For some time people have commented on the overpaid MEPs who are playing the system in various ways. One has come to a head.
MEPs are paid a daily attendance allowance of £220 or so for each day they attend. (Yes they get this as well as as salaries which are much higher than those our own MPs at Westminster enjoy. They also get reimbursement at first class travel rates, by whatever means they travel. This is normally called a gravy train.)
To obtain their daily allowance they must turn up and register.
The problem is that on Fridays many of them register and stay long enough only to pick up their bags and walk out for the journey home. There are scenes of MEPs arriving with large suitcases in hand at registration.
A German Television company, with their reporter Thomas Meier, has filmed many of these travellers arriving to register, and filmed them scurrying away in guilt. The film was available on YouTube as a video.
To make matters worse, Mr. Meier and his team were apparently marched off the premises, although fully accredited. Finally, presumably from pressure by the EU, the video was removed from YouTube.
They may be engaged in the questionable, and they may have sorted things out with their consciences, but it seems that shame and discovery, and possible non-re-election, are still working effectively forces.
The recent Lisbon Treaty/Constitution may be designed to make the Union work better. It is a pity that a root and branch revision to remove sleaze and fraud was not included.
Monday, 30 June 2008
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Let's all join in the chorus.....
There has apparently been some choir practice among Bottler's gang.
Whenever they are asked about almost anything they trot out the phrase,"We all feel the pain of inflation due to external causes". Sometimes the alternative version is used, - "Inflation is tough, but everyone in the world is facing the same."
They are trying to give the impression that Bottler is still the supreme chancellor, possibly the greatest ever, and while he may have made some minor misjudgments inflation is nothing to do with him.
They are right to say that world demand for fuel oil and for basic foodstuffs has pushed prices up.
BUT
1) Ask any pensioner, or anybody on (relatively) fixed incomes, and they will tell you that they have had pain for a few years, and well before the recent surge in oil prices. We are all becoming aware that Bottler's chosen measure, CPI, which omits housing costs and council taxes in particular, seriously underestimates the real level of inflation. Two or three years ago estimates of the rate of inflation facing pensioners suggested 8% or 9%, when their pensions were increasing by somewhere between 2% and 3%. I am sorry Gordon, but some of the inflation can be put at your door. You lumped extra responsibilities on local councils without increasing grants sufficiently.
2) Our oil price and food price inflation is overlaid by a weak sterling exchange rate, making imports more expensive. He boasts about the lack of inflation under his stewardship, but this was mostly because of cheap imports from China and elsewhere. Interest rates could be low because inflation was low, but this financed an import-led boom and to the debt mountain which many people now face. (It also led to a rapid rise in house prices.) Low interest rates contributed to the weakening balance of payments situation.
3) Low interest rates and the growing debt mountain of Government and people have led to the rapid growth in the money supply which observers have noted. You do not need to be a Monetarist to realise that increased credit and spending power are likely to put pressure on spending, and on prices.
Nobody would deny that external factors are now causing inflationary pressure, and are likely to drive many prices higher over the next year or so.
But the benign things which bolstered Bottler's reputation until recently, which he gloried in and which he did nothing to control, have finally caught up with him. Without much data and complicated analysis, it would be difficult to know how much inflation can be laid at Bottler's door, but to pretend that all of is due to international causes is plainly dishonest.
I am sorry, Gordon, but you who kept sneering at the Tories for "boom and bust", have created your own boom and bust. It's not the 10p tax rate, the bungling of Northern Rock, it's the lack of prudence and the engineered boom which will destroy your reputation.
Whenever they are asked about almost anything they trot out the phrase,"We all feel the pain of inflation due to external causes". Sometimes the alternative version is used, - "Inflation is tough, but everyone in the world is facing the same."
They are trying to give the impression that Bottler is still the supreme chancellor, possibly the greatest ever, and while he may have made some minor misjudgments inflation is nothing to do with him.
They are right to say that world demand for fuel oil and for basic foodstuffs has pushed prices up.
BUT
1) Ask any pensioner, or anybody on (relatively) fixed incomes, and they will tell you that they have had pain for a few years, and well before the recent surge in oil prices. We are all becoming aware that Bottler's chosen measure, CPI, which omits housing costs and council taxes in particular, seriously underestimates the real level of inflation. Two or three years ago estimates of the rate of inflation facing pensioners suggested 8% or 9%, when their pensions were increasing by somewhere between 2% and 3%. I am sorry Gordon, but some of the inflation can be put at your door. You lumped extra responsibilities on local councils without increasing grants sufficiently.
2) Our oil price and food price inflation is overlaid by a weak sterling exchange rate, making imports more expensive. He boasts about the lack of inflation under his stewardship, but this was mostly because of cheap imports from China and elsewhere. Interest rates could be low because inflation was low, but this financed an import-led boom and to the debt mountain which many people now face. (It also led to a rapid rise in house prices.) Low interest rates contributed to the weakening balance of payments situation.
3) Low interest rates and the growing debt mountain of Government and people have led to the rapid growth in the money supply which observers have noted. You do not need to be a Monetarist to realise that increased credit and spending power are likely to put pressure on spending, and on prices.
Nobody would deny that external factors are now causing inflationary pressure, and are likely to drive many prices higher over the next year or so.
But the benign things which bolstered Bottler's reputation until recently, which he gloried in and which he did nothing to control, have finally caught up with him. Without much data and complicated analysis, it would be difficult to know how much inflation can be laid at Bottler's door, but to pretend that all of is due to international causes is plainly dishonest.
I am sorry, Gordon, but you who kept sneering at the Tories for "boom and bust", have created your own boom and bust. It's not the 10p tax rate, the bungling of Northern Rock, it's the lack of prudence and the engineered boom which will destroy your reputation.
Friday, 27 June 2008
Why do they bother?
Why are the BBC pressing on and publicising the Caroline Spelman case? It is, after all, under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. Surely he has the resources and skill to determine guilt, if any?
The BBC have yet to give any coverage, or even mention, the current case rather than 11 years old, of the husband and wife labour MPs who have been paying £800 a year on insurance premiums at our expense.
It does seem strange to concetrate on something eleven years old, and ignore something currently happening.
But the words "Conservative" and "Labour" explain. That there is a bias at the BBC, and certainly in the case of the journalist involved - he was the one who dragged Ian Duncan Smith through investigation, goes without saying. But they have an added motivation now - the Conservatives have recently announced the possibility of requiring the BBC to forgo some of its public funds so that they may be devoted to competitors, especially Channel Four.
I wish that the Conservatives would subsidise competitive radio broadcasters. The Toady programme in the mornings, for instance, is very partisan at times in what they omit, in what they include and in the way they say things.
So I suppose the Conservatives should have been ready for something like the Spelman case. This is smearing at a very high level, and even if she is exonerated some of the muck will have stuck!
The BBC have yet to give any coverage, or even mention, the current case rather than 11 years old, of the husband and wife labour MPs who have been paying £800 a year on insurance premiums at our expense.
It does seem strange to concetrate on something eleven years old, and ignore something currently happening.
But the words "Conservative" and "Labour" explain. That there is a bias at the BBC, and certainly in the case of the journalist involved - he was the one who dragged Ian Duncan Smith through investigation, goes without saying. But they have an added motivation now - the Conservatives have recently announced the possibility of requiring the BBC to forgo some of its public funds so that they may be devoted to competitors, especially Channel Four.
I wish that the Conservatives would subsidise competitive radio broadcasters. The Toady programme in the mornings, for instance, is very partisan at times in what they omit, in what they include and in the way they say things.
So I suppose the Conservatives should have been ready for something like the Spelman case. This is smearing at a very high level, and even if she is exonerated some of the muck will have stuck!
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Arrested Development
The NHS is sixty years old this year. It has grown into a very big business, but has it changed otherwise?
From the outset, whatever social hopes there were, it was obvious that a state-run "free" health service financed by tax would be over-used and under-financed, and subject to enormous bureaucratic waste.
These problems have persisted, partly reduced by hiving off services such as dentistry to private provision and care in the community to local authorities and private care homes. In addition, charges have been introduced, for prescriptions, "keep" in hospital, charges in dentistry, and the service has survived because many families have performed heroically in nursing relatives at home.
These creeping costs and disposal of responsibilities are a reflection of the fact that financial pressures have resulted from inadequate National Insurance contributions over our life-times and rapidly rising costs due to both health technology cost increases and increased provision for elderly people who are living much longer. In some ways the contributions and demands mirror the problems being encountered in pension payments.
It remains true that the NHS is unique among developed countries in providing free, tax funded, health treatment. As somebody said, the only other country remotely like us is Cuba, where they have encountered the same problems.
Within the last ten years we have ignored the usual restraint on funding, - that taxpayers will not accept the sweeping tax increases, and we have increased funding enormously. The result has been that certain indicators have improved, particularly waiting times for operations, - although they are not matching the situation in most of the rest of Western Europe.
However, we are still among the worst in Europe for cancer survival, death from strokes, and hospital acquired infection, and general health productivity as outcomes for inputs has declined. There are complaints about "postcode lottery", and vast differences between regions, - outcomes in the North being markedly worse than those in the South.
How many people still believe that our centralised, monolithic, bureaucratic service is the best systemin the world? Many of its advocates almost certainly have a vested interest in still arguing that it is the best in the world, when it manifestly is not.
I am saying nothing new, in repeating the criticism that before and with the pumping in of vast new funding there should have been reform. What may have been suitable for 1948 no longer answers the needs in 2008. The consequence has been that much of the funding increase has produced higher wages and extra administration costs, rather than extra services.
If the service is to reach the best standards in the world it will have to become more flexible, decentralised and using private resources. The state does not have to be the monopoly provider of both finance and provision. To deny this must represent "head-in-the-sand" socialism.
From the outset, whatever social hopes there were, it was obvious that a state-run "free" health service financed by tax would be over-used and under-financed, and subject to enormous bureaucratic waste.
These problems have persisted, partly reduced by hiving off services such as dentistry to private provision and care in the community to local authorities and private care homes. In addition, charges have been introduced, for prescriptions, "keep" in hospital, charges in dentistry, and the service has survived because many families have performed heroically in nursing relatives at home.
These creeping costs and disposal of responsibilities are a reflection of the fact that financial pressures have resulted from inadequate National Insurance contributions over our life-times and rapidly rising costs due to both health technology cost increases and increased provision for elderly people who are living much longer. In some ways the contributions and demands mirror the problems being encountered in pension payments.
It remains true that the NHS is unique among developed countries in providing free, tax funded, health treatment. As somebody said, the only other country remotely like us is Cuba, where they have encountered the same problems.
Within the last ten years we have ignored the usual restraint on funding, - that taxpayers will not accept the sweeping tax increases, and we have increased funding enormously. The result has been that certain indicators have improved, particularly waiting times for operations, - although they are not matching the situation in most of the rest of Western Europe.
However, we are still among the worst in Europe for cancer survival, death from strokes, and hospital acquired infection, and general health productivity as outcomes for inputs has declined. There are complaints about "postcode lottery", and vast differences between regions, - outcomes in the North being markedly worse than those in the South.
How many people still believe that our centralised, monolithic, bureaucratic service is the best systemin the world? Many of its advocates almost certainly have a vested interest in still arguing that it is the best in the world, when it manifestly is not.
I am saying nothing new, in repeating the criticism that before and with the pumping in of vast new funding there should have been reform. What may have been suitable for 1948 no longer answers the needs in 2008. The consequence has been that much of the funding increase has produced higher wages and extra administration costs, rather than extra services.
If the service is to reach the best standards in the world it will have to become more flexible, decentralised and using private resources. The state does not have to be the monopoly provider of both finance and provision. To deny this must represent "head-in-the-sand" socialism.
Wednesday, 25 June 2008
No option is attractive
The debate about the environment is usually conducted by the protagonists in terms that are difficult to quantify. The birds will lose out if we destroy their habitat by building barrages across estuaries, of erect monster wind turbines in their flight paths, or humans will lose out by loss of visual amenity - "Not in my backyard!"
What tends to get lost is the economic costs of the alternative energy sources.
Wind energy is "free ", but is not guaranteed - for wind-free days there would have to be a complete back-up of similar capacity. Wind farms typically operate at about 27% efficiency, so we would expect on average to have to produce three times as much electricity in other ways.
Wave power would produce electricity, probably more reliably, but at a very high cost. The Taxpayers Alliance on June 17th published results suggesting that wave electricity costs about 19 pence per kilowatt hour more than conventional generation, and that if we were to transfer only 20% of national generation to this source would produce an annual extra bill of £15 billion per year, or about 1.2% of GDP.
So despite the claims that we have a very long coastline, wave power does not seem to be the solution for more than a small part of our generation. (Of course, in time our experience could help us learn more efficient generation.....)
Perhaps because it is faster to construct, the Government is on the point of permitting 10,000 additional wind turbines, to add to the 2,000 we already have. The wind, when it blows, may be free, but costs are significant in preparation (assessment, planning, etc), in construction and operation and also in maintenance. The Royal Academy of Engineering has calculated that the most efficient wind generation costs about two and half times per kilowatt hour as nuclear or coal generated electricity.
There is no way of avoiding very large extra costs with these renewable sources of energy - to be met by consumers, or perhaps partly subsidised out of taxation!
The problem, of course, is that we have to meet the requirements of the EU that we must by 2020 use renewable sources for 15% of all energy, which means that 40% of all electricity be produced by renewable sources.
The dithering of NuLabour, which has dallied for many years, means that we are running out of time rapidly for the planning and construction of renewable generation in the next 12 years. Major construction of nuclear sites would hardly come on stream, assuming that the EU counts nuclear as renewable - it will because France is so committed to it. Even wave, tidal or wind sites would face difficulty by 2020.
Expect some failure, as we build some clean coal burning generation as a stop gap, and begin a programme of nuclear, wind and wave generation too late to meet the deadline. Expect also that prices will rise significantly, even compared with the present levels.
What tends to get lost is the economic costs of the alternative energy sources.
Wind energy is "free ", but is not guaranteed - for wind-free days there would have to be a complete back-up of similar capacity. Wind farms typically operate at about 27% efficiency, so we would expect on average to have to produce three times as much electricity in other ways.
Wave power would produce electricity, probably more reliably, but at a very high cost. The Taxpayers Alliance on June 17th published results suggesting that wave electricity costs about 19 pence per kilowatt hour more than conventional generation, and that if we were to transfer only 20% of national generation to this source would produce an annual extra bill of £15 billion per year, or about 1.2% of GDP.
So despite the claims that we have a very long coastline, wave power does not seem to be the solution for more than a small part of our generation. (Of course, in time our experience could help us learn more efficient generation.....)
Perhaps because it is faster to construct, the Government is on the point of permitting 10,000 additional wind turbines, to add to the 2,000 we already have. The wind, when it blows, may be free, but costs are significant in preparation (assessment, planning, etc), in construction and operation and also in maintenance. The Royal Academy of Engineering has calculated that the most efficient wind generation costs about two and half times per kilowatt hour as nuclear or coal generated electricity.
There is no way of avoiding very large extra costs with these renewable sources of energy - to be met by consumers, or perhaps partly subsidised out of taxation!
The problem, of course, is that we have to meet the requirements of the EU that we must by 2020 use renewable sources for 15% of all energy, which means that 40% of all electricity be produced by renewable sources.
The dithering of NuLabour, which has dallied for many years, means that we are running out of time rapidly for the planning and construction of renewable generation in the next 12 years. Major construction of nuclear sites would hardly come on stream, assuming that the EU counts nuclear as renewable - it will because France is so committed to it. Even wave, tidal or wind sites would face difficulty by 2020.
Expect some failure, as we build some clean coal burning generation as a stop gap, and begin a programme of nuclear, wind and wave generation too late to meet the deadline. Expect also that prices will rise significantly, even compared with the present levels.
..who pays the piper, calls the tune
The Times this morning reports that the Unions are offering to bail out the virtually bankrupt (Nu)Labour Party, but at a price.
The price is policy concessions. The most important concession is probably the demand for the laws on secondary picketing to be repealed, to make it lawful again for unions to bounce others into supporting strike action, where the action itself often degenerates into civil confrontation and strife.
There will doubtless be others, - abolishing the requirement to have ballots, rather than massive show of hands, and the need to give notice of industrial (in)action. The Unions have also lobbied for non-postal ballots, with leaders able to "record" votes by telephoning members or by e-mail, - all very open and transparent!
Apart from the general dismay, felt even by some within the Labour Party, at this return to barbarism, there is an important principle here.
Nulabour have been complaining for some time about some of the donors to the Conservative Party, and have recently proposed legislation to limit individual giving to £50,000 each year per donor, while wanting to regard Trade Unions as thousands of individuals and therefore not limited. It would be immoral in this situation to permit their paymasters to determine public policy.
This is the ultimate purchasing of privilege, dwarfing even the purchase of honours, which probably should have brought Blair down a year or two ago.
The problem is that giving to NuLabour has dried up, loans are due for repayment, and their auditors must sign off accounts by the end of this month and then submit them to the Electoral Commission, and delay will confirm that the party is insolvent.
Bottler has given signs already that he is more amenable to the Unions. His reputation would disappear out of sight, and perhaps provide the final push for a Conservative election victory, if he were to plunge us back towards the 1970s again.
The price is policy concessions. The most important concession is probably the demand for the laws on secondary picketing to be repealed, to make it lawful again for unions to bounce others into supporting strike action, where the action itself often degenerates into civil confrontation and strife.
There will doubtless be others, - abolishing the requirement to have ballots, rather than massive show of hands, and the need to give notice of industrial (in)action. The Unions have also lobbied for non-postal ballots, with leaders able to "record" votes by telephoning members or by e-mail, - all very open and transparent!
Apart from the general dismay, felt even by some within the Labour Party, at this return to barbarism, there is an important principle here.
Nulabour have been complaining for some time about some of the donors to the Conservative Party, and have recently proposed legislation to limit individual giving to £50,000 each year per donor, while wanting to regard Trade Unions as thousands of individuals and therefore not limited. It would be immoral in this situation to permit their paymasters to determine public policy.
This is the ultimate purchasing of privilege, dwarfing even the purchase of honours, which probably should have brought Blair down a year or two ago.
The problem is that giving to NuLabour has dried up, loans are due for repayment, and their auditors must sign off accounts by the end of this month and then submit them to the Electoral Commission, and delay will confirm that the party is insolvent.
Bottler has given signs already that he is more amenable to the Unions. His reputation would disappear out of sight, and perhaps provide the final push for a Conservative election victory, if he were to plunge us back towards the 1970s again.
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
Waste
Whenever the Conservatives propose new spending, the retort is always "This is not costed" or "How will you pay for this?"
I leave aside the fact that the present Government has regularly failed to anticipate costs, - for the military, to cover the disastrous removal of the 10p tax band, the cost of the Olympic Games in 2012, etc.
Instead I refer to David Craig's tour-de-force "Squandered", where he reveals the huge amount of money squandered by New Labour since they came to power. There has been waste on a truly astronomical scale, whether it is in buying helicopters for the military which can fly only in daylight and so long as there is no fog, vast sums spent in consultancy fees, fraud in benefits, or in IT schemes which had had massive delay and cost overrun. As an example of the last, recently the second of the contractors involved in the NHS supercomputer, Fujitsu, followed Accenture two years before, and withdrew, claiming that the scheme is not workable. Four years behind, and with a final bill likely to be at least £14 billion, or six times the estimate at outset, the consultant contractors are probably right.
Such massive, misguided schemes are the big examples of waste. But there are smaller ones which go almost unnoticed, except for the eagle eyes of researchers. Recently the Daily Mail pointed out that the British Council, a state funded quango, had spent £50,000 in having its own distinctive type face or font developed, having already spent some £85,000 on a new Logo.
All this was to establish the "identity" of the Council, which has been in existence since 1934.
Vantage West Midlands, the crypto regional government in waiting as it gathers more and more powers, also recently came under criticism for spending £6 million on its palatial new head offices. Did they have an identity crisis as well?
The thousand or so quangos behave like all bureaucrats, somehow finding money to enhance their own prestige, by acquiring premises, powers, staff, and indications of professional prestige.
Please read David Craig's book, but you may need a stiff drink with you as you do. The sheer incompetence and waste is mind blowing. Even where his figures are best guesses that he can make, if he has accidentally doubled the figure for waste the sums squandered are still frightening.
NuLabour and the Conservatives a few years ago each estimated possible savings - Gershon and James. It now seems that their estimates were too conservative and timid. There really is great scope for any government willing to face down vested interests to finance new areas of spending, or to reduce taxes, without cutting important services. To claim otherwise is to behave like an ostrich burying its head.
I leave aside the fact that the present Government has regularly failed to anticipate costs, - for the military, to cover the disastrous removal of the 10p tax band, the cost of the Olympic Games in 2012, etc.
Instead I refer to David Craig's tour-de-force "Squandered", where he reveals the huge amount of money squandered by New Labour since they came to power. There has been waste on a truly astronomical scale, whether it is in buying helicopters for the military which can fly only in daylight and so long as there is no fog, vast sums spent in consultancy fees, fraud in benefits, or in IT schemes which had had massive delay and cost overrun. As an example of the last, recently the second of the contractors involved in the NHS supercomputer, Fujitsu, followed Accenture two years before, and withdrew, claiming that the scheme is not workable. Four years behind, and with a final bill likely to be at least £14 billion, or six times the estimate at outset, the consultant contractors are probably right.
Such massive, misguided schemes are the big examples of waste. But there are smaller ones which go almost unnoticed, except for the eagle eyes of researchers. Recently the Daily Mail pointed out that the British Council, a state funded quango, had spent £50,000 in having its own distinctive type face or font developed, having already spent some £85,000 on a new Logo.
All this was to establish the "identity" of the Council, which has been in existence since 1934.
Vantage West Midlands, the crypto regional government in waiting as it gathers more and more powers, also recently came under criticism for spending £6 million on its palatial new head offices. Did they have an identity crisis as well?
The thousand or so quangos behave like all bureaucrats, somehow finding money to enhance their own prestige, by acquiring premises, powers, staff, and indications of professional prestige.
Please read David Craig's book, but you may need a stiff drink with you as you do. The sheer incompetence and waste is mind blowing. Even where his figures are best guesses that he can make, if he has accidentally doubled the figure for waste the sums squandered are still frightening.
NuLabour and the Conservatives a few years ago each estimated possible savings - Gershon and James. It now seems that their estimates were too conservative and timid. There really is great scope for any government willing to face down vested interests to finance new areas of spending, or to reduce taxes, without cutting important services. To claim otherwise is to behave like an ostrich burying its head.
Monday, 23 June 2008
If you can't beat 'em, make 'em join us!
The Financial Times reported a couple of weeks ago that Bottler is worried about losing companies to Ireland in search of lower corporation taxes, that they are thinking of taking action.
The action under consideration is to drive the EU towards tax harmonisation, to compel Ireland to have the same high rates that we have, and thus lose their competitive advantage.
What is wrong with tax competition, except that it puts pressure on high spending governments to fall into line and become more efficient.
This is the usual ploy from the inefficient and unsuccessful - to try to overcome their own failings by compulsion of others. "They are selling their ice creams at £1, while we try and fail to sell ours at £1.50. Let's get the council to insist on a uniform price of £1.50", justified by all sorts of specious arguments - quality maintenance, our special practices or difficulties, or simply supported by other inefficient producers ganging up with us.
They wonder why the EU is so inefficient and why Ireland in saying "No" in their referendum "bit the hand that has fed them."
The action under consideration is to drive the EU towards tax harmonisation, to compel Ireland to have the same high rates that we have, and thus lose their competitive advantage.
What is wrong with tax competition, except that it puts pressure on high spending governments to fall into line and become more efficient.
This is the usual ploy from the inefficient and unsuccessful - to try to overcome their own failings by compulsion of others. "They are selling their ice creams at £1, while we try and fail to sell ours at £1.50. Let's get the council to insist on a uniform price of £1.50", justified by all sorts of specious arguments - quality maintenance, our special practices or difficulties, or simply supported by other inefficient producers ganging up with us.
They wonder why the EU is so inefficient and why Ireland in saying "No" in their referendum "bit the hand that has fed them."
Saturday, 21 June 2008
Methinks they have something to hide!
"Open Europe", who watch, analyse and report on what (undemocratic) EU gets up to, recently decided to write to ask the 79 British MEPs some questions about their expenses, specifically who handled their staff expenses and whether family members were employed beneficially.
You will recall that somehow details of "dodgy" expenses of some Conservative MEPs have been revealed. Open Europe wanted to find out whether it was possible that similar practices were being adopted by all MEPs.
So they wrote to all 79, of whom 25 replied, answering fully. A further 12 replied but gave only partial answers. No fewer than 41 refused to answer at all. Most Conservatives answered, and almost all UKIP members, while both "Greens" answered.
Of those refusing, the party affiliations were as follows:
Conservatives 11
Labour 13
Liberal Democrat 8
Non-attached and Nationalist Parties 6
UKIP 3
They may simply regard the enquiry is an irritating impertinence, that those who elect and pay for them should want to have some sort of account of what is happening. No actual figures were asked for, merely questions about employing staff, - hardly personal details!
The BBC has proudly trumpeted the Tory wrongs, but Michael Crick should now turn his investigatory powers on others as well, to give at least a semblance of balance at the BBC. I doubt it will happen!
You will recall that somehow details of "dodgy" expenses of some Conservative MEPs have been revealed. Open Europe wanted to find out whether it was possible that similar practices were being adopted by all MEPs.
So they wrote to all 79, of whom 25 replied, answering fully. A further 12 replied but gave only partial answers. No fewer than 41 refused to answer at all. Most Conservatives answered, and almost all UKIP members, while both "Greens" answered.
Of those refusing, the party affiliations were as follows:
Conservatives 11
Labour 13
Liberal Democrat 8
Non-attached and Nationalist Parties 6
UKIP 3
They may simply regard the enquiry is an irritating impertinence, that those who elect and pay for them should want to have some sort of account of what is happening. No actual figures were asked for, merely questions about employing staff, - hardly personal details!
The BBC has proudly trumpeted the Tory wrongs, but Michael Crick should now turn his investigatory powers on others as well, to give at least a semblance of balance at the BBC. I doubt it will happen!
Friday, 20 June 2008
Porkies and half truths - 4
The Government recently reported that school exclusions have been reduced by 25% since they came to power. ( I am not sure if this is a good thing, if it means that disruptive students stay and cause havoc, but they seem to be claiming it as a success.)
But once again, all is not what it seems. Disruptive behaviour has not decreased, on the contrary, it seems to be increasing. The Government has increasingly adopted a policy of re-cycling - sending disruptive students to other schools.
You may feel, and they may, that this is sharing the misery and failure to others caused by students without any inclination to study, by sending such students to all schools in turn.
The downside is that the disruptive students are not getting the (expensive) special facilities one-to-one attention and counselling which they need. On the contrary, by regularly changing school what little education these students have will be reduced because of the challenge provided by joining new schools, - different teachers, different syllabus timings and, above all, the insecurity which is more likely to make a need to establish their disruptive credentials and claim more teacher scalps.
The Government policy, frequently changing, and often to deceive the public or to save money, could make a difficult situation much worse, and promote educational failure rather than nipping it in the bud.
But once again, all is not what it seems. Disruptive behaviour has not decreased, on the contrary, it seems to be increasing. The Government has increasingly adopted a policy of re-cycling - sending disruptive students to other schools.
You may feel, and they may, that this is sharing the misery and failure to others caused by students without any inclination to study, by sending such students to all schools in turn.
The downside is that the disruptive students are not getting the (expensive) special facilities one-to-one attention and counselling which they need. On the contrary, by regularly changing school what little education these students have will be reduced because of the challenge provided by joining new schools, - different teachers, different syllabus timings and, above all, the insecurity which is more likely to make a need to establish their disruptive credentials and claim more teacher scalps.
The Government policy, frequently changing, and often to deceive the public or to save money, could make a difficult situation much worse, and promote educational failure rather than nipping it in the bud.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
No discrimination in punishment?
Much of the threat of the law is removed if the threat of punishment is uncertain. There is strong argument that all who commit offence "x" should receive the same punishment, because with uncertainty there is reduced deterrence.
But the Government have not taken this on board. They have decided to publish the names and addresses of all firms who have been found to employ illegal immigrants. This is a modern version of the pillory. And there will be no excuses, "How can I know if they are illegal or their papers forged?", "Why punish me when they come from contractors?"
There are to be no exceptions, no excuses, ....except for one employer responsible for employing illegal immigrants in very high security areas - H.M. Government, who in at least two instances have employed such workers with clearly inadequate check-up.
Well it wouldn't be fair to reveal or punish civil servants who rub shoulders with ministers, - it could reflect on the ministers themselves.
Why should they be exempt?
But the Government have not taken this on board. They have decided to publish the names and addresses of all firms who have been found to employ illegal immigrants. This is a modern version of the pillory. And there will be no excuses, "How can I know if they are illegal or their papers forged?", "Why punish me when they come from contractors?"
There are to be no exceptions, no excuses, ....except for one employer responsible for employing illegal immigrants in very high security areas - H.M. Government, who in at least two instances have employed such workers with clearly inadequate check-up.
Well it wouldn't be fair to reveal or punish civil servants who rub shoulders with ministers, - it could reflect on the ministers themselves.
Why should they be exempt?
Now, why did they do that?
A week or so ago The Times reported that the House of Commons had shredded more than 1 million documents which contained details of expense claims by MPs.
Westminster claimed that only documents before April 2004 were destroyed - this despite official guidelines requiring documents to be kept for six years.
Could it be that with the ferreting of information about Caroline Spelman going back 11 years someone somewhere felt a little liable to be exposed.? What secrets will be more difficult to find out now?
Or am I being a little cynical? Is it possible that the timing is a coincidence, coming accidentally just after the speaker's attempts to prevent disclosure and several cases where MPs have had their noses in the trough? Was the attack on Caroline Spelman a sign for some high-ups in the Government that they had too much to lose....
I leave you to make up your own mind, but I know what I think.....
Westminster claimed that only documents before April 2004 were destroyed - this despite official guidelines requiring documents to be kept for six years.
Could it be that with the ferreting of information about Caroline Spelman going back 11 years someone somewhere felt a little liable to be exposed.? What secrets will be more difficult to find out now?
Or am I being a little cynical? Is it possible that the timing is a coincidence, coming accidentally just after the speaker's attempts to prevent disclosure and several cases where MPs have had their noses in the trough? Was the attack on Caroline Spelman a sign for some high-ups in the Government that they had too much to lose....
I leave you to make up your own mind, but I know what I think.....
The enduring Brown "porkie"
One by one Bottler's claims to economic mastery are disappearing - we are now going to have a bust made worse by excessive previous Government and personal purchase on credit. The Balance of Payments has lurched into record deficits on the Trade Account, as we kept inflation down by importing huge quantities of cheap foreign goods. Productivity is not rising as rapidly as that of our competitors, our education and training is deteriorating. While there has been growth in the economy, when calculated per head of population it is nothing very special. To a large extent recently the growth has been due to a rapid increase in the working population due to massive immigration.
There is one claim Bottler can make, and he did in Parliament in January this year, that under his management Britain has enjoyed "the best employment record in history." Record numbers are in work. This cannot be questioned In December last year 29.7 million were in work.
However, the absolute figure is less important than what is known as the participation rate, that is the percentage of the population of working age who are actually in work. It is silly to compare the absolute figure when we now have the largest population ever. Since 1997 82% of new jobs have been occupied by immigrants.
Bottler has concentrated on finding alternatives to work - welfare (- record levels registered as "disabled" rather than unemployed), and longer study to keep young people off the unemployment register.
So if we compare not absolute levels of employment, but percentage rates of participation, what do we find?
Since 1979, and apart from during labour market adjustments in the early 1980s, the participation rate has fluctuated between 78% and 81%. Under Bottler it has risen from 78.3% in 1997 to 79.3% in 2006. In December 2007, when Brown was able to boast of record levels it had fallen slightly to 79.1%.
So when was the peak participation rate? This was clearly between 1990 and 1991, at just short of 80.8%, and significantly higher than anything Bottler has achieved. At the time, the Chancellor was Nigel Lawson. The accolade should not be awarded by Bottler to himself!
In 1990/91 the number in work was 28.1 million. In absolute terms under Brown more people were in work than ever before, but as a percentage of the available working age population participation in 1990-91 has never been approached by Bottler.
He is at his usual dishonesty - very carefully presenting a partial and mistaken impression, without explaining the basis of his statement.
The Brown percentage peaked in 2006, and has since fallen off. If we experience more than a slight reduction in economic growth, with rising unemployment and some immigrants returning home his "economic record" will be shown to have been a mirage. (But all his claims will also have been shown to have been temporary and wrong!)
There is one claim Bottler can make, and he did in Parliament in January this year, that under his management Britain has enjoyed "the best employment record in history." Record numbers are in work. This cannot be questioned In December last year 29.7 million were in work.
However, the absolute figure is less important than what is known as the participation rate, that is the percentage of the population of working age who are actually in work. It is silly to compare the absolute figure when we now have the largest population ever. Since 1997 82% of new jobs have been occupied by immigrants.
Bottler has concentrated on finding alternatives to work - welfare (- record levels registered as "disabled" rather than unemployed), and longer study to keep young people off the unemployment register.
So if we compare not absolute levels of employment, but percentage rates of participation, what do we find?
Since 1979, and apart from during labour market adjustments in the early 1980s, the participation rate has fluctuated between 78% and 81%. Under Bottler it has risen from 78.3% in 1997 to 79.3% in 2006. In December 2007, when Brown was able to boast of record levels it had fallen slightly to 79.1%.
So when was the peak participation rate? This was clearly between 1990 and 1991, at just short of 80.8%, and significantly higher than anything Bottler has achieved. At the time, the Chancellor was Nigel Lawson. The accolade should not be awarded by Bottler to himself!
In 1990/91 the number in work was 28.1 million. In absolute terms under Brown more people were in work than ever before, but as a percentage of the available working age population participation in 1990-91 has never been approached by Bottler.
He is at his usual dishonesty - very carefully presenting a partial and mistaken impression, without explaining the basis of his statement.
The Brown percentage peaked in 2006, and has since fallen off. If we experience more than a slight reduction in economic growth, with rising unemployment and some immigrants returning home his "economic record" will be shown to have been a mirage. (But all his claims will also have been shown to have been temporary and wrong!)
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
They wouldn't, would they?
Almost a week from the decisive "No" vote in the Irish referendum, and leaders of the European project are still debating what to do.
They wouldn't require Ireland to vote again, in the hope of reversing it like the last occasion, would they?
They wouldn't carry on regardless, despite the fact that their rules require unanimity of all member states, would they?
Both are possible.
Expect them to offer inducements to Ireland and/or threats, in the hope that Ireland will come to its senses, have another referendum and this time show "more sense".
Expect the talk of a two-speed Europe to be revived, with Ireland cast out into "outer darkness" and so learn the error of its ways.
A further possibility is to do what they have already been doing extensively, - find ways of adopting various parts of theConstitution/ Treaty, piecemeal. They are never more creative than when they find ways of interpreting existing rules to permit them to extend the Project. Depending on what happens in Ireland over the next few weeks and months, I would not be surprised if this was the method they adopt.
The most worrying thing is comments and the suggestion that referendums are anti-democratic, and that voters should not be permitted to exercise choice on complicated issues. Rather, everything should be left to their elected representatives (who are more gullible, more amenable to bribery, more dishonest?) This reveals the true nature of much of the EU and the growing opposition which is due to the remoteness and aloofness of European Government. It has no popular mandate, despises electors because they could challenge the whole affair, doesn't brook opposition, and gives more and more power to the instigators. Another word could be dictatorship!
They wouldn't require Ireland to vote again, in the hope of reversing it like the last occasion, would they?
They wouldn't carry on regardless, despite the fact that their rules require unanimity of all member states, would they?
Both are possible.
Expect them to offer inducements to Ireland and/or threats, in the hope that Ireland will come to its senses, have another referendum and this time show "more sense".
Expect the talk of a two-speed Europe to be revived, with Ireland cast out into "outer darkness" and so learn the error of its ways.
A further possibility is to do what they have already been doing extensively, - find ways of adopting various parts of the
The most worrying thing is comments and the suggestion that referendums are anti-democratic, and that voters should not be permitted to exercise choice on complicated issues. Rather, everything should be left to their elected representatives (who are more gullible, more amenable to bribery, more dishonest?) This reveals the true nature of much of the EU and the growing opposition which is due to the remoteness and aloofness of European Government. It has no popular mandate, despises electors because they could challenge the whole affair, doesn't brook opposition, and gives more and more power to the instigators. Another word could be dictatorship!
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Representative Democracy and Referendums
We have been told that the Lisbon Treaty is not the same as the earlier Proposed Constitution. On this Gordon Bottler is at odds with most European leaders, who, with most experts who have read the documents, say they are "as near as dammit" the same, although wording has changed (to confuse?)
Brown has done this to avoid a considerable defeat in a referendum and even greater problems with his counterparts in Europe.
A further argument has been raised, that we have a system of representative democracy which is incompatible with referendums. In our system the candidate parties present their manifestos for approval, and expect to be trusted by the electorate to implement the declared policies.(This argument leaves out the fact that new policies are dredged in and some manifesto promises ignored, including the promise of a referendum.) The message is thus, "Trust us until the next election to do what is best...."
In fact we have had only one referendum nationally on Europe, under Harold Wilson, who may have expected to defeat the process of further integration. (The proposals to devolve power to assemblies in Scotland and Wales were not voted upon in a referendum in England - the West Lothian problem again?) It seems that Labour and Nulabour will hold them only when they expect to win or gain. The fact is that Harold Wilson did not feel a referendum to be to be incompatible with representative democracy.
There is a further argument why they are compatible. We have a tradition that no Government is able to bind its successors, that is that a successor Government must have the power to reverse policies. With so much of the integration process proposed and manipulated in the un-democratic and un-accountable European system, this argument surely acquires greater and greater force. For the Conservatives to try to claw back what Blair has conceded would be well nigh impossible. Cameron and many colleagues would be faced with the alternatives - "accept the concessions made by Nulabour or else leave the Union". Neither is attractive to a large number of Conservatives.
This is blackmail, of course. It exists because of the nature of the unreformed and undemocratic nature of the EU, but if the British Government wants to resist in order to avoid the opprobrium about to be heaped on Ireland, they should leave it to the British people.
Is there anything more democratic than asking all people to vote on a simple issue rather than on an involved general election manifesto where you may have to accept all proposals, including some about which you may have considerable reservations or even opposition.
Brown has done this to avoid a considerable defeat in a referendum and even greater problems with his counterparts in Europe.
A further argument has been raised, that we have a system of representative democracy which is incompatible with referendums. In our system the candidate parties present their manifestos for approval, and expect to be trusted by the electorate to implement the declared policies.(This argument leaves out the fact that new policies are dredged in and some manifesto promises ignored, including the promise of a referendum.) The message is thus, "Trust us until the next election to do what is best...."
In fact we have had only one referendum nationally on Europe, under Harold Wilson, who may have expected to defeat the process of further integration. (The proposals to devolve power to assemblies in Scotland and Wales were not voted upon in a referendum in England - the West Lothian problem again?) It seems that Labour and Nulabour will hold them only when they expect to win or gain. The fact is that Harold Wilson did not feel a referendum to be to be incompatible with representative democracy.
There is a further argument why they are compatible. We have a tradition that no Government is able to bind its successors, that is that a successor Government must have the power to reverse policies. With so much of the integration process proposed and manipulated in the un-democratic and un-accountable European system, this argument surely acquires greater and greater force. For the Conservatives to try to claw back what Blair has conceded would be well nigh impossible. Cameron and many colleagues would be faced with the alternatives - "accept the concessions made by Nulabour or else leave the Union". Neither is attractive to a large number of Conservatives.
This is blackmail, of course. It exists because of the nature of the unreformed and undemocratic nature of the EU, but if the British Government wants to resist in order to avoid the opprobrium about to be heaped on Ireland, they should leave it to the British people.
Is there anything more democratic than asking all people to vote on a simple issue rather than on an involved general election manifesto where you may have to accept all proposals, including some about which you may have considerable reservations or even opposition.
Monday, 16 June 2008
Has David Davis boobed?
Perhaps time will tell, when all the dust has settled.
What is true is that several people who ought to know better have misrepresented the case.
The Daily Telegraph journalist who falsely reported that Davis was not invited to David Cameron's morning meetings, when in fact he was regularly there and even chaired the meetings when the leader and William Hague were not there, also misrepresented Liam Fox and quoted words he did not say.
Her objective seem to have been to have been to make David Davis appear to act out of pique or a sense of alienation. Others, in his constituency and elsewhere know him better, have doubted this reason for risking his whole career.
Other critics have claimed that he is on an ego trip which will damage his party. There are suggestions that Cameron tried repeatedly to dissuade him. His local party, and his electors in his constituency in a poll, are in support. Two Labour MPs, the maverick Bob Marshall-Andrews and Dr. Gibson, and possibly others, are contemplating supporting him, and this morning the highly respected Colonel Collins has announced that he will actively campaign for David Davis.
His stand seems to have struck a cord with people from all parts of the political spectrum. Many of these had felt concerns over the slow process of emasculation of our freedoms, and it made the 42 day result, and the way it was purchased, the final straw. They are applauding a politician with principles who is prepared to risk losing a seat on the Westminster gravy train.
David Davis has a long track record in resisting the removal of liberties - reduction of trial by jury included., but also CCTV, identity cards and databases. This was the point when he had to say "Enough!" Perhaps it was a final exasperation which made him want to open up a national debate.
Will there be a national debate? Certainly for a few weeks while he campaigns it will be in the news. How long it will last depends on other issues which may arise, but things will never quite be the same.
Will he be re-elected? It seems very likely, but there is always the risk.
If he is re-elected will he be on the front bench again? This is more difficult, but the fact that his successor as Shadow Home Secretary has already suggested that the Tories should seek to reduce the present 28 days may indicate that the Party is moving to reassert "Magna Carta and all that". He comes from a very different strand of the Party.
David Cameron may decide that he would prefer to have Davis in his team, even if with a different portfolio, rather than offering a possible focus and rallying point for disaffected right wingers. Davis has a formidable record in confounding and removing members of the Government opposite him, and the Party can ill afford not to use his fighting talents.
Has he boobed? Who can say for the moment? It may be indicative that some journalists who condemned his action initially for different reasons now begin the moderate their tone.
What is true is that several people who ought to know better have misrepresented the case.
The Daily Telegraph journalist who falsely reported that Davis was not invited to David Cameron's morning meetings, when in fact he was regularly there and even chaired the meetings when the leader and William Hague were not there, also misrepresented Liam Fox and quoted words he did not say.
Her objective seem to have been to have been to make David Davis appear to act out of pique or a sense of alienation. Others, in his constituency and elsewhere know him better, have doubted this reason for risking his whole career.
Other critics have claimed that he is on an ego trip which will damage his party. There are suggestions that Cameron tried repeatedly to dissuade him. His local party, and his electors in his constituency in a poll, are in support. Two Labour MPs, the maverick Bob Marshall-Andrews and Dr. Gibson, and possibly others, are contemplating supporting him, and this morning the highly respected Colonel Collins has announced that he will actively campaign for David Davis.
His stand seems to have struck a cord with people from all parts of the political spectrum. Many of these had felt concerns over the slow process of emasculation of our freedoms, and it made the 42 day result, and the way it was purchased, the final straw. They are applauding a politician with principles who is prepared to risk losing a seat on the Westminster gravy train.
David Davis has a long track record in resisting the removal of liberties - reduction of trial by jury included., but also CCTV, identity cards and databases. This was the point when he had to say "Enough!" Perhaps it was a final exasperation which made him want to open up a national debate.
Will there be a national debate? Certainly for a few weeks while he campaigns it will be in the news. How long it will last depends on other issues which may arise, but things will never quite be the same.
Will he be re-elected? It seems very likely, but there is always the risk.
If he is re-elected will he be on the front bench again? This is more difficult, but the fact that his successor as Shadow Home Secretary has already suggested that the Tories should seek to reduce the present 28 days may indicate that the Party is moving to reassert "Magna Carta and all that". He comes from a very different strand of the Party.
David Cameron may decide that he would prefer to have Davis in his team, even if with a different portfolio, rather than offering a possible focus and rallying point for disaffected right wingers. Davis has a formidable record in confounding and removing members of the Government opposite him, and the Party can ill afford not to use his fighting talents.
Has he boobed? Who can say for the moment? It may be indicative that some journalists who condemned his action initially for different reasons now begin the moderate their tone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
