An I becoming a little paranoid, but all week we have had a large succession on Toady and NATO of Nulabour figures extolling the achievements (- they seem to believe them but the wording is so similar as to suggest the learning of words and phrases) of the last 11 years, or praising the latest great act of Bottler, "this morning Gordon Brown gave the cat a saucer of milk".
Is there no news, or are they so concerned about Nulabour melt down, that they resort to this? Last Sunday Andrew Marr interviewed both Alan Johnson and John Prescott, seated together on the couch.
I would respectfully suggest to the Brown Broadcasting Company that I am puzzled as to why they are working for the return of their Government but suggest that their so obvious attempts are likely to be counterproductive - "if things are so bad, then let's kick them out".
Friday, 30 May 2008
The police and us
A recent report published by the Civitas think-tank explains, much of the frustration and loss of confidence we feel in the police. In 2006-07 there were almost 30,000 complaints about the police, a record since records began 17 years ago. These cover neglect in duty and failure to respond, but they also cover things like rudeness and insensitivity.
It seems that because of the target-driven culture, where each officer is expected to achieve a certain number of "sanction detections" per month, by charging, cautioning of fining an offender, all sorts of distortions are now appearing.
Officers go for easy targets, for motorists, law abiding householders, or even children. So for instance, children chalking a pavement are reprimanded.
They give a low priority for crimes which will involve a great deal of time for a conviction. So responses to crimes like burglary are sluggish, and statements about serious crimes may not be followed up for months. Given that one of our complaints is that they spend too much time on unavoidable, that is government-required, paperwork, it is understandable that there is delay on some on some areas of detection.
Relative importance of types of crime is being blurred - a child stealing a chocolate bar is a statistic like someone committing a murder. Minor motoring offences become likewise elevated into serious offences, because of their contributions to statistics.
Anyone convicted bears a criminal record, which will stop entry to countries like America, and damage career prospects at home. We are apparently having talks with America to persuade them to disregard very low level "crimes", but why are they crimes and why are so many people convicted of them?
Is the situation remediable? Yes, but only if the top-down target culture is removed, which should reduce the distortion and the waste of resources in paperwork. The easiest way to achieve this must surely be to make policing more local, rather than from some remote regional centre. Why not make police accountable by making the chief responsible to voters by the need to be re-elected very three years? Local needs and preferences would be a matter of prime importance, and performance failures would be punished.
It seems that because of the target-driven culture, where each officer is expected to achieve a certain number of "sanction detections" per month, by charging, cautioning of fining an offender, all sorts of distortions are now appearing.
Officers go for easy targets, for motorists, law abiding householders, or even children. So for instance, children chalking a pavement are reprimanded.
They give a low priority for crimes which will involve a great deal of time for a conviction. So responses to crimes like burglary are sluggish, and statements about serious crimes may not be followed up for months. Given that one of our complaints is that they spend too much time on unavoidable, that is government-required, paperwork, it is understandable that there is delay on some on some areas of detection.
Relative importance of types of crime is being blurred - a child stealing a chocolate bar is a statistic like someone committing a murder. Minor motoring offences become likewise elevated into serious offences, because of their contributions to statistics.
Anyone convicted bears a criminal record, which will stop entry to countries like America, and damage career prospects at home. We are apparently having talks with America to persuade them to disregard very low level "crimes", but why are they crimes and why are so many people convicted of them?
Is the situation remediable? Yes, but only if the top-down target culture is removed, which should reduce the distortion and the waste of resources in paperwork. The easiest way to achieve this must surely be to make policing more local, rather than from some remote regional centre. Why not make police accountable by making the chief responsible to voters by the need to be re-elected very three years? Local needs and preferences would be a matter of prime importance, and performance failures would be punished.
The superficial and the profound
At the time when the Government announces yet another initiative, this time costing £3 million, to discourage young people from carrying knives, another approach is being quietly developed in London.
This approach, taken on board by the Mayor of London, tries to deal with the root cause of the problem. The man who is leading the way, Ray Lewis, has been appointed Deputy Mayor for Youth. There are other Black figures who are developing groups on similar lines, including Shaun Bailey, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Hammersmith.
Mr. Lewis, from experience in America, is determined to try to develop what he found in there. He believes in the old fashioned idea of the importance of the family, of masculine role models and respect. The ultimate aim is to encourage young black men to have self respect, self belief and high ambitions. He is trying to turn his young men from traditional over-reliance on benefits, and there is a strong element of discipline and self discipline, missing because of the nature of their upbringing.
Already his "graduates" have begun to carve out careers in areas which most people would have thought closed to them. It must be said that while it may be only one way to repair the damage caused by family breakdown, as identified by Ian Duncan Smith, it is a very promising approach. Ian and other senior Conservative figures are very much involved in what Ray Lewis is doing.
The approach represents a much more promising approach than the traditional "throw the book at them" approach and also the approach of the Government with more and more attacks on teenagers who are already committed to the gun and knife culture. It will take time to make impact on more than the relatively few who come under Ray's influence, but it surely a more thorough and positive way that any other yet produced.
We wish the Deputy Mayor well in his new responsibility, and we hope that he and his colleagues will be able to extend what is done to more and more areas of London.
This approach, taken on board by the Mayor of London, tries to deal with the root cause of the problem. The man who is leading the way, Ray Lewis, has been appointed Deputy Mayor for Youth. There are other Black figures who are developing groups on similar lines, including Shaun Bailey, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Hammersmith.
Mr. Lewis, from experience in America, is determined to try to develop what he found in there. He believes in the old fashioned idea of the importance of the family, of masculine role models and respect. The ultimate aim is to encourage young black men to have self respect, self belief and high ambitions. He is trying to turn his young men from traditional over-reliance on benefits, and there is a strong element of discipline and self discipline, missing because of the nature of their upbringing.
Already his "graduates" have begun to carve out careers in areas which most people would have thought closed to them. It must be said that while it may be only one way to repair the damage caused by family breakdown, as identified by Ian Duncan Smith, it is a very promising approach. Ian and other senior Conservative figures are very much involved in what Ray Lewis is doing.
The approach represents a much more promising approach than the traditional "throw the book at them" approach and also the approach of the Government with more and more attacks on teenagers who are already committed to the gun and knife culture. It will take time to make impact on more than the relatively few who come under Ray's influence, but it surely a more thorough and positive way that any other yet produced.
We wish the Deputy Mayor well in his new responsibility, and we hope that he and his colleagues will be able to extend what is done to more and more areas of London.
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Elections US and EU styles
We have been variously interested, perplexed, puzzled or sickened by the circus in America. Bob Hope once described a presidential election in his day as the "evil of two lessers", and we know what he meant. "Are these the best that the largest democracy in the world can offer to produce its head of state?" The ethos is strange to us, some of the goings repugnant. One thing you can say, however, is that it is done in the open, with every citizen having a chance to cast his or her vote.
What is happening in Europe in finding its leaders is rather different. We would not have known that there is a process ongoing, if experts had not told us. It is going on behind closed doors or over business lunches, and we the citizens have no vote, mainly because whoever is chosen will not make much difference as all candidates subscribe to the "project". In due course, through some communique, we shall be informed who our leaders are.
The offices at stake are
1) President of the Council, the new post set up by the Lisbon "not a constitution". "The election"is a power struggle of vested Government interests, with Britain, France and Germany able to throw much weight about.
2) President of the European Commission - at present Manuel Barroso. The (re)election will be in November. Again, there is no popular vote, merely Government bargaining.
3) President of the European Parliament - at present Hans-Gert Poettering. The next office holder seems to have been decided already, by political considerations within the Parliamentary groups, but has yet to be revealed.
4) EU "foreign minister", called "High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", to conceal the fact that Brussels wishes to take over external affairs from member states.
Behind the scenes, affected by the ambitions of powerful men and women, especially commissioners and prime ministers, and by protracted discussions and bargaining in "smoke filled rooms", the next office holders are to be determined.
Which would you prefer - the open, democratic, US system with all its faults, or the secret, furtive horse trading of relatively few influential people, and with no input from the 450 million inhabitants of EU member countries?
What is happening in Europe in finding its leaders is rather different. We would not have known that there is a process ongoing, if experts had not told us. It is going on behind closed doors or over business lunches, and we the citizens have no vote, mainly because whoever is chosen will not make much difference as all candidates subscribe to the "project". In due course, through some communique, we shall be informed who our leaders are.
The offices at stake are
1) President of the Council, the new post set up by the Lisbon "not a constitution". "The election"is a power struggle of vested Government interests, with Britain, France and Germany able to throw much weight about.
2) President of the European Commission - at present Manuel Barroso. The (re)election will be in November. Again, there is no popular vote, merely Government bargaining.
3) President of the European Parliament - at present Hans-Gert Poettering. The next office holder seems to have been decided already, by political considerations within the Parliamentary groups, but has yet to be revealed.
4) EU "foreign minister", called "High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", to conceal the fact that Brussels wishes to take over external affairs from member states.
Behind the scenes, affected by the ambitions of powerful men and women, especially commissioners and prime ministers, and by protracted discussions and bargaining in "smoke filled rooms", the next office holders are to be determined.
Which would you prefer - the open, democratic, US system with all its faults, or the secret, furtive horse trading of relatively few influential people, and with no input from the 450 million inhabitants of EU member countries?
A Bonanza!
The Financial Times yesterday answered a question we have all been thinking about. The Chancellor would have difficulty in foregoing his extra 2p on a litre of petrol, because the Government's finances are in such a mess, but won't he get more as the pre-tax oil price rises, and tax is at least in part a percentage?
The F.T. published calculations by Maurice Fitzpatrick, senior tax manager at the Grant Thornton accounting firm. Tax revenues from North Sea Oil would rise from about £10 billion, set when the price of oil was $84 a barrel, to about £16 billion with the current price of $128 a barrel. In fact even since the budget in March the Treasury has already gained extra revenue of £820 million.
So the £6 billion extra revenue would easily cover the cost of u-turns on both delaying the implementation of the 2p on duty and also foregoing the new bands on vehicle licence to punish those who bought larger cars in the past. Specifically delaying the 2p on duty for six months would cost £550 million, scrapping the increase in vehicle licence would cost £465 million next year and £753 million the following year. So there would be scope to reduce still other taxes as well!
This is to ignore the point that the taxes are "green", i.e. encouraging less use of so-called global warming fuels.
Will the Government admit their "bonanza", if oil prices stay high? I doubt it. This is something of another stealth tax, except that people are noticing it.
The F.T. published calculations by Maurice Fitzpatrick, senior tax manager at the Grant Thornton accounting firm. Tax revenues from North Sea Oil would rise from about £10 billion, set when the price of oil was $84 a barrel, to about £16 billion with the current price of $128 a barrel. In fact even since the budget in March the Treasury has already gained extra revenue of £820 million.
So the £6 billion extra revenue would easily cover the cost of u-turns on both delaying the implementation of the 2p on duty and also foregoing the new bands on vehicle licence to punish those who bought larger cars in the past. Specifically delaying the 2p on duty for six months would cost £550 million, scrapping the increase in vehicle licence would cost £465 million next year and £753 million the following year. So there would be scope to reduce still other taxes as well!
This is to ignore the point that the taxes are "green", i.e. encouraging less use of so-called global warming fuels.
Will the Government admit their "bonanza", if oil prices stay high? I doubt it. This is something of another stealth tax, except that people are noticing it.
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
No wonder they spent £100,000 of our money....
On Saturday The Times gave prominence to the news that under the parliamentary allowances scheme a husband and wife couple of Labour MPs insured each other for large sums with monthly premiums of £867. The claim was duly allowed by the expenses Department. The Times Blogger, Sam Coates, asked in his Red Box blog the same day, "..whatever you think of the behaviour of MPs, what on earth possessed the expenses department to authorise these payments. It beggars belief."
Elsewhere we learn of another such couple, or perhaps the same, living in London and representing London constituencies, claiming for further accommodation within Westminister because an hour's travel was too much.
Richard Littlejohn, in his column in the Daily Mail, reports on those destitute people, Tony and Cherie Blair, who at one point decided that their constituency house was their second home and obtained a 200% mortgage on it, when they were living in a house with a value which had appreciated from the relatively small amount they paid originally.
None of this is illegal. All MPs are entitled to claim up to £23,083 annually as a second home allowance. Many use it almost all to pay towards the mortgage on an (necessarily) expensive dwelling in London. This is on top of the £61,820 they receive in salary, much higher if they hold ministry appointments, generous travel payments, a pension of one fortieth of final salary for each year as MP, and a resettlement grant of 100% of final salary, the first £30,000 untaxed.
Now the MPs are suggesting that that the £23,000 should be added to their salary, no questions asked. They have been found out, and from Dereck Conway onwards a number of creative ways have come to light of benefitting themselves or their families at our expense.
The solution to all this must wait until July, when MPs are due to vote on a report of the Speaker's committee on the matter.
The present system is not acceptable. Over a twenty year period an MP could go some way towards acquiring a second home as an asset paid in some measure by the taxpayer, and the various near-fiddles are evidence that they have been over-generous and under-careful in using public funds.
Incorporating the allowance into salary is not satisfactory. It takes no account of the fact that some MPs, from Scottish or Northern constituencies actually do incur greater expenditure in travel than those who live in London or the Home Counties, who arguably do not need a second home or additional living allowances. This is reflected in the claims at the moment, where some MPs do not claim the full £23,000. They would be having a straight salary increase. In the present circumstances, with many people struggling because of higher taxes and prices, it would be hard for MPs to have salary increase of over 30%, and intolerable if this added to the future level of unfunded pension demands.
Whatever is decided must counter the suspicion that MPs, in charge of settling their own levels of remuneration and compensation, do and will act like pigs with a nose in the trough, - people following their own ambitions and careers unmindful of the burden they are imposing on electors who are struggling.
Whatever happens there must be a transparency and frugality which shames the arrangements enjoyed by MEPs, where disgraceful and dishonest claims are encouraged.
Elsewhere we learn of another such couple, or perhaps the same, living in London and representing London constituencies, claiming for further accommodation within Westminister because an hour's travel was too much.
Richard Littlejohn, in his column in the Daily Mail, reports on those destitute people, Tony and Cherie Blair, who at one point decided that their constituency house was their second home and obtained a 200% mortgage on it, when they were living in a house with a value which had appreciated from the relatively small amount they paid originally.
None of this is illegal. All MPs are entitled to claim up to £23,083 annually as a second home allowance. Many use it almost all to pay towards the mortgage on an (necessarily) expensive dwelling in London. This is on top of the £61,820 they receive in salary, much higher if they hold ministry appointments, generous travel payments, a pension of one fortieth of final salary for each year as MP, and a resettlement grant of 100% of final salary, the first £30,000 untaxed.
Now the MPs are suggesting that that the £23,000 should be added to their salary, no questions asked. They have been found out, and from Dereck Conway onwards a number of creative ways have come to light of benefitting themselves or their families at our expense.
The solution to all this must wait until July, when MPs are due to vote on a report of the Speaker's committee on the matter.
The present system is not acceptable. Over a twenty year period an MP could go some way towards acquiring a second home as an asset paid in some measure by the taxpayer, and the various near-fiddles are evidence that they have been over-generous and under-careful in using public funds.
Incorporating the allowance into salary is not satisfactory. It takes no account of the fact that some MPs, from Scottish or Northern constituencies actually do incur greater expenditure in travel than those who live in London or the Home Counties, who arguably do not need a second home or additional living allowances. This is reflected in the claims at the moment, where some MPs do not claim the full £23,000. They would be having a straight salary increase. In the present circumstances, with many people struggling because of higher taxes and prices, it would be hard for MPs to have salary increase of over 30%, and intolerable if this added to the future level of unfunded pension demands.
Whatever is decided must counter the suspicion that MPs, in charge of settling their own levels of remuneration and compensation, do and will act like pigs with a nose in the trough, - people following their own ambitions and careers unmindful of the burden they are imposing on electors who are struggling.
Whatever happens there must be a transparency and frugality which shames the arrangements enjoyed by MEPs, where disgraceful and dishonest claims are encouraged.
Monday, 26 May 2008
He/they want it both ways
Labour MPs, until recently at least, tended to suggest that Gordon Brown was the greatest chancellor since.. (insert your own date or name).
One reason was the long years of steady growth, all due to Gordon. Wrong! He was left a very sound economy by the Tories - there had already been twenty odd quarters of unbroken growth and inflation was under control. He then pursued Tory spending plans for a further two years, and actually succeeded in reducing Government debt.
What followed next was the splurge and rapidly rising taxes to finance it. It was a risk, and what saved him was a very benign outside world. For several years our inflation was held in check by the ever lower prices 0f Chinese and other goods which reached our shores and a general boom in the world economy. It was also boosted by the large influx of middle European labour. He used these factors to promote a high level or demand and employment by encouraging people to buy on credit and eventually by Government expenditure financed increasingly by debt also.
Then, when the good times worldwide came to an end, when interest rates began to rise and energy prices also, his pack of cards began to collapse. All countries were affected but the UK more than most because of the level of debt which commentators had been pointing to for several years.
"I produced steady growth, and the present troubles are all world problems and nothing to do with me". He is trying to have it both ways. His apparent success was solely due to him, with no external causes, but the present difficulties have nothing to do with him, rather they are all externally caused. McCavity was present when things were good, but nowhere to be seen when things turned less pleasant.
For him to offer to see us through the choppy water, or worse, in which we are, has a certain justice, in that he did not prepare for the problems and made us less able to withstand them. However, when Prudence changed her name to Prodigality she rather disqualified herself from the great expertise and judgement she claimed to have.
One reason was the long years of steady growth, all due to Gordon. Wrong! He was left a very sound economy by the Tories - there had already been twenty odd quarters of unbroken growth and inflation was under control. He then pursued Tory spending plans for a further two years, and actually succeeded in reducing Government debt.
What followed next was the splurge and rapidly rising taxes to finance it. It was a risk, and what saved him was a very benign outside world. For several years our inflation was held in check by the ever lower prices 0f Chinese and other goods which reached our shores and a general boom in the world economy. It was also boosted by the large influx of middle European labour. He used these factors to promote a high level or demand and employment by encouraging people to buy on credit and eventually by Government expenditure financed increasingly by debt also.
Then, when the good times worldwide came to an end, when interest rates began to rise and energy prices also, his pack of cards began to collapse. All countries were affected but the UK more than most because of the level of debt which commentators had been pointing to for several years.
"I produced steady growth, and the present troubles are all world problems and nothing to do with me". He is trying to have it both ways. His apparent success was solely due to him, with no external causes, but the present difficulties have nothing to do with him, rather they are all externally caused. McCavity was present when things were good, but nowhere to be seen when things turned less pleasant.
For him to offer to see us through the choppy water, or worse, in which we are, has a certain justice, in that he did not prepare for the problems and made us less able to withstand them. However, when Prudence changed her name to Prodigality she rather disqualified herself from the great expertise and judgement she claimed to have.
Saturday, 24 May 2008
No short term fix
Cutting taxes is a main pre-occupation, - for voters and for politicians.
But there is little that Cameron & Co can do on this immediately, even if they were in power.
There are enormous savings that could be made - see yesterday's blog about quangos, and look at the recent publication by David Craig, - "Squandered", and there is much fat which could be removed without reducing the quality of public services. The services of over-paid consultants costing many millions of pounds a year, many reviews when Brown is in a fix, junketing around the world and hordes of spin doctors are areas where enormous savings could be made.
These savings will take time, however, and will not help before the General Election. There really is no silver bullet. Brown partially but not entirely revised his "10p cut" by paying for one year by borrowing. But the Public Finances are in such a shocking state that massive extra borrowing is not a solution. By very creative accounting he avoided Government new debt as a percentage of CDP breaching his 40% limit. In reality he has, of course, and we have the largest fiscal deficit in Europe.
What about reducing prices? There is no solution here either, if he were to subsidise this would have to be by borrowing still more or by raising some tax. He could cut taxes on fuel and oil, but how would he make good the loss of revenue except by borrowing?
He cannot, Canute-like, forcibly reduce international prices. These are set by world demand and supply. His suggestion that he will ask international organisations to act cuts little ice. Nor could he cut Council Taxes as they grow because of all the functions he has heaped upon councils.
He is being at his usual deceitfulness when after Crew and Nantwich he promised to review how he could cut taxes, reduce prices or ease the burden on the lower paid. He knows, Cameron & Co know and we know that there is no easy fix, or it would have been produced long since.
But there is little that Cameron & Co can do on this immediately, even if they were in power.
There are enormous savings that could be made - see yesterday's blog about quangos, and look at the recent publication by David Craig, - "Squandered", and there is much fat which could be removed without reducing the quality of public services. The services of over-paid consultants costing many millions of pounds a year, many reviews when Brown is in a fix, junketing around the world and hordes of spin doctors are areas where enormous savings could be made.
These savings will take time, however, and will not help before the General Election. There really is no silver bullet. Brown partially but not entirely revised his "10p cut" by paying for one year by borrowing. But the Public Finances are in such a shocking state that massive extra borrowing is not a solution. By very creative accounting he avoided Government new debt as a percentage of CDP breaching his 40% limit. In reality he has, of course, and we have the largest fiscal deficit in Europe.
What about reducing prices? There is no solution here either, if he were to subsidise this would have to be by borrowing still more or by raising some tax. He could cut taxes on fuel and oil, but how would he make good the loss of revenue except by borrowing?
He cannot, Canute-like, forcibly reduce international prices. These are set by world demand and supply. His suggestion that he will ask international organisations to act cuts little ice. Nor could he cut Council Taxes as they grow because of all the functions he has heaped upon councils.
He is being at his usual deceitfulness when after Crew and Nantwich he promised to review how he could cut taxes, reduce prices or ease the burden on the lower paid. He knows, Cameron & Co know and we know that there is no easy fix, or it would have been produced long since.
Friday, 23 May 2008
Big business
Despite Gordon Brown's 1995 call for a "bonfire of quangos", these "creatures" continue to grow, and now collectively are one of Central Government's largest avenues of expenditure and employment.
It seems, according to figures calculated by the Taxpayers Alliance - necessary because the Cabinet office significantly stopped publishing the figure last year, that there are now 1,162 of such bodies, with 700,000 staff. They cost Government £101 billion, or us about £2,550 per household.
The proliferation is of great concern:
- many of their responsibilities overlap, producing wasteful duplication and the need to liaise, and they cut across local authority functions.
- they conceal from the public and even from Government what is happening. In some cases they are becoming almost regional government,- something rejected by the electorate.
- they are unaccountable and yet exercise great power over the lives of ordinary citizens. Their sizes vary, from the Job Centre Plus with 70,000 staff and costing £3.5 billion a year, to many with staff numbers in single figures, but they penetrate many areas of daily life.
They may be answerable to ministers, who set their policies and monitor them as far as possible, but the sheer number means that many do not have much scrutiny, and collectively they spend vast sums of taxpayers money.
It seems, according to figures calculated by the Taxpayers Alliance - necessary because the Cabinet office significantly stopped publishing the figure last year, that there are now 1,162 of such bodies, with 700,000 staff. They cost Government £101 billion, or us about £2,550 per household.
The proliferation is of great concern:
- many of their responsibilities overlap, producing wasteful duplication and the need to liaise, and they cut across local authority functions.
- they conceal from the public and even from Government what is happening. In some cases they are becoming almost regional government,- something rejected by the electorate.
- they are unaccountable and yet exercise great power over the lives of ordinary citizens. Their sizes vary, from the Job Centre Plus with 70,000 staff and costing £3.5 billion a year, to many with staff numbers in single figures, but they penetrate many areas of daily life.
They may be answerable to ministers, who set their policies and monitor them as far as possible, but the sheer number means that many do not have much scrutiny, and collectively they spend vast sums of taxpayers money.
Brave New World
In the last week we have had further evidence of "rights" triumph over rights.
In Parliament this week the rights of single people, homosexual and lesbian couples have taken precedence over the rights of children under their care. The nature of the domestic arrangements of heads of families is a matter for the people concerned. Fatherhood was effectively written out for some in the embryology votes this week, and the nurture of children the sole concern of the parent(s).
(This is at odds with a social services tradition which intervenes not only where children are in danger, but also where carers are deemed to be unsuitable because of minor misdemeanours, their religious or other convictions, or the colour of their skin. It also stands at odds with a Government which increasingly acts like "Nanny".)
Harriet Harman, interviewed recently claimed that there is no ideal type of household in which to bring up children, and that marriage has little relevance in public policy. She wants to give more, if not equal rights to all couples, married or not, with fathers as "optional extras" or as distant finance providers to save the state money.
As in the case of abortion, argued on the basis of rights of the mother, the rights of the child seem to be largely overlooked. There is a strong case for advocating marriage for the good of the child. Every serious study, here and elsewhere, has confirmed what societies have found over the centuries, that children need the security of two parents and both role models. Children from single and "alternative" couplings achieve less and tend to get into more trouble.
This is not the raving of a reactionary bigot. Nor is it a criticism of single parents caring heroically for their children. It is a reflection that the fading Liberal-left oligarchy has taken us into dangerous waters with its advocacy of self expression and rights (over others).
Above all it is reminder that there should be no rights given which do not also impose responsibilities.
From all the evidence which continues to accrue, the future generation will be best served if the rights of the child are protected, rather than ignored, that parents of a child accept their full responsibility and not try to slough it off to the state or evade because it suits their life style.
In Parliament this week the rights of single people, homosexual and lesbian couples have taken precedence over the rights of children under their care. The nature of the domestic arrangements of heads of families is a matter for the people concerned. Fatherhood was effectively written out for some in the embryology votes this week, and the nurture of children the sole concern of the parent(s).
(This is at odds with a social services tradition which intervenes not only where children are in danger, but also where carers are deemed to be unsuitable because of minor misdemeanours, their religious or other convictions, or the colour of their skin. It also stands at odds with a Government which increasingly acts like "Nanny".)
Harriet Harman, interviewed recently claimed that there is no ideal type of household in which to bring up children, and that marriage has little relevance in public policy. She wants to give more, if not equal rights to all couples, married or not, with fathers as "optional extras" or as distant finance providers to save the state money.
As in the case of abortion, argued on the basis of rights of the mother, the rights of the child seem to be largely overlooked. There is a strong case for advocating marriage for the good of the child. Every serious study, here and elsewhere, has confirmed what societies have found over the centuries, that children need the security of two parents and both role models. Children from single and "alternative" couplings achieve less and tend to get into more trouble.
This is not the raving of a reactionary bigot. Nor is it a criticism of single parents caring heroically for their children. It is a reflection that the fading Liberal-left oligarchy has taken us into dangerous waters with its advocacy of self expression and rights (over others).
Above all it is reminder that there should be no rights given which do not also impose responsibilities.
From all the evidence which continues to accrue, the future generation will be best served if the rights of the child are protected, rather than ignored, that parents of a child accept their full responsibility and not try to slough it off to the state or evade because it suits their life style.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Trendonomics
When I taught in higher education 20 years ago there was already the watering down of rigour in A-level subjects. New, trendy subjects were added with less conceptual content, - knitting, catering, golf course maintenance, fishing, - at least one of these is actually now available as a degree course. We saw it in the trendy A level subjects becoming available, and we saw it in new degree subjects - we called them all "trendonomics".
According to the Daily Mail yesterday, universities are beginning to say, "Enough!" They are warning students that they run the risk of rejection if they take too many of the "soft" subjects. One in ten "A" level exams sat is in a subject which the top universities regard as an inadequate preparation for a egree course.
Schools wishing to increase the numbers going to university, and students concerned that they are not among the brightest or are unwilling to work hard, means that progressively more students are pushed towards these soft subjects.
The sixteen subjects seen to be the least valuable in terms of preparation for top university courses are:
Accounting and Finance
Art and Design
Business Studies
Communication Studies
Design and Technology
Drama
Media/Film/Television Studies
Health and Social care
Home Economics
ICT
Law
Leisure and Recreation
Performing Arts
Physical Education
Travel and Tourism
General Studies
Some are included on the list because they have a breadth rather than a depth of study, while some have some, but not enough, academic content.
Many people are concerned at the dumbing down of education at all levels, and at achievement which means that internationally we do not compare well. The dumbing down at "A" level in some cases has led to a devaluation of degree education, which puts our graduates at a disadvantage in international labour markets.
In part the cause could well be the Government's aim to send 50% of all school leavers to university. This may be laudable, but 50% are not capable of studying on traditional degree courses. The fallacy is to assume that all should achieve the same. Students are being short-changed. Many of them would be better served by studying at a slightly lower level and with vocational emphasis, - the old HNC, -part time, and HND - full time recognised this.
According to the Daily Mail yesterday, universities are beginning to say, "Enough!" They are warning students that they run the risk of rejection if they take too many of the "soft" subjects. One in ten "A" level exams sat is in a subject which the top universities regard as an inadequate preparation for a egree course.
Schools wishing to increase the numbers going to university, and students concerned that they are not among the brightest or are unwilling to work hard, means that progressively more students are pushed towards these soft subjects.
The sixteen subjects seen to be the least valuable in terms of preparation for top university courses are:
Accounting and Finance
Art and Design
Business Studies
Communication Studies
Design and Technology
Drama
Media/Film/Television Studies
Health and Social care
Home Economics
ICT
Law
Leisure and Recreation
Performing Arts
Physical Education
Travel and Tourism
General Studies
Some are included on the list because they have a breadth rather than a depth of study, while some have some, but not enough, academic content.
Many people are concerned at the dumbing down of education at all levels, and at achievement which means that internationally we do not compare well. The dumbing down at "A" level in some cases has led to a devaluation of degree education, which puts our graduates at a disadvantage in international labour markets.
In part the cause could well be the Government's aim to send 50% of all school leavers to university. This may be laudable, but 50% are not capable of studying on traditional degree courses. The fallacy is to assume that all should achieve the same. Students are being short-changed. Many of them would be better served by studying at a slightly lower level and with vocational emphasis, - the old HNC, -part time, and HND - full time recognised this.
Inflation makes balloons bigger and chocolate bars smaller
Leaving inflation aside, let us look at the short-changing on tax and government expenditure.
We are all aware of taxes we are paying, - on buying houses, paying for council services, on energy and a whole host of other things provided by central government.
What is less clear is the reduction in some services, like inflation making chocolate bars smaller. The list is very long, so mention only a few.
We have lower paid and less qualified classroom attendants and police support officers.
We have armed forces denied the equipment needed to fight the wars we became involved in.
We have seen reductions on local council services - fortnightly bin collection now in many councils, massive library closures, road and pavement surfaces which are a disgrace, swimming pools which are said to be uneconomic have closed, and so on. We now pay more towards the free medicine we thought we had paid for in our national insurance contributions, and NHS dentistry which requires contributions as high as those in private practice, except in Scotland we are having to make large contributionstowards old-age care. We now pay to park at hospitals, because they need the money, and we shall travel further.
They tell us that everything is better, education (-do you believe them, as we slip rapidly down the international league tables?) and health waiting times, and there is er,......
It's not just the extra taxes we pay to fund the vast bureaucracies, it's also the attenuation of services. Inflation makes prices higher, but sometimes it can make services smaller.
We are all aware of taxes we are paying, - on buying houses, paying for council services, on energy and a whole host of other things provided by central government.
What is less clear is the reduction in some services, like inflation making chocolate bars smaller. The list is very long, so mention only a few.
We have lower paid and less qualified classroom attendants and police support officers.
We have armed forces denied the equipment needed to fight the wars we became involved in.
We have seen reductions on local council services - fortnightly bin collection now in many councils, massive library closures, road and pavement surfaces which are a disgrace, swimming pools which are said to be uneconomic have closed, and so on. We now pay more towards the free medicine we thought we had paid for in our national insurance contributions, and NHS dentistry which requires contributions as high as those in private practice, except in Scotland we are having to make large contributionstowards old-age care. We now pay to park at hospitals, because they need the money, and we shall travel further.
They tell us that everything is better, education (-do you believe them, as we slip rapidly down the international league tables?) and health waiting times, and there is er,......
It's not just the extra taxes we pay to fund the vast bureaucracies, it's also the attenuation of services. Inflation makes prices higher, but sometimes it can make services smaller.
Monday, 19 May 2008
Right under their noses
The Daily Mail on Saturday offered yet more evidence of lax security and failure to get to grips with the problem of immigration.
In December 2007 Nazamuddin Mohammidy , 34, a cleaner at Terminal 5, Heathrow, was stopped and searched by police as he drove his car about. They thought that he might be an unlicensed cab driverThey found that he had a British Airways pass permitting him to go to some restricted areas.
What emerged when the police checked up was that he was one of nine Afgans who hi-jacked a Boeing 727 in 2000 and forced the plane to go to Stansted airport, where they threatened to kill 160 passengers unless they were granted asylum.
It seems that they were convicted, but later released and given the right to remain in this country, (apparently rent-free and with total benefits of £150,000 a year, according to the Dail Mail.)
Mohamiddy had apparently gained a job as cleaner at Terminal 5, working for a contractor.
He was also in breach of recent bail conditions, having failed to make an earlier bail appearance over an assault charge and due to appear in court today. It beggars belief that a man with his history could anywhere near an airport. But it doesn't surprise that he had somehow been lost by the authorities and inadequately investigated for security clearance.
In December 2007 Nazamuddin Mohammidy , 34, a cleaner at Terminal 5, Heathrow, was stopped and searched by police as he drove his car about. They thought that he might be an unlicensed cab driverThey found that he had a British Airways pass permitting him to go to some restricted areas.
What emerged when the police checked up was that he was one of nine Afgans who hi-jacked a Boeing 727 in 2000 and forced the plane to go to Stansted airport, where they threatened to kill 160 passengers unless they were granted asylum.
It seems that they were convicted, but later released and given the right to remain in this country, (apparently rent-free and with total benefits of £150,000 a year, according to the Dail Mail.)
Mohamiddy had apparently gained a job as cleaner at Terminal 5, working for a contractor.
He was also in breach of recent bail conditions, having failed to make an earlier bail appearance over an assault charge and due to appear in court today. It beggars belief that a man with his history could anywhere near an airport. But it doesn't surprise that he had somehow been lost by the authorities and inadequately investigated for security clearance.
All power to Boris's elbow!
The Daily Mirror reports this morning that the police are confiscating guns, knives and axes from children as young as eight. These are carried by children on their way to school because they fear attack. In a survey a third of young people considered that it is perfectly acceptable to carry these weapons. Almost half of teenagers in a sample of 355 said they knew someone who had been a victim of crime.
Between 2005 and 2007 934 such weapons were taken from pupils at schools, or almost three every day. In number half of the haul was of knives, but there were also 9 mm. revolvers and stun guns.
So we hope that Boris succeeds in driving weapons off our streets and out of schools. Once they have gone, there should be no excuse for carrying them. And we hope that his success will be copied by other areas, and so remove a major fear of old and young alike.
Between 2005 and 2007 934 such weapons were taken from pupils at schools, or almost three every day. In number half of the haul was of knives, but there were also 9 mm. revolvers and stun guns.
So we hope that Boris succeeds in driving weapons off our streets and out of schools. Once they have gone, there should be no excuse for carrying them. And we hope that his success will be copied by other areas, and so remove a major fear of old and young alike.
It's a long word, but what Does Bottler not understand about accountability?
The draft Queen's speech, delivered early - well there is an important by-election coming, seemed to press buttons which some like me welcome.
There was talk of proposals coming which will give local people more control over policing priorities and responsiveness. We wait keenly. Does this mean that we shall get to elect the police chief, and turf him or her out if performance is poor, or does it mean that police will come under some sort of local control- with representatives from all councils in a wide area having members, or does it mean merely enlarging the police authorities, already stuffed with people we do not know? If it is anything other than the first, directly elected police chiefs, it really it not worth much and the current apathy about voting will continue.
There was also talk of making the legal system accountable. Reading on, however, it seems that we are to have yet another quango, The Sentencing Commission, which will "enable better alignment of the demands and resources for correctional services." The remit sounds frightening, in reinforcing the suspicion we have already that sentences will not be decided by the nature and circumstances of the crime alone but also by availability of prison places. Does it make you feel any safer?
The new Commission will consist mostly of judges appointed by another quango, the Judicial Appointments Commission, making accountability still further blurred, and removing political power and therefore accountability.
Some, like myself, were anxious originally about powerful directly elected mayors, still more when Ken Leavingsoon was up for his third term, but electors have now removed him. If the principle was extended to all urban areas and unitary authorities, we could see directly elected mayors making welcome changes in many places. But can you see a centraliser like Brown allowing all these mayors to have the freedom and power that Boris has? This would so reduce the power of Brown and his acolytes that they would pay only lip-service to the idea of decentralising power.
If they are unlikely to make any worthwhile transfer of power to mayors, will they do it for police chiefs?
There was talk of proposals coming which will give local people more control over policing priorities and responsiveness. We wait keenly. Does this mean that we shall get to elect the police chief, and turf him or her out if performance is poor, or does it mean that police will come under some sort of local control- with representatives from all councils in a wide area having members, or does it mean merely enlarging the police authorities, already stuffed with people we do not know? If it is anything other than the first, directly elected police chiefs, it really it not worth much and the current apathy about voting will continue.
There was also talk of making the legal system accountable. Reading on, however, it seems that we are to have yet another quango, The Sentencing Commission, which will "enable better alignment of the demands and resources for correctional services." The remit sounds frightening, in reinforcing the suspicion we have already that sentences will not be decided by the nature and circumstances of the crime alone but also by availability of prison places. Does it make you feel any safer?
The new Commission will consist mostly of judges appointed by another quango, the Judicial Appointments Commission, making accountability still further blurred, and removing political power and therefore accountability.
Some, like myself, were anxious originally about powerful directly elected mayors, still more when Ken Leavingsoon was up for his third term, but electors have now removed him. If the principle was extended to all urban areas and unitary authorities, we could see directly elected mayors making welcome changes in many places. But can you see a centraliser like Brown allowing all these mayors to have the freedom and power that Boris has? This would so reduce the power of Brown and his acolytes that they would pay only lip-service to the idea of decentralising power.
If they are unlikely to make any worthwhile transfer of power to mayors, will they do it for police chiefs?
Friday, 16 May 2008
Brown and his understanding of poverty
He has said it so often that it probably doesn't even register any longer. "I/we have taken a million children out of poverty".
It's a porkie, of course. Even accepting his definition of poverty, that of 60% of the level of the median family income, where median income is the very middle one if you lined up all incomes from smallest to largest, he is wrong.
So he is attempting a greater equalising of incomes, not removing the very poorest from absolute poverty.
At best he has removed 600,000, which is nearer half a million than the million he likes to quote. The removal may be by only a few pounds to the other side of the 60% line, and if so makes very little difference to their living standard.
What he does not like to quote, as it would reduce his self-entitlement to the role of "chief poverty remover", is that income equality, that is the spread of incomes, has actually widened since he took over at the Treasury. The median level may not have moved, but the spread about it has become more marked. The 40% below his line are in fact much more below, in fact more below than for perhaps 30 years. So much for the saviour of the poor! Forget the recent 10p tax band fiasco, and he has still done little for the very poor.
Those he has transferred above the line are generally on some kind of supplementary benefit. In fact the percentage receiving these benefits has risen from 1997 from 4% of those of households of working age to 15% now.
So his methods are not enabling lower income earners to increase their earning capacity. Rather, an increasing number are becoming demoralised by living dependency on the state. Some are even third generation on benefit. How much better if he had spent ten years not building up supplicants but investing in them to earn more and break the cycle of dependence.
It's a porkie, of course. Even accepting his definition of poverty, that of 60% of the level of the median family income, where median income is the very middle one if you lined up all incomes from smallest to largest, he is wrong.
So he is attempting a greater equalising of incomes, not removing the very poorest from absolute poverty.
At best he has removed 600,000, which is nearer half a million than the million he likes to quote. The removal may be by only a few pounds to the other side of the 60% line, and if so makes very little difference to their living standard.
What he does not like to quote, as it would reduce his self-entitlement to the role of "chief poverty remover", is that income equality, that is the spread of incomes, has actually widened since he took over at the Treasury. The median level may not have moved, but the spread about it has become more marked. The 40% below his line are in fact much more below, in fact more below than for perhaps 30 years. So much for the saviour of the poor! Forget the recent 10p tax band fiasco, and he has still done little for the very poor.
Those he has transferred above the line are generally on some kind of supplementary benefit. In fact the percentage receiving these benefits has risen from 1997 from 4% of those of households of working age to 15% now.
So his methods are not enabling lower income earners to increase their earning capacity. Rather, an increasing number are becoming demoralised by living dependency on the state. Some are even third generation on benefit. How much better if he had spent ten years not building up supplicants but investing in them to earn more and break the cycle of dependence.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Our Saviour!
On the Today progamme this morning (some accurately call it toady), Bottler gave another rather lacking performance.
It is clear what the central plank in his fight back will be. He said, in effect, "I've saved Britain before, I will do it again."
When did he save Britain before? He inherited a sound and growing economy from Kenneth Clarke, and he has largely squandered that. The "nice decade"referred to by the Governor of the Bank of England, a period now behind us, was also a deteriorating period. As we have admitted before, during the ten years there was growth, and it was impressive by international standards, but much of it was the result of the influx of foreign workers. IF GDP is expressed not in total but per head of population, the result is much less impressive and latterly did not compare well with other countries. As usual he compares what he wants to compare.
We have slipped in international competitiveness, our productivity growth is nothing to be proud of, our education is falling further behind other countries and we have suffered regular and large deficits on our balance of trade.
We had a false air of success because we were able to buy cheap imports and finance many purchases by credit and debt accumulation. The Government has continued its spending splurge by borrowing also. Now sterling is losing its value in terms of other currencies, and buys less, which is making world-wide rises in the prices of goods worse to us.
Times are difficult, and he has had no experience of leading us through them. The most worrying thing is that he, like Blair before with the hand of history on his shoulder, is clearly beginning to believe his own spin.
Don't let him claim that all our problems are from forces outside our control, although the credit crunch may have precipitated what would have come more slowly perhaps. Don't let him claim the sound economy he inherited, as he is prone to do. Above all don't let him get away with the claim that he is in no way guilty for the pains we must suffer soon.
It is clear what the central plank in his fight back will be. He said, in effect, "I've saved Britain before, I will do it again."
When did he save Britain before? He inherited a sound and growing economy from Kenneth Clarke, and he has largely squandered that. The "nice decade"referred to by the Governor of the Bank of England, a period now behind us, was also a deteriorating period. As we have admitted before, during the ten years there was growth, and it was impressive by international standards, but much of it was the result of the influx of foreign workers. IF GDP is expressed not in total but per head of population, the result is much less impressive and latterly did not compare well with other countries. As usual he compares what he wants to compare.
We have slipped in international competitiveness, our productivity growth is nothing to be proud of, our education is falling further behind other countries and we have suffered regular and large deficits on our balance of trade.
We had a false air of success because we were able to buy cheap imports and finance many purchases by credit and debt accumulation. The Government has continued its spending splurge by borrowing also. Now sterling is losing its value in terms of other currencies, and buys less, which is making world-wide rises in the prices of goods worse to us.
Times are difficult, and he has had no experience of leading us through them. The most worrying thing is that he, like Blair before with the hand of history on his shoulder, is clearly beginning to believe his own spin.
Don't let him claim that all our problems are from forces outside our control, although the credit crunch may have precipitated what would have come more slowly perhaps. Don't let him claim the sound economy he inherited, as he is prone to do. Above all don't let him get away with the claim that he is in no way guilty for the pains we must suffer soon.
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Why do the poor pay any tax?
There is a good reason, which is that in a democracy there will always be the temptation for the many to "fleece" the few. The majority can become a tyranny. It is dangerous that the many can vote benefits or advantages for themselves, leaving others to pick up the tab. There should be no representation without taxation, to misquote the old American saying.
In other words democracy is fine while it does not "attack" a group or groups, but if some groups use their power to damage others then it will impose great dangers.
Having said all this, it is clear that we are in a ridiculous situation where the Government decrees the level of minimum hourly wages that must be paid, and yet anyone earning this on a full time basis will pay tax on about half of his income. Given the personal allowance against tax of about £6000, and a forty hour week, a 52 weeks a year job at minimum wage producing at least £12,000 annually, the income earner will pay about £1,200 a year in tax. This makes no allowance for any other stoppages, such as national insurance, pension contributions, etc.
There is clearly something wrong when the minimum wage deemed to be necessary suffers a 10% deduction in tax. The logical conclusion is that the personal allowance against tax should be raised to remove minimum wage earners from tax liability.
The problem is that the personal allowance would have to be raised for all employees, and the highest paid would gain more through about £6,000 of income at the top rate of 40% escaping tax. We have got ourselves into this situation by stealth and because Brown & Co felt they needed so much tax that to tax the rich much more heavily could cause them to move from Brown's jurisdiction, i.e. go elsewhere. In other words, individuals could would vote with their feet, as companies are threatening in the face of high corporation taxes.
For some of us there is an international competitive market in income and company taxation. As usual, we have fudged the issue in this country.
Ultimately and logically lower incomes may be boosted either by passing laws on minimum wages, - the "easy" or tempting way, or by increasing worker productivity to make employers prize them more highly.
Tax thresholds must be raised to make it worthwhile to work, and benefits must not overtake wages or else we have the familiar poverty trap.
Bottler would not accept it, because he believes that he is helping the poor by employing vast armies of bureaucrats or paying dizzy incomes to doctors or local authority managers. He has to learn that if the Government attempted less, employed fewer and wasted less, the general level of taxation could be reduced, and as a consequence some of the problems above could be greatly reduced. I fear that without structural reform of the NHS and education, etc., and reduction of Government activity in every nook and cranny, his approach is doomed to produce the problems we are having.
In other words democracy is fine while it does not "attack" a group or groups, but if some groups use their power to damage others then it will impose great dangers.
Having said all this, it is clear that we are in a ridiculous situation where the Government decrees the level of minimum hourly wages that must be paid, and yet anyone earning this on a full time basis will pay tax on about half of his income. Given the personal allowance against tax of about £6000, and a forty hour week, a 52 weeks a year job at minimum wage producing at least £12,000 annually, the income earner will pay about £1,200 a year in tax. This makes no allowance for any other stoppages, such as national insurance, pension contributions, etc.
There is clearly something wrong when the minimum wage deemed to be necessary suffers a 10% deduction in tax. The logical conclusion is that the personal allowance against tax should be raised to remove minimum wage earners from tax liability.
The problem is that the personal allowance would have to be raised for all employees, and the highest paid would gain more through about £6,000 of income at the top rate of 40% escaping tax. We have got ourselves into this situation by stealth and because Brown & Co felt they needed so much tax that to tax the rich much more heavily could cause them to move from Brown's jurisdiction, i.e. go elsewhere. In other words, individuals could would vote with their feet, as companies are threatening in the face of high corporation taxes.
For some of us there is an international competitive market in income and company taxation. As usual, we have fudged the issue in this country.
Ultimately and logically lower incomes may be boosted either by passing laws on minimum wages, - the "easy" or tempting way, or by increasing worker productivity to make employers prize them more highly.
Tax thresholds must be raised to make it worthwhile to work, and benefits must not overtake wages or else we have the familiar poverty trap.
Bottler would not accept it, because he believes that he is helping the poor by employing vast armies of bureaucrats or paying dizzy incomes to doctors or local authority managers. He has to learn that if the Government attempted less, employed fewer and wasted less, the general level of taxation could be reduced, and as a consequence some of the problems above could be greatly reduced. I fear that without structural reform of the NHS and education, etc., and reduction of Government activity in every nook and cranny, his approach is doomed to produce the problems we are having.
Black holes are for Tories..
...in perhaps more than on sense.
How times change! When Brown announced in his budget of 2000 that he would spend an extra £2 billion on health and an extra £1 billion on education, he congratulated himself on his generosity.
Last autumn, when George Osborne committed the Tories to raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million, costing about the same in lost tax income, the cry was that it could not be funded. Now, having told the police that the relatively small sum to fund pay increases recommended by an arbitration panel could not be afforded, we can now fund £2.7 billion to cover up Brown's mistakes over the 10% tax band.
There is one law for Labour and another for the Tories, clearly, especially when the former are in danger of losing a by-election. Make no mistake, this rather rushed through, ham-fisted change which benefits middle income earners as much as the very low paid is an election bribe.
It is, of course, an arrangement for one year only, and is a deferred tax rise, which next year will have to be born by higher income earners, some of who may decide to decamp. Alternatively it is an addition to the level of Government debt, and this is already rising strongly, which must be serviced in years to come from higher tax receipts.
All of which indicates that the chickens are coming home to roost. Bottler, who managed to convince millions that he was one of the great chancellors, successfully denying what most observers have been warning about coming for a few years now.
He survived the massive and wasteful extravagance because his policies persuaded people to cut down on their saving, increase their spending on credit and enjoy the low inflation from cheap imports. There are no longer cheap imports, increasingly as sterling plummets, and inflation is beginning to appear. Unfortunately from his mis-management of the economy he has no reserves with which to prop up spending.
His excuse of the credit crunch being the sole cause of our anxiety does not need to be evoked. His own policies were going to cause problems eventually without any outside influences. Our competitive position in the medium term is threatened by our declining productivity and our deteriorating educational system. Our chronic balance of payments deficits will bring their own problems. Our ever-growing lower productivity public sector with gold plated pensions represents a time bomb. Do I need to go on?
How times change! When Brown announced in his budget of 2000 that he would spend an extra £2 billion on health and an extra £1 billion on education, he congratulated himself on his generosity.
Last autumn, when George Osborne committed the Tories to raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million, costing about the same in lost tax income, the cry was that it could not be funded. Now, having told the police that the relatively small sum to fund pay increases recommended by an arbitration panel could not be afforded, we can now fund £2.7 billion to cover up Brown's mistakes over the 10% tax band.
There is one law for Labour and another for the Tories, clearly, especially when the former are in danger of losing a by-election. Make no mistake, this rather rushed through, ham-fisted change which benefits middle income earners as much as the very low paid is an election bribe.
It is, of course, an arrangement for one year only, and is a deferred tax rise, which next year will have to be born by higher income earners, some of who may decide to decamp. Alternatively it is an addition to the level of Government debt, and this is already rising strongly, which must be serviced in years to come from higher tax receipts.
All of which indicates that the chickens are coming home to roost. Bottler, who managed to convince millions that he was one of the great chancellors, successfully denying what most observers have been warning about coming for a few years now.
He survived the massive and wasteful extravagance because his policies persuaded people to cut down on their saving, increase their spending on credit and enjoy the low inflation from cheap imports. There are no longer cheap imports, increasingly as sterling plummets, and inflation is beginning to appear. Unfortunately from his mis-management of the economy he has no reserves with which to prop up spending.
His excuse of the credit crunch being the sole cause of our anxiety does not need to be evoked. His own policies were going to cause problems eventually without any outside influences. Our competitive position in the medium term is threatened by our declining productivity and our deteriorating educational system. Our chronic balance of payments deficits will bring their own problems. Our ever-growing lower productivity public sector with gold plated pensions represents a time bomb. Do I need to go on?
Monday, 12 May 2008
Lunacy!
The Taxpayers Alliance recently quoted the Metro newspaper, which revealed guidance given to police rank and file not to register car vandalism as a crime. It's only a bit of minor damage or theft, after all!
Then why do we prosecute a driver suspected of dropping an apple core? This is obviously a great affront to the community, - quite dreadful, quite shocking! And why, asks the TPA, do we proceed against a disabled 59 year old widow, Gwyneth Lester, for £1,200 of unpaid council tax, with the likelihood of imprisonment again? (She spent 28 days in jail last year for non-payment.)
I see, - she is a serial offender, - the full power of the law must be thrown against her! She is a serial offender because she has been burgled eight times in two years. Perhaps she has a moral case that the police only want to take and not to protect?
All these details are features of the society we have created - of feral youngsters who do damage, but are allowed to get away with it, of drug addicts who burgle the weak to feed their habit, and get away with it. Our Society seems more concerned about a biodegradable apple core than the security of a handicapped woman. The target-driven police force might well themselves wish that it was different, but political correctness is their other boss. Finally we now pay such high taxes that a 59 year old widow now feels that she must flee the country because she is paying so much in tax and receiving so little in benefit that when she protests she is imprisoned.
In the end private property seems to matter less than that of the public, and crimes against the former matter less than those against the latter!
Then why do we prosecute a driver suspected of dropping an apple core? This is obviously a great affront to the community, - quite dreadful, quite shocking! And why, asks the TPA, do we proceed against a disabled 59 year old widow, Gwyneth Lester, for £1,200 of unpaid council tax, with the likelihood of imprisonment again? (She spent 28 days in jail last year for non-payment.)
I see, - she is a serial offender, - the full power of the law must be thrown against her! She is a serial offender because she has been burgled eight times in two years. Perhaps she has a moral case that the police only want to take and not to protect?
All these details are features of the society we have created - of feral youngsters who do damage, but are allowed to get away with it, of drug addicts who burgle the weak to feed their habit, and get away with it. Our Society seems more concerned about a biodegradable apple core than the security of a handicapped woman. The target-driven police force might well themselves wish that it was different, but political correctness is their other boss. Finally we now pay such high taxes that a 59 year old widow now feels that she must flee the country because she is paying so much in tax and receiving so little in benefit that when she protests she is imprisoned.
In the end private property seems to matter less than that of the public, and crimes against the former matter less than those against the latter!
Security, what security?
First it was in the Home Office, where illegal immigrants were found to be working. I wonder what has happened there since?
Now it's at Heathrow, where immigrants are employed who could well be criminals, as there there is no way to check on any past criminal record. When we are subjecting our own citizens to expensive CRB, - Criminal Record Bureau, checks, to see if they are dangerous as Sunday School teachers, ice cream sellers, or whatever, we employ immigrants without checks. This is not to debar immigrants, merely to emphasise yet again the woeful lack of security, despite all the political correctness, ID card proposals, intrusion into private lives, etc., done to gain a few Brownie points for the Government.
The Government has been unfortunate, perhaps. Well, the Department for Work and Pensions has recently added another to a long line of Government security breaches.
This time, when they sent data through the post, they did indeed send it encrypted, so they are learning, BUT THEY SENT THE PASSWORD DETAILS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE!
The explanation for this appalling record may well be that civil servants are reeling under the torrent of desperate changes and reforms which affect them, and the target culture.
If so, the blame has to be attached to Government. Sorry, Bottler, the fiasco may be due to Blair, but you are (nominally) in charge.
Now it's at Heathrow, where immigrants are employed who could well be criminals, as there there is no way to check on any past criminal record. When we are subjecting our own citizens to expensive CRB, - Criminal Record Bureau, checks, to see if they are dangerous as Sunday School teachers, ice cream sellers, or whatever, we employ immigrants without checks. This is not to debar immigrants, merely to emphasise yet again the woeful lack of security, despite all the political correctness, ID card proposals, intrusion into private lives, etc., done to gain a few Brownie points for the Government.
The Government has been unfortunate, perhaps. Well, the Department for Work and Pensions has recently added another to a long line of Government security breaches.
This time, when they sent data through the post, they did indeed send it encrypted, so they are learning, BUT THEY SENT THE PASSWORD DETAILS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE!
The explanation for this appalling record may well be that civil servants are reeling under the torrent of desperate changes and reforms which affect them, and the target culture.
If so, the blame has to be attached to Government. Sorry, Bottler, the fiasco may be due to Blair, but you are (nominally) in charge.
Saturday, 10 May 2008
Remoter and yet remoter
It seems that the Government are considering closing some hospital departments, such as maternity units and cancer clinics, and transferring these specialities to large regional centres.
This has always happened to some extent, - eye treatment has been regionalised, for example. It may mean that patients will have the services of the very best staff and equipment, unavailable if provision was more scattered.
But, and it is a very big but, the poor patient must be prepared to travel further, and his loved ones also to visit him. The NHS may save some expenditure, - we suspect part of the purpose, but patients and visitors must travel much further. Indeed, given the cost of travel and parking at hospitals, it seems likely that there will be fewer visitors or fewer visits, which will not help patient recovery.
Some of the distances could be very large. For example Ipswich residents are fearful that their department for head and neck cancer will eventually be relocated to Norwich, some 40 miles away. (Is this another example of a Government which does not understand rural life at all?)
This has always happened to some extent, - eye treatment has been regionalised, for example. It may mean that patients will have the services of the very best staff and equipment, unavailable if provision was more scattered.
But, and it is a very big but, the poor patient must be prepared to travel further, and his loved ones also to visit him. The NHS may save some expenditure, - we suspect part of the purpose, but patients and visitors must travel much further. Indeed, given the cost of travel and parking at hospitals, it seems likely that there will be fewer visitors or fewer visits, which will not help patient recovery.
Some of the distances could be very large. For example Ipswich residents are fearful that their department for head and neck cancer will eventually be relocated to Norwich, some 40 miles away. (Is this another example of a Government which does not understand rural life at all?)
Not in the picture
The Daily Telegraph reported Scotland Yard' CCTV expert during the weeks , that the use of surveillance cameras as part of the surveillance society was "utter fiasco".
It seems that only about 3% of London's street robberies had been solved by video evidence. Indeed about 80% of all film is effectively worthless.
Billions of pounds have been spent on installing cameras, with over 80% by private businesses, but there are over 400 different formats. The police thus have to use private equipment of different format and different quality, and the owners may retain film for different periods before over-recording. The police often lack manpower and willingness to spend weeks looking through film with different formats and quality, so it may only be the very serious crime where this occurs.
We are all familiar with stories of speed cameras which have no film, or a full film has not been replaced. It seems that criminals have come to believe that CCTV cameras are not working, will not have sufficient definition or can be defeated by wearing a hood.
Are you in the picture? Possibly not, despite the cameras.
It seems that only about 3% of London's street robberies had been solved by video evidence. Indeed about 80% of all film is effectively worthless.
Billions of pounds have been spent on installing cameras, with over 80% by private businesses, but there are over 400 different formats. The police thus have to use private equipment of different format and different quality, and the owners may retain film for different periods before over-recording. The police often lack manpower and willingness to spend weeks looking through film with different formats and quality, so it may only be the very serious crime where this occurs.
We are all familiar with stories of speed cameras which have no film, or a full film has not been replaced. It seems that criminals have come to believe that CCTV cameras are not working, will not have sufficient definition or can be defeated by wearing a hood.
Are you in the picture? Possibly not, despite the cameras.
The postman never calls
on Saturdays, - that is likely to be the case.
Royal Mail is unable to fulfill its universal delivery, i.e. to every address at the same price, without making a loss. There are a number of reasons for this, including recent liberalisation allowing other deliverers to enter the market. A monopoly is always bad and the postal monopoly is no exception.
So, to reduce costs, having already cut Sunday collections they are now proposing to cut Saturday deliveries, and also be slightly less likely to deliver first class mail on the next day. (If there is no delivery on Saturday and Sunday, there is little point in sending mail first class on a Friday and hoping for next day delivery!)
But why retain the universal delivery, every address at the same price? It patently costs a great deal more to deliver to the Lord of the Manor in his isolated Manor House, unless he has bundles of mail every day, than it does to deliver to families in low rise flats.
Worse, insofar as the mail sent to families in flats is cheaper to deliver, those who write to them are in fact subsidising those who write to the Lord of the Manor. If senders and receivers are of the same income classes, we thus have the poorer subsidising the richer!
The old nationalised industries used to rule out cross subsidies. Why does Royal Mail continue to do so? Perhaps it's Europe insisting? Say no more!
If it costs so much to deliver to every isolated castle, farm and cottage, why should they not collect their mail from a central point? Ah, I forgot, post offices have often been removed!
We seem to be in a crazy world, where the principle of universalism means subsidising some at the expense of others and also of services which are deteriorating rapidly.
Is there are any surprise that many of us are sending e-mails and text messages rather than using snail mail? We are not helping the problem perhaps, but we are acting rationally.
Royal Mail is unable to fulfill its universal delivery, i.e. to every address at the same price, without making a loss. There are a number of reasons for this, including recent liberalisation allowing other deliverers to enter the market. A monopoly is always bad and the postal monopoly is no exception.
So, to reduce costs, having already cut Sunday collections they are now proposing to cut Saturday deliveries, and also be slightly less likely to deliver first class mail on the next day. (If there is no delivery on Saturday and Sunday, there is little point in sending mail first class on a Friday and hoping for next day delivery!)
But why retain the universal delivery, every address at the same price? It patently costs a great deal more to deliver to the Lord of the Manor in his isolated Manor House, unless he has bundles of mail every day, than it does to deliver to families in low rise flats.
Worse, insofar as the mail sent to families in flats is cheaper to deliver, those who write to them are in fact subsidising those who write to the Lord of the Manor. If senders and receivers are of the same income classes, we thus have the poorer subsidising the richer!
The old nationalised industries used to rule out cross subsidies. Why does Royal Mail continue to do so? Perhaps it's Europe insisting? Say no more!
If it costs so much to deliver to every isolated castle, farm and cottage, why should they not collect their mail from a central point? Ah, I forgot, post offices have often been removed!
We seem to be in a crazy world, where the principle of universalism means subsidising some at the expense of others and also of services which are deteriorating rapidly.
Is there are any surprise that many of us are sending e-mails and text messages rather than using snail mail? We are not helping the problem perhaps, but we are acting rationally.
Friday, 9 May 2008
For once they had some power
London went for Boris, despite all the smearing by Ken, the Graduian and others. Voters in Southampton decided they liked the Tory budget proposals there, with efficiency savings and council tax discounts for OAPs, rather than the increases from the other side. The result in both cases was a massive swing.
People do not turn out to vote, like the Tory voters in outer London, except when there is a chance to have some effect.
Let's be honest, politicians court our votes and then forget us until the next election when they will dangle sweet promises before us again or conceal what they can from us.
As I have observed before, much of the anger felt towards the EU, (- does anyone doubt that if there had been a referendum it would have been roundly rejected, and this discredits Brown and Co.?), is that our lives are increasingly dominated by decision makers with no mandate, who are corrupt and adept at concealment. In other words in Europe we never have an election at which we can turn them out and put the others in.
When there is a choice we react to poor performance by using our collective democratic power. The trouble is that local politicians (- councillors) have very little power, with so much controlled by the National Government who pass laws and control spending.
I have always been suspicious of the power given to the new type of mayor, but I am beginning to see that "election by results" is a good way of holding a mayor to account. There is the added advantage, at least in the case of London, that the Mayor is in charge of policing, transport and education, with real freedom to ignore central Government. In other words he or she can pursue policies offered to and accepted by the voters. If there is failure, then a new mayor will replace him.
The advantages seem so obvious, so long as there are safeguards. (In the case of London the design needs improvement - it was cobbled together by Tony Blair for his own purposes. The elected assembly must have a greater scrutiny role. Ken Livingstone was able to ignore it fairly easily.)
And if elected mayors, why not elected police chiefs? Patently the police are not providing the service electors want, partly because London imposes so many constraints.
Let us have "power to the people", that is have power devolved as far down to ordinary people as it is possible. Let us have Politicians who are accountable and answerable, real competition for the favour of the voters.
If we did this, I could make two predictions:
1) The turn-out at elections would be much higher, without the need for dangerous developments like postal and on-line voting.
2) Decisions made would reflect much more the wishes of the (majority of) the voters.
People do not turn out to vote, like the Tory voters in outer London, except when there is a chance to have some effect.
Let's be honest, politicians court our votes and then forget us until the next election when they will dangle sweet promises before us again or conceal what they can from us.
As I have observed before, much of the anger felt towards the EU, (- does anyone doubt that if there had been a referendum it would have been roundly rejected, and this discredits Brown and Co.?), is that our lives are increasingly dominated by decision makers with no mandate, who are corrupt and adept at concealment. In other words in Europe we never have an election at which we can turn them out and put the others in.
When there is a choice we react to poor performance by using our collective democratic power. The trouble is that local politicians (- councillors) have very little power, with so much controlled by the National Government who pass laws and control spending.
I have always been suspicious of the power given to the new type of mayor, but I am beginning to see that "election by results" is a good way of holding a mayor to account. There is the added advantage, at least in the case of London, that the Mayor is in charge of policing, transport and education, with real freedom to ignore central Government. In other words he or she can pursue policies offered to and accepted by the voters. If there is failure, then a new mayor will replace him.
The advantages seem so obvious, so long as there are safeguards. (In the case of London the design needs improvement - it was cobbled together by Tony Blair for his own purposes. The elected assembly must have a greater scrutiny role. Ken Livingstone was able to ignore it fairly easily.)
And if elected mayors, why not elected police chiefs? Patently the police are not providing the service electors want, partly because London imposes so many constraints.
Let us have "power to the people", that is have power devolved as far down to ordinary people as it is possible. Let us have Politicians who are accountable and answerable, real competition for the favour of the voters.
If we did this, I could make two predictions:
1) The turn-out at elections would be much higher, without the need for dangerous developments like postal and on-line voting.
2) Decisions made would reflect much more the wishes of the (majority of) the voters.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
A week in the Daily Telegraph...
Graeme Paton, the Education Editor, has written a number of articles, which taken together may tell us much of what is wrong within and outside education:
1) 30th April - "Class sizes for infants increasing". Some of the classes exceeding 30 were illegal, that is did not obtain permission before exceeding the maximum, and the number of these is rising. The overall average class size is also rising.
So what has happened to all the money pumped loudly into Education?
2) 30th April - "English is not the first language for 800,000 children". Of these, 500,000 in junior schools have English as a second language. Given that children of immigrants born here are more likely to have imbibed English from their environment, it suggests that many are relatively recent and from uncontrolled immigration. You do not need to be well acquainted with Education to understand that when a teacher is confronted by a class more fluent in any number of foreign languages, basic education will be handicapped. In some schools, despite attempts to mix backgrounds, over half of all pupils have English as their second language.
3) 5th May - "Bad teachers letting down children". This is actually a quotation from the left wing think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research. They conclude that teacher training fails to filter out those not suited to be teachers. Head teachers , it seems, regularly recycle unacceptable staff between schools, rather than engage in the bureaucratic competency procedures.
4) 5th May - "Children are .. dumped at school for 10 hours", with pre-school and after school activities laid on as child minding. Much of this is because parents are both working, or there is only one parent. We sympathise with parents who need to work despite having young children because of the recent economic policies of Bottler, but it is arguably yet another sign of inadequate parenting.
Such provision is in the name of reducing social deprivation, but also encourages parental deprivation.
5) 5th May - "Primary schools suspend 1,000 under sixes for bad behaviour." The bad behaviour is fighting, swearing or persistent indiscipline. We really have lost the battle if 4 and 5 year olds are beyond reasonable control. The vast majority were for verbal and physical attacks on fellow pupils and teachers, as well as disruptive behaviour. The banishment is temporary and the offenders will soon be back.
Is it surprising that such a large proportion will leave junior school as they fall progressively below the standards expected, especially in English and mathematics? Once in secondary school they will fall further behind and contribute to the anti-social statistics we are familiar with.
6) 30th April "Record numbers at private school". This is in part a consequence of all the other findings above. Parents are turning their backs on the state system. This is despite the rising costs of private education and falling net incomes in some cases. Parents are taking out loans, or mortgaging their homes, because they recognise the failure of the state system.
These items together paint a sorry picture of education in this country, and may go some way towards explaining why our system is now rated so low in international comparisons.
Just before May 1997 Tony said "Education, Education, Education" would be his three priorities. Things have not improved, despite the vast extra money. All sorts of short term changes have been tried. Yet the situation seems to get worse. In part what is happening, or not happening, in homes across the land is beyond his power. Yet even there the unreformed benefit system, and false liberal tolerance is the Government's baleful contribution.
1) 30th April - "Class sizes for infants increasing". Some of the classes exceeding 30 were illegal, that is did not obtain permission before exceeding the maximum, and the number of these is rising. The overall average class size is also rising.
So what has happened to all the money pumped loudly into Education?
2) 30th April - "English is not the first language for 800,000 children". Of these, 500,000 in junior schools have English as a second language. Given that children of immigrants born here are more likely to have imbibed English from their environment, it suggests that many are relatively recent and from uncontrolled immigration. You do not need to be well acquainted with Education to understand that when a teacher is confronted by a class more fluent in any number of foreign languages, basic education will be handicapped. In some schools, despite attempts to mix backgrounds, over half of all pupils have English as their second language.
3) 5th May - "Bad teachers letting down children". This is actually a quotation from the left wing think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research. They conclude that teacher training fails to filter out those not suited to be teachers. Head teachers , it seems, regularly recycle unacceptable staff between schools, rather than engage in the bureaucratic competency procedures.
4) 5th May - "Children are .. dumped at school for 10 hours", with pre-school and after school activities laid on as child minding. Much of this is because parents are both working, or there is only one parent. We sympathise with parents who need to work despite having young children because of the recent economic policies of Bottler, but it is arguably yet another sign of inadequate parenting.
Such provision is in the name of reducing social deprivation, but also encourages parental deprivation.
5) 5th May - "Primary schools suspend 1,000 under sixes for bad behaviour." The bad behaviour is fighting, swearing or persistent indiscipline. We really have lost the battle if 4 and 5 year olds are beyond reasonable control. The vast majority were for verbal and physical attacks on fellow pupils and teachers, as well as disruptive behaviour. The banishment is temporary and the offenders will soon be back.
Is it surprising that such a large proportion will leave junior school as they fall progressively below the standards expected, especially in English and mathematics? Once in secondary school they will fall further behind and contribute to the anti-social statistics we are familiar with.
6) 30th April "Record numbers at private school". This is in part a consequence of all the other findings above. Parents are turning their backs on the state system. This is despite the rising costs of private education and falling net incomes in some cases. Parents are taking out loans, or mortgaging their homes, because they recognise the failure of the state system.
These items together paint a sorry picture of education in this country, and may go some way towards explaining why our system is now rated so low in international comparisons.
Just before May 1997 Tony said "Education, Education, Education" would be his three priorities. Things have not improved, despite the vast extra money. All sorts of short term changes have been tried. Yet the situation seems to get worse. In part what is happening, or not happening, in homes across the land is beyond his power. Yet even there the unreformed benefit system, and false liberal tolerance is the Government's baleful contribution.
Saturday, 3 May 2008
On the street where you live....
Most of us became aware of the bail hostel situation yesterday, probably.
The Government is in the process of setting up 400 such hostels, and have already established 135. They are intended, we are told, for people awaiting trial and also for prisoners being released early.
The aim is to accommodate 1,300 in these bail hostels, with up to four people in each.
These will be established in residential areas, perhaps on the street where you live. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors warns that this will tend to depress the prices of properties nearby, - there are already complaints about rowdy behaviour. The Government concedes this, but stated that local residents will probably not be compensated for the price fall.
The Government claims that "ClearSprings", the company running the hostels, is supposed to inform local people when a hostel is set up, giving details on whom to contact to report problems.
Why has this been done?
For the usual reason with this Government, - to do things "on the cheap". There will be no resident supervision, - the size seems designed to avoid this and also any planning applications. (Why could the people not return to their houses and homes in this case?) Ultimately it is to reduce pressure on prisons.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said, "Those in ClearSprings accommodation are innocent until proven guilty. Defendants who pose a risk will continue to be held on remand."
I am not reassured by the failure to mention early release prisoners, a few of which recently have gone on to commit murder. Neither am I convinced by the ability of the Justice system to decide which ones pose a risk.
The Government is in the process of setting up 400 such hostels, and have already established 135. They are intended, we are told, for people awaiting trial and also for prisoners being released early.
The aim is to accommodate 1,300 in these bail hostels, with up to four people in each.
These will be established in residential areas, perhaps on the street where you live. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors warns that this will tend to depress the prices of properties nearby, - there are already complaints about rowdy behaviour. The Government concedes this, but stated that local residents will probably not be compensated for the price fall.
The Government claims that "ClearSprings", the company running the hostels, is supposed to inform local people when a hostel is set up, giving details on whom to contact to report problems.
Why has this been done?
For the usual reason with this Government, - to do things "on the cheap". There will be no resident supervision, - the size seems designed to avoid this and also any planning applications. (Why could the people not return to their houses and homes in this case?) Ultimately it is to reduce pressure on prisons.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said, "Those in ClearSprings accommodation are innocent until proven guilty. Defendants who pose a risk will continue to be held on remand."
I am not reassured by the failure to mention early release prisoners, a few of which recently have gone on to commit murder. Neither am I convinced by the ability of the Justice system to decide which ones pose a risk.
Friday, 2 May 2008
And after the elections....
The local elections have been way better than anyone could have expected, and could be even better if Boris eventually wins in London.
Two things are clear
1) This was an anti-Brown protest as much as a ringing endorsement of the Tories. If Labour sort out their difficulties many of the votes garnered could be lost back.
2) The electors are looking kindly on the Tories again, but are not yet fully ready to commit.
Much depends on what NuLabour do. There will be a period of turmoil, with Blairites ,10p and 42 hour rebels and holders of marginal seats rocking the boat as Brown seems to be a dead duck. How this will all evolve, who can say? A number of possibilities arise, from complete implosion of NuLabour, revival of old (unelectable) Labour, to reinstatement of discipline and head banging by Brown, or more likely by someone else.
In the meantime the Conservatives must deal with the complaint that they are policy light, by producing a string of fully costed policies, practical and well thought out. The Conservatives will need self discipline of their own, and must solve the problem of leadership at times at odds with many activists. The policies must be such that all can unite behind them.
At the same time, Conservatives must build up their organisation in areas, such as the North, where we have been very weak for some years. We must give Labour and Libdems a run for their money at by-elections, beginning with Gwyneth Dunwoody's seat in a few weeks time.
There is a sense that if the Conservatives can put their own house in order, what Labour may or may not do is irrelevant. They have presence now, they will have a fairer electoral map, they have 290 extra councillors, and they have an electorate willing to listen. They may never have such a good opportunity.
Two things are clear
1) This was an anti-Brown protest as much as a ringing endorsement of the Tories. If Labour sort out their difficulties many of the votes garnered could be lost back.
2) The electors are looking kindly on the Tories again, but are not yet fully ready to commit.
Much depends on what NuLabour do. There will be a period of turmoil, with Blairites ,10p and 42 hour rebels and holders of marginal seats rocking the boat as Brown seems to be a dead duck. How this will all evolve, who can say? A number of possibilities arise, from complete implosion of NuLabour, revival of old (unelectable) Labour, to reinstatement of discipline and head banging by Brown, or more likely by someone else.
In the meantime the Conservatives must deal with the complaint that they are policy light, by producing a string of fully costed policies, practical and well thought out. The Conservatives will need self discipline of their own, and must solve the problem of leadership at times at odds with many activists. The policies must be such that all can unite behind them.
At the same time, Conservatives must build up their organisation in areas, such as the North, where we have been very weak for some years. We must give Labour and Libdems a run for their money at by-elections, beginning with Gwyneth Dunwoody's seat in a few weeks time.
There is a sense that if the Conservatives can put their own house in order, what Labour may or may not do is irrelevant. They have presence now, they will have a fairer electoral map, they have 290 extra councillors, and they have an electorate willing to listen. They may never have such a good opportunity.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Thinly disguised as nurses
Several years ago someone claimed that coffee machines were being designed to look like filing cabinets,- for coffee drinkers thinly disguised to look like office workers.
Last Monday the Guardian reported on the annual conference of the Royal College of Nursing, with an article by John Carvel on the amount of administration required of nurses. The General Secretary of the RCN revealed that from a survey of more than 1,700 of its members nurses were spending on average one fifth of all their time on paperwork, and 88% said that the time on these activities was increasing.
These figures exclude nurses in managerial positions whose functions are mainly administrative.
Nurses complained that they were were required to do clerical duties such as filing, photocopying and ordering supplies. Many said that there was no clerical support, or that it had not increased in pace with the administrative load.
This has remarkable similarities with the police. In both, highly paid professionals are doing routine clerical duties which must reduce their effectiveness in their main and important tasks.
Nurses collectively are devoting over a million hours each week to "paperwork", work which detracts from their prime functions of caring for patients.
All this is at a time when record amounts are being spent on health, when the NHS has just produced a £2 billion pound surplus, and when there are many problems to which nurses could make a vital contribution.
You have to ask whether the Department for Health, including thousands of civil servants, would really be able to organise a "p*** u* in a brewery".
Last Monday the Guardian reported on the annual conference of the Royal College of Nursing, with an article by John Carvel on the amount of administration required of nurses. The General Secretary of the RCN revealed that from a survey of more than 1,700 of its members nurses were spending on average one fifth of all their time on paperwork, and 88% said that the time on these activities was increasing.
These figures exclude nurses in managerial positions whose functions are mainly administrative.
Nurses complained that they were were required to do clerical duties such as filing, photocopying and ordering supplies. Many said that there was no clerical support, or that it had not increased in pace with the administrative load.
This has remarkable similarities with the police. In both, highly paid professionals are doing routine clerical duties which must reduce their effectiveness in their main and important tasks.
Nurses collectively are devoting over a million hours each week to "paperwork", work which detracts from their prime functions of caring for patients.
All this is at a time when record amounts are being spent on health, when the NHS has just produced a £2 billion pound surplus, and when there are many problems to which nurses could make a vital contribution.
You have to ask whether the Department for Health, including thousands of civil servants, would really be able to organise a "p*** u* in a brewery".
Disappearing schools
It emerged earlier (Telegraph 15th April) that primary schools in England are being sold in hundreds and many more are lined up for sale. No fewer than 298 schools have been sold since 1997, for £236 million, and a further 188 at least are in the pipeline.
Under pressure from central government, it is feared that almost 2,500 out of 17,361 are at risk. The regulations involve the number of empty desks.
The Government position is that any profits must be ploughed back into education. So, Oxfordshire raised almost £40 million from sales, Hertfordshire nearly £26 million, Cambridgeshire £20 million and West Sussex £16 million.
These are mostly rural areas, which have come out badly in Government grants, so the money is welcome, but they are areas which tend also to have lost their post offices, shops and surgeries, and frequently local hospitals. Residents of all ages now have to travel further, and at a time of rising fuel costs and car taxes. Little wonder that many villagers are wondering if NuLabour can even see beyond the town and city boundaries. What is happening to carbon footprints can only be imagined.
The changes are largely irreversible as well. Once the buildings and land have been devoted to other purposes, - sheltered housing, light industry etc, it will be impossible to reverse things at reas9nable cost. Insofar as they are used for private housing, there is the irony that population in a village may rise, including school age children, but they will have to travel to other towns and villages because the school has gone!
At a time when there is a shortage of school accommodation in some areas, and large class sizes, it seems a very strange stewardship which destroys many schools with perfectly adequate school buildings. It seems a very short-sighted view of things.
Under pressure from central government, it is feared that almost 2,500 out of 17,361 are at risk. The regulations involve the number of empty desks.
The Government position is that any profits must be ploughed back into education. So, Oxfordshire raised almost £40 million from sales, Hertfordshire nearly £26 million, Cambridgeshire £20 million and West Sussex £16 million.
These are mostly rural areas, which have come out badly in Government grants, so the money is welcome, but they are areas which tend also to have lost their post offices, shops and surgeries, and frequently local hospitals. Residents of all ages now have to travel further, and at a time of rising fuel costs and car taxes. Little wonder that many villagers are wondering if NuLabour can even see beyond the town and city boundaries. What is happening to carbon footprints can only be imagined.
The changes are largely irreversible as well. Once the buildings and land have been devoted to other purposes, - sheltered housing, light industry etc, it will be impossible to reverse things at reas9nable cost. Insofar as they are used for private housing, there is the irony that population in a village may rise, including school age children, but they will have to travel to other towns and villages because the school has gone!
At a time when there is a shortage of school accommodation in some areas, and large class sizes, it seems a very strange stewardship which destroys many schools with perfectly adequate school buildings. It seems a very short-sighted view of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
