The National Policing Improvement Agency, launched in April 2007, spent £71.4 million on consultants in its first year of operation .
It is tasked with improving police efficiency and cutting bureaucracy.
It is still undermanned, having 344 new posts available. (This at a time when police forces up and down the country are reducing staff or freezing numbers!) So while the front line fighters against crime are carrying greater and greater burdens with fewer fighters, those back at headquarters are growing in numbers and resources. This is obviously a successful way to prosecute a war!)
The quango is a perfect example of all quangos - they are excellent ways of generating employment and expenditure, as well as promoting the consultancy fat cats. It also illustrates what top-down government leads to - unaccountable bodies which go about expanding their empires and influence with little discernible improvement in the area they control, as well as providing jobs for friends of the government.
What is required is to get the government off the backs of the police, whether this is direct or indirect, and make them accountable to the areas they are supposed to serve. In the end voters and press are by far the best and cheapest monitors and regulators of any service.
Friday, 29 May 2009
Tough on crime and its causes?
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling was given some disappointing statistics in a parliamentary answer to a question he put.
In the year to September 2008 in England and Wales 3,713 people were given custodial sentences for possession of a knife. but over half of these (- nearly 52 per cent) received a three month sentence, and only 15 % were given more than than six months.
Just one offender received the maximum sentence of four years.
This was less than 2 years after the the then Home Secretary, reiterated the "tough on crime" promise and doubled the maximum sentence to four years, talking tough, but not acting tough! This is NuLabour to perfection - cultivating image, even if reality is different. (When there is s shortage of prison places and many prisoners are being released well before time, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.)
Perhaps in the NuLabour lexicon "talking tough" means tough talking.
Last year fatal stabbings reached an all-time high of 270.
In the year to September 2008 in England and Wales 3,713 people were given custodial sentences for possession of a knife. but over half of these (- nearly 52 per cent) received a three month sentence, and only 15 % were given more than than six months.
Just one offender received the maximum sentence of four years.
This was less than 2 years after the the then Home Secretary, reiterated the "tough on crime" promise and doubled the maximum sentence to four years, talking tough, but not acting tough! This is NuLabour to perfection - cultivating image, even if reality is different. (When there is s shortage of prison places and many prisoners are being released well before time, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.)
Perhaps in the NuLabour lexicon "talking tough" means tough talking.
Last year fatal stabbings reached an all-time high of 270.
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Just a tipple!
The report on drinking problems during the early May bank holiday week-end by the think tank Policy Exchange makes sober reading.
They estimate that excess drinking during the week-end cost the NHS some £25 million. Between 2001 and 2007 the direct costs to the NHS virtually doubled from £1.47 billion to £2.7 billion annually.
In fact the problem now involves 7.6 million who are drinking to hazardous levels, of who 2.9 million are already showing evidence of harm to their health and 1.1 million who have some level of addiction. (A recent Department of Health estimates the number drinking to hazardous levels as 10 million, in England alone.)
The costs are increasing, the number of personal disasters at a pace. The Department of Health recently released a report suggesting that young people are increasingly part of the problem.
In the past six years the number of such alcohol-related hospital admissions for children has risen by more than a third. (Here admissions means for at least a one night stay, that is the more serious admissions, and omitting the numbers taken to A & E, treated and discharged.) In 2002/03 10,076 under eighteens were admitted. This figure rose to 14,501 in 2007/08.
The number of admissions of children aged under 10 approached 1,000 throughout the period.
Policy Exchange advocate that drunks who consume precious NHS resources through their own over-indulgence should be made to reimburse the costs of their emergency treatment.
They also recommend that duty charged should be changed to reflect that different levels of alcohol in different drinks. So beers with lower alcohol content would have a lower tax, and the more potent beers would have a higher tax. However this price incentive would run counter to some EU regulation.
Finally, currently the drunk are dealt with by the NHS, and Policy Exchange recommends that cautions and fines should be more frequently levied by the police, and compulsory attendance at alcohol education and awareness courses.
They estimate that excess drinking during the week-end cost the NHS some £25 million. Between 2001 and 2007 the direct costs to the NHS virtually doubled from £1.47 billion to £2.7 billion annually.
In fact the problem now involves 7.6 million who are drinking to hazardous levels, of who 2.9 million are already showing evidence of harm to their health and 1.1 million who have some level of addiction. (A recent Department of Health estimates the number drinking to hazardous levels as 10 million, in England alone.)
The costs are increasing, the number of personal disasters at a pace. The Department of Health recently released a report suggesting that young people are increasingly part of the problem.
In the past six years the number of such alcohol-related hospital admissions for children has risen by more than a third. (Here admissions means for at least a one night stay, that is the more serious admissions, and omitting the numbers taken to A & E, treated and discharged.) In 2002/03 10,076 under eighteens were admitted. This figure rose to 14,501 in 2007/08.
The number of admissions of children aged under 10 approached 1,000 throughout the period.
Policy Exchange advocate that drunks who consume precious NHS resources through their own over-indulgence should be made to reimburse the costs of their emergency treatment.
They also recommend that duty charged should be changed to reflect that different levels of alcohol in different drinks. So beers with lower alcohol content would have a lower tax, and the more potent beers would have a higher tax. However this price incentive would run counter to some EU regulation.
Finally, currently the drunk are dealt with by the NHS, and Policy Exchange recommends that cautions and fines should be more frequently levied by the police, and compulsory attendance at alcohol education and awareness courses.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
The more your think and hear....
Eric Pickles, Tory Party Chairman, has a letter in today's Times on the subject of proportional representation.
He suggests that the system has two major defects - you can't "kick the rascals out", and that it would strength political parties rather than electors. His letter is brief and we are left to think out the reasons for ourselves.
Getting rid of the "rascals". In virtually every example of PR the result is coalition government. Indeed, this is held to be the main advantage of the system. If parties in a coalition can persuade the electors that they are different, then disillusioned voters from one may switch to the other and the coalition can survive with a different balance. Even if the major party is discredited and voters switch to the opposition, the minor party will continue in government in a hung parliament situation. So smaller parties could continue for years within coalition government, on each occasion extracting concessions which would be supported only by a minority of the electorate.
There seems little doubt that The LibDems are hoping for a hung parliament to begin this process, while G. Brown & Co are hoping to continue with LibDem support. Hence the interest in PR suddenly.
The second point is the further reduction in voter power to choose candidates. Under the system for the EU we effectively vote for parties, with no control over who the successful candidates will be. The party lists are decided at HQ. Even in the "plus" system, where we vote for candidates and where subsequently when total party votes and proportions are discovered and "extra" representatives are deemed to be elected to make the total representation proportional, the same objection applies. In an attempt to overcome this the proposal is made to have "multi-member" constituencies with huge areas to elect , say, six representatives, there are still problems - what if there are more than six parties, and how is one representative going to deal with all those who voted for him or her in the half million or so voters in a huge area? This looks awfully like our electoral EU list system again.
As Pickles says, once you remove the immediate link between local parties, candidates and voters, you take contact and influence away from voters and transfer it to the party hierarchy in London, or wherever, and all in the name of achieving a certain mathematical result.
If you have concern about uneven voting within and between areas, of "safe" seats, then there are other things to do, such as primaries and recall.
He suggests that the system has two major defects - you can't "kick the rascals out", and that it would strength political parties rather than electors. His letter is brief and we are left to think out the reasons for ourselves.
Getting rid of the "rascals". In virtually every example of PR the result is coalition government. Indeed, this is held to be the main advantage of the system. If parties in a coalition can persuade the electors that they are different, then disillusioned voters from one may switch to the other and the coalition can survive with a different balance. Even if the major party is discredited and voters switch to the opposition, the minor party will continue in government in a hung parliament situation. So smaller parties could continue for years within coalition government, on each occasion extracting concessions which would be supported only by a minority of the electorate.
There seems little doubt that The LibDems are hoping for a hung parliament to begin this process, while G. Brown & Co are hoping to continue with LibDem support. Hence the interest in PR suddenly.
The second point is the further reduction in voter power to choose candidates. Under the system for the EU we effectively vote for parties, with no control over who the successful candidates will be. The party lists are decided at HQ. Even in the "plus" system, where we vote for candidates and where subsequently when total party votes and proportions are discovered and "extra" representatives are deemed to be elected to make the total representation proportional, the same objection applies. In an attempt to overcome this the proposal is made to have "multi-member" constituencies with huge areas to elect , say, six representatives, there are still problems - what if there are more than six parties, and how is one representative going to deal with all those who voted for him or her in the half million or so voters in a huge area? This looks awfully like our electoral EU list system again.
As Pickles says, once you remove the immediate link between local parties, candidates and voters, you take contact and influence away from voters and transfer it to the party hierarchy in London, or wherever, and all in the name of achieving a certain mathematical result.
If you have concern about uneven voting within and between areas, of "safe" seats, then there are other things to do, such as primaries and recall.
Cameron's Speech
The big question is, "Why now?". While Cameron has given a few signs over the months of acquaintance with the concept of "localism", yesterday's speech was a fairly full adoption of many of the ideas put forward by Hannan and Carswell in their book "The Plan". He even reproduced some of their phraseology.
Those of us who are persuaded that localism is the only real answer to the present statist and bureaucratic morass will be glad, and hope that he means every word he says. He usually does.
But why now?
Was it to deflect criticism of the frequent failures of money-grubbing Tory MPs, - many will have "sat down" or been forced to sit down by his actions? He cleans out the party, but the risk is that people will count how many have digressed.
Was it to steal a march on Brown and Co., who are putting out their own rather pale and feeble suggestions, including PR which they rejected when their party didn't need it?
Or was it, as I would hope, for the good of England, - that we would have had a fuller exposition in due course, perhaps in stages but now under pressure of events having to be brought forward?
Whatever the reason, it is in the open and he has nailed his colours to the mast. He has given us a vision of how things could be, and rejecting the tinkering that others are advancing.
Those of us who are persuaded that localism is the only real answer to the present statist and bureaucratic morass will be glad, and hope that he means every word he says. He usually does.
But why now?
Was it to deflect criticism of the frequent failures of money-grubbing Tory MPs, - many will have "sat down" or been forced to sit down by his actions? He cleans out the party, but the risk is that people will count how many have digressed.
Was it to steal a march on Brown and Co., who are putting out their own rather pale and feeble suggestions, including PR which they rejected when their party didn't need it?
Or was it, as I would hope, for the good of England, - that we would have had a fuller exposition in due course, perhaps in stages but now under pressure of events having to be brought forward?
Whatever the reason, it is in the open and he has nailed his colours to the mast. He has given us a vision of how things could be, and rejecting the tinkering that others are advancing.
Monday, 25 May 2009
Hardy Annual
Alan J0hnson, perhaps the future leader of the Labour Party, has rediscovered electoral reform. NuLabour were interested before the 1997 election, and dangled it before the LibDems, even setting up a commission under Roy Jenkins. By the time he reported Nulabour had achieved a huge majority, didn't need the LibDems prop and so kicked the whole thing unto the long grass.
Now, with the prospect of years in the wilderness, (Nu)Labour could hang on again with the LibDems, who are keen because they would have the possibility of power although still very much a minority party. Both, of course, will look at anything which keeps out the Conservatives.
The claim is made that Proportional Representation is fairer because each vote carries an equal vote. That is true up to a point, but if a smaller party, with say, 15% of the vote, enters into a controlling majority coalition, and gains concessions in policies, then it is true to say that these policies may be held only by 15% of the electorate. Minor parties in coalition, a usual situation, would over years exercise an influence out of all proportion to their size.
The other problems with PR, are the tendency to divorce the elector from the representative, which seems to have been one of the reasons for the present disenchantment with politicians. The proposal from the Jenkins commission which was to have "top up" MPs from party lists to adjust party numbers to accord with overall vote shares. These extra MPs would have no constituency. The extra MPs would be chosen by party machinery, of course, and would be accountable to no voters in particular.
In the end PR in trying to compensate for one problem, causes others which are arguably as bad.
Within the "defective" present "first past the post" system, there is much which could be done to improve the state of political arrangements.
To cover the present situation of "safe" seats, open primaries and recall of representatives would make sure no-one hasa job for life.
To weaken the stranglehold of the present elective dictatorship, much could be done to weaken the power of whips, by having the membership of select committees and chairmen by secret ballot, for instance. I would go further and insist that a majority of seats on these is allocated to opposition parties.
Now, with the prospect of years in the wilderness, (Nu)Labour could hang on again with the LibDems, who are keen because they would have the possibility of power although still very much a minority party. Both, of course, will look at anything which keeps out the Conservatives.
The claim is made that Proportional Representation is fairer because each vote carries an equal vote. That is true up to a point, but if a smaller party, with say, 15% of the vote, enters into a controlling majority coalition, and gains concessions in policies, then it is true to say that these policies may be held only by 15% of the electorate. Minor parties in coalition, a usual situation, would over years exercise an influence out of all proportion to their size.
The other problems with PR, are the tendency to divorce the elector from the representative, which seems to have been one of the reasons for the present disenchantment with politicians. The proposal from the Jenkins commission which was to have "top up" MPs from party lists to adjust party numbers to accord with overall vote shares. These extra MPs would have no constituency. The extra MPs would be chosen by party machinery, of course, and would be accountable to no voters in particular.
In the end PR in trying to compensate for one problem, causes others which are arguably as bad.
Within the "defective" present "first past the post" system, there is much which could be done to improve the state of political arrangements.
To cover the present situation of "safe" seats, open primaries and recall of representatives would make sure no-one hasa job for life.
To weaken the stranglehold of the present elective dictatorship, much could be done to weaken the power of whips, by having the membership of select committees and chairmen by secret ballot, for instance. I would go further and insist that a majority of seats on these is allocated to opposition parties.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Wow, even the BBC is seeing it!
In an article on the BBC website today, the political reporter Brian Wheeler, talks of political reform which may become revolutionary, - an an English way, of course.
He claims that many influential people have recognised that reform must go wider than merely ending scandals involving MP allowances.
He lists several possible areas, although admits that there are others. These include, in his order:
Electoral reform - he mentions proportional representation, - he would, wouldn't he?
Fixed term parliaments to take away the advantage of the party in power to choose the date
A written constitution, setting out voters' rights and limiting power of government
A fully elected second chamber - ending the power of patronage and inherited power
Curbing the power of the whips and allowing MPs to vote with their conscience
Fixed terms for MPs - to prevent them becoming complacent and over cosy
Boosting the power of select committees, with greater investigatory powers and with elected chairmen ( - why not have the chairmen from opposition parties)
Sadly, while most of the above would find general support, he concludes by saying that once the allowances scandal has found sufficient sacrificial victims and paled in memory it is likely that things will settle down exactly as before.
For the sake of efficient government and involvement of us all, it is to be hoped that he is wrong on his final sad thought. Hannan and Carswell have produced a detailed PLAN in their book. It could happen.
He claims that many influential people have recognised that reform must go wider than merely ending scandals involving MP allowances.
He lists several possible areas, although admits that there are others. These include, in his order:
Electoral reform - he mentions proportional representation, - he would, wouldn't he?
Fixed term parliaments to take away the advantage of the party in power to choose the date
A written constitution, setting out voters' rights and limiting power of government
A fully elected second chamber - ending the power of patronage and inherited power
Curbing the power of the whips and allowing MPs to vote with their conscience
Fixed terms for MPs - to prevent them becoming complacent and over cosy
Boosting the power of select committees, with greater investigatory powers and with elected chairmen ( - why not have the chairmen from opposition parties)
Sadly, while most of the above would find general support, he concludes by saying that once the allowances scandal has found sufficient sacrificial victims and paled in memory it is likely that things will settle down exactly as before.
For the sake of efficient government and involvement of us all, it is to be hoped that he is wrong on his final sad thought. Hannan and Carswell have produced a detailed PLAN in their book. It could happen.
Professor Laffer again.
There is an article this week in the Wall Street Journal by Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, giving fresh evidence on the thesis that if you raise tax on the rich you will probably end up with less revenue. (We have seen our own Institute of Fiscal Studies suggest, after careful consideration and examination, that the Chancellor's talk of raising the top rate of income tax to 50% could well end up raising less revenue than before.)
They produce overwhelming evidence that differential upper tax rates cause highly paid and creative people to move to states with lower taxes, and that at the same time the low tax recipient states enjoyed the highest rates of growth. It seems that 1,100 people every day, times 365, moved from high to low tax states between 1998 and 2007.
"Ah,but," say the lefties writing in the Guardian, " where tax rates are lower, services suffer." This has been an article of faith in left circles, chorused whenever their pet doctrines were threatened.
This dictum is shown to be false by Laffer and Moore. New Hampshire is the example of a state with no income or sales taxes but achieves among the best test scores nationally on the provision of social services, even if it spends less. New Jersey 50 years ago with low state taxes attracted creative people. In time it increased taxes, drove people out, and now with high taxes which have mostly benefited public sector jobs, it has among the worst educational services and people are leaving in droves.
The moral seems to be "Don't be an apologist for old time socialists bent on spite, Cameron, reduce the 50p rate to send a message and increase revenue from the rich. Encourage tax competition where you can, - over council tax, perhaps between devolved parts of the UK. The evidence should be more powerful than any mantra."
They produce overwhelming evidence that differential upper tax rates cause highly paid and creative people to move to states with lower taxes, and that at the same time the low tax recipient states enjoyed the highest rates of growth. It seems that 1,100 people every day, times 365, moved from high to low tax states between 1998 and 2007.
"Ah,but," say the lefties writing in the Guardian, " where tax rates are lower, services suffer." This has been an article of faith in left circles, chorused whenever their pet doctrines were threatened.
This dictum is shown to be false by Laffer and Moore. New Hampshire is the example of a state with no income or sales taxes but achieves among the best test scores nationally on the provision of social services, even if it spends less. New Jersey 50 years ago with low state taxes attracted creative people. In time it increased taxes, drove people out, and now with high taxes which have mostly benefited public sector jobs, it has among the worst educational services and people are leaving in droves.
The moral seems to be "Don't be an apologist for old time socialists bent on spite, Cameron, reduce the 50p rate to send a message and increase revenue from the rich. Encourage tax competition where you can, - over council tax, perhaps between devolved parts of the UK. The evidence should be more powerful than any mantra."
Freedom of Information - FOI
Robert Halfon, in an article on this morning's Conservative Home website, reminds us that the FOI Act doesn't apply to the BBC, despite its size and place of influence, and despite the fact that most of us pay a tax/licence every year. If I knew about the FOI, I had forgotten.
He points out that some presenters are arguably overpaid, - Jonathan Ross for example, and some executives earn more than the prime minister.
He tells us that the BBC last year spent £15 million on taxi bills, and £14 million on plane flights. These may be quite legitimate and understandable, given the national and world coverage of the BBC, but we just do not know.
We own it, we elect MPs who authorise its revenue, but we have little information and even less control over what it does.
I must declare a grievance here, from the regular bias I notice myself and which sites like Biased BBC, Dizzy Speaks and Notasheep bring to our attention. The reward for the BBC was seen in the way that yesterday the LibDims and NuLabour loyally voted for their mouthpiece in rejecting the proposal to freeze, not reduce, the licence fee.
The Corporation is so large and spends so much of our money, we ought to demand to know more and have the occasional vote on it. Come on the Daily Telegraph, could you help with the former?!
He points out that some presenters are arguably overpaid, - Jonathan Ross for example, and some executives earn more than the prime minister.
He tells us that the BBC last year spent £15 million on taxi bills, and £14 million on plane flights. These may be quite legitimate and understandable, given the national and world coverage of the BBC, but we just do not know.
We own it, we elect MPs who authorise its revenue, but we have little information and even less control over what it does.
I must declare a grievance here, from the regular bias I notice myself and which sites like Biased BBC, Dizzy Speaks and Notasheep bring to our attention. The reward for the BBC was seen in the way that yesterday the LibDims and NuLabour loyally voted for their mouthpiece in rejecting the proposal to freeze, not reduce, the licence fee.
The Corporation is so large and spends so much of our money, we ought to demand to know more and have the occasional vote on it. Come on the Daily Telegraph, could you help with the former?!
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Voter power
The "expenses" scandal shows no sign of abating - the Telegraph daily, and voters regularly (if not party activists) are bringing the subject up.
Voters are angry and frustrated. There is a sense of betrayal and injustice. But voters have shown by their unwillingness to turn out and vote that they feel alienated from the democratic process.
Could we learn from the USA?
Candidate selection is not made by a small group at a constituency general meeting, but by primary elections among aspiring candidates within each party or none. Here, there are some MPs in safe seats who would have to do something especially wicked to be unseated, so long as they continue to enjoy the majority at the constituency meeting. They have a job for life.
In many states in the US there is a the possible "recall" of 'failing' representatives, that is the right to summon a by-election. What is required is a petition signed by a percentage of voters, - the actual percentage varies from state to state from 12% to 40%.Perhaps the most famous recent case where this was exercised and subsequently led to a change in representative was California in 2003. Arnold Swarzeneger replaced Gary Davis. (California has the lowest percentage petition required, at 12%.)
The procedure is costly, but would not be exercised if the representative performed acceptably. With so much anger among UK voters now, and parties having to judge MPs who have not broken the (weakly worded) rules, perhaps a recall provision would serve to remind MPs and activists that democracy means government by the many, not by the few.
In the UK situation, if the percentage was set at 20%, then given the average size of constituency of 75,000, a petition of 15,000 would be required. This is a long way from a few die-hard disaffected grumblers.
There has been a growing movement to advocate a recall provision. In February 2008 27 Tory MPs wrote to the Daily Telegraph. Nick Clegg called for this last week-end. Last year Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell (of "no confidence in the Speaker" fame) wrote their book, "The Plan", where they advocated primaries.
There is a website for Reselect Democracy at reselect.org, which pressures for reform. They suggest to political parties that if there were this provision it would almost certainly increase party membership!
Let Douglas Carswell have the last word, from his blog today. "If 7 out of 10 colleagues in your workplace felt they had a job for life, would your organisation be firing on all cylinders? Parliament neither."
Voters are angry and frustrated. There is a sense of betrayal and injustice. But voters have shown by their unwillingness to turn out and vote that they feel alienated from the democratic process.
Could we learn from the USA?
Candidate selection is not made by a small group at a constituency general meeting, but by primary elections among aspiring candidates within each party or none. Here, there are some MPs in safe seats who would have to do something especially wicked to be unseated, so long as they continue to enjoy the majority at the constituency meeting. They have a job for life.
In many states in the US there is a the possible "recall" of 'failing' representatives, that is the right to summon a by-election. What is required is a petition signed by a percentage of voters, - the actual percentage varies from state to state from 12% to 40%.Perhaps the most famous recent case where this was exercised and subsequently led to a change in representative was California in 2003. Arnold Swarzeneger replaced Gary Davis. (California has the lowest percentage petition required, at 12%.)
The procedure is costly, but would not be exercised if the representative performed acceptably. With so much anger among UK voters now, and parties having to judge MPs who have not broken the (weakly worded) rules, perhaps a recall provision would serve to remind MPs and activists that democracy means government by the many, not by the few.
In the UK situation, if the percentage was set at 20%, then given the average size of constituency of 75,000, a petition of 15,000 would be required. This is a long way from a few die-hard disaffected grumblers.
There has been a growing movement to advocate a recall provision. In February 2008 27 Tory MPs wrote to the Daily Telegraph. Nick Clegg called for this last week-end. Last year Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell (of "no confidence in the Speaker" fame) wrote their book, "The Plan", where they advocated primaries.
There is a website for Reselect Democracy at reselect.org, which pressures for reform. They suggest to political parties that if there were this provision it would almost certainly increase party membership!
Let Douglas Carswell have the last word, from his blog today. "If 7 out of 10 colleagues in your workplace felt they had a job for life, would your organisation be firing on all cylinders? Parliament neither."
Judgement on Brown's policies
This morning Standard & Poors made a judgement on the state of the UK economy. They have not reduced the prestigious AAA rating (unlike for Ireland and Spain where they reduced it to a mere AA), but they have voiced concern about the mounting debt and the UK's ability to service and repay it. It has taken a full month since the Budget but this is their conclusion.
They are not some international organisation, like the IMF which has also expressed warnings, nor a think tank. Since starting in 1978 they have advised would-be lenders to various countries of the risks in those countries. We are hoping to raise something like £200 billion this year, and the people who might lend will have heard the warning.
What the IMF and Standard and Poors have both said is that unless the UK makes immediate plans to reduce government debt there is a question of how risky any of their borrowing could be.
Standard and Poors even refer to what policies will be undertaken by an incoming UK government in 2010.
Does a reduction in credit rating cause concern to us? Yes - if we lose our AAA rating for the very first time, we shall find it harder, i.e. more expensive, to obtain. Given that we shall be desperately trying to find payment for the present debt figures, either by increased taxation or cutting public sector expenditure, or both, to have to find even more could be desperate.
The situation should worry Brown, as a verdict on his stewardship and at a time when he is still going for broke, and also Cameron, who may be called on to be hard in trying to deal with the problem caused by rampant government debt.
They are not some international organisation, like the IMF which has also expressed warnings, nor a think tank. Since starting in 1978 they have advised would-be lenders to various countries of the risks in those countries. We are hoping to raise something like £200 billion this year, and the people who might lend will have heard the warning.
What the IMF and Standard and Poors have both said is that unless the UK makes immediate plans to reduce government debt there is a question of how risky any of their borrowing could be.
Standard and Poors even refer to what policies will be undertaken by an incoming UK government in 2010.
Does a reduction in credit rating cause concern to us? Yes - if we lose our AAA rating for the very first time, we shall find it harder, i.e. more expensive, to obtain. Given that we shall be desperately trying to find payment for the present debt figures, either by increased taxation or cutting public sector expenditure, or both, to have to find even more could be desperate.
The situation should worry Brown, as a verdict on his stewardship and at a time when he is still going for broke, and also Cameron, who may be called on to be hard in trying to deal with the problem caused by rampant government debt.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
So who will watch over the "independent" body who will monitor MP's expenses? The Latin question has raised the problem over the centuries, and it is still relevant.
We are told now that the body will be appointed by Parliament to work independently of Parliament.
It could be that an independent and reforming new Speaker will propose members. But practice with all quangos is that the government will offer a list (of friends/hacks) to parliament, as there is no other leader, - even the relevant select committee has a built in majority of government members, and will have, if it doesn't already have, a government member as chairman.
Will the government allow the body to consult opposition parties behind the government's back? Will the independent body report first to the government rather than parliament, and will the government have opportunity to influence any report?
The case of Elizabeth Filkin suggests that the majority party, claiming the power to dismiss or to re-appoint the body, will exercise influence on what it says or does, via its whips.
It ought to be the whole of Parliament which oversees the body, but....
Ah well, there's always the Telegraph!
We are told now that the body will be appointed by Parliament to work independently of Parliament.
It could be that an independent and reforming new Speaker will propose members. But practice with all quangos is that the government will offer a list (of friends/hacks) to parliament, as there is no other leader, - even the relevant select committee has a built in majority of government members, and will have, if it doesn't already have, a government member as chairman.
Will the government allow the body to consult opposition parties behind the government's back? Will the independent body report first to the government rather than parliament, and will the government have opportunity to influence any report?
The case of Elizabeth Filkin suggests that the majority party, claiming the power to dismiss or to re-appoint the body, will exercise influence on what it says or does, via its whips.
It ought to be the whole of Parliament which oversees the body, but....
Ah well, there's always the Telegraph!
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
MP allowances 2
Gordon Brown, in his attempt to catch up with David Cameron, stole the Speaker's thunder by announcing reforms in some detail at his press conference yesterday. Cameron, Clegg et al seem to have accepted the list produced.
By proposing the outside, independent control of MP allowances, Brown is thus attempting to show that he is tough. He may have the second objective of further muzzling Parliament and the press, and thus head off any further scandals. Bearing in mind how little power rank and file MPs have already, this must surely be a major disincentive for anyone contemplating standing for parliament. MPs are not quite political eunuchs, as we saw in the removal of Michael Martin, but rubber stamping Brussels laws, and being kept in the dark by quangos and executive, is hardly an inviting career.
The worst thing of all is that the regulating body will become in effect another quango, stuffed with appointees of a certain type and not accessible to the public. Deals will be done before and during office to bring the body under the influence of the executive, rather than parliament as a whole. The precedents are not good. Elizabeth Filkin courageously conducted herself as Commissioner for Standards, and was hounded out of office by the government. How far would we trust the external body to represent our wishes?
We already have an external regulator, which we have seen working on our TV screens. This is the mass of voters who expressed their anger so forcibly that something had to be done. Local political party organisations generally seem to be willing to re-adopt miscreant MPs, perhaps because they do not want to lose a familiar friend and then go through the whole business of selection again. The public will not be so willing to forgive.
We have something of a democratic deficit - a prime minister without mandate to rule, ruling through whips who dragoon MPs to follow his purpose, and quangos appointed as placemen.
Brown's proposal will further render the voters to ignorance and apathy. For several years, and entranced by the Blair charm, even the press gave the government an easy ride. There must be openness and accountability of MPs to their voters. The power of the executive and whips must be reduced, and even the power of local party machines. It has been suggested that we ought to have primary elections to select candidates, and the power to recall underperforming MPs. There are too many safe seats, and a dose of real competition would give power to the electorate. This is surely what democracy means!
By proposing the outside, independent control of MP allowances, Brown is thus attempting to show that he is tough. He may have the second objective of further muzzling Parliament and the press, and thus head off any further scandals. Bearing in mind how little power rank and file MPs have already, this must surely be a major disincentive for anyone contemplating standing for parliament. MPs are not quite political eunuchs, as we saw in the removal of Michael Martin, but rubber stamping Brussels laws, and being kept in the dark by quangos and executive, is hardly an inviting career.
The worst thing of all is that the regulating body will become in effect another quango, stuffed with appointees of a certain type and not accessible to the public. Deals will be done before and during office to bring the body under the influence of the executive, rather than parliament as a whole. The precedents are not good. Elizabeth Filkin courageously conducted herself as Commissioner for Standards, and was hounded out of office by the government. How far would we trust the external body to represent our wishes?
We already have an external regulator, which we have seen working on our TV screens. This is the mass of voters who expressed their anger so forcibly that something had to be done. Local political party organisations generally seem to be willing to re-adopt miscreant MPs, perhaps because they do not want to lose a familiar friend and then go through the whole business of selection again. The public will not be so willing to forgive.
We have something of a democratic deficit - a prime minister without mandate to rule, ruling through whips who dragoon MPs to follow his purpose, and quangos appointed as placemen.
Brown's proposal will further render the voters to ignorance and apathy. For several years, and entranced by the Blair charm, even the press gave the government an easy ride. There must be openness and accountability of MPs to their voters. The power of the executive and whips must be reduced, and even the power of local party machines. It has been suggested that we ought to have primary elections to select candidates, and the power to recall underperforming MPs. There are too many safe seats, and a dose of real competition would give power to the electorate. This is surely what democracy means!
MP Allowances 1
According to a judgement by Norman Baker, the LibDem MP, in today's Mail, the allowance dispute is not over yet. There is yet to be perusal of MP staff costs and office expenses.
The Mail estimates that in allowances in 2007-08, MPs received £92.9 million in addition to their salaries. The breakdown is:
Second home funding - £11.7 million
Travel £6.2 million
Staff costs (Westminster and constituency) £50 million
Office costs £15 million
Bearing in mind that there are approximately 650 MPs, each million pounds of expenditure means approximately £1,539 on average per MP. So the £50 million spent on staff translates as £76,923 on average for each MP.
Since there are some whose office expenditure to some extent is covered by cabinet work, and some such as Philip Hollobone do their own secretarial and cleric work, the average is likely to be approaching £80,000 for the remaining MPs. Included in this number is the disgraced Derek Conway, but his expenditure does not seem to be above this level on an annual basis.
There must therefore be some MPs employing teams of staff, probably including family members. This is where Norman Baker sees further exposureswhich will cause problems for some. The newspaper claims that earlier this year they had identified 206 MPs who had paid almost £8 million to families in employing them as staff, or nearly £39,000 per MP.
In due course this will emerge into the public domain, with possible severe consequences.
The Mail estimates that in allowances in 2007-08, MPs received £92.9 million in addition to their salaries. The breakdown is:
Second home funding - £11.7 million
Travel £6.2 million
Staff costs (Westminster and constituency) £50 million
Office costs £15 million
Bearing in mind that there are approximately 650 MPs, each million pounds of expenditure means approximately £1,539 on average per MP. So the £50 million spent on staff translates as £76,923 on average for each MP.
Since there are some whose office expenditure to some extent is covered by cabinet work, and some such as Philip Hollobone do their own secretarial and cleric work, the average is likely to be approaching £80,000 for the remaining MPs. Included in this number is the disgraced Derek Conway, but his expenditure does not seem to be above this level on an annual basis.
There must therefore be some MPs employing teams of staff, probably including family members. This is where Norman Baker sees further exposureswhich will cause problems for some. The newspaper claims that earlier this year they had identified 206 MPs who had paid almost £8 million to families in employing them as staff, or nearly £39,000 per MP.
In due course this will emerge into the public domain, with possible severe consequences.
Not a penny off
The BBC have taken the Tory proposal to freeze the TV licence fee for one year very badly.
They seem to have two arguments.
The first is that they have have a six year plan for income agreed with the government, and would have to make adjustments. Why, with inflation now negative, with the same money income they would even have more to spend? This insistence that they must have a percentage increase will go down well with families of the unemployed, or with shareholders, whose income has been badly reduced!
Even if prices were going up, why should the BBC alone be immune? Perhaps they should reduce their junketing, especially the generous hospitality at Wimbledon. Perhaps they should face a reduction like virtually all other broadcasters.
The second argument, advanced by Sir Michael Lyons on "Toady" this morning, is that the freeze would reduce editorial independence. Given the political bias which is apparent most days, the editorial independence seems to be a licence to favour their causes and individuals.
This argument seems utterly baseless. Why should a frozen increase in income reduce their ability to make decisions without interference?
They seem to have two arguments.
The first is that they have have a six year plan for income agreed with the government, and would have to make adjustments. Why, with inflation now negative, with the same money income they would even have more to spend? This insistence that they must have a percentage increase will go down well with families of the unemployed, or with shareholders, whose income has been badly reduced!
Even if prices were going up, why should the BBC alone be immune? Perhaps they should reduce their junketing, especially the generous hospitality at Wimbledon. Perhaps they should face a reduction like virtually all other broadcasters.
The second argument, advanced by Sir Michael Lyons on "Toady" this morning, is that the freeze would reduce editorial independence. Given the political bias which is apparent most days, the editorial independence seems to be a licence to favour their causes and individuals.
This argument seems utterly baseless. Why should a frozen increase in income reduce their ability to make decisions without interference?
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
A new Speaker
Michael Martin has announced his retirement for June 21st.
He has thus given the Commons one month to think about a replacement and then have a vote.
It is sad to see him go, the first speaker to go for incompetence in effect. He is a decent man, caring and compassionate, and many have spoken about his kindness when they were new or in difficulties.
His problem was that he was too partisan and inflexible, and ultimately because he was not up to the job. He was installed as a political fix by a government with a very large majority, and almost from the start it was clear that it would not work.
He is a product of his life experience, and a conservative unable to change, and was unable to lead the reform which parliament requires.
So we must have a new Speaker, and doubtless MPs are already turning their minds to this. We need someone who loves the institution but is up to leading reform, someone with keen mind and independence and someone who will face down the executive on behalf of all MPs.
Intriguingly, there is already the mention of Anne Widdicombe acting as a temporary Speaker until the general election to oversee the reforms. She does not seem to have axes to grind, is intelligent and knows the institution very well. There may be mileage in other MPs such as Frank Field, who is respected across party lines, of Mingis Campbell or Vince Cable as they are probably unlikely to be in government. The worst would be another political fix with a Speaker forced on the Commons by the Cabinet and MPs whipped to vote for him or her. The next Speaker must be respected by all parties for his or her independence and judgement.
He has thus given the Commons one month to think about a replacement and then have a vote.
It is sad to see him go, the first speaker to go for incompetence in effect. He is a decent man, caring and compassionate, and many have spoken about his kindness when they were new or in difficulties.
His problem was that he was too partisan and inflexible, and ultimately because he was not up to the job. He was installed as a political fix by a government with a very large majority, and almost from the start it was clear that it would not work.
He is a product of his life experience, and a conservative unable to change, and was unable to lead the reform which parliament requires.
So we must have a new Speaker, and doubtless MPs are already turning their minds to this. We need someone who loves the institution but is up to leading reform, someone with keen mind and independence and someone who will face down the executive on behalf of all MPs.
Intriguingly, there is already the mention of Anne Widdicombe acting as a temporary Speaker until the general election to oversee the reforms. She does not seem to have axes to grind, is intelligent and knows the institution very well. There may be mileage in other MPs such as Frank Field, who is respected across party lines, of Mingis Campbell or Vince Cable as they are probably unlikely to be in government. The worst would be another political fix with a Speaker forced on the Commons by the Cabinet and MPs whipped to vote for him or her. The next Speaker must be respected by all parties for his or her independence and judgement.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Not so much Mediterranean, more wild west
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, claim that parts for the UK seem to be like the wild west in terms of lawlessness as the result of the 24 hour drinking provision brought in by the 2003 Licensing Act. This is a conclusion of a recent report.
The Committee conclude that the relaxation of drinking hours has not diminished the law and order problems. Rather, it has merely pushed them back one or two hours later.
The result is that police officers now regularly have an afternoon shift from 6 p.m. until 4 a.m. They have long hours of struggling to control drunken behaviour, officers are not available to other emergency calls, and there are fewer officers available during the day because some are on duty until 5 a.m.
The solution is not obvious. The changes were introduced because of the peak problem of late evening violence at pub closure. Nobody wishes to return to this, but equally no-one has any real proposals to deal with the later problem.
The Committee conclude that the relaxation of drinking hours has not diminished the law and order problems. Rather, it has merely pushed them back one or two hours later.
The result is that police officers now regularly have an afternoon shift from 6 p.m. until 4 a.m. They have long hours of struggling to control drunken behaviour, officers are not available to other emergency calls, and there are fewer officers available during the day because some are on duty until 5 a.m.
The solution is not obvious. The changes were introduced because of the peak problem of late evening violence at pub closure. Nobody wishes to return to this, but equally no-one has any real proposals to deal with the later problem.
If it moves, or even if it doesn't, licence it!
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is recommending that musicians should be allowed to play in pubs without landlords having to apply for licences. They are concerned that the time and money costs imposed on landlords will mean that a generation of musicians could be deterred. They are suggesting that venues with less than 200 people should be exempt from needing a licence.
Musicians are not the only sufferers. Any form of public entertainment, drama, music, etc., must be certified and licensed by the relevant local authority, which means that churches, social and youth groups of various kinds, as well as village halls, must undergo inspection and certification. Some which rely on events to raise money will find their costs have increased.
The local authority licensing section will apologise at the burden placed on these small organisations in the name of public safety. (Why does not insurance cover the case?) Surprisingly, there are two sorts of licences - a one-off one costing about £20, and a permanent one which is free (but requires all sorts of compliance costs to become in the end more expensive.)
It is doubtful if the local authority covers its own costs, so it is a burden on taxpayers as well. It might be worthwhile if it achieved something, but as it is musicians honing their skills before a few people in a pub and churches raising a small amount of money to repair their fabric, etc., in the end I think that we all lose.
Let common sense prevail!
Musicians are not the only sufferers. Any form of public entertainment, drama, music, etc., must be certified and licensed by the relevant local authority, which means that churches, social and youth groups of various kinds, as well as village halls, must undergo inspection and certification. Some which rely on events to raise money will find their costs have increased.
The local authority licensing section will apologise at the burden placed on these small organisations in the name of public safety. (Why does not insurance cover the case?) Surprisingly, there are two sorts of licences - a one-off one costing about £20, and a permanent one which is free (but requires all sorts of compliance costs to become in the end more expensive.)
It is doubtful if the local authority covers its own costs, so it is a burden on taxpayers as well. It might be worthwhile if it achieved something, but as it is musicians honing their skills before a few people in a pub and churches raising a small amount of money to repair their fabric, etc., in the end I think that we all lose.
Let common sense prevail!
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Nothing new!
Simon Heffer in yesterday's Telegraph quoted some relevant words from Oliver Cromwell. As the Rump parliament dithered and delayed settling the country after the second civil war, his blood boiled.
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt for all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice: ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage....gold is your god; which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes?....Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; ye were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed... In the name of God, go!"
There are many honourable MPs, but clearly there are many who are greedy and venal, led by a Speaker who is like them and a Prime Minister who dithers. Cromwell would say, "Go!"Some ought top go immediately, others will get their comeuppance when an election is called. Let it be soon.
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt for all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice: ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage....gold is your god; which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes?....Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; ye were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed... In the name of God, go!"
There are many honourable MPs, but clearly there are many who are greedy and venal, led by a Speaker who is like them and a Prime Minister who dithers. Cromwell would say, "Go!"Some ought top go immediately, others will get their comeuppance when an election is called. Let it be soon.
us and them
The Office for National Statistics revealed this week that average worker's wages have fallen for the first time in approaching 50 years.
Between January and March this year including bonuses the average wage fell by 0.4 percent, meaning the average wage fell by £95 to £24,000.
This statistic conceals another fact. Wages in the private sector fell by considerably more, in fact by 1.9 percent, and the average fall was close to zero only because public sector wages increased by 3.6 percent.
This increase in the public sector is bordering on the disgraceful. It requires those in the private sector to subsidise the public sector even more, and means more will be required for gold plated pensions. This is all at a time when national output is falling rapidly. Until recently employment was also growing in the public sector. (More people in the job centres?)
Defenders will say that public sector wage increases were agreed months or even years ago, and agreements cannot be suspended now. If they say this, then what about the agreements in the private sector which are being broken, because employers just do not have the money?
There seems every advantage in working in the public sector when there is a Labour government, because of the political clout the unions have.
Between January and March this year including bonuses the average wage fell by 0.4 percent, meaning the average wage fell by £95 to £24,000.
This statistic conceals another fact. Wages in the private sector fell by considerably more, in fact by 1.9 percent, and the average fall was close to zero only because public sector wages increased by 3.6 percent.
This increase in the public sector is bordering on the disgraceful. It requires those in the private sector to subsidise the public sector even more, and means more will be required for gold plated pensions. This is all at a time when national output is falling rapidly. Until recently employment was also growing in the public sector. (More people in the job centres?)
Defenders will say that public sector wage increases were agreed months or even years ago, and agreements cannot be suspended now. If they say this, then what about the agreements in the private sector which are being broken, because employers just do not have the money?
There seems every advantage in working in the public sector when there is a Labour government, because of the political clout the unions have.
A verdict on the saviour?
The Institute of Economic Affairs recently published a study by 14 economists, some academic and others from various commercial or commentary institutes. The "Verdict on the Crash" summarised their findings on the causes of the present recession. Tuesday's Daily Telegraph listed their findings and gave its own commentary.
The main conclusions were:
1) Central banks created a monetary bubble which fed an asset price boom which distorted the price of risk. In particular, they allowed or fixed interest rates at too low a level. This was the kind of policy pursued by Alan Greenspan, but allowed here as well when cheap imported goods kept inflation down.
2) The US government encouraged high-risk lending, particularly in setting high targets to achieve housing for low income families via Fannie May and Freddie Mac.
3) Banks and their regulators failed to use any of their tools to apply a gentle rub on the brake to stop the build-up of risks. They come under criticism for not observing their statutory duty to maintain market confidence. Here the FSA in particular was found wanting. It should be added that the much maligned and criticised hedge funds, private equity and tax havens, that is the largely unregulated areas hitherto, are exonerated, and the guilt was among the highly regulated banks and insurers.
4) The tax and regulatory systems themselves encourage complex and opaque methods of increasing indebtedness.
5) Bank depositors should be made prior creditors, and individual banks should be allowed to fail, to provide a "market threat" to promote prudent behaviour. Full information must be reported to shareholders. "Lender of last resort" facilities should be re-emphasised, whereby banks with illiquidity are disciplined by having to obtain funds at higher rates.
6) In future central banks should monitor risk build up and also the growth in the money supply, as indicators of trouble and need for action.
The overall conclusions will not surprise many people, but will disappoint G.Brown and others who condemned the wrong institutions in scapegoating, and who are hell bent on more and more regulation, despite the findings that the unregulated or lightly regulated sectors in fact behaved more responsibly than those regulated in great detail.
The main conclusions were:
1) Central banks created a monetary bubble which fed an asset price boom which distorted the price of risk. In particular, they allowed or fixed interest rates at too low a level. This was the kind of policy pursued by Alan Greenspan, but allowed here as well when cheap imported goods kept inflation down.
2) The US government encouraged high-risk lending, particularly in setting high targets to achieve housing for low income families via Fannie May and Freddie Mac.
3) Banks and their regulators failed to use any of their tools to apply a gentle rub on the brake to stop the build-up of risks. They come under criticism for not observing their statutory duty to maintain market confidence. Here the FSA in particular was found wanting. It should be added that the much maligned and criticised hedge funds, private equity and tax havens, that is the largely unregulated areas hitherto, are exonerated, and the guilt was among the highly regulated banks and insurers.
4) The tax and regulatory systems themselves encourage complex and opaque methods of increasing indebtedness.
5) Bank depositors should be made prior creditors, and individual banks should be allowed to fail, to provide a "market threat" to promote prudent behaviour. Full information must be reported to shareholders. "Lender of last resort" facilities should be re-emphasised, whereby banks with illiquidity are disciplined by having to obtain funds at higher rates.
6) In future central banks should monitor risk build up and also the growth in the money supply, as indicators of trouble and need for action.
The overall conclusions will not surprise many people, but will disappoint G.Brown and others who condemned the wrong institutions in scapegoating, and who are hell bent on more and more regulation, despite the findings that the unregulated or lightly regulated sectors in fact behaved more responsibly than those regulated in great detail.
pour encourager les autres?
Is saying "sorry" enough and then paying back?
The "offenders" ought at least to pay interest on the value of the allowances they have wrongly claimed for, as well as the actual payment.
Do we need something else? If the MP has used deceit or fraud, then surely he or she should be prosecuted, with no special pleading at all, regardless of party or position.
The trouble is that the (under pressure) fees office agreed to things they shouldn't, and the rules are generally vague, even if the overriding one I mentioned yesterday, - wholly, exclusively and necessarily, is difficult.
It would be difficult to punish big offenders and not the many small offenders, as this would be unfair. Perhaps we can hope that where there has been deliberate fraud, then the legal process should ensue, and where the CPS has doubts about gaining a conviction parliament could itself impose some form of punishment, ranging from a temporary suspension from parliament to a permanent ban from standing. The problem with this last is political partisanship, an MP from a minority party is likely to be treated more harshly than one of the majority party.
The "offenders" ought at least to pay interest on the value of the allowances they have wrongly claimed for, as well as the actual payment.
Do we need something else? If the MP has used deceit or fraud, then surely he or she should be prosecuted, with no special pleading at all, regardless of party or position.
The trouble is that the (under pressure) fees office agreed to things they shouldn't, and the rules are generally vague, even if the overriding one I mentioned yesterday, - wholly, exclusively and necessarily, is difficult.
It would be difficult to punish big offenders and not the many small offenders, as this would be unfair. Perhaps we can hope that where there has been deliberate fraud, then the legal process should ensue, and where the CPS has doubts about gaining a conviction parliament could itself impose some form of punishment, ranging from a temporary suspension from parliament to a permanent ban from standing. The problem with this last is political partisanship, an MP from a minority party is likely to be treated more harshly than one of the majority party.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
It's in the rules...
So claimed many of those caught with their fingers in the honey pot. What the greedy MPs have done is largely permitted. Isn't there a fees office to ensure that the rules are not broken?
The rules are vague, but there is one which requires that when an MP signs for an allowance he or she assents that such expenditure was "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of their (parliamentary) duties."
You would need special pleading of a special quality to bring many of the items of which we have read into agreement with the above stipulation. The claimed extenuation comes, of course, from the need to have accommodation near or in London for those with constituencies further afield. It also resides in the fact that the "beggars" can opt at any time to choose which of their dwellings will be (temporarily) regarded as their second home.
The rules are vague, but there is one which requires that when an MP signs for an allowance he or she assents that such expenditure was "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of their (parliamentary) duties."
You would need special pleading of a special quality to bring many of the items of which we have read into agreement with the above stipulation. The claimed extenuation comes, of course, from the need to have accommodation near or in London for those with constituencies further afield. It also resides in the fact that the "beggars" can opt at any time to choose which of their dwellings will be (temporarily) regarded as their second home.
What about the activists?
The debate about MP allowance claims is often conducted in terms of the electors, how they will react to the "pillaging".
There is another group who are probably even more angry. The is the activists who go out often for the candidate/MP, canvassing, delivering leaflets, raising money and so on, all at their own expense and unpaid.
Just when there seemed a prospect of a Conservative government, those they have helped let the side down badly with greed and arrogance. It is quite possible that even if the Tories are the largest party in the new parliament, there will be no overall control. Indeed, with LibDems seeming to be at present the main gainers from the avarice, a LibDem/Labour coalition seems perhaps a likely outcome.
There is another group who are probably even more angry. The is the activists who go out often for the candidate/MP, canvassing, delivering leaflets, raising money and so on, all at their own expense and unpaid.
Just when there seemed a prospect of a Conservative government, those they have helped let the side down badly with greed and arrogance. It is quite possible that even if the Tories are the largest party in the new parliament, there will be no overall control. Indeed, with LibDems seeming to be at present the main gainers from the avarice, a LibDem/Labour coalition seems perhaps a likely outcome.
Monday, 11 May 2009
"Tally Ho" and all that
On April 26th, the Daily Telegraph published an article summarising the findings of researchers from the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science and Purdue University in the USA. The researchers had subjected fish to an uncomfortable experience of heat, while giving half a dose of painkiller and the control group none.
The findings strongly suggest that fish do experience pain. The fish which had the painkiller showed natural behaviour afterwards, suggesting that they had felt no pain, while the control group without painkiller showed memory of the experience by displaying fearful behaviour, - hovering and inactivity. All this two hours later.
Can we expect this government, the champions of protecting creatures from pain, in banning hunting principally because of the pain it afflicts on foxes although ignoring the pain arising from killing in other ways, now to protect fish from anglers?
I suspect not, pain to foxes was never the real reason. It was naked partisan politics! And there are so many anglers, many of them labour supporters!
The findings strongly suggest that fish do experience pain. The fish which had the painkiller showed natural behaviour afterwards, suggesting that they had felt no pain, while the control group without painkiller showed memory of the experience by displaying fearful behaviour, - hovering and inactivity. All this two hours later.
Can we expect this government, the champions of protecting creatures from pain, in banning hunting principally because of the pain it afflicts on foxes although ignoring the pain arising from killing in other ways, now to protect fish from anglers?
I suspect not, pain to foxes was never the real reason. It was naked partisan politics! And there are so many anglers, many of them labour supporters!
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Scrapping cars
The government scheme to pay a bonus to all who replace a car more than 12 years old with a new one seems to be another flop.
Car sales are still falling month by month. Critics of the scheme predicted that anyone who hoped to take advantage could delay purchase until the scheme started. Perhaps this explains the falling sales hitherto, so we might expect a modest increase in sales soon.
The scheme was a "try anything" policy. People owning ten year old cars were not likely to want to buy a brand new one, not least because some costs will rise - insurance, depreciation, for example.
The scheme was weakened to the extent that the suppliers must absorhalf the discount, or one thousand pounds, which they could try to offset with a higher basic price. There is also the point that some buyers can find bargains elsewhere at least equal to the total discount, so why would their behaviour be affected?
Most of the cars we buy are imported, perhaps as many as 80%, so we would benefit other countries rather than giving a massive employment boost here, even allowing for the UK parts content of some imported cars.
It will probably help in Germany, who produce many more of their own cars. Here it is little more than a "do something, do anything" policy.
Car sales are still falling month by month. Critics of the scheme predicted that anyone who hoped to take advantage could delay purchase until the scheme started. Perhaps this explains the falling sales hitherto, so we might expect a modest increase in sales soon.
The scheme was a "try anything" policy. People owning ten year old cars were not likely to want to buy a brand new one, not least because some costs will rise - insurance, depreciation, for example.
The scheme was weakened to the extent that the suppliers must absorhalf the discount, or one thousand pounds, which they could try to offset with a higher basic price. There is also the point that some buyers can find bargains elsewhere at least equal to the total discount, so why would their behaviour be affected?
Most of the cars we buy are imported, perhaps as many as 80%, so we would benefit other countries rather than giving a massive employment boost here, even allowing for the UK parts content of some imported cars.
It will probably help in Germany, who produce many more of their own cars. Here it is little more than a "do something, do anything" policy.
Which long word do they not understand?
There is a problem for MPs who represent a constituency some distance from London. Their travelling costs are covered, but they clearly cannot return home each night.
So some basis must remunerate them for the extra costs not faced by London MPs.
The long established principle was "...it reimburses 'for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence...for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.'"
"Wholly, necessarily and necessarily" should be clear. So how is spending money on a house in Southampton, when you are serving commutable Luton, covered here? Or Patio Heaters in the midlands, or cosmetic improvements to the appearance of a house in Hull?"
One clear and obvious abuse it the ease of designating and changing designation of the main home. MPs have obviously improved and furnished one house and turned and done it again with the other(s). This cannot be right.
Some have acquired a property portfolio partly at taxpayer expense, while at least one has gone to watch his favourite football team in a chauffeur-driven limousine.
Perhaps the very worrying aspect of this gravy train has been the attempt to conceal from disclosure, which has to imply some sort of shame or guilt.
The obvious conclusion is to make London accommodation available free to MPs - some have suggested re-conditioned London flats, but why not the Olympic Village after 2012. Failing this, either a maximum overnight stay allowance, paid on production of receipts. This would be true for anyone else in the country, so why not for our representatives? This last suggestion would also apply to (near)London MPs who have to work late at times and miss the last reasonable train.
So some basis must remunerate them for the extra costs not faced by London MPs.
The long established principle was "...it reimburses 'for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence...for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.'"
"Wholly, necessarily and necessarily" should be clear. So how is spending money on a house in Southampton, when you are serving commutable Luton, covered here? Or Patio Heaters in the midlands, or cosmetic improvements to the appearance of a house in Hull?"
One clear and obvious abuse it the ease of designating and changing designation of the main home. MPs have obviously improved and furnished one house and turned and done it again with the other(s). This cannot be right.
Some have acquired a property portfolio partly at taxpayer expense, while at least one has gone to watch his favourite football team in a chauffeur-driven limousine.
Perhaps the very worrying aspect of this gravy train has been the attempt to conceal from disclosure, which has to imply some sort of shame or guilt.
The obvious conclusion is to make London accommodation available free to MPs - some have suggested re-conditioned London flats, but why not the Olympic Village after 2012. Failing this, either a maximum overnight stay allowance, paid on production of receipts. This would be true for anyone else in the country, so why not for our representatives? This last suggestion would also apply to (near)London MPs who have to work late at times and miss the last reasonable train.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Were they not looking?
It seems that many thousands of children will fail to get their parents' chosen primary school when the children begin school life this year. Some may even get their third or fourth choice, some will have to travel long distances, and some may lack a place altogether.
The explanation offered is that birth rates have suddenly started rising.
Really! It takes five years to grow a five year old child, so it's not as if there has been no warning. It is to be hoped that the government in planning to answer other needs is not so short-sighted. There are huge numbers of planners in all departments, so what have they been doing?
There might be justification if the government wasn't entirely sure about individual needs of individual children, but to get the total wrong by many thousands beggars belief.
Douglas Carswell today comments in his usual forthright manner on his blog. Why then, he asks, are there no toy shortages, or nappies, or baby food. The answer is that the market is much better planned than the bureaucracy. Many suppliers saw a profitable opportunity and responded. There is an alertness which is missing in a bureaucracy, where changes are frowned upon as they cause extra work.
When Michael Gove's new schools begin, they will be more responsive, adaptable, flexible. They ought to provide the types of schools in the locations where they are wanted.
The explanation offered is that birth rates have suddenly started rising.
Really! It takes five years to grow a five year old child, so it's not as if there has been no warning. It is to be hoped that the government in planning to answer other needs is not so short-sighted. There are huge numbers of planners in all departments, so what have they been doing?
There might be justification if the government wasn't entirely sure about individual needs of individual children, but to get the total wrong by many thousands beggars belief.
Douglas Carswell today comments in his usual forthright manner on his blog. Why then, he asks, are there no toy shortages, or nappies, or baby food. The answer is that the market is much better planned than the bureaucracy. Many suppliers saw a profitable opportunity and responded. There is an alertness which is missing in a bureaucracy, where changes are frowned upon as they cause extra work.
When Michael Gove's new schools begin, they will be more responsive, adaptable, flexible. They ought to provide the types of schools in the locations where they are wanted.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Royal Mail - a poisoned chalice?
G. Brown is in further difficulty on the issue of Royal Mail.
The Service is under threat from various directions, and struggling to compete. For once the government seems to understand that the Mail will need both private sector funding and also expertise. A partial privatisation has thus been proposed.
Brown, then, faces a problem. He and Lord Mandelson are aware of the need, but there is considerable opposition among his back-benchers, and perhaps even in the cabinet. His left wing have a counter proposal to make, to turn the Royal Mail into a "not-for-profit" body. This proposal makes no sense, in the face of the need for finance and expertise, but it is supported by a significant number of Labour MPs, perhaps as many as 150.
So what options does he have?
1) Accept the back-bench proposal, and gain some kudos from that direction, although losing some on his right. This will not solve the problem, but it may not be his for much longer, and the union opposition would be directed against a Tory government.
2) Kick it into the long grass, suggesting that a thorough review is necessary. This will not go down well with Mandelson, who could become spiteful, and would leave an asset for an incoming Tory government to privatise fully rather than partially in the quest for funds to reduce debts.
3) Proceed, knowing that the Tories will support his proposals, even if they feel that they are inadequate. Such an outcome would cause a loss of support within his own party, and further erode his power.
He has a real problem on his hands, with a problem to try to conceal how he has given in in one direction or another.
And then there are the elections within a month, with Labour tipped to do badly!
The Service is under threat from various directions, and struggling to compete. For once the government seems to understand that the Mail will need both private sector funding and also expertise. A partial privatisation has thus been proposed.
Brown, then, faces a problem. He and Lord Mandelson are aware of the need, but there is considerable opposition among his back-benchers, and perhaps even in the cabinet. His left wing have a counter proposal to make, to turn the Royal Mail into a "not-for-profit" body. This proposal makes no sense, in the face of the need for finance and expertise, but it is supported by a significant number of Labour MPs, perhaps as many as 150.
So what options does he have?
1) Accept the back-bench proposal, and gain some kudos from that direction, although losing some on his right. This will not solve the problem, but it may not be his for much longer, and the union opposition would be directed against a Tory government.
2) Kick it into the long grass, suggesting that a thorough review is necessary. This will not go down well with Mandelson, who could become spiteful, and would leave an asset for an incoming Tory government to privatise fully rather than partially in the quest for funds to reduce debts.
3) Proceed, knowing that the Tories will support his proposals, even if they feel that they are inadequate. Such an outcome would cause a loss of support within his own party, and further erode his power.
He has a real problem on his hands, with a problem to try to conceal how he has given in in one direction or another.
And then there are the elections within a month, with Labour tipped to do badly!
Salvation for education?
G.Brown is due to deliver today the new thinking by the government on the subject of education. This is part of his fight-back by producing revolutionary new policies.
Let us hope that it contains more than has been leaked. So far we have been told that parents will have greater rights of complaint to local councils. We already have these rights, so what will be different?
It sounds, in this aspect at least, as if it is a watered down version of Michael Gove's proposal to give much greater power to parents, reflecting Brownite fear of letting control go. As usual they try to borrow Tory thinking but fail to appreciate its real essence.
It does seem to be an acknowledgment that in this area that the Tories may be on to something of a winner.
Let us hope that it contains more than has been leaked. So far we have been told that parents will have greater rights of complaint to local councils. We already have these rights, so what will be different?
It sounds, in this aspect at least, as if it is a watered down version of Michael Gove's proposal to give much greater power to parents, reflecting Brownite fear of letting control go. As usual they try to borrow Tory thinking but fail to appreciate its real essence.
It does seem to be an acknowledgment that in this area that the Tories may be on to something of a winner.
Deflections
Nearly three weeks ago Iain Martin, in an excellent Telegraph blog, listed the "glossary of New Labour phrases". This included "Time to draw a line under it", -Tony Blair's phrase to duck out of disadvantageous topics, "We are getting on with the job", beloved of Gordon Brown, and "focus on issues that real people are interested in".
One he didn't include, possibly because it was a Majorism, was "We are not getting our message across." This was used by implication by Chipmunk Blears, with the meaning that their policies are excellent and compelling, the only real problem is that somehow we are being prevented from reaching people with the messages.
As the man said, "If you believe that, you will believe anything!"
All these phrases are cover-up, deflections from reality, trying to deceive friend and foe and voter.
When they become necessary, you know that a government is in terminal decline.
One he didn't include, possibly because it was a Majorism, was "We are not getting our message across." This was used by implication by Chipmunk Blears, with the meaning that their policies are excellent and compelling, the only real problem is that somehow we are being prevented from reaching people with the messages.
As the man said, "If you believe that, you will believe anything!"
All these phrases are cover-up, deflections from reality, trying to deceive friend and foe and voter.
When they become necessary, you know that a government is in terminal decline.
Friday, 1 May 2009
Another question, another answer
Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, provided an answer to a written question on the use of taxis by the Home Office.
In 2008-09 the Home Office spent £1,045,671 on taxi fares. It had been £900,000 in the previous financial year, or an increase of 16%, at a time when the country was in recession and people were losing houses and jobs.
In 1997 the figure was £30,000. So why has it risen 33 times since then?
Over the past 11 years total accumulated spending was £5.6 million. If the Chancellor is looking for efficiency savings, and Cameron and company as well, surely here is one extravagance which could be reduced!
These details were released by David Ruffley, the shadow police reform minister, who described the increase and the total as "utterly disgraceful".
Senior staff at the Home Office, oh dear its Jacqui bath plug Smith and her colleagues, have limousines and protection costing perhaps £100,000 a year. Taxi fares are for junior staff, and they are spending almost £3,000 per day. Where are they all going, and why?
This is spending by just one department. I wonder what the total across all departments is?
In 2008-09 the Home Office spent £1,045,671 on taxi fares. It had been £900,000 in the previous financial year, or an increase of 16%, at a time when the country was in recession and people were losing houses and jobs.
In 1997 the figure was £30,000. So why has it risen 33 times since then?
Over the past 11 years total accumulated spending was £5.6 million. If the Chancellor is looking for efficiency savings, and Cameron and company as well, surely here is one extravagance which could be reduced!
These details were released by David Ruffley, the shadow police reform minister, who described the increase and the total as "utterly disgraceful".
Senior staff at the Home Office, oh dear its Jacqui bath plug Smith and her colleagues, have limousines and protection costing perhaps £100,000 a year. Taxi fares are for junior staff, and they are spending almost £3,000 per day. Where are they all going, and why?
This is spending by just one department. I wonder what the total across all departments is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
