Two of the thousand or so quangos set up by the Government to dispense cash and generally keep a control on us on behalf of the Government have been in the news.
The Arts Council England, one of the oldest, was the subject of an independent report by Baroness McIntosh. She concluded that it was too much focused on its own priorities to be able to set a lead in a "shake up " of England's cultural institutions, had an over complex structure and no overall strategy. It has lost much respect from the bodies it helps and earlier drew condemnation from its requirements about sexual orientation of bidders, among other matters. It has lost sight of its purpose to promote excellence in the arts and had become obsessed with promoting social cohesion, diversity and even social well-being.
Another element of criticism, this from the shadow arts minister Ed Vaizey, was that the council was spending £60 million annually on administration alone, and that since 1997 the number of staff had trebled to 635.
Another quango, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), came under criticism this week by Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers Alliance. This quango is charged with making the UK more innovative, has a staff of over 100 people and receives more than £300 million of lottery and departmental money.
This is an example of top-down Government micro management, which assumes that a group of unaccountable civil servants can somehow manage our society into becoming more innovative. The Government seems to have overlooked the fact that over the past 150 years most inventions have been done by lone inventors or small groups, rather than by companies. Britain has a record second to none of Nobel prizes and inventions, even if the ideas were adopted and developed in other countries rather than here. In hardly any case did a Government department or quango play an important role. Indeed anti-commercial attitudes of some politicians have hastened the loss of ideas to abroad.
NESTA has not helped by insisting that prizes may go only to not-for-profit organisations. An example was the "Big Green Challenge" prize which offered funds of £1 million for "new approaches that will lead towards a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions in their communities." The result was predictable, - few of the entrants came up with anything radically new. Rather, they produced schemes for collecting used cooking oil, for small-scale hydroelectric generation and for recycling household waste, - all used existing technologies, and no real innovation was forthcoming.
Some of the major problems with quangos are revealed in ACE and NESTA, - bureaucrats seeking their own ends and advancement and increasing staff rather than effectiveness. These are classic and well established tendencies of bureaucracy. The Government should have been more aware of the waste and diversion which were likely to occur. They should have sought advice on the best way to promote innovation, which would certainly no be by the dead hand of bureaucracy. They should have given some thought as to what they, the Government, wished to achieve and been less narrow and dogmatic in the way they approached the matters. Otherwise waste was predictable.
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
We don't need more prisons...
NuLabour has finally and reluctantly agreed to build a new prison, after resisting for a long time and discharging many prisoners early to free up space.
There is a siren voice which reminds us regularly that we jail more people than any other EU country. It is still true if we compared percentages - you wouldn't expect Ireland with 2 million or so people to imprison more than us with 60 million plus, but it is also true proportionately, - we imprison a higher proportion of our population than any other country in Europe.
But this is a misleading and even dishonest comparison. Could it be that we are less law-abiding than other countries? If we calculated the number imprisoned as a percentage of crimes committed, then the picture changes radically. We imprison 12.4 offenders for every 1,000 crimes committed. The EU average is 17.5 for every 1,000 crimes committed.
In fact, if we imprisoned the same proportion as in Spain, 57 prisoners for every 1,000 crimes, we would imprison nearly 370,000 instead of the 80,000 we actually imprison. Far from being too prison-obsessed, our penal policy is, if anything, too light on imprisonment.
Of course, the liberal do-gooders will go on quoting our nastiness in imprisoning so many, simply because to quote the more honest figure based on actual crimes we would emerge as "soft". Our problem is that we are not an honest and civilised people!
There are other issues, whether we spend enough on prisons, whether we should have more emphasis on weaning felons away from crime, or whether some forms of non-custodial punishment could be more reformatory, but this is another issue.
The fact remains that we seem to imprison a lower proportion of offenders than most of Europe.
There is a siren voice which reminds us regularly that we jail more people than any other EU country. It is still true if we compared percentages - you wouldn't expect Ireland with 2 million or so people to imprison more than us with 60 million plus, but it is also true proportionately, - we imprison a higher proportion of our population than any other country in Europe.
But this is a misleading and even dishonest comparison. Could it be that we are less law-abiding than other countries? If we calculated the number imprisoned as a percentage of crimes committed, then the picture changes radically. We imprison 12.4 offenders for every 1,000 crimes committed. The EU average is 17.5 for every 1,000 crimes committed.
In fact, if we imprisoned the same proportion as in Spain, 57 prisoners for every 1,000 crimes, we would imprison nearly 370,000 instead of the 80,000 we actually imprison. Far from being too prison-obsessed, our penal policy is, if anything, too light on imprisonment.
Of course, the liberal do-gooders will go on quoting our nastiness in imprisoning so many, simply because to quote the more honest figure based on actual crimes we would emerge as "soft". Our problem is that we are not an honest and civilised people!
There are other issues, whether we spend enough on prisons, whether we should have more emphasis on weaning felons away from crime, or whether some forms of non-custodial punishment could be more reformatory, but this is another issue.
The fact remains that we seem to imprison a lower proportion of offenders than most of Europe.
Incompetent or arrogant,.... or both
Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago illustrated incompetence and arrogance of the present Government.
His main point was that bills are rushed through, often not even debated properly , with the result that laws unravel. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act,for example, which extends criminal records checks to 10 million adults, was so badly drafted that 250 amendments had to be made at the end of its parliamentary progress, so that it was not properly scrutinised. Again and again legislation needs subsequent changes, or further acts, because they do not work.
In part it is because of the torrent of legislation which pours out of a government which is not happy if there are still areas of life which it does not directly and minutely control. The 1950 Parliament, says Johnston, put 720 pages of Acts and 2,970 pages of statutory instruments on to the statute book. In the last year of the Blair government there were 4,609 pages of new Acts and 11,686 pages of statutory instruments. This means a sixfold increase in pages of Acts and a fourfold increase in the case of statutory instruments.
An expanded civil service could perhaps have covered the vast expansion, but most of the extra civil servants are merely crunching numbers in relation to government targets. Worse, the civil service with all its accumulated experience, was made subservient to political appointees and generally not encouraged to make a contribution.
NuLabour have attempted too much, and kept at arms length those who might have contributed to reducing errors by more thorough drafting or by debate in committee or in the House.
I could add that a further question must be the quality of some ministers themselves, who make statements one day and contradict them the next, sometimes claiming that what they said in clear English did not mean what it said. The general incompetence of departments, and ministers who run them, is generally accepted - lost CDs and laptops, white elephants like the Dome, cost and time overruns on large schemes, volt-face in policies like the 10p tax band, helicopters desperately needed by troops but standing almost mothballed and able to fly only in very special circumstances and farmers denied payments received months before from the EU.
Arguably one of the more effective ministers described his department as "Not fit for purpose".
Incompetent, with almost daily examples of waste and confusion, but also arrogant in overriding others, doing deals and sweeteners to overcome reluctant MPs, and ramming everything through without proper coinsideration. It is not "or", it is "both".
His main point was that bills are rushed through, often not even debated properly , with the result that laws unravel. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act,for example, which extends criminal records checks to 10 million adults, was so badly drafted that 250 amendments had to be made at the end of its parliamentary progress, so that it was not properly scrutinised. Again and again legislation needs subsequent changes, or further acts, because they do not work.
In part it is because of the torrent of legislation which pours out of a government which is not happy if there are still areas of life which it does not directly and minutely control. The 1950 Parliament, says Johnston, put 720 pages of Acts and 2,970 pages of statutory instruments on to the statute book. In the last year of the Blair government there were 4,609 pages of new Acts and 11,686 pages of statutory instruments. This means a sixfold increase in pages of Acts and a fourfold increase in the case of statutory instruments.
An expanded civil service could perhaps have covered the vast expansion, but most of the extra civil servants are merely crunching numbers in relation to government targets. Worse, the civil service with all its accumulated experience, was made subservient to political appointees and generally not encouraged to make a contribution.
NuLabour have attempted too much, and kept at arms length those who might have contributed to reducing errors by more thorough drafting or by debate in committee or in the House.
I could add that a further question must be the quality of some ministers themselves, who make statements one day and contradict them the next, sometimes claiming that what they said in clear English did not mean what it said. The general incompetence of departments, and ministers who run them, is generally accepted - lost CDs and laptops, white elephants like the Dome, cost and time overruns on large schemes, volt-face in policies like the 10p tax band, helicopters desperately needed by troops but standing almost mothballed and able to fly only in very special circumstances and farmers denied payments received months before from the EU.
Arguably one of the more effective ministers described his department as "Not fit for purpose".
Incompetent, with almost daily examples of waste and confusion, but also arrogant in overriding others, doing deals and sweeteners to overcome reluctant MPs, and ramming everything through without proper coinsideration. It is not "or", it is "both".
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Are they afraid?
The Total Politics website recently sponsored a survey by ComRes, at least partly on the opinions of councillors on where council funding should come from.
The results may be briefly summarised:
Of the respondents 62% believed that a mixture of local and national funding is ideal, 37% wanted only local funding, from a local income tax and 19% wanted local sales tax to fund councils.
Over 30 years national government has provided an increasing proportion of council spending, and have capped local authority at times to prevent them raising and spending too much. At the same time central government has imposed controls on directions of spending - ring-fencing some, or stipulating how grants must be spent. It is perhaps this experience which led respondents generally to be opposed to 100% central funding, - in fact 85% rejected it.
What may have surprised some was the breakdown by party affiliation. Among LibDem councillors only 25% wanted entirely local funding, among Conservatives 23%, among Labour only 12%, with the Greens at 18% and Independents at 15%.
What is more revealing is perhaps the attitude of Conservative Councillors. The party is the largest in England in terms of councillors and councils, of course. The present system was felt unacceptable by only 33% of their councillors, well below the levels of the LibDems at 57%, Greens at 54% and Independents at 45%. The Labour percentage was 13%.
Among councils the highest level of satisfaction with the present system was county councillors at 80%, again predominantly Conservative and the lowest at 51% by parish and 54% by town councillors.
By age group, of councillors over 65 62% favoured the present system, while at the other extreme among 18-24 year old councillors 64% disliked the present system.
Broad conclusions seem to be that the present system is favoured by the older councillors and county councills, and by Labour councillors.
Some conclusions have been drawn by readers of the report. Some have argued that older councillors may not welcome the hassle of accountability which would result because there was nowhere to hide if locally raised finance was not matched by performance. Some councillors may feel that the present system permits their own party to benefit their areas when their party is in power nationally and increases electoral safety and the chance of re-election. These two factors would amount to fear - of exposure and blame, and of dismissal. Are they just afraid?
There are many non-councillors who would welcome the accountability and transparency, and the reduced interference by London. Some suggest that it is the London domination which turns peopkle away from voting.
The fact that for various reasons the LibDems have been advocating a local income tax for many years may explain why they seem to be the group most against the present system and most in favour of local financing.
The Conservatives, some of who haverecently advocated a local sales tax to replace rates and grants, are almost as keen to have local finance but some of their colleagues are among ther most intransigent in defending the present system. In some ways the sales tax is the most challenging, - efficient councils, and those able to reject special interests, will keep their tax rates down and make the local area more attractive to shoppers, while inefficient and over-spending councils will be revealed.
The results may be briefly summarised:
Of the respondents 62% believed that a mixture of local and national funding is ideal, 37% wanted only local funding, from a local income tax and 19% wanted local sales tax to fund councils.
Over 30 years national government has provided an increasing proportion of council spending, and have capped local authority at times to prevent them raising and spending too much. At the same time central government has imposed controls on directions of spending - ring-fencing some, or stipulating how grants must be spent. It is perhaps this experience which led respondents generally to be opposed to 100% central funding, - in fact 85% rejected it.
What may have surprised some was the breakdown by party affiliation. Among LibDem councillors only 25% wanted entirely local funding, among Conservatives 23%, among Labour only 12%, with the Greens at 18% and Independents at 15%.
What is more revealing is perhaps the attitude of Conservative Councillors. The party is the largest in England in terms of councillors and councils, of course. The present system was felt unacceptable by only 33% of their councillors, well below the levels of the LibDems at 57%, Greens at 54% and Independents at 45%. The Labour percentage was 13%.
Among councils the highest level of satisfaction with the present system was county councillors at 80%, again predominantly Conservative and the lowest at 51% by parish and 54% by town councillors.
By age group, of councillors over 65 62% favoured the present system, while at the other extreme among 18-24 year old councillors 64% disliked the present system.
Broad conclusions seem to be that the present system is favoured by the older councillors and county councills, and by Labour councillors.
Some conclusions have been drawn by readers of the report. Some have argued that older councillors may not welcome the hassle of accountability which would result because there was nowhere to hide if locally raised finance was not matched by performance. Some councillors may feel that the present system permits their own party to benefit their areas when their party is in power nationally and increases electoral safety and the chance of re-election. These two factors would amount to fear - of exposure and blame, and of dismissal. Are they just afraid?
There are many non-councillors who would welcome the accountability and transparency, and the reduced interference by London. Some suggest that it is the London domination which turns peopkle away from voting.
The fact that for various reasons the LibDems have been advocating a local income tax for many years may explain why they seem to be the group most against the present system and most in favour of local financing.
The Conservatives, some of who haverecently advocated a local sales tax to replace rates and grants, are almost as keen to have local finance but some of their colleagues are among ther most intransigent in defending the present system. In some ways the sales tax is the most challenging, - efficient councils, and those able to reject special interests, will keep their tax rates down and make the local area more attractive to shoppers, while inefficient and over-spending councils will be revealed.
Saturday, 26 July 2008
On the back of an envelope
How much longer are we to use the Barnett formula for deciding allocation of London grants to support spending in the various parts of the UK? The formula was produced something like 30 years ago for the situation which pertained then, that is about 20 years before the decisions on devolution.
The Institute of Public Policy Research earlier this month published a paper on the issue. Their conclusion was that the formula which had been intended to equalise spending per head throughout the UK now actually causes inequality. A main reason for this is that the formula is based not on current needs but on historical spending patterns and population levels. It is cast in stone.
The IPPR attempted to calculate relative levels of spending by looking at spending in various regions and countries, but omitting benefit and pension payments and agricultural payments
The result is that for the UK as a whole, spending emerges as £4, 679 per head.
For the four constituent countries the figures are:
Northern Ireland £5,694 per head, or 121% of the national average
Scotland £5,676 , also 121% of the national average
Wales £5,050, or 108% of the national average
England £4,523, or 97% of the national average
It will be seen that spending in Northern Ireland is generally 26% higher than in England. The word generally is important as there are important differences within each country.
The IPPR has calculated the differences bewteen regions in England.
What emerges is:
London has spending of £5985 per head, or 128% of the national average
N.E England has £4,960, or 106% of the natiopnal average
NW England has £4,927 or 105% of the national average.
Yorkshire and Huimberside has £4,477 or 96% of the national average
West Midlands has £4,477 or 95% of the national average
East Midlands has £4,086 , or 87% o9f the national average
South West has £3,947 , or 84%
South East has 3,874 , or 83%
East England has £3,820, or 82%
Within each country and within each regions there are variations, where the conurbations and large towns generally fare much better than rural areas. This may be political, in representing the location of Labour support, but it may also reflect special problems of urban areas.
Over the past 5 years there has been a tendency to greater equality per head in spending, for example in Wales from 113% to 108%, but the Scottish "benefit",while it did decline to 115%, has risen sharply again since about 2004.
How do we explain the Scottish figure? Is it a reflection of the dependance on Scottish votes and MPs? Is it a fear that the SNP might exploit any narrowing to urge independence? There is certainly evidence of the latter, in the posturing of the SNP.
There may be areas in all parts of the UK where Government-financed spending should be higher, but the low funding in rural regionas and the high funding in Scotland suggests that naked politics may be at work.
The Institute of Public Policy Research earlier this month published a paper on the issue. Their conclusion was that the formula which had been intended to equalise spending per head throughout the UK now actually causes inequality. A main reason for this is that the formula is based not on current needs but on historical spending patterns and population levels. It is cast in stone.
The IPPR attempted to calculate relative levels of spending by looking at spending in various regions and countries, but omitting benefit and pension payments and agricultural payments
The result is that for the UK as a whole, spending emerges as £4, 679 per head.
For the four constituent countries the figures are:
Northern Ireland £5,694 per head, or 121% of the national average
Scotland £5,676 , also 121% of the national average
Wales £5,050, or 108% of the national average
England £4,523, or 97% of the national average
It will be seen that spending in Northern Ireland is generally 26% higher than in England. The word generally is important as there are important differences within each country.
The IPPR has calculated the differences bewteen regions in England.
What emerges is:
London has spending of £5985 per head, or 128% of the national average
N.E England has £4,960, or 106% of the natiopnal average
NW England has £4,927 or 105% of the national average.
Yorkshire and Huimberside has £4,477 or 96% of the national average
West Midlands has £4,477 or 95% of the national average
East Midlands has £4,086 , or 87% o9f the national average
South West has £3,947 , or 84%
South East has 3,874 , or 83%
East England has £3,820, or 82%
Within each country and within each regions there are variations, where the conurbations and large towns generally fare much better than rural areas. This may be political, in representing the location of Labour support, but it may also reflect special problems of urban areas.
Over the past 5 years there has been a tendency to greater equality per head in spending, for example in Wales from 113% to 108%, but the Scottish "benefit",while it did decline to 115%, has risen sharply again since about 2004.
How do we explain the Scottish figure? Is it a reflection of the dependance on Scottish votes and MPs? Is it a fear that the SNP might exploit any narrowing to urge independence? There is certainly evidence of the latter, in the posturing of the SNP.
There may be areas in all parts of the UK where Government-financed spending should be higher, but the low funding in rural regionas and the high funding in Scotland suggests that naked politics may be at work.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Give them their rights!
The Children's Laureate, Michael Rosen, and a number childrens' authors were reported in yesterday's Daily Telegraph as complaining that children are being denied their right to a cultural life. They are part of the campaign group Action for Children's Arts.
Under Article 31 of the UN Convention, children have the right to .... participate freely in cultural life and the earts..
They demand that the Government should increase funding to children's arts, require broadcasters to offer programmes of the highest quality and to insists that creativity, play and the arts should be at the heart of the school curriculum. In addition all political parties should explain in general election manifestos how they will meet the right enshrined in Article 31.
Leaving aside how all this can be made operational rather than pious hopes, discussion of what "freely" means, and what other elements of the curriculum already failing to produce educated citizens should be ommitted, there are important principles here.
Above all else is the principle that any right granted to one person or group usually imposes a cost on others,( is the granting of liberty one of the few where its provision merely prevents interference by others?)
Most of us would accept that buildings must be constructed to permit access by people of all sorts of physical condition, and provided with amplification to provide hearing for people of all sorts of hearing abilities, and the majority consents to the extra costs.
But when we have an open ended right, such as "participate freely" there are so many other worthy and conflicting claims on resources, it can be seen that such written rights cannot all be implemented. If the objection is made that this is what we have elected government for, then we raise the possibility of civil disobedience and rebellion if anything is pushed so far as to impose costs on those who are not in sympathy.
Under Article 31 of the UN Convention, children have the right to .... participate freely in cultural life and the earts..
They demand that the Government should increase funding to children's arts, require broadcasters to offer programmes of the highest quality and to insists that creativity, play and the arts should be at the heart of the school curriculum. In addition all political parties should explain in general election manifestos how they will meet the right enshrined in Article 31.
Leaving aside how all this can be made operational rather than pious hopes, discussion of what "freely" means, and what other elements of the curriculum already failing to produce educated citizens should be ommitted, there are important principles here.
Above all else is the principle that any right granted to one person or group usually imposes a cost on others,( is the granting of liberty one of the few where its provision merely prevents interference by others?)
Most of us would accept that buildings must be constructed to permit access by people of all sorts of physical condition, and provided with amplification to provide hearing for people of all sorts of hearing abilities, and the majority consents to the extra costs.
But when we have an open ended right, such as "participate freely" there are so many other worthy and conflicting claims on resources, it can be seen that such written rights cannot all be implemented. If the objection is made that this is what we have elected government for, then we raise the possibility of civil disobedience and rebellion if anything is pushed so far as to impose costs on those who are not in sympathy.
So long as they all had a good time....
The House of Commons Annual Accounts somehow neglected to report the annual accounts for the Commons Refreshment Department for 2007-08.
But never fear, leaks and studies have feretted them out. It seems that in that year the Department operated at a loss of £5.5 million, which was made good by the taxpayers. This amounts to be about £8,500 per MP., which is a large item bearing in mind how much they receive in other directions. This also amounts to be about £50 per day per MP, adding to the groceries and other bills for which they are paid by us. The subsidy covers approximately only 43% of the operating costs.
It may have escaped the attention of the Refreshment Committee (of MPs) because it represented an increase of 15% , or nearly £700,000 on the previous years. The rest of us may be tightening our belts, but our MPs and their guests do not seem to have started.
The main reason for the loss seems to be the level of prices charged on drinks, which seem to be only a half or even a third of those charged for the same drinks in nearby central London hostelries.
It seems that whatever the perks of being an MP provide, being a member of one of the cheapest London Gentleman's Clubs" must be near the top of the list.
But never fear, leaks and studies have feretted them out. It seems that in that year the Department operated at a loss of £5.5 million, which was made good by the taxpayers. This amounts to be about £8,500 per MP., which is a large item bearing in mind how much they receive in other directions. This also amounts to be about £50 per day per MP, adding to the groceries and other bills for which they are paid by us. The subsidy covers approximately only 43% of the operating costs.
It may have escaped the attention of the Refreshment Committee (of MPs) because it represented an increase of 15% , or nearly £700,000 on the previous years. The rest of us may be tightening our belts, but our MPs and their guests do not seem to have started.
The main reason for the loss seems to be the level of prices charged on drinks, which seem to be only a half or even a third of those charged for the same drinks in nearby central London hostelries.
It seems that whatever the perks of being an MP provide, being a member of one of the cheapest London Gentleman's Clubs" must be near the top of the list.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
To improve standards...?
The performance relates not only to the operations themselves, but also to everything which determines outcomes. So other medical and non-medical groups are involved, including nurses, physiotherapists and other professional "hands on" staff, and presumably even "back room" and support staff, - pathologists, cleaners, etc. So to talk of surgeons earning the bonuses is a little misleading, even if surgeons lead the teams involved.
Once I had convinced myself that this was indeed serious, my reaction was to be aghast.
Staff are paid appropriately for their professional and caring services, or we hope so. Why pay them more? Is it not something of an insult to suggest to them that they will only give of their best with further inducement?
The temptation which could arise would be to attempt only the more simple and safer procedures, and somehow to "bury" or delay those with greater complexity or risk. It would only be human at least to consider this.
How are the outcomes to be measured? What will be the "trade-offs" between sheer survival, speed of recovery, quality of patient life after discharge, use of resources including staff time, etc.? These can obviously work against each other. It looks as if additional layers of management will re required in hospital and Whitehall to assign categories and values, - more bureaucrats, the fastest growing area in the NHS! If a surgeon delays discharge and in so doing increases mobility or quality of life weeks or months after discharge, will he be penalised?
Sometimes the problem is not to reward excellence but to identify incompetence, and require surgeons to undergo re-training, transfer or removal. Bonuses for good performance will do little to deal with this, except to remove the incompetent to do simple tasks or even non-surgery.
The obvious way to encourage excellence and discourage poor performance would be to supply full information on outcomes to patients, and to give them real choice. The incompetent surgeons would be under-subscribed and exposed, the good ones encouraged in their methods. Many years ago a colleague, who was very much in touch with local council and hospital affairs, said to me "If you ever have to go into xxxxxxx Hospital, whatever you do don't have an operation under Mr. yyyyyyyyyy, - he's butcher and botcher!" I suspect many voted with their feet.
There would be no need for vast armies to make complicated calculations, - merely the provision of information which is already available and ought to be the right of all patients to receive. I suspect that GPs already advise patients, on the basis of their own knowledge, about the various surgeons in the area. Making full information available would put everything on a more reliable basis and enable GP and patient to make informed decisions.
Friday, 18 July 2008
neither perspiration nor inspiration..
Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary, has accused the present Government wallowing directionless and energy-less in the face of the crime problem. We know what he means, - a rash of ill thought-out policies, gimmicks, stunts, but no overarching direction or purpose, except that of staving off electoral defeat. It is a tired, leaderless government.
Was it ever different?
Tony Blair once admitted that they were slightly surprised to find themselves in government in 1997, and ill-prepared. The result has been frequent re-branding and sloganising, - Third Way, Cool Britannia, and so on. The electorate bought it for a few years until its directionless nature became clear.
We had the Dome, we had half-finished constitutional policies (- devolution and House of Lords) and we had policy heaped upon policy. The policies came so thick and fast that many replaced earlier ones which had hardly begun to be applied. New laws were passed against crime, because the Government did not seem to be succeeding and before previous laws had even been used.
There was, admittedly, a sense of drive and energy which is now lacking and there was a confidence that the Government, or at least Downing Street, was master of everything, a confidence which now seems lacking.
Members of his own party are wanting Bottler to provide inspiration by a statement of his own vision, but so far he has failed to do so. Did Blair ever really convey any vision, other than than he would avoid the excesses of Socialism and Capitalism by finding a middle way?
Labour has lost its roots, even if a lack of funding is now driving it back into the arms of the unions. Welfarism has failed, poverty has become entrenched and makes its own contribution to societal breakdown. The Conservatives are now nearer to the definition of the party of the poor.
Dominic Grieve is right, the Government seems to lack energy and vision. It is different to the Blair years, when there was movement. But were the Blair years like the proverbial rocking-horse, with plenty of movement but no progress, with plenty of energy to change things but often not thought out and rushed into being? Half-baked ideas are still emerging, but there seems to be no real direction.
Was it ever different?
Tony Blair once admitted that they were slightly surprised to find themselves in government in 1997, and ill-prepared. The result has been frequent re-branding and sloganising, - Third Way, Cool Britannia, and so on. The electorate bought it for a few years until its directionless nature became clear.
We had the Dome, we had half-finished constitutional policies (- devolution and House of Lords) and we had policy heaped upon policy. The policies came so thick and fast that many replaced earlier ones which had hardly begun to be applied. New laws were passed against crime, because the Government did not seem to be succeeding and before previous laws had even been used.
There was, admittedly, a sense of drive and energy which is now lacking and there was a confidence that the Government, or at least Downing Street, was master of everything, a confidence which now seems lacking.
Members of his own party are wanting Bottler to provide inspiration by a statement of his own vision, but so far he has failed to do so. Did Blair ever really convey any vision, other than than he would avoid the excesses of Socialism and Capitalism by finding a middle way?
Labour has lost its roots, even if a lack of funding is now driving it back into the arms of the unions. Welfarism has failed, poverty has become entrenched and makes its own contribution to societal breakdown. The Conservatives are now nearer to the definition of the party of the poor.
Dominic Grieve is right, the Government seems to lack energy and vision. It is different to the Blair years, when there was movement. But were the Blair years like the proverbial rocking-horse, with plenty of movement but no progress, with plenty of energy to change things but often not thought out and rushed into being? Half-baked ideas are still emerging, but there seems to be no real direction.
Well, has it risen, or not?
Crime, that is?
The short answer is that it is difficult to say.
In the first place there are two ways of measuring the rate of crime:
1) Police Records, aggregated. This series has been collected for several years, but there have been changes at intervals which make comparisons over time very difficult. Recently the accuracy has been improved to give a clearer total of crimes reported to the police. This showed an increase in reported crimes, and consequently was ignored by the Government - perhaps they were right.
A major problem here, of course, is that the public have become so disappointed with police response that many have given up reporting all but the most serious crimes.
2) British Crime Survey. This is a (sample) survey, asking people about their experiences. It has all the difficulties associated with surveying and sampling. Recently the Government have given greater prominence to this, as it seems to support their contention that crime is falling, although when in opposition they were very critical, but if the Police Reports seem to be more favourable there is little doubt that this measure would be emphasised.
The problem here is that crimes by those aged under 16 are ignored, and by other categories such as businesses. Some crimes are not considered, and for any respondent only a maximum of five repeated offences for any particular crime are considered. There is likely to be considerable under-counting.
Aggregation, crudely putting all areas and all offences in a simple numerical total, can cause problems. Is the theft of paper clips to count as the same as a bullion robbery, a stabbing, fraud, drunken driving racial incitement, etc. Usually some attempt is made to distinguish - "Crime has fallen by 5%, overall, but violent crime has increased by 10%." Any summary measure has to have values or "weights" attached to particular results to average everything out. Just how many paperclips would have to be stolen on how many occasions to neutralise a change in the opposite direction to changes in speeding offences?
Given everything I have written, no figures by any politician of whatever party or by civil servants on their behalf should be taken without asking how they have arrived at the figures.
The short answer is that it is difficult to say.
In the first place there are two ways of measuring the rate of crime:
1) Police Records, aggregated. This series has been collected for several years, but there have been changes at intervals which make comparisons over time very difficult. Recently the accuracy has been improved to give a clearer total of crimes reported to the police. This showed an increase in reported crimes, and consequently was ignored by the Government - perhaps they were right.
A major problem here, of course, is that the public have become so disappointed with police response that many have given up reporting all but the most serious crimes.
2) British Crime Survey. This is a (sample) survey, asking people about their experiences. It has all the difficulties associated with surveying and sampling. Recently the Government have given greater prominence to this, as it seems to support their contention that crime is falling, although when in opposition they were very critical, but if the Police Reports seem to be more favourable there is little doubt that this measure would be emphasised.
The problem here is that crimes by those aged under 16 are ignored, and by other categories such as businesses. Some crimes are not considered, and for any respondent only a maximum of five repeated offences for any particular crime are considered. There is likely to be considerable under-counting.
Aggregation, crudely putting all areas and all offences in a simple numerical total, can cause problems. Is the theft of paper clips to count as the same as a bullion robbery, a stabbing, fraud, drunken driving racial incitement, etc. Usually some attempt is made to distinguish - "Crime has fallen by 5%, overall, but violent crime has increased by 10%." Any summary measure has to have values or "weights" attached to particular results to average everything out. Just how many paperclips would have to be stolen on how many occasions to neutralise a change in the opposite direction to changes in speeding offences?
Given everything I have written, no figures by any politician of whatever party or by civil servants on their behalf should be taken without asking how they have arrived at the figures.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
The Queen's shilling has just reached 11 pence!
The Government seems to have awoken to the poor morale in the armed forces, - it has taken the penny a long while to drop!
Is pay to be increased? Are they going to get the modern, effective equipment they need? Is front-line food to become edible? "No", to all these, at least until finances improve.
Instead they have made two "generous" offers.
The first is to allow former servicemen to study at university without paying tuition fees like anyone else in England, - they will still have to find subsistence and other costs, which are the larger part of student debt. There will probably not be many takers, even if it is backdated to servicement in 2003 onwards. It will probably not be a very expensive policy.
The second is to promise preferential treatment to the military and their families in housing, education and health. What happened to the whole basis of the NHS "charter" of service on the basis of need, rather than wealth or occupation? Will it be to all military, including pen-pushers fighting a war back home from a desk?
The second may be more attractive to service personnel, especially over housing where the process of bringing military houses up the level of "fit for human habitation" has had a very low priority for many years.
How much these will please the forces depends in part on how long they will take to introduce. Morale will sink even lower if these take years to introduce, and whether they value them enough to reconsider their intentions of resigning as soon as possible remains to be seen.
The gesture, which is the normal Government response, is not likely to make a big difference after years of neglect and under-provision, as well as being taken for granted so often.
Is pay to be increased? Are they going to get the modern, effective equipment they need? Is front-line food to become edible? "No", to all these, at least until finances improve.
Instead they have made two "generous" offers.
The first is to allow former servicemen to study at university without paying tuition fees like anyone else in England, - they will still have to find subsistence and other costs, which are the larger part of student debt. There will probably not be many takers, even if it is backdated to servicement in 2003 onwards. It will probably not be a very expensive policy.
The second is to promise preferential treatment to the military and their families in housing, education and health. What happened to the whole basis of the NHS "charter" of service on the basis of need, rather than wealth or occupation? Will it be to all military, including pen-pushers fighting a war back home from a desk?
The second may be more attractive to service personnel, especially over housing where the process of bringing military houses up the level of "fit for human habitation" has had a very low priority for many years.
How much these will please the forces depends in part on how long they will take to introduce. Morale will sink even lower if these take years to introduce, and whether they value them enough to reconsider their intentions of resigning as soon as possible remains to be seen.
The gesture, which is the normal Government response, is not likely to make a big difference after years of neglect and under-provision, as well as being taken for granted so often.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
"You ain't seen nothing yet"?
This month's inflation indices showed rises, the CPI up to 3.8% (another letter soon from the Governor) and the more reliable RPI now 4.6%. With many salaries and pensions rising only by 2% or so, it is not difficult to understand why we are beginning to feel something of a struggle. Apparently both were restrained by a drop in the prices of clothing.
The Daily Telegraph calculates food/supermarket price indices, and for several weeks these have been at about 10%. On an annual basis it seems that 10.6% is the likely rise, with some foodstuffs rising much faster than that. We all know what is happening to fuel and energy prices!
Bottler continues his refrain, that it is all to do with outside forces. Some is - the stupid switch from foodstuffs to growing biofuels cetainly didn't help, and the EU clearly didn't think through their requirement that all fuel should have a percentage of biofuel in it!
But part of the explanation is the fall in the value of sterling, - over the past few years we have had the worst balance of payments on record. This was a Brown oversight. He was so keen to see the import of cheaper consumer goods which kept inflation low for several years, but his own splurge and the credit card spurge contributed to the weakening of sterling.
Could it get worse? The Office for National Statstics recently published firgures showing that factory gate prices are rising at 30%. These are yet to work through into the economy generally, as has the 20% price rise in imported goods. We could see even higher inflation rates, and all the problems as the strong trample over the poor.
There is little that the Government can do, given that it is so much in debt. We could have the scourge of inflation for a year or two yet. How will Brown explain this away when we come to the election?
The Daily Telegraph calculates food/supermarket price indices, and for several weeks these have been at about 10%. On an annual basis it seems that 10.6% is the likely rise, with some foodstuffs rising much faster than that. We all know what is happening to fuel and energy prices!
Bottler continues his refrain, that it is all to do with outside forces. Some is - the stupid switch from foodstuffs to growing biofuels cetainly didn't help, and the EU clearly didn't think through their requirement that all fuel should have a percentage of biofuel in it!
But part of the explanation is the fall in the value of sterling, - over the past few years we have had the worst balance of payments on record. This was a Brown oversight. He was so keen to see the import of cheaper consumer goods which kept inflation low for several years, but his own splurge and the credit card spurge contributed to the weakening of sterling.
Could it get worse? The Office for National Statstics recently published firgures showing that factory gate prices are rising at 30%. These are yet to work through into the economy generally, as has the 20% price rise in imported goods. We could see even higher inflation rates, and all the problems as the strong trample over the poor.
There is little that the Government can do, given that it is so much in debt. We could have the scourge of inflation for a year or two yet. How will Brown explain this away when we come to the election?
If your own supporters won't stump, do a deal..
"Who(ever) bankrolls the piper.......
Many of us have watched with a certain detached interest as to how the Labour Party will square the financial circle, - £20 million in debt, falling membership and with previous large donors increasingly disillusioned, above all since the party has become accustomed to spending huge sums during and between elections. In 2006, a non-election year, 70% of donations, or £8.5 million, came from the unions. Since 2001, according the Telegraph, when parties first had to record large donations, the unions have given no less than £55 million. The Times calculates that in the first quarter of this year 90% of giving to Labour came from the unions.
We feared, even expected, that the price sought by the unions for baling out the party was policy concessions, especially restoring the unlamented "secondary" picketing.
From the Daily Telegraph and the Times yesterday and today, some of the prices are appearing.
One price is the domination of local branches, who will be expected to agree Constituency Development Plans (CDPs), and agree to a raft of union conditions, including appointing trade union officers to branch committees. The CDP will be fully implemented, and be subject to a written report by the union(s) every six months.
There are ongoing discussions on mandatory equal pay audits and increased difficulties to sack workers, in private industry.
Finally it has been discovered that companies who wish to win government contracts in public service delivery must promote trade union membership and offer education and training to union members. The contracts collectively are large, involing as much as 6% of UK GDP and up to 1.2 million employees.
In this way union membership will be promoted, especially in smaller units, such as care homes which are largly un-unionised at present. Union membership has fallen by 50% in the past 25 years.
How much this will affect employers immediately is not clear, since contracts have already been agreed for years into the future, and they hope that the return of a Conservative Government would undo all the conditions.
What happens in local Labour party branches is their concern, even if money comes with (union) strings attached. What happens in the award of contract is potentially much more serious, not least giving the Government another control over private industry.
The most serious is that Government should benefit outside donors, whether big business as under Blair (and the Tories) or trade unions. There is here another argument about devolving decision making. Interference and corruption in local government is much more likely to be spotted then behind the closed doors and secrecy of Westminster.
Many of us have watched with a certain detached interest as to how the Labour Party will square the financial circle, - £20 million in debt, falling membership and with previous large donors increasingly disillusioned, above all since the party has become accustomed to spending huge sums during and between elections. In 2006, a non-election year, 70% of donations, or £8.5 million, came from the unions. Since 2001, according the Telegraph, when parties first had to record large donations, the unions have given no less than £55 million. The Times calculates that in the first quarter of this year 90% of giving to Labour came from the unions.
We feared, even expected, that the price sought by the unions for baling out the party was policy concessions, especially restoring the unlamented "secondary" picketing.
From the Daily Telegraph and the Times yesterday and today, some of the prices are appearing.
One price is the domination of local branches, who will be expected to agree Constituency Development Plans (CDPs), and agree to a raft of union conditions, including appointing trade union officers to branch committees. The CDP will be fully implemented, and be subject to a written report by the union(s) every six months.
There are ongoing discussions on mandatory equal pay audits and increased difficulties to sack workers, in private industry.
Finally it has been discovered that companies who wish to win government contracts in public service delivery must promote trade union membership and offer education and training to union members. The contracts collectively are large, involing as much as 6% of UK GDP and up to 1.2 million employees.
In this way union membership will be promoted, especially in smaller units, such as care homes which are largly un-unionised at present. Union membership has fallen by 50% in the past 25 years.
How much this will affect employers immediately is not clear, since contracts have already been agreed for years into the future, and they hope that the return of a Conservative Government would undo all the conditions.
What happens in local Labour party branches is their concern, even if money comes with (union) strings attached. What happens in the award of contract is potentially much more serious, not least giving the Government another control over private industry.
The most serious is that Government should benefit outside donors, whether big business as under Blair (and the Tories) or trade unions. There is here another argument about devolving decision making. Interference and corruption in local government is much more likely to be spotted then behind the closed doors and secrecy of Westminster.
Monday, 14 July 2008
Who are the real radicals?
The Labour Party would claim this description.
The radicals are the descendants of the Levellers, the Chartists and the Suffragettes. They are concerned about the powerless, the un-enfranchised, the repression of some groups. Above all they were the democrats who wanted power to be dispersed to all the people.
How does the Labour Party measure up?
They are happy with the concentration of power in Brussels, London and regions, and the emasculation of local Government. The phrase is top-down government. Having promised a referendum on the Lisbon non-Constitution, they then chose to ignore the electorate on one of the greatest decisions in perhaps half a century.
They are disappointed that few voters turn out to vote, and fail to realise that many people feel that their vote is pointless and carries no power. Come back the Levellers et al.
Well they are the party of the poor at least! This is questionable. Having made them supplicants of the state, condemned to welfarism and loss of dignity, they have been conveniently ignored as they aimed to connect with the middle classes who had traditionally shied away from their callectivist methods. The 10p tax band scandal, and something similar on VED disregarded the position of the poor, and it has taken the other parties and some remaining radical Labour Party MPs to remibnd the establishment of the poor. Do they really have a concern for the poor when tax allowances run out well below the level of the national minimum wage, and leave the lowest eraners paying tax?
Are the Conservatives the true heirs of the Levellers, etc.?
You can make a good case:
Localism - the devolution to the lowests praxctical level, but certainly beyond regionalism, is a Conservative emphasis. Individuals know more about their own cirumctances and their community, and care more, than any bureaucrat and MP in London. Waste will be lower, transparency greater and policies more in keeping with local wishes.
Conservatives are unhappy at the remoteness of concentrated power, whether in London or Brussels, and the "one-size-fits-all" result. The protest at the lack of transparency and acoountability, and would like to put local officials under the threat or periodic re-election.
On helping the poor, under Ian Duncan Smith's seminal work policies are being developed which will make those on benefit more like people than cases. No longer will money be thrown at them at arm's length and condemning them deeper into imprisoning welfare dependency. Attempts will be made to restore the family unit, to improve parenting, and encourage and support them (back) into work.Above all teenagers of the present generation will be encouraged by a mixture of firmness and incentive to avlue themselves more highly and to have ambitions. It will not be easy, but some improvement can be made, to judge from present work in the USA and the UK.
Who are the real radicals? Is there any question? The real radicals are blue!
The radicals are the descendants of the Levellers, the Chartists and the Suffragettes. They are concerned about the powerless, the un-enfranchised, the repression of some groups. Above all they were the democrats who wanted power to be dispersed to all the people.
How does the Labour Party measure up?
They are happy with the concentration of power in Brussels, London and regions, and the emasculation of local Government. The phrase is top-down government. Having promised a referendum on the Lisbon non-Constitution, they then chose to ignore the electorate on one of the greatest decisions in perhaps half a century.
They are disappointed that few voters turn out to vote, and fail to realise that many people feel that their vote is pointless and carries no power. Come back the Levellers et al.
Well they are the party of the poor at least! This is questionable. Having made them supplicants of the state, condemned to welfarism and loss of dignity, they have been conveniently ignored as they aimed to connect with the middle classes who had traditionally shied away from their callectivist methods. The 10p tax band scandal, and something similar on VED disregarded the position of the poor, and it has taken the other parties and some remaining radical Labour Party MPs to remibnd the establishment of the poor. Do they really have a concern for the poor when tax allowances run out well below the level of the national minimum wage, and leave the lowest eraners paying tax?
Are the Conservatives the true heirs of the Levellers, etc.?
You can make a good case:
Localism - the devolution to the lowests praxctical level, but certainly beyond regionalism, is a Conservative emphasis. Individuals know more about their own cirumctances and their community, and care more, than any bureaucrat and MP in London. Waste will be lower, transparency greater and policies more in keeping with local wishes.
Conservatives are unhappy at the remoteness of concentrated power, whether in London or Brussels, and the "one-size-fits-all" result. The protest at the lack of transparency and acoountability, and would like to put local officials under the threat or periodic re-election.
On helping the poor, under Ian Duncan Smith's seminal work policies are being developed which will make those on benefit more like people than cases. No longer will money be thrown at them at arm's length and condemning them deeper into imprisoning welfare dependency. Attempts will be made to restore the family unit, to improve parenting, and encourage and support them (back) into work.Above all teenagers of the present generation will be encouraged by a mixture of firmness and incentive to avlue themselves more highly and to have ambitions. It will not be easy, but some improvement can be made, to judge from present work in the USA and the UK.
Who are the real radicals? Is there any question? The real radicals are blue!
What a surprise!
I should have put money on it, even Blair spoke about it.
It did not take higher Mathematics to calculate that with wind power both unreliable 24/7, wave and tidal power production provoking protests from bird lovers and conventional power stations producing carbon dioxide, all logic suggested that the only clean, reliable and viable solution was nuclear powered electricity.
The Times has announced this morning that the Government expects at least 8 new nuclear power stations to be approved over the next two years. The alternative would be power cuts within the near future, as many of our conventional power stations and nuclear power stations are becoming obsolete. In fact by 2023 all the present nuclear stations will have become so.
Some of the nuclear power stations will be built as additional reactors or stations within the present ones, but the 8 new ones will need fresh sites. We could be kind to the Government and say that they have waited until they had the new planning authority (Quango) which can override or shorten local planning protests.
However, the Government are guilty of dithering and delay. It has been obvious for years to anyone who looked at the data that if we have to meet EU and other undertakings on emissions, and if we are to maintain sufficient reliable capacity, then there is no way we can avoid the nuclear option. The irony is that as our own nuclear industry has been downgraded for many years, we shall probably have to rely on the French for technology and building stations.
Bottler, as he went on his spending splurge, took his eye off the ball and ignored power generation. It was very short-sighted and it is now very last minute, given the time it takes to prepare, design, and build nuclear stations.
It did not take higher Mathematics to calculate that with wind power both unreliable 24/7, wave and tidal power production provoking protests from bird lovers and conventional power stations producing carbon dioxide, all logic suggested that the only clean, reliable and viable solution was nuclear powered electricity.
The Times has announced this morning that the Government expects at least 8 new nuclear power stations to be approved over the next two years. The alternative would be power cuts within the near future, as many of our conventional power stations and nuclear power stations are becoming obsolete. In fact by 2023 all the present nuclear stations will have become so.
Some of the nuclear power stations will be built as additional reactors or stations within the present ones, but the 8 new ones will need fresh sites. We could be kind to the Government and say that they have waited until they had the new planning authority (Quango) which can override or shorten local planning protests.
However, the Government are guilty of dithering and delay. It has been obvious for years to anyone who looked at the data that if we have to meet EU and other undertakings on emissions, and if we are to maintain sufficient reliable capacity, then there is no way we can avoid the nuclear option. The irony is that as our own nuclear industry has been downgraded for many years, we shall probably have to rely on the French for technology and building stations.
Bottler, as he went on his spending splurge, took his eye off the ball and ignored power generation. It was very short-sighted and it is now very last minute, given the time it takes to prepare, design, and build nuclear stations.
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Whither David Davis?
We know that David Davis was re-elected for Haltemprice, etc, that he achieved 72% of the vote and 10 times as many votes as any other candidate, and that he has surprised some critics who were talking of a smaller and derisory majority and a very low turnout. (It should be said that other well known political figures were returned on much lower turnouts, - Portillo and Hilary Benn to name two, and that his percentage of electors in support was well above the national percentage that Tony Blair received for his mandate in 2005.
The question is, "What happens now?"
Most people seem agreed that Cameron cannot re-appoint him to the Shadow Cabinet immediately. Davis accepts that Dominic Grieve is doing a good job and shares most of Davis's views and convictions.
If a Shadow Cabinet member resigned for some reason - ill health, scandal, or whatever, and there was need for a shuffle, it would be interesting.
As been said elsewhere, it is arguable that three very effective and possible dissent focuses are Duncan-Smith, Redwood and Davis. They are all experienced and able to inflict damage on the Government. Cameron would not want Davis outside the shadow cabinet, interviewed on issues as an interesting and well-known Conservative rather in the way that Menzies Campbell was fetched in on foreign issues before he was leader of the Libdems.
To have Davis in the shadow cabinet, bound by collective responsibility and being spokesman only for his own limited area, makes sense. At the very least it would prevent opponents from trying to play him off against Cameron or the Party.
There is little doubt that Davis has succeeded in his objective, despite critics. He reached out beyond Party boundaries and was supported by others from other parties or no party. Several appeared with him or spoke at meetings. The issues he raised were seldom out of the media for the duration of his campaign, and he will have forged alliances with others for the future on the set of issues.
My own judgement is that he has shown himself a man whose convictions are more important than personal ambition, and those convictions are shared with large numbers of the electorate. He has made up for many of the frailties shown by other politicians recently, and in my opinion his reputation has been enhanced.
I have little doubt that he will be back in the (Shadow) Cabinet before very long. Almost single-handed he has seen off a number of ministers in the area of his brief, - Home Office, and he has shown he is well able to master complicated issues and argue forcibly. If he lacks the oratorical power of William Hague, he makes up for this in other ways.
The question is, "What happens now?"
Most people seem agreed that Cameron cannot re-appoint him to the Shadow Cabinet immediately. Davis accepts that Dominic Grieve is doing a good job and shares most of Davis's views and convictions.
If a Shadow Cabinet member resigned for some reason - ill health, scandal, or whatever, and there was need for a shuffle, it would be interesting.
As been said elsewhere, it is arguable that three very effective and possible dissent focuses are Duncan-Smith, Redwood and Davis. They are all experienced and able to inflict damage on the Government. Cameron would not want Davis outside the shadow cabinet, interviewed on issues as an interesting and well-known Conservative rather in the way that Menzies Campbell was fetched in on foreign issues before he was leader of the Libdems.
To have Davis in the shadow cabinet, bound by collective responsibility and being spokesman only for his own limited area, makes sense. At the very least it would prevent opponents from trying to play him off against Cameron or the Party.
There is little doubt that Davis has succeeded in his objective, despite critics. He reached out beyond Party boundaries and was supported by others from other parties or no party. Several appeared with him or spoke at meetings. The issues he raised were seldom out of the media for the duration of his campaign, and he will have forged alliances with others for the future on the set of issues.
My own judgement is that he has shown himself a man whose convictions are more important than personal ambition, and those convictions are shared with large numbers of the electorate. He has made up for many of the frailties shown by other politicians recently, and in my opinion his reputation has been enhanced.
I have little doubt that he will be back in the (Shadow) Cabinet before very long. Almost single-handed he has seen off a number of ministers in the area of his brief, - Home Office, and he has shown he is well able to master complicated issues and argue forcibly. If he lacks the oratorical power of William Hague, he makes up for this in other ways.
Friday, 11 July 2008
Bottler's little porkie
It is by now well established that on May 14th the Prime Minister told the Commons that when the new extra car duty was fully in 55% of motorists will be either better off or no worse off. That is, that 45% would be worse off.
On June 4th he said that the majority would benefit, that is be better off, at least 51% would be better off.
Anyone who has not seen the calculations done by various bodies could accept the two figures as implying that 51% would gain and a further 4% would neither gain nor lose. The two figures are just about compatible.
The independent calculations all however show that the majority would lose. So the prime minister is wrong on both dates.
The remaining issue is what we are to make of the change? The latter one seems the more emphatic, and the less compatible with figures admitted even by Government departments, as well as independent researchers. You would hope that the more recent statement, perhaps revised from more recent calculations, would be more accurate.
It is this misleading of the House of Commons which is annoying most MPs, although Labour MPs are tying themselves in knots trying to explain or ignore the difference. Bottler himself, in his usual arrogant way, merely ignores the whole issue.
Why did he not quickly admit that he made a slight mistake in choosing words - he is after all in a political cockpit and it is easy to make a mistake? The answer, I'm afraid, is that he is incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake.
Or is it that with all his other porkies that he hopes to get away with making statements that are false, incomplete or true in only very special definitions of words?
On June 4th he said that the majority would benefit, that is be better off, at least 51% would be better off.
Anyone who has not seen the calculations done by various bodies could accept the two figures as implying that 51% would gain and a further 4% would neither gain nor lose. The two figures are just about compatible.
The independent calculations all however show that the majority would lose. So the prime minister is wrong on both dates.
The remaining issue is what we are to make of the change? The latter one seems the more emphatic, and the less compatible with figures admitted even by Government departments, as well as independent researchers. You would hope that the more recent statement, perhaps revised from more recent calculations, would be more accurate.
It is this misleading of the House of Commons which is annoying most MPs, although Labour MPs are tying themselves in knots trying to explain or ignore the difference. Bottler himself, in his usual arrogant way, merely ignores the whole issue.
Why did he not quickly admit that he made a slight mistake in choosing words - he is after all in a political cockpit and it is easy to make a mistake? The answer, I'm afraid, is that he is incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake.
Or is it that with all his other porkies that he hopes to get away with making statements that are false, incomplete or true in only very special definitions of words?
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Doughnuts and free draw tickets
Hazel Blears, upset by the apathy among British voters, plans to entice them and coerce them into being more politically active. It is mostly bribery.
She identifies a problem, - voter apathy, but seems completely ignorant of the cause. Why do people refuse to walk to polling stations, or even to apply for and fill in a postal voting form?
She does not seem to see that the problem is all about pointlessness. Their vote is for Westminster politicians who have much less power than they used to have, and who will ignore them or deceive them by spinning and do secret deals with big business and trade unions, and for MEPs who have little power over the many policies and laws made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels who are quite beyond votes.
If a person's life and situation could be influenced by the casting votes, there would be every incentive to vote, with a real prospect of influencing what happens.
Voting at local elections is very low in part because many so-called local decisions are in fact made in London, and local councillors are the fall guys to carry the can for Government policies. Even in local government there is a cabinet system which restricts what power they have to a few. This is continuning. Some areas are to have mayors imposed upon them without consultation, and it is to be made more difficult to hold referenda on issues such as this.
It is very well for Ms. Blears to impose on councils the requirement to answer petitions (in the way in which Whitehall does not), to have public meetings and the like, and to pretend to "consult the public", when the real power is at London or Brussels.
Ms. Blears, if you really want an active and vibrant local democracy, transfer powers back from London, de-merge police and ambulance services and give councils power to raise their own finances. This will make local democracy meaningful, and we shall all be dashing down to the polling station to cast our vote for councillors, mayors, police chiefs and health chiefs, and expect them to consult us in a real way rather than telling us what has already been decided.
You cannot have a society increasingly controlled by London and Brussels, and theerfore centralised, and expect people to become enthusiastic about politics. Political activists and councillors are to be admired for taking on many duties with little effective power. Police, Fire and Health services are unresponsive because of remoteness and ought to be made accountable to local people.
Ms.Blears has identified a problem but does not seem to understand its basic nature.
She identifies a problem, - voter apathy, but seems completely ignorant of the cause. Why do people refuse to walk to polling stations, or even to apply for and fill in a postal voting form?
She does not seem to see that the problem is all about pointlessness. Their vote is for Westminster politicians who have much less power than they used to have, and who will ignore them or deceive them by spinning and do secret deals with big business and trade unions, and for MEPs who have little power over the many policies and laws made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels who are quite beyond votes.
If a person's life and situation could be influenced by the casting votes, there would be every incentive to vote, with a real prospect of influencing what happens.
Voting at local elections is very low in part because many so-called local decisions are in fact made in London, and local councillors are the fall guys to carry the can for Government policies. Even in local government there is a cabinet system which restricts what power they have to a few. This is continuning. Some areas are to have mayors imposed upon them without consultation, and it is to be made more difficult to hold referenda on issues such as this.
It is very well for Ms. Blears to impose on councils the requirement to answer petitions (in the way in which Whitehall does not), to have public meetings and the like, and to pretend to "consult the public", when the real power is at London or Brussels.
Ms. Blears, if you really want an active and vibrant local democracy, transfer powers back from London, de-merge police and ambulance services and give councils power to raise their own finances. This will make local democracy meaningful, and we shall all be dashing down to the polling station to cast our vote for councillors, mayors, police chiefs and health chiefs, and expect them to consult us in a real way rather than telling us what has already been decided.
You cannot have a society increasingly controlled by London and Brussels, and theerfore centralised, and expect people to become enthusiastic about politics. Political activists and councillors are to be admired for taking on many duties with little effective power. Police, Fire and Health services are unresponsive because of remoteness and ought to be made accountable to local people.
Ms.Blears has identified a problem but does not seem to understand its basic nature.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
The overriding concern
To a long list of things which must be considered before any action can be taken, a new one has been added recently.
Iain Dale in his blog today tells of another - there has now to be be a "race and gender impact assessment" on top of all the others on health and safety, energy, environement, etc.
He tells us that the decision on the future of Heathrow Airport has been delayed because the Government has apparently run foul of his own requirements. The new runway did not have such an assessment so everything must be held up until the assessment has been made.
How will females, members of ethnic minority groups and the disabled be affected? It seems like a new level of sophistication, not just enquiring into the lives and situations of people, but disaggregating them, disregarding the needs of white males or at least downgrading their needs, - all this in the name of social engineering.
It is not enough to ask how much inconvenience, noise or smell people will suffer, as part of the "cost-benefit analysis" undertaken, the results must be weighted according to sex, ethnicity, disability, age. So the project could devastate thousands of white males, who don't count, so long as those suffering do not include too many women, etc. If there are plenty of jobs for women or certain immigrants, this is fine, even if there are only few for unemployed white males.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that those who promoted the idea of a new runway were concerned with British prestige and commercial advantage. It seems after all that we have to please the politically correct in order to undertake any such major projects.
You have to fear for the future of this country, but never mind so long as we are all perceived to be equal......
Iain Dale in his blog today tells of another - there has now to be be a "race and gender impact assessment" on top of all the others on health and safety, energy, environement, etc.
He tells us that the decision on the future of Heathrow Airport has been delayed because the Government has apparently run foul of his own requirements. The new runway did not have such an assessment so everything must be held up until the assessment has been made.
How will females, members of ethnic minority groups and the disabled be affected? It seems like a new level of sophistication, not just enquiring into the lives and situations of people, but disaggregating them, disregarding the needs of white males or at least downgrading their needs, - all this in the name of social engineering.
It is not enough to ask how much inconvenience, noise or smell people will suffer, as part of the "cost-benefit analysis" undertaken, the results must be weighted according to sex, ethnicity, disability, age. So the project could devastate thousands of white males, who don't count, so long as those suffering do not include too many women, etc. If there are plenty of jobs for women or certain immigrants, this is fine, even if there are only few for unemployed white males.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that those who promoted the idea of a new runway were concerned with British prestige and commercial advantage. It seems after all that we have to please the politically correct in order to undertake any such major projects.
You have to fear for the future of this country, but never mind so long as we are all perceived to be equal......
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
The foregone alternative
Economists have the concept of the cost of anything being the loss of the most attractive foregone alternative. There has been a sacrifice, an opportunity cost. we hope that in all decision making, the most valuable is chosen. Even if it is other attractive alternatives will have been sacrificed.
Yesterday the Daily Telegraph reported David Davis reporting some work done by the Taxpayers Alliance on the costs of surveillance in our society.
The estimate is that about £800 per household is being spent on surveillance. This includes £19 billion for the planned ID card system and £500 million on CCTV.
The figures are difficult to grasp for those of us who are watching the pennies, but if we say that £300 million could build and equip a hospital (- my own guess, and I could be way out), £4 billion to build an advanced aircraft carrier, the true cost of surveillance could be measured in hospitals which could have been built or aircraft carriers which we are going to have to do without.
As David Davies says, CCTV film generally has little value, - many criminals have already worked out that much video film is of the wrong quality to be used in court, and wearing a hood will reduce chances of identification.
Whether experts are correct, that ID cards will prove to be a huge waste, or opportunity cost, time may tell us. What is true is that they have already used up scarce resources, threaten our freedom and may easily be by-passed by criminal elements.
What Davis points out is that failures in the criminal justice system have reduced our security. If we could exclude people who are a threat to security, not release those who are dangerous and also not lose important data by mismanagement, then the vast expenditure on surveillance could be reduced and give the possibility of constructing or renewing hospitals or equipping our troops as they deserve.
Yesterday the Daily Telegraph reported David Davis reporting some work done by the Taxpayers Alliance on the costs of surveillance in our society.
The estimate is that about £800 per household is being spent on surveillance. This includes £19 billion for the planned ID card system and £500 million on CCTV.
The figures are difficult to grasp for those of us who are watching the pennies, but if we say that £300 million could build and equip a hospital (- my own guess, and I could be way out), £4 billion to build an advanced aircraft carrier, the true cost of surveillance could be measured in hospitals which could have been built or aircraft carriers which we are going to have to do without.
As David Davies says, CCTV film generally has little value, - many criminals have already worked out that much video film is of the wrong quality to be used in court, and wearing a hood will reduce chances of identification.
Whether experts are correct, that ID cards will prove to be a huge waste, or opportunity cost, time may tell us. What is true is that they have already used up scarce resources, threaten our freedom and may easily be by-passed by criminal elements.
What Davis points out is that failures in the criminal justice system have reduced our security. If we could exclude people who are a threat to security, not release those who are dangerous and also not lose important data by mismanagement, then the vast expenditure on surveillance could be reduced and give the possibility of constructing or renewing hospitals or equipping our troops as they deserve.
Monday, 7 July 2008
5 out of 10 for Osborne?
George Osborne has struck a cord with many who are finding the fuel price increase a great burden. In political terms, therefore, he has scored.
But could this be permanent? It is attractive to think that receipts from fuel taxes will be limited, but is this what we would want, when his earlier statements were to the effect "When we put up the taxes on pollutants, we shall reduce taxes elsewhere.
If we are trying to send out the message that fuel is becoming scarce and damaging, then price should be allowed to do its work - discouraging consumption and use, by encouraging people to share cars, buy more efficient cars, use public transport, drive considerately and avoiding short journeys to school or shopping when the engine is cold and inefficient. There are already signs of these "economies" taking place, and price is doing its work.
But, and it is a very big but, if the Treasury rakes in extra cash, we should reduce taxes elsewhere. The obvious place to reduce taxes is on the fixed taxes of transport, chiefly road tax. If we reduced road tax , we could arrange that some of the higher costs of fuel were neutralised.
Of course high mileage users would not be completely compensated, but then they are the ones who are doing the most environmental damage.
The benefit here would be that those who need a car only for occasional trips, for holiday or to see granny, etc., would not be penalised because of the excessive fixed tax, and thus making short and few journeys too expensive.
The policy of the present government is so non-rational as to make it clear that their only interest is to raise money. Owners of large cars, assumed to be rich, will pay more and owners of smaller cars, assumed to be poor, will pay less.
Their argument overlooks two things. Firstly that high petrol users, whatever size of engine, are paying more in petrol duties, and secondly that cars which have be assessed as having lower emissions may in fact do higher mileages and thus do more environmental damage, and large engineered cars may emit less over a year than small cars.
The argument is typical of a Government which adopts crude policies on political grounds. If the object is to reduce the consumption of fuel and the damage to the environment, then the price of fuel itself will go a long way to achieving this. Administrative solutions are usually expensive to run and often fail to achieve their objectives. The discriminatory Vehicle Excise Duty is a case in point.
But could this be permanent? It is attractive to think that receipts from fuel taxes will be limited, but is this what we would want, when his earlier statements were to the effect "When we put up the taxes on pollutants, we shall reduce taxes elsewhere.
If we are trying to send out the message that fuel is becoming scarce and damaging, then price should be allowed to do its work - discouraging consumption and use, by encouraging people to share cars, buy more efficient cars, use public transport, drive considerately and avoiding short journeys to school or shopping when the engine is cold and inefficient. There are already signs of these "economies" taking place, and price is doing its work.
But, and it is a very big but, if the Treasury rakes in extra cash, we should reduce taxes elsewhere. The obvious place to reduce taxes is on the fixed taxes of transport, chiefly road tax. If we reduced road tax , we could arrange that some of the higher costs of fuel were neutralised.
Of course high mileage users would not be completely compensated, but then they are the ones who are doing the most environmental damage.
The benefit here would be that those who need a car only for occasional trips, for holiday or to see granny, etc., would not be penalised because of the excessive fixed tax, and thus making short and few journeys too expensive.
The policy of the present government is so non-rational as to make it clear that their only interest is to raise money. Owners of large cars, assumed to be rich, will pay more and owners of smaller cars, assumed to be poor, will pay less.
Their argument overlooks two things. Firstly that high petrol users, whatever size of engine, are paying more in petrol duties, and secondly that cars which have be assessed as having lower emissions may in fact do higher mileages and thus do more environmental damage, and large engineered cars may emit less over a year than small cars.
The argument is typical of a Government which adopts crude policies on political grounds. If the object is to reduce the consumption of fuel and the damage to the environment, then the price of fuel itself will go a long way to achieving this. Administrative solutions are usually expensive to run and often fail to achieve their objectives. The discriminatory Vehicle Excise Duty is a case in point.
Saturday, 5 July 2008
A field day....
Ray Lewis may or may not be guilty of some or all of the things with which he stands accused.
Boris and Dave may or may not have been naive to give him such an honoured position.
What is truly surprising is the way in which critics have gone over the top. The BBC, perhaps fighting to preserve their privileged monopoly position by trying to get the Labour Party back into power, have given the whole issue a prominence which they never gave to Lee Casper, when Mayor Livingstone suspended him for possible misappropriation on a large scale.
The Toady programme this morning, ramming it all home,suggested that it could be years before the Johnson Mayoralty is clean from its present contagion - the BBC again indulging in wishful thinking.
Ray Lewis has protested his innocence, and has resigned to protect the mayoralty. In time he may be cleared, or his guilt confirmed, but to fail to urge people to wait until then because you wish to get in with as much smearing as possible is politics, and not what might be expected from an impartial news broadcaster.
By all means let them ferret about, let them investigate, and let them try to prove that Lewis is guilty, but casting biased propaganda as if it is news is unworthy of them There was little to choose between what they said and what Hazel Blears came out with, which is saying something.
Boris and Dave may or may not have been naive to give him such an honoured position.
What is truly surprising is the way in which critics have gone over the top. The BBC, perhaps fighting to preserve their privileged monopoly position by trying to get the Labour Party back into power, have given the whole issue a prominence which they never gave to Lee Casper, when Mayor Livingstone suspended him for possible misappropriation on a large scale.
The Toady programme this morning, ramming it all home,suggested that it could be years before the Johnson Mayoralty is clean from its present contagion - the BBC again indulging in wishful thinking.
Ray Lewis has protested his innocence, and has resigned to protect the mayoralty. In time he may be cleared, or his guilt confirmed, but to fail to urge people to wait until then because you wish to get in with as much smearing as possible is politics, and not what might be expected from an impartial news broadcaster.
By all means let them ferret about, let them investigate, and let them try to prove that Lewis is guilty, but casting biased propaganda as if it is news is unworthy of them There was little to choose between what they said and what Hazel Blears came out with, which is saying something.
Friday, 4 July 2008
Playing up
The Daily Mail recently revealed figures based on official statistics.
Currently about 2,200 young people are sent home from school every day. Last year 434,280 expulsions and suspensions occurred . Of these, 830 pupils received ten or more suspensions each in the year, - something difficult to imagine in 40 weeks.
Primary schools barred pupils 46,710 times, a ten per cent increase since 2003/04, and they sent home more than 3,000 pupils aged just four and five. Assaults against adults led to 260 expulsions from primary schools.
There does seem to be a switch from expulsions to suspensions, that is fixed-term exclusions, at the secondary level, and there is also suspicion that "managed moves" are replacing expulsions, by sending troublesome pupils straight to another school. Since 2004/05 there has been a threefold increase in these to more than 4,500 pupils. Permanent exclusions are also falling because parents are increasingly resorting to the appeals procedure. There were 240 successful appeals last year, compared with 210 in 2002/03. The number is "small ", reflecting the cost and disruption cause by the process itself.
Many of the cases will result in the "offenders" missing important schooling, and also disturbing the schooling of their fellows.
Clearly there are problems at home which contribute to the behaviour, and something must be done about that - a long term "cure" for family breakdown. Equally clearly when pupils have reached this stage, to protect the others and to help the offenders we must be prepared to separate the offenders out, not to roam the streets or lounge at home, but for one to one counselling and teaching. Otherwise these lives will be blighted and they will cause disruption at school and in the wider community, and ultimately cause greater costs.
Currently about 2,200 young people are sent home from school every day. Last year 434,280 expulsions and suspensions occurred . Of these, 830 pupils received ten or more suspensions each in the year, - something difficult to imagine in 40 weeks.
Primary schools barred pupils 46,710 times, a ten per cent increase since 2003/04, and they sent home more than 3,000 pupils aged just four and five. Assaults against adults led to 260 expulsions from primary schools.
There does seem to be a switch from expulsions to suspensions, that is fixed-term exclusions, at the secondary level, and there is also suspicion that "managed moves" are replacing expulsions, by sending troublesome pupils straight to another school. Since 2004/05 there has been a threefold increase in these to more than 4,500 pupils. Permanent exclusions are also falling because parents are increasingly resorting to the appeals procedure. There were 240 successful appeals last year, compared with 210 in 2002/03. The number is "small ", reflecting the cost and disruption cause by the process itself.
Many of the cases will result in the "offenders" missing important schooling, and also disturbing the schooling of their fellows.
Clearly there are problems at home which contribute to the behaviour, and something must be done about that - a long term "cure" for family breakdown. Equally clearly when pupils have reached this stage, to protect the others and to help the offenders we must be prepared to separate the offenders out, not to roam the streets or lounge at home, but for one to one counselling and teaching. Otherwise these lives will be blighted and they will cause disruption at school and in the wider community, and ultimately cause greater costs.
Going to fetch them
It is clear that Quangos are on the list of "they never would be missed" by the Conservatives, at least in some respects.
The latest thinking in public from Alan Duncan asks about the overseas offices maintained by regional development agencies. These offices cost about £20 million a year. All six RDAs have these offices, in in several cases they are competing with each other. So the North East and the South East offices are competing against each other in Korea. Yorkshire offices in the USA are competing with those of the North East. Each, of course, is also in competition with the national body "UK Trade and Investment".
It is laudable that each is presumably trying to win inward investment for their area, but there is wasteful duplication.
I cannot avoid the comment that we suffered little problem in attracting inward investment before Ireland and other countries reduced their rate of corporation tax so far below our level. If our Government could reduce its waste and thus reduce its company taxation, there would be much less need for these quangos to make a despairing effort to mitigate the effects of our high tax regime.
The latest thinking in public from Alan Duncan asks about the overseas offices maintained by regional development agencies. These offices cost about £20 million a year. All six RDAs have these offices, in in several cases they are competing with each other. So the North East and the South East offices are competing against each other in Korea. Yorkshire offices in the USA are competing with those of the North East. Each, of course, is also in competition with the national body "UK Trade and Investment".
It is laudable that each is presumably trying to win inward investment for their area, but there is wasteful duplication.
I cannot avoid the comment that we suffered little problem in attracting inward investment before Ireland and other countries reduced their rate of corporation tax so far below our level. If our Government could reduce its waste and thus reduce its company taxation, there would be much less need for these quangos to make a despairing effort to mitigate the effects of our high tax regime.
Shame!
The MPs with their noses in the trough, and the Government hiding somewhere so they could not be forced to vote, should feel ashamed that they have let down their constituents.
They did reject the possibility of having an inflation busting pay increase, although with a very generous (untaxed?) daily subsistence allowance (- we all have to pay for food when we work) they have done fairly well. This does not mention the subsidised dining arrangements at the Commons, and the well-stocked wine cellars.
It is the continuation of the second home allowances which will stick in many people's throats. It is accepted that the MPs who live outside commuting range should not be out of pocket in buying a new home. We are concerned at the relatively expensive provision for the second home, when we would have to buy it out of post-tax income, and the help with mortage house purchase which is a gift to be kept when their term is finished.
If the John Lewis goods were taxed as income in kind, and if the state reclaimed at the end of their term that part of the second home which the taxpayer has purchased, in other words that they treated themselves rather more as we are treated, our anger might be lessened.
But it is the sheer obsession with trying to cover up what they are up to, and their unwillingness to accept any investigation, after all the revelations which have emerged over the months past which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
The refrain of the pigs in Animal Farm, - how aposite, "Some are more equal than others" which sums up their arogant self-importance. The profession, which languishes about on a par with estate agents and second hand car salesmen in people's minds in terms of honesty, have now added greed to their list of characteristics.
They did reject the possibility of having an inflation busting pay increase, although with a very generous (untaxed?) daily subsistence allowance (- we all have to pay for food when we work) they have done fairly well. This does not mention the subsidised dining arrangements at the Commons, and the well-stocked wine cellars.
It is the continuation of the second home allowances which will stick in many people's throats. It is accepted that the MPs who live outside commuting range should not be out of pocket in buying a new home. We are concerned at the relatively expensive provision for the second home, when we would have to buy it out of post-tax income, and the help with mortage house purchase which is a gift to be kept when their term is finished.
If the John Lewis goods were taxed as income in kind, and if the state reclaimed at the end of their term that part of the second home which the taxpayer has purchased, in other words that they treated themselves rather more as we are treated, our anger might be lessened.
But it is the sheer obsession with trying to cover up what they are up to, and their unwillingness to accept any investigation, after all the revelations which have emerged over the months past which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
The refrain of the pigs in Animal Farm, - how aposite, "Some are more equal than others" which sums up their arogant self-importance. The profession, which languishes about on a par with estate agents and second hand car salesmen in people's minds in terms of honesty, have now added greed to their list of characteristics.
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
The ultimate smear
It was reported in Sunday's Telegraph, that a leading advocate of global warming policies, was trying to persuade the US Congress to allow the prosecution of chief executives of US energy companies for the high crime of denying global warming.
James Hansen, who made an historic speech on the subject in 1988, is head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and he and Al Gore are arguably the chief evangelists in the cause.
Their absolutism was unabashed last year when Hansen was forced to admit that that for a few years temperatures had declined "temporarily" despite rising carbon dioxide, and that the highest land surface ever recorded in the USA was in the 1930s.
He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, and to seeking to persuade the rest of us, so long as he does not use evidence selectively. What I am concerned about is the attempt to outlaw private thought and opinion in the way parts of Europe have with the concept of Holocaust Denial as a major crime.
If your case is not strong, or well qualified people are opposing it, you can always shut them up by having them in prison! Will they burn unfavourable books as well? This all sounds like the Nazis and their wish to abolish anyone who disagreed and would not swallow their teaching.
James Hansen, who made an historic speech on the subject in 1988, is head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and he and Al Gore are arguably the chief evangelists in the cause.
Their absolutism was unabashed last year when Hansen was forced to admit that that for a few years temperatures had declined "temporarily" despite rising carbon dioxide, and that the highest land surface ever recorded in the USA was in the 1930s.
He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, and to seeking to persuade the rest of us, so long as he does not use evidence selectively. What I am concerned about is the attempt to outlaw private thought and opinion in the way parts of Europe have with the concept of Holocaust Denial as a major crime.
If your case is not strong, or well qualified people are opposing it, you can always shut them up by having them in prison! Will they burn unfavourable books as well? This all sounds like the Nazis and their wish to abolish anyone who disagreed and would not swallow their teaching.
Some are more equal than others
Recently we have had two more examples of social engineering policies from Bottler's lot.
Harriet Harman, who seems so bitterly twisted that we wonder if she should be attempting her job, has decided that discrimination is illegal, except against white males. Companies will not be allowed to appoint the best applicant, in their eyes, while there are members of other groups - the old, women and minority ethnic groups, who are apparently equally qualified. (Many years ago, while we were eating Sunday lunch, a member of one of these groups arrived without prior arrangement, and demanded to inspect our house which was for sale. When we asked if he could return when we had finished lunch, he threatened to report us to......) The (perceived) Victim Society is not above a little blackmail.
There are any number of reasons why an employer would not want to appoint an applicant, like to hairdressing salon, recently required to pay for hurt feelings because it rejected the application of an applicant who insisted on wearing a scarf to obscure her hair at all times!
In Monday's Daily Telegraph we had a different example. Universities will be told to give preferential treatment to applicants from poorer households. The Government is considering this proposal from a commissioned report, but is thought to be likely to adopt it.
Tinkering with arrangements made by private individuals, on the basis of their own judgement, is to be outlawed in the name of social engineering, where one size fits all in crude interference. The so-called positive discrimination is introduced in order to prevent discrimination! This is the result which follows a government hell-bent on engineering in society where the consequences are unpredictable.
The Government does not seem to be able to adopt a hands-off approach, having set in chain broad arrangements to level the playing field. If women are unattractive employees because they are likely to get pregnant, then ease the burden on employers of funding the absence, and if some ethnic groups struggle with English, encourage them to speak English at home, - some groups are extremely well motivated.
I cannot help mischievously pointing out that after 1945 and until towards 1970, a higher proportion of children from poorer families went to Oxbridge, and other universities, than at any time since. The secret, of course, is that the ability they had was developed by the Grammar Schools to which they won places, rather than being discouraged in overlarge and soul-less comprehensives into which their successors were dragooned. But then, of course, the Government of the day was determined that every pupil would start on the same starting line and pass through the same system.
The unforeseen, or overlooked, consequence was that ultimately the change in schools was going to lose the talent from poorer families, to judge from university entrance statistics, and also generally weaken our educational system performance in all interntional comparisons. All in the name of improving the lot of students from poorer homes!
Harriet Harman, who seems so bitterly twisted that we wonder if she should be attempting her job, has decided that discrimination is illegal, except against white males. Companies will not be allowed to appoint the best applicant, in their eyes, while there are members of other groups - the old, women and minority ethnic groups, who are apparently equally qualified. (Many years ago, while we were eating Sunday lunch, a member of one of these groups arrived without prior arrangement, and demanded to inspect our house which was for sale. When we asked if he could return when we had finished lunch, he threatened to report us to......) The (perceived) Victim Society is not above a little blackmail.
There are any number of reasons why an employer would not want to appoint an applicant, like to hairdressing salon, recently required to pay for hurt feelings because it rejected the application of an applicant who insisted on wearing a scarf to obscure her hair at all times!
In Monday's Daily Telegraph we had a different example. Universities will be told to give preferential treatment to applicants from poorer households. The Government is considering this proposal from a commissioned report, but is thought to be likely to adopt it.
Tinkering with arrangements made by private individuals, on the basis of their own judgement, is to be outlawed in the name of social engineering, where one size fits all in crude interference. The so-called positive discrimination is introduced in order to prevent discrimination! This is the result which follows a government hell-bent on engineering in society where the consequences are unpredictable.
The Government does not seem to be able to adopt a hands-off approach, having set in chain broad arrangements to level the playing field. If women are unattractive employees because they are likely to get pregnant, then ease the burden on employers of funding the absence, and if some ethnic groups struggle with English, encourage them to speak English at home, - some groups are extremely well motivated.
I cannot help mischievously pointing out that after 1945 and until towards 1970, a higher proportion of children from poorer families went to Oxbridge, and other universities, than at any time since. The secret, of course, is that the ability they had was developed by the Grammar Schools to which they won places, rather than being discouraged in overlarge and soul-less comprehensives into which their successors were dragooned. But then, of course, the Government of the day was determined that every pupil would start on the same starting line and pass through the same system.
The unforeseen, or overlooked, consequence was that ultimately the change in schools was going to lose the talent from poorer families, to judge from university entrance statistics, and also generally weaken our educational system performance in all interntional comparisons. All in the name of improving the lot of students from poorer homes!
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
The con exposed
The proposed sites for eco-towns have concerned many of us already. Some sites are so remote from work centres, and culture, sport and shopping, that travelling will be a major issue and cost. Many of the proposed developments would be in rural areas which traditionally are Conservative seats, so there is the usual vindictive Labour intention here.
Recently we have learned that the so-called green qualifications of the housing have been, shall we say, spun a little, that in general the new housing will not be much greener than many other new housing developments. The cost of new houses will be such as to be outside theprice range of starter homes, without massive public subsidy.
The new housing will not make much contribution to solving our housing shortage, even if all were developed, but they will make a large contribution to Government income as many sites are military installations not easily converted to agricultural use. In addition the Government will have displayed its green credentials in a large public relations exercise.
Recently we have learned that the so-called green qualifications of the housing have been, shall we say, spun a little, that in general the new housing will not be much greener than many other new housing developments. The cost of new houses will be such as to be outside theprice range of starter homes, without massive public subsidy.
The new housing will not make much contribution to solving our housing shortage, even if all were developed, but they will make a large contribution to Government income as many sites are military installations not easily converted to agricultural use. In addition the Government will have displayed its green credentials in a large public relations exercise.
The West Lothian Question
It seems that the Conservatives are about to follow Kenneth Clarke's solution to the problem, with a dog's dinner of different bodies involved at different stages in debating and voting on English matters.
If I have understood the proposals correctly, the end result will be that Westminster MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will still have an ultimate veto over English legislation. In other words, the anger felt over issues like tuition fees, where Scottish MPs voted on English legislation without being accountable to English voters, is still possible.
The potential anger in this solution will be obvious if it were applied in reverse, - that Scottish and Welsh parliaments could debate and decide on all issues, but would require Westminster approval. This would be an unacceptable solution and a weakening of their powers of self determination. If it is unacceptable, why should the modified West Lothian situation be acceptable to the English.
The genie is out of the bottle, so unless the Scots and the Welsh decide to repatriate powers to London, it seems that some kind of federalism is inevitable to bring England up to the level of self determination enjoyed in Scotland and Wales. A model could be the German one, with the national government at Berlin, but with each constituent Land having power over things like education and social policy.
The fallacy is the desire to hang on to the present devolution but to keep a large and important chamber in London. If Westminster decided defence and international policy and overall economic policy(which it is fast losing to thwe EU anyway), other policy could be devolved to an English Parliament in Birmingham, or elsewhere in London perhaps.
It would mean that we could manage with fewer MPs in the UK parliament, which is being fast replaced by Brussels. Perhaps it could become the second chamber for all devolved parliaments?
If I have understood the proposals correctly, the end result will be that Westminster MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will still have an ultimate veto over English legislation. In other words, the anger felt over issues like tuition fees, where Scottish MPs voted on English legislation without being accountable to English voters, is still possible.
The potential anger in this solution will be obvious if it were applied in reverse, - that Scottish and Welsh parliaments could debate and decide on all issues, but would require Westminster approval. This would be an unacceptable solution and a weakening of their powers of self determination. If it is unacceptable, why should the modified West Lothian situation be acceptable to the English.
The genie is out of the bottle, so unless the Scots and the Welsh decide to repatriate powers to London, it seems that some kind of federalism is inevitable to bring England up to the level of self determination enjoyed in Scotland and Wales. A model could be the German one, with the national government at Berlin, but with each constituent Land having power over things like education and social policy.
The fallacy is the desire to hang on to the present devolution but to keep a large and important chamber in London. If Westminster decided defence and international policy and overall economic policy(which it is fast losing to thwe EU anyway), other policy could be devolved to an English Parliament in Birmingham, or elsewhere in London perhaps.
It would mean that we could manage with fewer MPs in the UK parliament, which is being fast replaced by Brussels. Perhaps it could become the second chamber for all devolved parliaments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
