commons will be by-passed to a large extent.
Given that many of fellow citizens have already decided that there is not much point in voting, as their lives are ruled by Brussels, Quangos and Whitehall and voting will make little difference, what price democracy in the UK now?
But if we thought that we had heard the last of it, we must think again. This time they have hidden it at the end of the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill! If this passes, then we could be ruled by ministerial decree.
This is not too strong an expression.
Amendments to laws, even new laws could be made by ministers and cabinet. Laws could be ended, likewise - how long do you think this lot would tolerate habeas corpus in their struggle against terrorism, (with political opposition next?)
People could be arrested and imprisoned by ministerial decision.
Quite apart from the threat to our freedom, and that this Government has a record of rushing through ill-thought-out laws or redundant laws, the real danger is to the place of Parliament. The House of Commons will be by-passed to a large extent.
Given that many of fellow citizens have already decided that there is not much point in voting, as their lives are ruled by Brussels, Quangos and Whitehall and voting will make little difference, what price democracy in the UK now?
Thursday, 27 March 2008
Half truths and porkies in great profusion
In Prime Minister's Non-answers (PMQ) yesterday we had them all.
The general level of his honesty is revealed in G. Brown's contention that David Cameron was economic adviser to Norman Lamont, and therefore by implication was responsible for the economic difficulties in the early 1990s.
The truth is that the decision by John Major to fix the exchange rate against the D.Mark at an unsustainable level, and failure by our EU partners to support sterling, was the ultimate cause, and G. Brown knows that Cameron was not party to this. In fact Cameron was a very junior member of the Treasury team, and not an economic adviser, but it suits Brown to pretend that he was. It ill becomes MacCavity, who tries to wriggle from all responsibility, to try to smear someone else with something for which they were not responsible.
Of course, with Cameron daring to question Brown on the area where he is master of the universe, and never wrong, it was highly likely that Brown would come out with his usual litany of false and misleading claims. And he did!
1) The UK has only half the unemployment rate of our EU partners. But the problem is that he compared our rate, of claimants, with the French and German rate based on the criteria of the International Labour Office (ILO). If the UK situation is recounted on the ILO basis, while it is lower it is well above half, - more like 75% of that for the EU as a whole, and while ours is rising until recently at least theirs was falling.
2) Inflation in the UK is 2.5%, while in the USA it is 4%. The US figure is not comparable in its methodology, but if it were we know that our inflation rate which takes in a fuller range of prices, including housing, -RPI, were produced it would be of the order of 4.1%. (He used the same trick while comparing the high rate of inflation briefly under the Conservatives, with his own index - CPI which produces a lower figure. This is dishonest.)
3) Inflation under the Conservatives reached 3 million, was his claim. This is not disputable, but again the figure now is lower because of the millions who have discovered that it is better to claim for incapacity than for unemployment. There are currently over 5 million on out of work benefits of all kinds.
4) He has reduced the basic rate of income tax, and the rate of corporation tax. We all saw the falsity of the claims soon after last year's budget. The statement is true as far as it goes, but he simultaneously abolished the 10% band of tax, hitting the poorest most heavily, and adjusting for allowances in the case of corporation tax with the consequence that firms in total paid more!
5) Housing repossessions were only 27,000 last year. True, but they are rising this year now that the credit squeeze is beginning to bite. The present estimate for 2008 is 45,000, but many think that this figure will need upward revision, and unless the trend levels off the number is likely to exceed the peak under the Conservatives in the early 1990s. At some point he may have to eat his words.
6) Banks have also gone "bust"in the US and in other countries in Europe. True, but they arranged quick and effective sale and disposal, unlike the long months of dithering and then nationalisation here, and they have not burdened their taxpayers with the massive risk here.
The Prime Minister is on the defensive, and needed to recite yet again the list of half truths and lies. They are sounding more desperate and less believable each time. We all know from personal experience that there is something wrong with his inflation measure, and his lie that taxes are not going up. Some of us will lose our homes or our jobs over the next few months, and we shall know his optimism was misplaced. Eventually MaCavity will run out of excuses and denials.
The general level of his honesty is revealed in G. Brown's contention that David Cameron was economic adviser to Norman Lamont, and therefore by implication was responsible for the economic difficulties in the early 1990s.
The truth is that the decision by John Major to fix the exchange rate against the D.Mark at an unsustainable level, and failure by our EU partners to support sterling, was the ultimate cause, and G. Brown knows that Cameron was not party to this. In fact Cameron was a very junior member of the Treasury team, and not an economic adviser, but it suits Brown to pretend that he was. It ill becomes MacCavity, who tries to wriggle from all responsibility, to try to smear someone else with something for which they were not responsible.
Of course, with Cameron daring to question Brown on the area where he is master of the universe, and never wrong, it was highly likely that Brown would come out with his usual litany of false and misleading claims. And he did!
1) The UK has only half the unemployment rate of our EU partners. But the problem is that he compared our rate, of claimants, with the French and German rate based on the criteria of the International Labour Office (ILO). If the UK situation is recounted on the ILO basis, while it is lower it is well above half, - more like 75% of that for the EU as a whole, and while ours is rising until recently at least theirs was falling.
2) Inflation in the UK is 2.5%, while in the USA it is 4%. The US figure is not comparable in its methodology, but if it were we know that our inflation rate which takes in a fuller range of prices, including housing, -RPI, were produced it would be of the order of 4.1%. (He used the same trick while comparing the high rate of inflation briefly under the Conservatives, with his own index - CPI which produces a lower figure. This is dishonest.)
3) Inflation under the Conservatives reached 3 million, was his claim. This is not disputable, but again the figure now is lower because of the millions who have discovered that it is better to claim for incapacity than for unemployment. There are currently over 5 million on out of work benefits of all kinds.
4) He has reduced the basic rate of income tax, and the rate of corporation tax. We all saw the falsity of the claims soon after last year's budget. The statement is true as far as it goes, but he simultaneously abolished the 10% band of tax, hitting the poorest most heavily, and adjusting for allowances in the case of corporation tax with the consequence that firms in total paid more!
5) Housing repossessions were only 27,000 last year. True, but they are rising this year now that the credit squeeze is beginning to bite. The present estimate for 2008 is 45,000, but many think that this figure will need upward revision, and unless the trend levels off the number is likely to exceed the peak under the Conservatives in the early 1990s. At some point he may have to eat his words.
6) Banks have also gone "bust"in the US and in other countries in Europe. True, but they arranged quick and effective sale and disposal, unlike the long months of dithering and then nationalisation here, and they have not burdened their taxpayers with the massive risk here.
The Prime Minister is on the defensive, and needed to recite yet again the list of half truths and lies. They are sounding more desperate and less believable each time. We all know from personal experience that there is something wrong with his inflation measure, and his lie that taxes are not going up. Some of us will lose our homes or our jobs over the next few months, and we shall know his optimism was misplaced. Eventually MaCavity will run out of excuses and denials.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Who do you trust?
Every year surveys are undertaken to discover which categories of people are generally trusted, and which are not.
Last November Ipsos Mori conducted a poll of a representative sample of people aged 16 and over in Britain, numbering some 1,981, on the topic.
What emerged is that the most trusted groups were
Doctors, - 90% trusted them to tell the truth, and only 6 did not.
They were closely followed by Teachers with 86% and 9 % respectively
Professors were next with 78% and 10% and Judges with 78% and 14%.
Clergy and Priests had 73% and 17%. Beyond them the next group were Scientists with 65% and 22%.
Also above 50% were TV news readers, police, and ordinary people.
The least trusted were
Trade Union Officials with 38% and 45%
Business Leaders with 26% and 62%
Government Ministers with 22% and 71%
Journalists with 18% and 75%
Politicians in general 18% and 76%
So politicians were not trusted to tell the truth by over 3/4 of the sample, and less than 20% actually believe that they tell the truth.
I wonder why people think this? And why when they become ministers are they regarded as slightly more honest?
(Historically, since the poll began in 1993 doctors have topped the list, although in the first year they shared top spot with teachers. The latter seem to slipped a little, but only a little.)
Last November Ipsos Mori conducted a poll of a representative sample of people aged 16 and over in Britain, numbering some 1,981, on the topic.
What emerged is that the most trusted groups were
Doctors, - 90% trusted them to tell the truth, and only 6 did not.
They were closely followed by Teachers with 86% and 9 % respectively
Professors were next with 78% and 10% and Judges with 78% and 14%.
Clergy and Priests had 73% and 17%. Beyond them the next group were Scientists with 65% and 22%.
Also above 50% were TV news readers, police, and ordinary people.
The least trusted were
Trade Union Officials with 38% and 45%
Business Leaders with 26% and 62%
Government Ministers with 22% and 71%
Journalists with 18% and 75%
Politicians in general 18% and 76%
So politicians were not trusted to tell the truth by over 3/4 of the sample, and less than 20% actually believe that they tell the truth.
I wonder why people think this? And why when they become ministers are they regarded as slightly more honest?
(Historically, since the poll began in 1993 doctors have topped the list, although in the first year they shared top spot with teachers. The latter seem to slipped a little, but only a little.)
Just when they were not looking...
An alarming picture has risen about possible offenders who have been released on bail.
For 34 police forces in England and Wales, excluding the very large example of the Metropolitan Police, of the 462 murders committed in 2007 79 murderers were on bail at the time, or approximately 1 in 6!
In Avon and Somerset just under half of those charged with murder in 2007 were on bail for other offences, - three on police bail, three on court bail, and two on both court and police bail.
This week The Daily Telegraph reported that in February 2008 nationally 60 murder suspects were free, having been released on bail by the courts. The number of manslaughter suspects had an even higher proportion, - 35 on bail out of 41.
Police leaders are talking about a "systematic failure " in the bail process which is hampering their work, and leading to a a series of high profile murder cases which have filled our newspapers and television screens.
The cause, of course, is the pressure on courts to release on bail in order to ease the pressures in the overcrowded prison system.
In 2006 64,800 defendants suspected of violent attacks were granted bail. Of these almost one in ten , or 5,500 absconded! Mercifully, it seems that they did not engage in further violent attacks, or at least have not been discovered to have done so.
For 34 police forces in England and Wales, excluding the very large example of the Metropolitan Police, of the 462 murders committed in 2007 79 murderers were on bail at the time, or approximately 1 in 6!
In Avon and Somerset just under half of those charged with murder in 2007 were on bail for other offences, - three on police bail, three on court bail, and two on both court and police bail.
This week The Daily Telegraph reported that in February 2008 nationally 60 murder suspects were free, having been released on bail by the courts. The number of manslaughter suspects had an even higher proportion, - 35 on bail out of 41.
Police leaders are talking about a "systematic failure " in the bail process which is hampering their work, and leading to a a series of high profile murder cases which have filled our newspapers and television screens.
The cause, of course, is the pressure on courts to release on bail in order to ease the pressures in the overcrowded prison system.
In 2006 64,800 defendants suspected of violent attacks were granted bail. Of these almost one in ten , or 5,500 absconded! Mercifully, it seems that they did not engage in further violent attacks, or at least have not been discovered to have done so.
Safe in the country
Conservative researchers have been assiduously collecting data on crime in the 13 counties defined officially as "rural".
What emerges is a worrying picture, of the difference between 1998-99 and 2006-07.
1) Over the period violence against the person has jumped by 83,000 a year, or 119%. Nationally the increase is 108%, which suggests that at least some other "non-rural" counties have experienced an increase less than 108%, and significantly less than the rural counties.
2) Criminal damage in rural counties has risen by 70,00 cases a year, - a rise of 60% or double the national average increase, and even more than in at least some "non-rural" areas.
3) All recorded crimes rose by 68,000 a year, or 10%, which compares with a national average of 6%.. The difference suggests that the rural counties increase at 10% must be well above other areas which have low or even negative increases.
(In terms of burglaries the rural counties experienced the same decrease as the national average, at 30%.)
The above all suggest that the "townie" Nu-labour administration, with very few seats in rural areas, has devoted little attention to crime in rural areas. Mergers of police forces in the name of efficiency have in places denuded rural areas of manpower because of the higher profile urban pressures.
It may also suggest that policing in the towns has been more successful and criminals have moved to "softer" areas with fewer police and CCTVs.
At a time when hospital services are becoming more remote, school journeys longer through closure, post offices closing and travel costs rising rapidly, the rural areas could count themselves neglected. But then, there aren't many nu-labour votes there!
What emerges is a worrying picture, of the difference between 1998-99 and 2006-07.
1) Over the period violence against the person has jumped by 83,000 a year, or 119%. Nationally the increase is 108%, which suggests that at least some other "non-rural" counties have experienced an increase less than 108%, and significantly less than the rural counties.
2) Criminal damage in rural counties has risen by 70,00 cases a year, - a rise of 60% or double the national average increase, and even more than in at least some "non-rural" areas.
3) All recorded crimes rose by 68,000 a year, or 10%, which compares with a national average of 6%.. The difference suggests that the rural counties increase at 10% must be well above other areas which have low or even negative increases.
(In terms of burglaries the rural counties experienced the same decrease as the national average, at 30%.)
The above all suggest that the "townie" Nu-labour administration, with very few seats in rural areas, has devoted little attention to crime in rural areas. Mergers of police forces in the name of efficiency have in places denuded rural areas of manpower because of the higher profile urban pressures.
It may also suggest that policing in the towns has been more successful and criminals have moved to "softer" areas with fewer police and CCTVs.
At a time when hospital services are becoming more remote, school journeys longer through closure, post offices closing and travel costs rising rapidly, the rural areas could count themselves neglected. But then, there aren't many nu-labour votes there!
The rearguard action
Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, has launched a last minute attempt to block the publication of MPs' expense claims.
We now have the delay of an appeal to the High Court to reverse the decision by the Information Commissioner.
We also have the spectacle of MPs, or at least some, including the Speaker himself, using taxpayers' money in a legal appeal to prevent taxpayers learning details of payments made by us to people we employ. It seems that a great deal of public money, perhaps £50,000 has already been spent fighting the Commissioner's ruling. Now we are to finance perhaps twice as much more.
The sheer scale of MP claims requires some supervision. The average claim last year was £134,000 per MP, on top of his/her £60,675 salary. This is a vast sum, and must be monitored.
The timid assertion by Michael Martin in support of his case is that the publication of MPs' second home addresses is a security risk. This is nonsense. Those details could be omitted without upsetting anyone, and any would-be terrorist could easily discover them without too much difficulty.
The whole thing smacks of people who have their noses in the trough, and slightly or greatly embarrassed about it, and are desperate to cover it up. Some MPs, including Cameron and Osborne among others, are very willing to reveal what they received, but there are surely other MPs who have something to conceal.
We now have the delay of an appeal to the High Court to reverse the decision by the Information Commissioner.
We also have the spectacle of MPs, or at least some, including the Speaker himself, using taxpayers' money in a legal appeal to prevent taxpayers learning details of payments made by us to people we employ. It seems that a great deal of public money, perhaps £50,000 has already been spent fighting the Commissioner's ruling. Now we are to finance perhaps twice as much more.
The sheer scale of MP claims requires some supervision. The average claim last year was £134,000 per MP, on top of his/her £60,675 salary. This is a vast sum, and must be monitored.
The timid assertion by Michael Martin in support of his case is that the publication of MPs' second home addresses is a security risk. This is nonsense. Those details could be omitted without upsetting anyone, and any would-be terrorist could easily discover them without too much difficulty.
The whole thing smacks of people who have their noses in the trough, and slightly or greatly embarrassed about it, and are desperate to cover it up. Some MPs, including Cameron and Osborne among others, are very willing to reveal what they received, but there are surely other MPs who have something to conceal.
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
The modern contraception
It's abortion - we all know that. Instead of the "few" safe induced abortions on the NHS envisaged by the Act, we now have approaching 200,000 a year.
Recent figures calculated by the Conservatives show that in some parts of Britain more than 4% of all teenage girls have had an abortion. (In Lambeth, London 44 in every 1000 have had one, and other areas in London have figures almost almost as high). Nationally the average is 1 in every 55, or just under 2%. Some have had two or even three abortions.
In 2006 of the 193,737 legal abortions in England and Wales, no less than 17,173 involved girls under 18 years of age, or about 9% of all abortions.
Among the under 16s who were pregnant, legal termination was used in 60% of cases, while for those aged 16 and 17, the figure was 49%. (This suggests that the argument that teenagers sought pregnancy for status, or to get themselves a council house, was true only for a minority.)
Apart from any moral issues about the "unborn life", all this suggests that
1) Sex education at school and home is failing.
2) An increasing number of women will encounter problems in future pregnancies, and depression and mental health problems in the period immediately after abortion.
3) Available free contraception has not been a complete solution.
Where do we go from here?
The problems seem worse in our large cities and industrial centres, where social deprivation and family dysfunction could be at their worst and where educational provision is inadequate. Our record is one of the worst in the developed world.
There does not seem an easy solution. At best we can try to improve in all directions - family support and concern, education and contraceptive provision, but surely the most important is the family, in this area as in many others. Parents are failing, and somehow must rediscover their function to help their young establish standards.
Recent figures calculated by the Conservatives show that in some parts of Britain more than 4% of all teenage girls have had an abortion. (In Lambeth, London 44 in every 1000 have had one, and other areas in London have figures almost almost as high). Nationally the average is 1 in every 55, or just under 2%. Some have had two or even three abortions.
In 2006 of the 193,737 legal abortions in England and Wales, no less than 17,173 involved girls under 18 years of age, or about 9% of all abortions.
Among the under 16s who were pregnant, legal termination was used in 60% of cases, while for those aged 16 and 17, the figure was 49%. (This suggests that the argument that teenagers sought pregnancy for status, or to get themselves a council house, was true only for a minority.)
Apart from any moral issues about the "unborn life", all this suggests that
1) Sex education at school and home is failing.
2) An increasing number of women will encounter problems in future pregnancies, and depression and mental health problems in the period immediately after abortion.
3) Available free contraception has not been a complete solution.
Where do we go from here?
The problems seem worse in our large cities and industrial centres, where social deprivation and family dysfunction could be at their worst and where educational provision is inadequate. Our record is one of the worst in the developed world.
There does not seem an easy solution. At best we can try to improve in all directions - family support and concern, education and contraceptive provision, but surely the most important is the family, in this area as in many others. Parents are failing, and somehow must rediscover their function to help their young establish standards.
What are their motives?
Today, the NUT Conference will debate a motion banning the military from going into schools. (Do they have the power, or is this a Government or L.A. decision?)
The claim is that the military are presenting an over-glamourous view of army life. What of all other would-be recruiters? Do banks, or police or teachers show an objective "warts and all" view of life in their institutions?
So long as the military subsequently provide full and honest counselling, perhaps recruits experience a short period of army life in a summer school before signing on, what is the problem?
Military life in peace time is a very attractive one - camaraderie and team activity, sport, travel, all meals found, learning a useful trade, etc. So are the "lefties" complaining that young people will be cannon-fodder? (They may be if a Government embroils them rashly in an illegal war, and fails to supply them with the proper and adequate equipment, but this is hardly the fault of the military.)
The supporting evidence is that provided by the (lefty) Rowntree Trust research, that there is a high drop out at age 22. The drop-out could be caused by many things but 22 is the age at which the recruits reach the end of their four year contract, and would concentrate any "resignations".
Most of us would be concerned if the military told lies, but I suspect that some teachers would have ample time to redress the message.
So are the NUT ultimately ashamed of the military, ultra-pacifist, or merely weighed down by their own political ideology?
The claim is that the military are presenting an over-glamourous view of army life. What of all other would-be recruiters? Do banks, or police or teachers show an objective "warts and all" view of life in their institutions?
So long as the military subsequently provide full and honest counselling, perhaps recruits experience a short period of army life in a summer school before signing on, what is the problem?
Military life in peace time is a very attractive one - camaraderie and team activity, sport, travel, all meals found, learning a useful trade, etc. So are the "lefties" complaining that young people will be cannon-fodder? (They may be if a Government embroils them rashly in an illegal war, and fails to supply them with the proper and adequate equipment, but this is hardly the fault of the military.)
The supporting evidence is that provided by the (lefty) Rowntree Trust research, that there is a high drop out at age 22. The drop-out could be caused by many things but 22 is the age at which the recruits reach the end of their four year contract, and would concentrate any "resignations".
Most of us would be concerned if the military told lies, but I suspect that some teachers would have ample time to redress the message.
So are the NUT ultimately ashamed of the military, ultra-pacifist, or merely weighed down by their own political ideology?
Well said, Chief Constable!
It is reported that Barnard Hogan-Howe, the Chief constable of Merseyside Police, is taking issue with the authorities over sentences given to offenders found guilty of gun possession.
It seems that the Home Office guidelines include a mandatory five year sentence for those caught with a firearm.
Yet the average sentence given comes to 47 months, or just under four years.
Weasel words this morning from the Government claim that the five year sentence is only a starting point, and judges should take into account mitigating factors.
Perhaps the word "mandatory" has changed its meaning, is no longer a minimum which we had been led to believe, but is in fact a maximum. For an average of under four years, if anyone actually receives a five year year sentence, it means that others must receive well below that.
What are the mitigating circumstances in any case? Someone didn't know he was carrying a gun? Ignorance is no excuse in other areas of the law! Someone of reduced mental ability? This is generally true in much of law, but should he have been found guilty anyway?
There is a horrible suspicion that the mitigating circumstance are overcrowded prisons, and pleas from Government to judges to reduce or avoid gaol sentences. We have been made aware of some such appeals. How many more where there?
We are rapidly losing much of the deterrent value of prison by making sentences less predictable and offering the possibility of leniency. We need something a little firmer to aid in the fight against gun crime.
Well done, Chief Constable!
It seems that the Home Office guidelines include a mandatory five year sentence for those caught with a firearm.
Yet the average sentence given comes to 47 months, or just under four years.
Weasel words this morning from the Government claim that the five year sentence is only a starting point, and judges should take into account mitigating factors.
Perhaps the word "mandatory" has changed its meaning, is no longer a minimum which we had been led to believe, but is in fact a maximum. For an average of under four years, if anyone actually receives a five year year sentence, it means that others must receive well below that.
What are the mitigating circumstances in any case? Someone didn't know he was carrying a gun? Ignorance is no excuse in other areas of the law! Someone of reduced mental ability? This is generally true in much of law, but should he have been found guilty anyway?
There is a horrible suspicion that the mitigating circumstance are overcrowded prisons, and pleas from Government to judges to reduce or avoid gaol sentences. We have been made aware of some such appeals. How many more where there?
We are rapidly losing much of the deterrent value of prison by making sentences less predictable and offering the possibility of leniency. We need something a little firmer to aid in the fight against gun crime.
Well done, Chief Constable!
Better the devil you know than....
The decision by Essex County Council to take over the running of post offices was welcome for two reasons:
1) There are many scattered communities for which the presence of their local post office is vital to their life as individuals and communities.
2) The post offices will be accountable to the local communities in a fuller way than before.
Future decisions can involve local people in the decision, "Do you feel that £x per year is a worthwhile cost to maintain the post office." Other questions are, "What additional services should be offered, what opening hours, etc.?"
Ultimately more and more decisions are being made that have profound affects on our lives by people who are not accountable to us - Brussels, Whitehall, regional bodies and boards, quangos, etc. We know our situations locally better than any outsider, and we care more. If we are prepared to pay the cost, then why should we not make the decision?
Different considerations will arise on larger issues, of course, such as a by-pass or a bridge, where local finance will be too small without the return of some of the massive tax money we pay to central government. There will also be by the difficult N.I.M.B.Y. issues, such as where to site massive new housing projects, gypsy sites, airport expansion, etc.
But for the many small, and relatively less expensive projects, decisions must be made as close as possible to the people affected, and not by some distant faceless bureaucrat. Essex have struck an important blow!
1) There are many scattered communities for which the presence of their local post office is vital to their life as individuals and communities.
2) The post offices will be accountable to the local communities in a fuller way than before.
Future decisions can involve local people in the decision, "Do you feel that £x per year is a worthwhile cost to maintain the post office." Other questions are, "What additional services should be offered, what opening hours, etc.?"
Ultimately more and more decisions are being made that have profound affects on our lives by people who are not accountable to us - Brussels, Whitehall, regional bodies and boards, quangos, etc. We know our situations locally better than any outsider, and we care more. If we are prepared to pay the cost, then why should we not make the decision?
Different considerations will arise on larger issues, of course, such as a by-pass or a bridge, where local finance will be too small without the return of some of the massive tax money we pay to central government. There will also be by the difficult N.I.M.B.Y. issues, such as where to site massive new housing projects, gypsy sites, airport expansion, etc.
But for the many small, and relatively less expensive projects, decisions must be made as close as possible to the people affected, and not by some distant faceless bureaucrat. Essex have struck an important blow!
Saturday, 22 March 2008
Conway escapes prosecution
The police have announced that they will not be mounting a prosecution against Derek Conway. They feel that they cannot obtain sufficient evidence.
This is probably fair, for at least two reasons.
1) The legislation is badly drafted and inadequately supervised. Sanctions available are too few to cover various possible offences. Conway would have been perhaps the first offender to face prosecution, and there could well have been an appeal, and possible other cases emerging. To allow significant expense claims without receipts, payment on second homes, and many others, enabled many to get their nose in the trough. It was assumed that "members" are honourable, which is not always true and they certainly give every sign of exploiting the rules to increase their own personal or family wealth.
2) There are other offenders. To judge from the fairly muted condemnation of Conway when his fault was exposed, there are several other MPs who are in danger of "living in greenhouses". Some of these, to judge from accounts and rumours, could be well established and senior. The reluctance of the Speaker, and others, to reveal details, suggests that they like their "nice little earners". It would have been an injustice to have persecuted the one, and left many others free.
Conway has had severe punishment. He is something of a pariah, his party has effectively disowned him, and his time as MP seems to be limited to just two more years at most. This does not include any shame he may feel.
What should be done to improve matters in the future is less clear.
i) Should all allowances be included as salary? Some MPs are suggesting that their salary should be increased by £40,000 to £100,000, which would have the virtue of all being potentially taxable.Would this, however, take account of differences between MPs, - some have their only residence in London?
ii) Why should MPs have to own their second(near London) residence, and so gain wealth at our expense? Why not refund them their rents up to a level, or build flats for their use?
iii) Why not make all claims absolutely visible? Why should some claim £180,000 a year in all expenses while others claim little more than £50,000, even if some have to travel from remote constituencies? If it is known that a sample of (very high) claims will be investigated in detail each year, with appropriate and clear penalties laid down, this would encourage most to avoid creative accounting and misuse of funds.
iii) Prices at John Lewis shops have been used to set maxima for prices of goods for second homes. This is generous, especially as MPs are free to transfer any goods to their other home. So an MP may have up to £750 for a television set, which he could take to his family home, and use the old battered family one, if at all, in London? Why should they be able to claim a cost of living allowance while they are away, and also enjoy subsidised wine and food in Westminister? It may be cumbersome and unpleasant for MPs to know that their purchases may be questioned, but everyone else knows that the Taxman roots round everyone else to know what benefits in kind we have enjoyed.
This is probably fair, for at least two reasons.
1) The legislation is badly drafted and inadequately supervised. Sanctions available are too few to cover various possible offences. Conway would have been perhaps the first offender to face prosecution, and there could well have been an appeal, and possible other cases emerging. To allow significant expense claims without receipts, payment on second homes, and many others, enabled many to get their nose in the trough. It was assumed that "members" are honourable, which is not always true and they certainly give every sign of exploiting the rules to increase their own personal or family wealth.
2) There are other offenders. To judge from the fairly muted condemnation of Conway when his fault was exposed, there are several other MPs who are in danger of "living in greenhouses". Some of these, to judge from accounts and rumours, could be well established and senior. The reluctance of the Speaker, and others, to reveal details, suggests that they like their "nice little earners". It would have been an injustice to have persecuted the one, and left many others free.
Conway has had severe punishment. He is something of a pariah, his party has effectively disowned him, and his time as MP seems to be limited to just two more years at most. This does not include any shame he may feel.
What should be done to improve matters in the future is less clear.
i) Should all allowances be included as salary? Some MPs are suggesting that their salary should be increased by £40,000 to £100,000, which would have the virtue of all being potentially taxable.Would this, however, take account of differences between MPs, - some have their only residence in London?
ii) Why should MPs have to own their second(near London) residence, and so gain wealth at our expense? Why not refund them their rents up to a level, or build flats for their use?
iii) Why not make all claims absolutely visible? Why should some claim £180,000 a year in all expenses while others claim little more than £50,000, even if some have to travel from remote constituencies? If it is known that a sample of (very high) claims will be investigated in detail each year, with appropriate and clear penalties laid down, this would encourage most to avoid creative accounting and misuse of funds.
iii) Prices at John Lewis shops have been used to set maxima for prices of goods for second homes. This is generous, especially as MPs are free to transfer any goods to their other home. So an MP may have up to £750 for a television set, which he could take to his family home, and use the old battered family one, if at all, in London? Why should they be able to claim a cost of living allowance while they are away, and also enjoy subsidised wine and food in Westminister? It may be cumbersome and unpleasant for MPs to know that their purchases may be questioned, but everyone else knows that the Taxman roots round everyone else to know what benefits in kind we have enjoyed.
Friday, 21 March 2008
bananas and breakfast cereals.
Last week Douglas Carswell, a Conservative MP, summed up the stupidity of Westminster trying to run every school in the country by diktat, ring-fenced budgets and targets.
He commented, "If politicians ran supermarkets, there would be a waiting list for bananas and catchment areas for breakfast cereals."
We recently saw the tragic results of allocating secondary school places by lottery, - an even smaller proportion of families achieved their desired school than under the system they were trying to replace allowing parental choice
This week we had the admission by the Schools Minister, Jim Knights, to the moderate teaching union, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, that primary classes of 38 were manageable and that groups sizes of more than 70 were "perfectly acceptable" if teachers were helped by classroom aides. In fact it seems that a year or two back 6,000 secondary pupils were taught English or Mathematics in classes of more than 50, and 715 pupils in classes of more than 60.
(Given the classes of 15 or 20 in private schools, this may explain partly why these schools are more successful.)
Education Department figures show that the number of situations were class size exceeded the statutory 30 pupils for 5 t0 7 year olds, went up from 740 to 910 between 2005 and 2006 The latter figure represented 1.6% of the national total.
The Government authorised the increase to a great extent in 2007, since the number of over-large classes without Government approval actually fell from 530 to 390!
Despite the vast sums pumped into education, we have a bananas and breakfast cereal situation. In fact the OECD reckons our classes to be large by international standards, and our education was reckoned 23rd out of 29 developed nations, behind Hungary, Slovakia, Mexico and Slovenia!
What can you expect when so few members of the Government have ever worked in industry or commerce, and the percentage among political advisers could even be lower. For such a large enterprise the control is in the ideologically motivated hands of the inexperienced!
What happened to the hope of teaching tailored to the individual child?
He commented, "If politicians ran supermarkets, there would be a waiting list for bananas and catchment areas for breakfast cereals."
We recently saw the tragic results of allocating secondary school places by lottery, - an even smaller proportion of families achieved their desired school than under the system they were trying to replace allowing parental choice
This week we had the admission by the Schools Minister, Jim Knights, to the moderate teaching union, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, that primary classes of 38 were manageable and that groups sizes of more than 70 were "perfectly acceptable" if teachers were helped by classroom aides. In fact it seems that a year or two back 6,000 secondary pupils were taught English or Mathematics in classes of more than 50, and 715 pupils in classes of more than 60.
(Given the classes of 15 or 20 in private schools, this may explain partly why these schools are more successful.)
Education Department figures show that the number of situations were class size exceeded the statutory 30 pupils for 5 t0 7 year olds, went up from 740 to 910 between 2005 and 2006 The latter figure represented 1.6% of the national total.
The Government authorised the increase to a great extent in 2007, since the number of over-large classes without Government approval actually fell from 530 to 390!
Despite the vast sums pumped into education, we have a bananas and breakfast cereal situation. In fact the OECD reckons our classes to be large by international standards, and our education was reckoned 23rd out of 29 developed nations, behind Hungary, Slovakia, Mexico and Slovenia!
What can you expect when so few members of the Government have ever worked in industry or commerce, and the percentage among political advisers could even be lower. For such a large enterprise the control is in the ideologically motivated hands of the inexperienced!
What happened to the hope of teaching tailored to the individual child?
The Stealth Tax we all pay
There will be some Council elections in May, especially in London. One of the issues which will be raised is the thorny subject of the Council Tax.
What is clear, from Conservative Central Office calculations, is the following:
1) Council Tax has risen by more than double, in fact by 137%, since 1997. (Even if we are honest and admit, what G. Brown does not always, that part of the increase is merely covering inflationary cost increases, the increase allowing for inflationary elements is still 105%, or just over doubling.
2) The increases the amount by about the equivalent of a 4p increase in income tax per pound, and now raises the equivalent of about 7p in the pound. He made a great song and dance about cutting standard tax rate from 22p to 20p, although forgetting to mention abolishing the 10% band. While he was doing this he was also increasing Council Tax by about 0.5p equivalent as well.
This is the ultimate Stealth Tax, as the local council gets the blame, but make no mistake, - much of the increased spending is on functions dictated by central government.
The above figures are all averages, of course, - a handful of Conservative run authorities have achieved standstill budgets recently or even reductions, but they tend to be urban authorities.
Council Tax in the far South-West has risen by 168% since 1997, before allowing for inflation.
Labour neither understands rural areas nor cares, has few votes there and even fewer MPs
What is clear, from Conservative Central Office calculations, is the following:
1) Council Tax has risen by more than double, in fact by 137%, since 1997. (Even if we are honest and admit, what G. Brown does not always, that part of the increase is merely covering inflationary cost increases, the increase allowing for inflationary elements is still 105%, or just over doubling.
2) The increases the amount by about the equivalent of a 4p increase in income tax per pound, and now raises the equivalent of about 7p in the pound. He made a great song and dance about cutting standard tax rate from 22p to 20p, although forgetting to mention abolishing the 10% band. While he was doing this he was also increasing Council Tax by about 0.5p equivalent as well.
This is the ultimate Stealth Tax, as the local council gets the blame, but make no mistake, - much of the increased spending is on functions dictated by central government.
The above figures are all averages, of course, - a handful of Conservative run authorities have achieved standstill budgets recently or even reductions, but they tend to be urban authorities.
Council Tax in the far South-West has risen by 168% since 1997, before allowing for inflation.
Labour neither understands rural areas nor cares, has few votes there and even fewer MPs
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Brown's black period
Open Europe on their blog today have published the findings of careful research on the progress of starling as a currency.
They have effectively demolished one of Gordon Brown's taunts at David Cameron. At the time of Black Wednesday (16th September 1992) Cameron was a minor part of a Treasury team. Brown has regularly retrospectively promoted Cameron to the leader of the team in charge when the value of sterling fell rapidly.
The blog deals with the problem that in 1992 Sterling had a declared value against the Deutschmark, while in 2007-08 it is reckoned in terms of the Euro.
The findings:
1) On Black Wednesday the value of sterling fell by 12%, and by 5th October by 14%.
Since Brown became Prime Minister sterling has fallen in value by 14%
2) Brown could claim that nine months after Black Wednesday, in March 1993, the pound reached its nadir - a fall of of 16% since Black Wednesday. However, after 12 months it was only 10% down.
If sterling continues for a twelve month period under Brown at the present fairly constant rate, the loss of value could well be 18% or even 20%
3) Sterling is plunging - yesterday it was the only currency to fall against the dollar, itself weakening against the Euro
The fact that sterling continues as an independent currency means that Britain is able to take advantage of its relatively weak valuation. This should give a boost to exports at a time when other countries are struggling. Those struggling most of all will be those who joined the Euro and who have domestic inflationary pressures.
Gordon Brown, for reasons not entirely clear, held back from joining the Euro. This gives us a chance to set our own interest rates and to allow sterling to float against other currencies.
However, there are fears that the new treaty/constitution may drag us squealing into the Euro.
They have effectively demolished one of Gordon Brown's taunts at David Cameron. At the time of Black Wednesday (16th September 1992) Cameron was a minor part of a Treasury team. Brown has regularly retrospectively promoted Cameron to the leader of the team in charge when the value of sterling fell rapidly.
The blog deals with the problem that in 1992 Sterling had a declared value against the Deutschmark, while in 2007-08 it is reckoned in terms of the Euro.
The findings:
1) On Black Wednesday the value of sterling fell by 12%, and by 5th October by 14%.
Since Brown became Prime Minister sterling has fallen in value by 14%
2) Brown could claim that nine months after Black Wednesday, in March 1993, the pound reached its nadir - a fall of of 16% since Black Wednesday. However, after 12 months it was only 10% down.
If sterling continues for a twelve month period under Brown at the present fairly constant rate, the loss of value could well be 18% or even 20%
3) Sterling is plunging - yesterday it was the only currency to fall against the dollar, itself weakening against the Euro
The fact that sterling continues as an independent currency means that Britain is able to take advantage of its relatively weak valuation. This should give a boost to exports at a time when other countries are struggling. Those struggling most of all will be those who joined the Euro and who have domestic inflationary pressures.
Gordon Brown, for reasons not entirely clear, held back from joining the Euro. This gives us a chance to set our own interest rates and to allow sterling to float against other currencies.
However, there are fears that the new treaty/constitution may drag us squealing into the Euro.
Monday, 17 March 2008
The battle in education
Last Saturday the Daily Mail gave a picture of the breakdown in discipline in our schools. It was a frightening picture, and may help to explain some of the decline in Education in this country.
The N.A.S.U.W.T. Union has drawn up a blacklist of 32 of the country's worst behaved pupils. These pupils, the youngest of whom was only 5, regularly threatened staff and other pupils with violence, and carried knives and other weapons with which to do hurt.
The General Secretary of the union had had words for school governors, whom she accused of not supporting head teachers as they insisted on reinstating the trouble-makers after just a few days suspension. Others have levelled similar criticisms at independent appeals panels.
In all 32 cases the staff had balloted members over whether they should refuse to teach the pupils concerned. Where they had agreed to boycott the pupils, the local authority usually transfered the students to another school or to a special unit.
Apart from the climate of fear and the disruption caused, the general order and academic progress of the majority of well-behaved pupils are constantly hindered. The Conservatives are surely right to say that when they achieve power they will not let the rights of the troublesome minority constantly triumph over the rights of the majority. Rather the trouble makers will be removed for specialised and intensive treatment to help them to overcome their problems and begin to make academic progress.
The N.A.S.U.W.T. Union has drawn up a blacklist of 32 of the country's worst behaved pupils. These pupils, the youngest of whom was only 5, regularly threatened staff and other pupils with violence, and carried knives and other weapons with which to do hurt.
The General Secretary of the union had had words for school governors, whom she accused of not supporting head teachers as they insisted on reinstating the trouble-makers after just a few days suspension. Others have levelled similar criticisms at independent appeals panels.
In all 32 cases the staff had balloted members over whether they should refuse to teach the pupils concerned. Where they had agreed to boycott the pupils, the local authority usually transfered the students to another school or to a special unit.
Apart from the climate of fear and the disruption caused, the general order and academic progress of the majority of well-behaved pupils are constantly hindered. The Conservatives are surely right to say that when they achieve power they will not let the rights of the troublesome minority constantly triumph over the rights of the majority. Rather the trouble makers will be removed for specialised and intensive treatment to help them to overcome their problems and begin to make academic progress.
Porkies and half truths 3
Despite claims that the British Government is leading the rest of the world, if not the universe, in its reduction of greenhouse gases, - a frequently claimed achievement, according to the National Audit Office the true picture is rather different.
It seems that the Government omits British gas emissions from aviation(!), shipping, business operations abroad and holiday-making. The figure is thus kept artificially (dishonestly?) low.
The difference may be seen in the figures quoted by the Government of 656 million tons in 2005, whereas the Audit Office calculates the true figure as 733 million tons. On this basis the Government's claim to have reduced the figure in 1990 by 6.4% is abolished, - the true result is an increase since 1990 of a similar proportion!
If you start using whatever suits you, ignoring anything inconvenient, then statistical comparisons lose their validity completely. The Government does have available the figure on the full basis collected by the Office for National Statistics", but chooses not to use it.
I wonder why?
It seems that the Government omits British gas emissions from aviation(!), shipping, business operations abroad and holiday-making. The figure is thus kept artificially (dishonestly?) low.
The difference may be seen in the figures quoted by the Government of 656 million tons in 2005, whereas the Audit Office calculates the true figure as 733 million tons. On this basis the Government's claim to have reduced the figure in 1990 by 6.4% is abolished, - the true result is an increase since 1990 of a similar proportion!
If you start using whatever suits you, ignoring anything inconvenient, then statistical comparisons lose their validity completely. The Government does have available the figure on the full basis collected by the Office for National Statistics", but chooses not to use it.
I wonder why?
What a comparison
Over the last few months it has become clear again how little our armed forces are valued.
A civil servant in the MOD, who suffered back strain after lifting a printer, has been awarded just over £200,000 , admittedly not as much as the typist who received double that from repetitive strain injury through typing.
But listen to Phil Cooper, whose son Jamie lost an arm and a leg from a mortar bomb attack in 2006, and who received just £57,587 in compensation. Phil commenting on his 18 year old son's dreadful injuries, pointed out that the situation is bordering on the comical when men can risk life and limb for their country in war and then suffer dreadful injuries, but who then receive far less than a civil servant does in straining his back through lifting a printer.
Speak to the army chiefs and they clearly feel it too. Speak to the MOD and they will take the usual way out, "It's all laid down, it's objective". They are thinking of soldier's injuries, of course.
So why are not things laid down for civil servants as well. How much would you estimate as compensation for a strained back, £20,000 at most? Certainly nothing like £200,000. Or should military compensations go through the same tribunals as typists and computer lifters?
At this rate we run the risk of having no army worth the name!
A civil servant in the MOD, who suffered back strain after lifting a printer, has been awarded just over £200,000 , admittedly not as much as the typist who received double that from repetitive strain injury through typing.
But listen to Phil Cooper, whose son Jamie lost an arm and a leg from a mortar bomb attack in 2006, and who received just £57,587 in compensation. Phil commenting on his 18 year old son's dreadful injuries, pointed out that the situation is bordering on the comical when men can risk life and limb for their country in war and then suffer dreadful injuries, but who then receive far less than a civil servant does in straining his back through lifting a printer.
Speak to the army chiefs and they clearly feel it too. Speak to the MOD and they will take the usual way out, "It's all laid down, it's objective". They are thinking of soldier's injuries, of course.
So why are not things laid down for civil servants as well. How much would you estimate as compensation for a strained back, £20,000 at most? Certainly nothing like £200,000. Or should military compensations go through the same tribunals as typists and computer lifters?
At this rate we run the risk of having no army worth the name!
Thursday, 13 March 2008
A view on the Darling Budget
The first conclusion is that it was not really Darling's budget. The burdens placed on the poor were from Gordon Brown last year. He abolished the 10% band, and reduced the standard rate of tax to 20%, with a great fanfare.
We knew that most of us would gain slightly, but those with an income of about £17,000 or less would lose. It now appears that that people just into the tax bracket, will pay more tax and also lose benefit. The number of people with an effective marginal rate of tax of about 70% will be rising from about 600,000 to almost 2 million. Their marginal rate will be higher than that for millionaires! Is this a budget by the Labour Party?
Otherwise it was a budget to displease many groups - greens, drinkers, smokers, drivers, for example. Some will have some sort of compensation, such as winter fuel allowance small increase.
So if you are 80, and a non-smoker, non-drinker, don't drive and are not bothered about the environment, you may feel slightly pleased, despite yet another above inflation hike in council tax, and rapidly rising fuel prices. Perhaps you would need to have a good income as well!
As David Cameron said, above all this budget will do little to ameliorate the economic slowdown we face. The damage for all this was done by G Brown in spending as if there were no tomorrow.
We knew that most of us would gain slightly, but those with an income of about £17,000 or less would lose. It now appears that that people just into the tax bracket, will pay more tax and also lose benefit. The number of people with an effective marginal rate of tax of about 70% will be rising from about 600,000 to almost 2 million. Their marginal rate will be higher than that for millionaires! Is this a budget by the Labour Party?
Otherwise it was a budget to displease many groups - greens, drinkers, smokers, drivers, for example. Some will have some sort of compensation, such as winter fuel allowance small increase.
So if you are 80, and a non-smoker, non-drinker, don't drive and are not bothered about the environment, you may feel slightly pleased, despite yet another above inflation hike in council tax, and rapidly rising fuel prices. Perhaps you would need to have a good income as well!
As David Cameron said, above all this budget will do little to ameliorate the economic slowdown we face. The damage for all this was done by G Brown in spending as if there were no tomorrow.
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Food laid on..
It seems that immediate action will be taken to make MPs allowances more transparent. For instance, they must produce receipts for all expenses over £25, - a considerable reduction from the previous figures.
One thing, at least is not mentioned now and will be dealt with "later". (Long grass comes to mind).This is the tax free food allowance, given because the darlings are working away from home.
There are two questions:
1) Why is this one group of workers treated differently, or are they, in not having to declare for tax purposes a benefit in kind? Of course they have to buy food in London, which is more expensive than if they lived and worked in Little Piddling in the Marsh. But then again, in Little Piddling there would be no vast wine cellars or subsidised meals.
The attachment "tax free" is of concern. Why are they treated as a special case? At their income levels they ought to be paying tax at 40%, so this is a considerable perk.
2) Why are these figures, at least for a time, not to be revealed? We are their employers. Are there any private sector employers who would be so in ignorance and so tolerant about this generosity
One thing, at least is not mentioned now and will be dealt with "later". (Long grass comes to mind).This is the tax free food allowance, given because the darlings are working away from home.
There are two questions:
1) Why is this one group of workers treated differently, or are they, in not having to declare for tax purposes a benefit in kind? Of course they have to buy food in London, which is more expensive than if they lived and worked in Little Piddling in the Marsh. But then again, in Little Piddling there would be no vast wine cellars or subsidised meals.
The attachment "tax free" is of concern. Why are they treated as a special case? At their income levels they ought to be paying tax at 40%, so this is a considerable perk.
2) Why are these figures, at least for a time, not to be revealed? We are their employers. Are there any private sector employers who would be so in ignorance and so tolerant about this generosity
Monday, 10 March 2008
Charities and Politics
Things are happening in the world of charities, to achieve political ends.
1) On the one hand, we have been aware for some some months, that private schools if they wish to continue with charitable status must serve some political ends, - the promotion of equality. In future their activities will be scrutinised to make sure that they they achieve Government ends, namely that they admit some children from poorer families who could not afford to attend otherwise. We had something like this during the years of the Conservatives, called the Assisted Places Scheme, but having abolished a good scheme New Labour must put something in its place.
It's no good pointing out to the egalitarians that with school fees now upwards of £20,000 a year for the best schools, for every child they admit the schools can claim up to £5,000 from income tax paid by the parents. Coincidentally, the amount is not far from the annual cost of educating a child, so the parents are creating a place for a state pupil valued at about the tax refund level.
No, the stupidity is that although the best/most desired schools will survive, some in the "second division" will struggle and go under as they will not be able to raise fees sufficiently to cover the costs of subsidising state education further by admitting students from poor families.
The end result could be parents struggling even more to send their children to a traditional education of which they approve, with some schools closing and having to be educated by the state? Who gains, except dogmatic smugness?
2) At the same time, the Government is about to allow charities to engage in political activity, so long as these activities are not their principal activity. So we shall have further state subsidised political activity. As we are already bombarded by such activity, subsidised by government at various levels, what is new, except the increase in volume?
Both changes are important intrusions into activity in the private sector by the Government. It will be interesting to see how politicised the Registrar for Charities and his staff become. Will some kinds of political activity be acceptable, while other sorts will not meet the dogmatic requirements? I fear that the all-intrusive state is intruding still further.
1) On the one hand, we have been aware for some some months, that private schools if they wish to continue with charitable status must serve some political ends, - the promotion of equality. In future their activities will be scrutinised to make sure that they they achieve Government ends, namely that they admit some children from poorer families who could not afford to attend otherwise. We had something like this during the years of the Conservatives, called the Assisted Places Scheme, but having abolished a good scheme New Labour must put something in its place.
It's no good pointing out to the egalitarians that with school fees now upwards of £20,000 a year for the best schools, for every child they admit the schools can claim up to £5,000 from income tax paid by the parents. Coincidentally, the amount is not far from the annual cost of educating a child, so the parents are creating a place for a state pupil valued at about the tax refund level.
No, the stupidity is that although the best/most desired schools will survive, some in the "second division" will struggle and go under as they will not be able to raise fees sufficiently to cover the costs of subsidising state education further by admitting students from poor families.
The end result could be parents struggling even more to send their children to a traditional education of which they approve, with some schools closing and having to be educated by the state? Who gains, except dogmatic smugness?
2) At the same time, the Government is about to allow charities to engage in political activity, so long as these activities are not their principal activity. So we shall have further state subsidised political activity. As we are already bombarded by such activity, subsidised by government at various levels, what is new, except the increase in volume?
Both changes are important intrusions into activity in the private sector by the Government. It will be interesting to see how politicised the Registrar for Charities and his staff become. Will some kinds of political activity be acceptable, while other sorts will not meet the dogmatic requirements? I fear that the all-intrusive state is intruding still further.
Unless your spare garden is enormous....
" Having received a copy of the reason for planning refusal on 25 Upper Bar it has become evident to me that never again will planning permission be granted in Newport for an individual property development, be it a new build or a simple conversion. This has nothing to do with either Telford & Wrekin Borough Council or its Plans board who are only the vehicle being used by the Labour Government to squeeze out the private individual yet again. Obviously the 35% low cost ruling cannot be considered applicable where a single development is concerned.
Mr Browns government don't agree, there motto is 'if it don't fit our bill you don't build it,' of course they are very happy for you to sell your apparently worthless building plot to a get rich quick developer for a knock down price who knows he will have no problem getting planning permission to build two,large single floor flats with a pigeon loft in the roof space called the third storey so meeting the 35% low-cost criteria while at the same time making a fortune out of your worthless plot.
The Government ruling makes no exception and states that all new developments be it single or a multiple, a new build or a conversion must meet the new development criteria of 35% low cost housing in Newport as laid out in his Labour Governments LDF documents. How stupid is that? Only Labour could dream up such a stupid rule But then they are stupid aren't they.
Foot note. I just hope Mr Brown of Newport Civic Soc owns a single building plot Oh but of course I had forgotten he agrees that restrictions should be put on housing development in Newport!"
From Councillor Meredith
From Councillor Meredith
Friday, 7 March 2008
Can it be true?
Guido Fawkes, in his blog yesterday, claimed inside information to the effect that the MPs' wine cellars at Westminster are to be refitted at a cost of £7 million. We can only misquote Churchill, "Some cellar, some racks!"
Could this be for gentlemen who are abusing allowances, in spirit if not in law, having voted themselves very generous pension arrangements and who enjoy generous international travel to sporting events at our expense?
We may not want to join with Guido in his humourous conclusion, that the best thing to put in cellars is gunpowder..., but we have to ask what else is at our expense in that very generous Gentleman's club?
Could this be for gentlemen who are abusing allowances, in spirit if not in law, having voted themselves very generous pension arrangements and who enjoy generous international travel to sporting events at our expense?
We may not want to join with Guido in his humourous conclusion, that the best thing to put in cellars is gunpowder..., but we have to ask what else is at our expense in that very generous Gentleman's club?
The Prison Service - needs a stir
Two items of news this week on the prison service may show some of the problems and also possible solutions.
It seems that by a vote of 85% the Prison Offices Association has rejected a Government pay increase offer of 2.2%, a figure which most other groups perhaps reluctantly have accepted. The leadership of the POA even described the offer as "disgraceful".
In a posting on the Coffee House Blog yesterday, James Forsyth points out that Prison Officers in the Public sector receive 39% more than their counterpart officers in the private sector. When the value of their occupational pension is included the advantage rises to 61%.
The POA has traditionally been aggressive in bargaining, using its position to obtain leverage, and thus significant advantages for members. With such a cost differential, it could be that privatising the prison service could reduce this power, and also permit other reforms.
The second news item was of the Conservatives this week unveiling plans for prisons and sentencing, although privatisation was not among the proposals.
Apart from the excellent suggestion of selling off valuable sites at present occupied by Victorian prisons, and using the proceeds to build even more prison places to replace them where land is cheaper, in the process removing prisons from some residential areas, there were a raft of other policy suggestions.
An emphasis on rehabilitation. All public sector prisons, except the eight high security establishments , would be separated and put under an independent fee-earning Prison and Rehabilitation Trust. Individual prisons would be paid by results, with bonuses if offenders are not reconvicted within two years.
Savings from reduced reconviction rates would be ploughed back into the rehabilitation programme, and any funds generated by a prisoner's work could go towards reparation to vitims.
Sentencing would be clearer. Upon conviction the prisoner would be informed of the maximum and minimum length of confinement. Prison Governors would decide when they would be released between those dates, depending on prisoner conduct. A failure to engage fully in rehabilitation or to stay off drugs would mean a stay nearer or at the maximum. There would thus be an incentive for prisoners to earn early release through good behaviour, hard work and also reparation to victims.
Tougher community sentences. While working in the community there would be a uniform, and non-attendance would lead to loss of benefits.
The response of New Labour was predictable and confused, -"There is nothing new. They are following what we are doing. Things are not costed."
On the other hand Frances Crook, director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, welcomed the proposals positively and linked it with small scale work the League was doing.
What is clear is that there are not enough prison places, and prisoners are being let out early for that reason, and frequently re-offending. In addition some prisoners are sharing small cells, while others spend time in police cells. David Cameron complained that, "A prisoner goes to court - they are told they have got a four year sentence and they are let out after two, so everybody feels cheated." At times in the recent past prisoners have even been confined to their cells for 23 hours in a day.
The system needs a stir, and this sounds a good way to start.
It seems that by a vote of 85% the Prison Offices Association has rejected a Government pay increase offer of 2.2%, a figure which most other groups perhaps reluctantly have accepted. The leadership of the POA even described the offer as "disgraceful".
In a posting on the Coffee House Blog yesterday, James Forsyth points out that Prison Officers in the Public sector receive 39% more than their counterpart officers in the private sector. When the value of their occupational pension is included the advantage rises to 61%.
The POA has traditionally been aggressive in bargaining, using its position to obtain leverage, and thus significant advantages for members. With such a cost differential, it could be that privatising the prison service could reduce this power, and also permit other reforms.
The second news item was of the Conservatives this week unveiling plans for prisons and sentencing, although privatisation was not among the proposals.
Apart from the excellent suggestion of selling off valuable sites at present occupied by Victorian prisons, and using the proceeds to build even more prison places to replace them where land is cheaper, in the process removing prisons from some residential areas, there were a raft of other policy suggestions.
An emphasis on rehabilitation. All public sector prisons, except the eight high security establishments , would be separated and put under an independent fee-earning Prison and Rehabilitation Trust. Individual prisons would be paid by results, with bonuses if offenders are not reconvicted within two years.
Savings from reduced reconviction rates would be ploughed back into the rehabilitation programme, and any funds generated by a prisoner's work could go towards reparation to vitims.
Sentencing would be clearer. Upon conviction the prisoner would be informed of the maximum and minimum length of confinement. Prison Governors would decide when they would be released between those dates, depending on prisoner conduct. A failure to engage fully in rehabilitation or to stay off drugs would mean a stay nearer or at the maximum. There would thus be an incentive for prisoners to earn early release through good behaviour, hard work and also reparation to victims.
Tougher community sentences. While working in the community there would be a uniform, and non-attendance would lead to loss of benefits.
The response of New Labour was predictable and confused, -"There is nothing new. They are following what we are doing. Things are not costed."
On the other hand Frances Crook, director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, welcomed the proposals positively and linked it with small scale work the League was doing.
What is clear is that there are not enough prison places, and prisoners are being let out early for that reason, and frequently re-offending. In addition some prisoners are sharing small cells, while others spend time in police cells. David Cameron complained that, "A prisoner goes to court - they are told they have got a four year sentence and they are let out after two, so everybody feels cheated." At times in the recent past prisoners have even been confined to their cells for 23 hours in a day.
The system needs a stir, and this sounds a good way to start.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Where has the money gone?
I write as one who has had recent experience of the hospital part of the NHS, full of appreciation for staff working very hard, with kindness and cheerfulness.
The NHS was constructed hurriedly 60 years ago, in the conditions prevailing then - population size, medical technology, age of population, etc. A difficulty is that the structure is regularly tinkered with, but the basic structure has not changed with conditions.
The results are easy to see. Vast amounts of money have been spent over recent years, and yet problems remain, and some cases have worsened.
We leave aside the question of hospital acquired serious diseases which are killing more people than road accidents each year. The service is making little impact on the problem.
The Government's much vaunted claim that waiting lists are being reduced is misleading. They have thrown money at waiting lists, and 18 month waits for operations such as hip replacement are a thing of the past. However, since 1997 the average waiting time has increased from 41 days to 49 days. This is even true for serious conditions such as cancer.
The Office for National Statistics reveals that productivity is declining, at about 2% a year on average over the past five years. One aspect of this is that GPs, despite their enormous increases in salaries are actually seeing fewer patients each week, - in the early 1990s they saw over 120, and the figure is now under 90.
Dr. Le Fanu, writing in the Sunday Telegraph recently estimated that if GPs spent on average 7 minutes on each patient consultation, on four days a week, then each is seeing patients for about two hours a day. Unless his estimate of consultation length is out by a factor of three, which seems unlikely, it is difficult to see how the whole morning is occupied. Even if he spends his afternoons in specialist work such as maternity clinics, and in sick visiting, it seems likely that much of his time is spent in administration and in (government) form filling.
There is no denying that more money is being spent on the NHS. Where some has gone may be seen from the number of NHS (local) managers. Their number grew by over 70% between 1996 and 2006, at the time while clinical staff grew by merely 30%. From 200 to 2005 the number of administrative staff in the NHS grew by 40,000. All these have to be paid, some well paid by any standard.
The NHS is a large organisation, one of the largest employers in Europe. This year expectations are that the total NHS spending will reach £105 billion, a threefold increase since 1997 and one of the largest items on the Government's budget. The problem is that it is still being run like a corner shop, with all the decisions coming from one source. Any private business with the same turnover will increasingly have become decentralised for efficiency and to be in touch with its various markets.
The NHS is still being run bureaucratically from London, with duplication there of what is happening locally, and under instructions and policies run from Downing Street.
If we are ever to have a health service that is fit for the 21st century, then it too must be decentralised and sensitive to local needs. Otherwise demoralisation and waste and also declining productivity are likely to continue.
The NHS was constructed hurriedly 60 years ago, in the conditions prevailing then - population size, medical technology, age of population, etc. A difficulty is that the structure is regularly tinkered with, but the basic structure has not changed with conditions.
The results are easy to see. Vast amounts of money have been spent over recent years, and yet problems remain, and some cases have worsened.
We leave aside the question of hospital acquired serious diseases which are killing more people than road accidents each year. The service is making little impact on the problem.
The Government's much vaunted claim that waiting lists are being reduced is misleading. They have thrown money at waiting lists, and 18 month waits for operations such as hip replacement are a thing of the past. However, since 1997 the average waiting time has increased from 41 days to 49 days. This is even true for serious conditions such as cancer.
The Office for National Statistics reveals that productivity is declining, at about 2% a year on average over the past five years. One aspect of this is that GPs, despite their enormous increases in salaries are actually seeing fewer patients each week, - in the early 1990s they saw over 120, and the figure is now under 90.
Dr. Le Fanu, writing in the Sunday Telegraph recently estimated that if GPs spent on average 7 minutes on each patient consultation, on four days a week, then each is seeing patients for about two hours a day. Unless his estimate of consultation length is out by a factor of three, which seems unlikely, it is difficult to see how the whole morning is occupied. Even if he spends his afternoons in specialist work such as maternity clinics, and in sick visiting, it seems likely that much of his time is spent in administration and in (government) form filling.
There is no denying that more money is being spent on the NHS. Where some has gone may be seen from the number of NHS (local) managers. Their number grew by over 70% between 1996 and 2006, at the time while clinical staff grew by merely 30%. From 200 to 2005 the number of administrative staff in the NHS grew by 40,000. All these have to be paid, some well paid by any standard.
The NHS is a large organisation, one of the largest employers in Europe. This year expectations are that the total NHS spending will reach £105 billion, a threefold increase since 1997 and one of the largest items on the Government's budget. The problem is that it is still being run like a corner shop, with all the decisions coming from one source. Any private business with the same turnover will increasingly have become decentralised for efficiency and to be in touch with its various markets.
The NHS is still being run bureaucratically from London, with duplication there of what is happening locally, and under instructions and policies run from Downing Street.
If we are ever to have a health service that is fit for the 21st century, then it too must be decentralised and sensitive to local needs. Otherwise demoralisation and waste and also declining productivity are likely to continue.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Another cost of immigration
New Labour regularly have to admit that they have lost immigrants, or that there are more here than they expected.
Less often are they prepared to admit that there is a cost to the lack of a strong policy. The numbers are so large, however, that they have to acknowledge that strains on placed on housing, education and health in particular by the large "invasion".
Recently, using the Freedom of Information Act, Conservatives managed to prise out something of the language costs. We are used to the large sums spent by local authorities in printing in many languages, or in having translators available for interviews, but the police are also spending large sums on translators.
The Conservatives approached all 43 police forces in England and Wales, and received replies from 37.
Collectively the 37 spent £24 million in 2006-07, which means £2740 for every hour for every day in the year. These figures represent an increase of over 64% on the previous year. The problem is not getting better!
The detail given by the forces varied, but Gwent, which had an increase of 250% on 2005-06, gave some breakdown. They spent ££6,900 on Vietnamese languages, £6,850 on Arabic and £4,350 on Urdu translation. Their increase was large, but there were faster increases, - police translation costs in Durham rose by 293% between the two years, and in Cumbria by as much as 386%.
There are a number of issues here:
The £24000 spending could have provided for another 200 police officers, which would have had some impact, even they spend most of their time doing paperwork!
The expenditure could have been largely avoided if immigration had been smaller, or the Government had required a minimum proficiency in English.
The Government has proposed an "entry tax" on immigrants to cover public service costs, but as usual it would be underfunded, since the £15 million would not even cover the police translations costs alone!
We are familiar with the costs of New Labour incompetence. This one, from failing to control immigration, is just one of a long line.
Less often are they prepared to admit that there is a cost to the lack of a strong policy. The numbers are so large, however, that they have to acknowledge that strains on placed on housing, education and health in particular by the large "invasion".
Recently, using the Freedom of Information Act, Conservatives managed to prise out something of the language costs. We are used to the large sums spent by local authorities in printing in many languages, or in having translators available for interviews, but the police are also spending large sums on translators.
The Conservatives approached all 43 police forces in England and Wales, and received replies from 37.
Collectively the 37 spent £24 million in 2006-07, which means £2740 for every hour for every day in the year. These figures represent an increase of over 64% on the previous year. The problem is not getting better!
The detail given by the forces varied, but Gwent, which had an increase of 250% on 2005-06, gave some breakdown. They spent ££6,900 on Vietnamese languages, £6,850 on Arabic and £4,350 on Urdu translation. Their increase was large, but there were faster increases, - police translation costs in Durham rose by 293% between the two years, and in Cumbria by as much as 386%.
There are a number of issues here:
The £24000 spending could have provided for another 200 police officers, which would have had some impact, even they spend most of their time doing paperwork!
The expenditure could have been largely avoided if immigration had been smaller, or the Government had required a minimum proficiency in English.
The Government has proposed an "entry tax" on immigrants to cover public service costs, but as usual it would be underfunded, since the £15 million would not even cover the police translations costs alone!
We are familiar with the costs of New Labour incompetence. This one, from failing to control immigration, is just one of a long line.
Monday, 3 March 2008
Can you ever believe anything he says?
G.Brown spoke of providing British jobs for British workers. He knew that this was not in his power to influence in large measure, as we had to allow an unlimited number of EU workers to come. (In the case of the new accession countries we could have delayed the full flood for a time.)
So how has he done otherwise?
Today's Daily Telegraph makes difficult reading for him. The analysis it reports is that although he is right to report 1.7 million new jobs since 1997, 1.5 million have gone to non-British citizens, or about 88%. So he can claim about 300,000 jobs for British workers.
The report suggests, however, that the number of British people in work is now lower than it was when New Labour started their nightmare. At the same time the number of foreign born workers has nearly doubled over the period.
Perhaps worst of all is the finding that although Britain has lost 1.3million jobs in manufacturing since 1997, the number of foreign born workers employed in manufacturing has actually risen by 113,000. The number of British workers in manufacturing has declined by 1.4 million, then.
If these figures are correct, and they are based on official statistics, then G.Brown told yet another of his porkies in the autumn when it was announced that 54% of the new jobs had gone to foreigners. This figure was in itself a revision and recalculation on figures which were universally condemned. It seems that the true figure is nearly 90%
So how has he done otherwise?
Today's Daily Telegraph makes difficult reading for him. The analysis it reports is that although he is right to report 1.7 million new jobs since 1997, 1.5 million have gone to non-British citizens, or about 88%. So he can claim about 300,000 jobs for British workers.
The report suggests, however, that the number of British people in work is now lower than it was when New Labour started their nightmare. At the same time the number of foreign born workers has nearly doubled over the period.
Perhaps worst of all is the finding that although Britain has lost 1.3million jobs in manufacturing since 1997, the number of foreign born workers employed in manufacturing has actually risen by 113,000. The number of British workers in manufacturing has declined by 1.4 million, then.
If these figures are correct, and they are based on official statistics, then G.Brown told yet another of his porkies in the autumn when it was announced that 54% of the new jobs had gone to foreigners. This figure was in itself a revision and recalculation on figures which were universally condemned. It seems that the true figure is nearly 90%
Don't tell any potential illegal immigrant!
The Sunday Times announced it on Sunday last, so it is not an April 1st joke, although the unbelievable will start on April 1st.
Officers of the new Border and immigration Agency (BIA) have been told that from April 1st, only a minimum number of staff should be on duty at week-ends, in order to answer essential calls. Efforts to track down and apprehend those who should not be here will be suspended for two days.
All this is to save costs. Staff are paid extra to work at week-ends, so to make the savings of £80m to £100m demanded by the Treasury it may make a certain financial sense....
John Tincey is vice president of the Immigration Service Union which represents 4,000 immigration staff. His view is that the arrangement will make Saturdays and Sundays in effect an "open season" for offenders.
It should be pointed out that this does not affect the manning of immigration desks at ports and air-ports, which is done by a separate division of the BIA. What it does mean is that efforts to track down foreign criminals for deportation will be suspended, and asylum seekers or others who have managed to by-pass port controls will be free from attention, over the week-end.
In how many cases will a search go cold over the week-end, meaning a new start and time wasted, or suspects move their location?
Does the government really want to have secure borders as they claim? Their record on immigrants has been shown to be poor on a regular basis. This will certainly not improve their reputation.
Officers of the new Border and immigration Agency (BIA) have been told that from April 1st, only a minimum number of staff should be on duty at week-ends, in order to answer essential calls. Efforts to track down and apprehend those who should not be here will be suspended for two days.
All this is to save costs. Staff are paid extra to work at week-ends, so to make the savings of £80m to £100m demanded by the Treasury it may make a certain financial sense....
John Tincey is vice president of the Immigration Service Union which represents 4,000 immigration staff. His view is that the arrangement will make Saturdays and Sundays in effect an "open season" for offenders.
It should be pointed out that this does not affect the manning of immigration desks at ports and air-ports, which is done by a separate division of the BIA. What it does mean is that efforts to track down foreign criminals for deportation will be suspended, and asylum seekers or others who have managed to by-pass port controls will be free from attention, over the week-end.
In how many cases will a search go cold over the week-end, meaning a new start and time wasted, or suspects move their location?
Does the government really want to have secure borders as they claim? Their record on immigrants has been shown to be poor on a regular basis. This will certainly not improve their reputation.
Saturday, 1 March 2008
The lure of control
Why is it that politicians on the left have an instinctive tendency to want to control? Here's a problem, - control the people!, ban the activity, pass new restrictive laws, lay down conditions for compliance, set up commissions to oversee, etc.
Is it that their ideology, with a blueprint for a perfect society, requires constant impositions to push things in that direction? The rest of us may be more tolerant of the liberties of others, and feel that the market system is the best reconciler of millions of different needs and desires, but those on the left, having no such mechanism or belief in freedom in the same way, feel constrained ever to try to build their self-imposed model?
Or is it their fear that things may go to the dogs if they do not assert their control on every occasion? To misquote the poet, "Always keep a hold on nurse, for fear of having something worse." "If you do it they'll all want to do it, and some can't, so...."
Or is it a smug self-assurance that they know best, and those who elect them, having swallowed their whole manifesto, don't have enough intelligence to understand or manage for themselves?
Is it that their ideology, with a blueprint for a perfect society, requires constant impositions to push things in that direction? The rest of us may be more tolerant of the liberties of others, and feel that the market system is the best reconciler of millions of different needs and desires, but those on the left, having no such mechanism or belief in freedom in the same way, feel constrained ever to try to build their self-imposed model?
Or is it their fear that things may go to the dogs if they do not assert their control on every occasion? To misquote the poet, "Always keep a hold on nurse, for fear of having something worse." "If you do it they'll all want to do it, and some can't, so...."
Or is it a smug self-assurance that they know best, and those who elect them, having swallowed their whole manifesto, don't have enough intelligence to understand or manage for themselves?
Our achievements
The Government and G.Brown in particular are always ready to trot out a litany of claimed successes of the last eleven years of New Labour. The recitation is beginning to sound a little hollow, as if they themselves have stopped believing it as well now.
This week two significant dents to their achievements were revealed.
1) Nearly 10 people every day are dying from the superbug "Clostridium Difficile". In 2006 6,480 death certificates mentioned the bug, compared with 3,757 in 2005, a rise of 75%. This was the result of the Government telling doctors in 2005 to record the health-service-acquired infections on death certificates. Why were doctors reticent before?
It is a worrying statistic. We, especially the elderly and sick, are now more likely to die from a hospital acquired bug than from a road accident.
2) The quality of education in primary schools has worsened under New Labour, despite massive sums poured into it. Is there any surprise that there are also problems at the secondary level when so many young people reach secondary school with an inadequate facility in numbers or language?
This week the Prime Minister has been getting tough with supermarkets, over the number of plastic bags they issue. Dare I suggest that his priorities are misplaced. With a failing education system and people dying in thousands from infections acquired in hospital, surely he should be making greater efforts in these directions?
On the other hand, his meddling may have made the problems worse already?
This week two significant dents to their achievements were revealed.
1) Nearly 10 people every day are dying from the superbug "Clostridium Difficile". In 2006 6,480 death certificates mentioned the bug, compared with 3,757 in 2005, a rise of 75%. This was the result of the Government telling doctors in 2005 to record the health-service-acquired infections on death certificates. Why were doctors reticent before?
It is a worrying statistic. We, especially the elderly and sick, are now more likely to die from a hospital acquired bug than from a road accident.
2) The quality of education in primary schools has worsened under New Labour, despite massive sums poured into it. Is there any surprise that there are also problems at the secondary level when so many young people reach secondary school with an inadequate facility in numbers or language?
This week the Prime Minister has been getting tough with supermarkets, over the number of plastic bags they issue. Dare I suggest that his priorities are misplaced. With a failing education system and people dying in thousands from infections acquired in hospital, surely he should be making greater efforts in these directions?
On the other hand, his meddling may have made the problems worse already?
That's the way the money goes ..Number 2
This week the National Audit Office, which reports on efficiency and financing of Government departments and thereby throws a welcome light on what Government would like to conceal, reported on the effect of the new salary agreement with doctors.
It is everything we had been led to believe.
1) Government negotiators concluded a deal which ended up costing £1.76 billion more than they expected over the first two years of operation.
2) Productivity has fallen by an average of 2.5% per year, and doctors are working on average seven hours less per week than before.
(It has to be said that the number of consultations with doctors has increased slightly.)
The measure of increase in GP pay is revealed in the Audit Commission statistic that an average GP partner in 2005-06 received £113,614, a rise of 58% since 2002-03. The increase reflects the fact that the partners have taken some of the "profit" accruing to the practice. The pay of GPs who are not practice partners has not increased by anywhere near as much.
This is not written in criticism of doctors, - nearly all of us would accept generous pay settlements offered by the Government. But it is a savage criticism of ministers and of the Government as a whole. The failure to estimate the massive crease in costs indicates either carelessness or naivety.
It is everything we had been led to believe.
1) Government negotiators concluded a deal which ended up costing £1.76 billion more than they expected over the first two years of operation.
2) Productivity has fallen by an average of 2.5% per year, and doctors are working on average seven hours less per week than before.
(It has to be said that the number of consultations with doctors has increased slightly.)
The measure of increase in GP pay is revealed in the Audit Commission statistic that an average GP partner in 2005-06 received £113,614, a rise of 58% since 2002-03. The increase reflects the fact that the partners have taken some of the "profit" accruing to the practice. The pay of GPs who are not practice partners has not increased by anywhere near as much.
This is not written in criticism of doctors, - nearly all of us would accept generous pay settlements offered by the Government. But it is a savage criticism of ministers and of the Government as a whole. The failure to estimate the massive crease in costs indicates either carelessness or naivety.
That's the way the money goes... number 1
This week the Taxpayers Alliance published their discovery that a major part of the council taxes we pay goes not on services but on salaries and pensions of council workers.
One pound in every five paid in council taxes goes on providing pensions for council staff, a rise of 13% on the previous tax year. On average councils spend £10 million a year on pensions. Nationally the figure is £4.6 billion.
Why is this so high?
In part it is because councils have been encouraging early retirement by "buying in" contributions of employees.
In part it is because councils have created a large number of highly paid middle management posts, some with exotic titles. The result is that one pound in every eleven spent by the council is on these salaries. These, and those for all employees, lead to final salary pensions, - something which is disappearing from private firms because they are so expensive and long lived. These pensions are largely unfunded, that is that the pensions are met out of council taxes. Like the old age pension, current taxpayers pay for those who have retired.
There are two sources of concern here:
1) Partly because central government has added duties to councils without financing them entirely, and the money is often ring-fenced, council taxes must face the burden of salary and pension increases. This is at a time when council taxes are assuming the proportion of 10% of income after after income tax, and with very high fuel costs are beginning to cripple families on modest incomes.
2) This is a time bomb waiting for future trouble, if the economy turns down, with council taxes high, plus green taxes, and energy costs high, then more citizens could find themselves destitute.
One pound in every five paid in council taxes goes on providing pensions for council staff, a rise of 13% on the previous tax year. On average councils spend £10 million a year on pensions. Nationally the figure is £4.6 billion.
Why is this so high?
In part it is because councils have been encouraging early retirement by "buying in" contributions of employees.
In part it is because councils have created a large number of highly paid middle management posts, some with exotic titles. The result is that one pound in every eleven spent by the council is on these salaries. These, and those for all employees, lead to final salary pensions, - something which is disappearing from private firms because they are so expensive and long lived. These pensions are largely unfunded, that is that the pensions are met out of council taxes. Like the old age pension, current taxpayers pay for those who have retired.
There are two sources of concern here:
1) Partly because central government has added duties to councils without financing them entirely, and the money is often ring-fenced, council taxes must face the burden of salary and pension increases. This is at a time when council taxes are assuming the proportion of 10% of income after after income tax, and with very high fuel costs are beginning to cripple families on modest incomes.
2) This is a time bomb waiting for future trouble, if the economy turns down, with council taxes high, plus green taxes, and energy costs high, then more citizens could find themselves destitute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
