of the financial mess that 12 years of G.Brown have got us into.
1) This financial year the government budget deficit will reach about £3,000 per man, woman and child. This is the millstone from just one year, but it is likely to go for some time (for ever almost if G.Brown and E. Balls are allowed to continue their mickey mouse economics,) even if the additions each year slowly decline.
The interest on this one year's new debt would cause a rise in the standard rate of tax of something like 2p or 3p, depending how many people are still gainfully employed. It does not require a genius to see that this cannot be allowed to continue for long.
2) This year the UK government will pay out more in benefits than it receives from workers in income tax. In fact the Treasury will pay out £25 billion more in various benefits than it raises from income tax. The government expects to take in £140.5 billion in income taxes, while social security benefits are projected to be £164.7 billion. Benefits are expected to rise in 2010-11 to £170.9 billion, as unemployment rises.
Of course there are other sources of government revenue, - VAT, excise tax, stamp duty, etc., and income tax even this year will not be above 25% of all government outgoings. This year, 2009-10 is the first time since 1999-2000 since benefits exceeded income tax, and in that year the difference was only £1.5 billion, rather than the current £25 billion.
3) There is another worrying spectre on the horizon, which is the mushrooming liability of public sector pensions. The unfunded public payroll ( that is the notional amount needed to pay index linked pensions) has swollen to such an extent that it becomes a major concern.
In the USA the burden is £2.7 billion out of a GDP of £9.7 trillion, or 28%.
In Canada the burden is £234 billion out of a GDP of £950 billion, or 25%
In the UK the burden is £1.18 trillion out of a GDP of £1.4 trillion, or 84%
Add in the Private Finance Initiative debts which must be met in the medium term, and other commitments, and it becomes obvious why Standard & Poors have us on negative watch, with the possibility of downgrading our AAA rating, and leading to a higher debt interest bill. They are saying that our debt could quadruple from what it is now to twice the national economic output by 2050. The conclusion is that the productive sector will have to bear an enormous burden in the days ahead.
Is it surprising that Standard and Poors, the Bank of England, the OECD, the IMF , Messrs Cameron and Osborne, and possibly the vast majority of economists are daunted by the mounting debt.
But G.Brown and his coterie seem determined to go for broke and borrow even more. Crazy!
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Local houses for local people
Yet another slogan that will prove difficult legally and cause damage if allowed.
The legal problem is that it will apparently infringe the recently promoted equality Bill of Harriet Harman, where the duty of all public bodies will be to promote equality, i.e. reduce socio-economic disadvantage. If two people otherwise equal in other needs, size of family, health, etc., are "competing" for the same house, it must be allocated to the poorer. Allocating on the basis of former locality does not come into the reckoning.
There is also the massive problem that if the poor and unwaged are to be given priority, then those from away who have received a job offer locally will find it more difficult to find somewhere to live. Mobility will be reduced, national output reduced and we shall all be poorer.
Poorer accommodation will be granted to the poor, and sink estates will be promoted.
G.Brown has done this to acquire "brownie " points, otherwise called votes, of course. The object is to try to win back support from his core vote who have flirted with the BNP.
The legal problem is that it will apparently infringe the recently promoted equality Bill of Harriet Harman, where the duty of all public bodies will be to promote equality, i.e. reduce socio-economic disadvantage. If two people otherwise equal in other needs, size of family, health, etc., are "competing" for the same house, it must be allocated to the poorer. Allocating on the basis of former locality does not come into the reckoning.
There is also the massive problem that if the poor and unwaged are to be given priority, then those from away who have received a job offer locally will find it more difficult to find somewhere to live. Mobility will be reduced, national output reduced and we shall all be poorer.
Poorer accommodation will be granted to the poor, and sink estates will be promoted.
G.Brown has done this to acquire "brownie " points, otherwise called votes, of course. The object is to try to win back support from his core vote who have flirted with the BNP.
Monday, 29 June 2009
A big do!
We are told that in excess of 400 BBC staff attended the Glastonbury week-end on duty.
This is remarkable, since there was apparently no live broadcast, merely edited highlights.
So why were there so many? Some doubtless argued that they needed to be there as a cheap way to attend an event which appealed to them personally. Perhaps it was the BBC saying "We are with you" at a trendy event.
What was the cost of all this - staff, travelling, accommodation, etc.?
If so much money is available, why does the BBC not bid to broadcast test matches? The Ashes are at stake again, but yet again viewable only to those who take out a subscription to SKY.
This is remarkable, since there was apparently no live broadcast, merely edited highlights.
So why were there so many? Some doubtless argued that they needed to be there as a cheap way to attend an event which appealed to them personally. Perhaps it was the BBC saying "We are with you" at a trendy event.
What was the cost of all this - staff, travelling, accommodation, etc.?
If so much money is available, why does the BBC not bid to broadcast test matches? The Ashes are at stake again, but yet again viewable only to those who take out a subscription to SKY.
The wrong sort of rights
In a last ditch effort to stave off defeat, G.Brown is producing a welter of slogans which have in common that we can't afford them. If by some chance electors bought these clumsy lies, we wouldn't be able to afford them.
One of the proposals is to grant rights, especially in health and education.
These administrative rights, like those imposed from Europe have a number of common features.
They do not come without costs - to the community or to other people.
They are administrative, and so open to political adjustment - you may promote your religion ( because we fear what you may do) but he may not promote his. Some groups may protest, others may not ( if they are likely to upset the government), and so on.
They are conditional on continuing state support, which may change or remove them.
Brown's latest set include the right to report your school if it fails. Whooppee! You must report it to the people who manage it. If they reject your claim that there will be legal costs to take it further, which you must pay or for some there will be public funds provided by taxpayers.
The simpler, cheaper and more effective solution would be to provide alternatives so people can vote with their feet. Competition in place of monopoly is the best way to guarantee value and efficiency.
Brown's proposals also suggest penalties for poor performance. You will be able to see your specialist within x weeks or else.... If "else" operates then who will pay pay any fine - not the nursing or medical staff, but the hospital. Ultimately other patients will pay as resources are redirected, or if more more money is supplied then taxpayers will pay.
One of the proposals is to grant rights, especially in health and education.
These administrative rights, like those imposed from Europe have a number of common features.
They do not come without costs - to the community or to other people.
They are administrative, and so open to political adjustment - you may promote your religion ( because we fear what you may do) but he may not promote his. Some groups may protest, others may not ( if they are likely to upset the government), and so on.
They are conditional on continuing state support, which may change or remove them.
Brown's latest set include the right to report your school if it fails. Whooppee! You must report it to the people who manage it. If they reject your claim that there will be legal costs to take it further, which you must pay or for some there will be public funds provided by taxpayers.
The simpler, cheaper and more effective solution would be to provide alternatives so people can vote with their feet. Competition in place of monopoly is the best way to guarantee value and efficiency.
Brown's proposals also suggest penalties for poor performance. You will be able to see your specialist within x weeks or else.... If "else" operates then who will pay pay any fine - not the nursing or medical staff, but the hospital. Ultimately other patients will pay as resources are redirected, or if more more money is supplied then taxpayers will pay.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
What a start!
What chance would you give to them to make a success of life, when they hobbled by their home situations?
We are talking about the proportion of children who are living in a household where no one is working. The situation will have been made worse by the recession, but the trend was there before the recession started.
The recent Regional Trends reported two worrying statistics.
1) On average 15% of children in this country live in a family where no-one is working. The problem is concentrated into certain regions. Thus in London it is 23%, while in the North east, North West, the West Midlands and Wales it is 18%.
In these areas, even when there is relief from benefits, there is income deprivation and there are role models lacking in hope, expectation or skills. The children in many cases are third generation of families where few have been gainfully employed.
2) Of families with children, 25% have a single parent present. In London the figure is 31%. The problem here is that in many cases these families will also be the same as those in point 1) above.
All serious studies have discovered that families with only one parent produce lower educational achievement, social problems and future benefit dependency.
The two findings point to a need which has received slogans and initiatives but which has never been seriously altered in half a century. "Solving" it would be the holy grail, or even reducing the sizes. Any improvement would have a knock on effect on school performance and educational achievement for the deprived and others, and on anti-social behaviour and crime.
We are talking about the proportion of children who are living in a household where no one is working. The situation will have been made worse by the recession, but the trend was there before the recession started.
The recent Regional Trends reported two worrying statistics.
1) On average 15% of children in this country live in a family where no-one is working. The problem is concentrated into certain regions. Thus in London it is 23%, while in the North east, North West, the West Midlands and Wales it is 18%.
In these areas, even when there is relief from benefits, there is income deprivation and there are role models lacking in hope, expectation or skills. The children in many cases are third generation of families where few have been gainfully employed.
2) Of families with children, 25% have a single parent present. In London the figure is 31%. The problem here is that in many cases these families will also be the same as those in point 1) above.
All serious studies have discovered that families with only one parent produce lower educational achievement, social problems and future benefit dependency.
The two findings point to a need which has received slogans and initiatives but which has never been seriously altered in half a century. "Solving" it would be the holy grail, or even reducing the sizes. Any improvement would have a knock on effect on school performance and educational achievement for the deprived and others, and on anti-social behaviour and crime.
What did you expect of a monopolist?
Many people have been shocked at the sheer waste of top BBC management in their lavish expenses,( and even more at the size of their salaries - many of the top echelon earning more than the prime minister.)
The BBC is a monopoly, because it is financed by a poll tax on anyone who wishes to watch TV, even if they never watch the BBC channels.
All monopolies, without exception, will be inefficient, self-regarding and producer orientated. Is it, then, any surprise that they look after themselves so well? Is it any surprise that it can enjoy its own biases and values when it broadcasts what purports to be news?
It has a captive audience who have no option but to pay. The nearest equivalent would be the situation that in order to look at the website of any newspaper at all, you have to take out an annual subscription to the one which has captured the government protected monopoly to the money.
The BBC is a monopoly, because it is financed by a poll tax on anyone who wishes to watch TV, even if they never watch the BBC channels.
All monopolies, without exception, will be inefficient, self-regarding and producer orientated. Is it, then, any surprise that they look after themselves so well? Is it any surprise that it can enjoy its own biases and values when it broadcasts what purports to be news?
It has a captive audience who have no option but to pay. The nearest equivalent would be the situation that in order to look at the website of any newspaper at all, you have to take out an annual subscription to the one which has captured the government protected monopoly to the money.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Grammar schools
David Davis, this week in the Spectator debate came close to attacking his own party's education policy.
Why is it, he asked, that public school boys now run the country, - the media, the law, business, with hardly anyone from the public sector in sight. The same might be said of the Conservative shadow cabinet.
He reminded his listeners what grammar schools did in the past for able children from poor homes, council estates and even broken homes, those for whom the comprehensive experiment has done little. He described the grammar schools as the greatest instrument for social mobility ever invented.
The result, he suggested, was that many who might have emerged as leaders have been held back. The winners are the public schools who teach just 7% of the population, with perhaps a few lucky enough to attend one of the few remaining grammar schools.
The potentially outstanding are hobbled, the disadvantaged are not helped, and all except the fortunate few do worse than they would have done. We have an education system which ranks increasingly lower in comparison with other countries, despite the marks achieved in devalued examinations. In the name of ideology our future is being diminished.
Why is it, he asked, that public school boys now run the country, - the media, the law, business, with hardly anyone from the public sector in sight. The same might be said of the Conservative shadow cabinet.
He reminded his listeners what grammar schools did in the past for able children from poor homes, council estates and even broken homes, those for whom the comprehensive experiment has done little. He described the grammar schools as the greatest instrument for social mobility ever invented.
The result, he suggested, was that many who might have emerged as leaders have been held back. The winners are the public schools who teach just 7% of the population, with perhaps a few lucky enough to attend one of the few remaining grammar schools.
The potentially outstanding are hobbled, the disadvantaged are not helped, and all except the fortunate few do worse than they would have done. We have an education system which ranks increasingly lower in comparison with other countries, despite the marks achieved in devalued examinations. In the name of ideology our future is being diminished.
We have ways of making you combine
The heavily implied threat this week from Ed Balls was that he will deal with poorly performing schoolsby persuading, and if necessary compelling, the few well performing schools to take them over, or to merge. Part of the incentive will be to allow head teachers to enjoy salaries above the present £120,000 cap.
It seems something about our educational system that after 12 years, with countless bodies enquiring and recommending, and massive amounts of money having been spent, there are still so many poor schools.
The worrying thing for me is that there is so much evidence in other areas of life that when you combine an inefficient unit with an efficient one, the more efficient seldom manages to raise the efficiency of the poor one.
In educational terms, there are relatively few good schools in the public sector, if you remove grammar schools which they are also trying to dilute, that massive merger could well reduce the number. The kids of the present good schools who achieve good results would be disadvantaged, but when did socialism ever consider the individual when the good of the uniform many is poor?
It seems something about our educational system that after 12 years, with countless bodies enquiring and recommending, and massive amounts of money having been spent, there are still so many poor schools.
The worrying thing for me is that there is so much evidence in other areas of life that when you combine an inefficient unit with an efficient one, the more efficient seldom manages to raise the efficiency of the poor one.
In educational terms, there are relatively few good schools in the public sector, if you remove grammar schools which they are also trying to dilute, that massive merger could well reduce the number. The kids of the present good schools who achieve good results would be disadvantaged, but when did socialism ever consider the individual when the good of the uniform many is poor?
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Well said, Governor!
With Chancellor Darling saying nothing and Chancellor Brown lying through his teeth, it's about time that someone with responsibility for the economy said something about the parlous situation we are in.
Steps in Mervyn King! He described the size of the UK budget deficit as "truly extraordinary" and explained it in words that Cameron or Osborne could have used, - "..we came into this crisis with fiscal policy along a path that wasn't in itself sustainable, and a correction was needed."
There was a warning, that "..we need to recognise that although we are finding it easy to now to finance those deficits by issuing gilts, there could be challenges down the road."
It was partly coded, but the gist is clear, that we entered the recession with large deficits and we cannot go on trying to spend our way out by borrowing more and more.
A quarter of all our spending, including interest on the debt, is financed by borrowing. It's not difficult to see why our AAA credit rating is being watched. We cannot go on, for broke, in the way we have been. This way leads to disaster.
The Governor's careful statement that the government needs to have a slightly greater ambition to bring borrowing down is a masterful understatement.
Steps in Mervyn King! He described the size of the UK budget deficit as "truly extraordinary" and explained it in words that Cameron or Osborne could have used, - "..we came into this crisis with fiscal policy along a path that wasn't in itself sustainable, and a correction was needed."
There was a warning, that "..we need to recognise that although we are finding it easy to now to finance those deficits by issuing gilts, there could be challenges down the road."
It was partly coded, but the gist is clear, that we entered the recession with large deficits and we cannot go on trying to spend our way out by borrowing more and more.
A quarter of all our spending, including interest on the debt, is financed by borrowing. It's not difficult to see why our AAA credit rating is being watched. We cannot go on, for broke, in the way we have been. This way leads to disaster.
The Governor's careful statement that the government needs to have a slightly greater ambition to bring borrowing down is a masterful understatement.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
We don't want to upset the weak...
The Sunday Telegraph at the week-end revealed that Ofsted has instructed its inspectors to avoid monitoring the worst teachers, or at least those who have already been categorised as weak, in order not to cause them stress. Consequently some of the worst teaching in the country will not be scrutinised.
This is all the more appalling given that headteachers are finding it increasingly difficult to remove substandard teachers because of the bureaucratic minefield involved. Since 2001, when LEAs received a statutory duty to refer cases to the General Teaching Council, only 46 cases of incompetent teachers out of half a million teachers have been referred to the Council.
How are the weak teachers to be helped to improve, or else be encouraged to seek some other occupation?
This is all the more appalling given that headteachers are finding it increasingly difficult to remove substandard teachers because of the bureaucratic minefield involved. Since 2001, when LEAs received a statutory duty to refer cases to the General Teaching Council, only 46 cases of incompetent teachers out of half a million teachers have been referred to the Council.
How are the weak teachers to be helped to improve, or else be encouraged to seek some other occupation?
G.Brown discredited?
An unlikely source wrote yesterday, "Britain's credit rating is on the danger list - and so is Gordon Brown's credibility". The author was Larry Elliott, economics editor, in the Guardian.
He further added that in the present circumstances it is both dishonest and foolish to fight a general election on the basis of Labour investment against Conservative spending cuts. The dishonesty is because, as virtually everyone else knows, the governments' own plans imply real cuts in spending. The foolishness, which would be revealed in the event, is that further massive borrowing would endanger of national credit rating - the AAA rating.
On the same day Richard Wellings posted a message on the website of the Institute of Economic Affairs that the cuts could need to be much more severe than those blurted out by Andrew Lansley. This was reinforced by a Policy Exchange paper, which calculates that cuts of £40 billion in addition to the 7% all round cuts admitted by Lansley to restore stability.
In this situation balance may be restored by one or more of three things:
1) Yet more borrowing. This is a non-starter, partly because it will crowd out private investment at a time when this is needed to promote growth, but mainly because of the decision announced on 21st May by Standard and Poors, - that they had assessed our situation still as AAA but on a negative watch, that is an early notice that we may soon lose the AAA rating.
Losing the AAA rating is not merely a loss of some national virility symbol, and damage to our national pride, nor mere humiliation even. It means that international lenders will react by requiring higher interest rates on their lending to us, and so for still further borrowing and hampering of our private sector growth rate. Next year nearly a quarter of government expenditure is financed by borrowing, and this cannot be left to go on.
2) Increased taxation. The government's plans already envisage this happening, with VAT, income tax and national insurance taxes set to rise. These increases are far too small, and will make little impact on the huge debt, although they could put a brake on recovery from the recession. Taxes would have to rise dramatically, and would have to reach down to almost the poorest. The figure of £1,600 per family is an average figure mentioned. The problem for the Chancellor in the near future is that increased corporate taxes are a good stealth tax but again would inhibit enterprise and growth.
3) Serious reductions in government spending. The £40 billion I mentioned above as an extra needed cut would equate to approaching half the sum spent on the NHS. That is the magnitude.
Lansley was right, there will have to be significant cuts. We have been living on increasing public sector debt for several years, and at some point we shall have to pay for it.
It was perhaps slightly unfortunate that the Standard and Poor's announcement was made in the middle of the MP expenses scandals, otherwise more than a few experts would have been aware of the size of our debt and the dishonesty and stupidity of G.Brown.
He further added that in the present circumstances it is both dishonest and foolish to fight a general election on the basis of Labour investment against Conservative spending cuts. The dishonesty is because, as virtually everyone else knows, the governments' own plans imply real cuts in spending. The foolishness, which would be revealed in the event, is that further massive borrowing would endanger of national credit rating - the AAA rating.
On the same day Richard Wellings posted a message on the website of the Institute of Economic Affairs that the cuts could need to be much more severe than those blurted out by Andrew Lansley. This was reinforced by a Policy Exchange paper, which calculates that cuts of £40 billion in addition to the 7% all round cuts admitted by Lansley to restore stability.
In this situation balance may be restored by one or more of three things:
1) Yet more borrowing. This is a non-starter, partly because it will crowd out private investment at a time when this is needed to promote growth, but mainly because of the decision announced on 21st May by Standard and Poors, - that they had assessed our situation still as AAA but on a negative watch, that is an early notice that we may soon lose the AAA rating.
Losing the AAA rating is not merely a loss of some national virility symbol, and damage to our national pride, nor mere humiliation even. It means that international lenders will react by requiring higher interest rates on their lending to us, and so for still further borrowing and hampering of our private sector growth rate. Next year nearly a quarter of government expenditure is financed by borrowing, and this cannot be left to go on.
2) Increased taxation. The government's plans already envisage this happening, with VAT, income tax and national insurance taxes set to rise. These increases are far too small, and will make little impact on the huge debt, although they could put a brake on recovery from the recession. Taxes would have to rise dramatically, and would have to reach down to almost the poorest. The figure of £1,600 per family is an average figure mentioned. The problem for the Chancellor in the near future is that increased corporate taxes are a good stealth tax but again would inhibit enterprise and growth.
3) Serious reductions in government spending. The £40 billion I mentioned above as an extra needed cut would equate to approaching half the sum spent on the NHS. That is the magnitude.
Lansley was right, there will have to be significant cuts. We have been living on increasing public sector debt for several years, and at some point we shall have to pay for it.
It was perhaps slightly unfortunate that the Standard and Poor's announcement was made in the middle of the MP expenses scandals, otherwise more than a few experts would have been aware of the size of our debt and the dishonesty and stupidity of G.Brown.
Speaker Bercow
The result of the election for the new Speaker had an inevitability about it, and a grave warning. Many Conservatives in Westminster and outside will have been somewhere between disappointed and angered at the result. It is significant that his campaign team, sponsors and ultimate voters had barely any Tories among them.
They disliked him before because of his disloyalty and his "cuddling up" to NuLabour. Many, I think would have preferred him to have crossed the floor of the house. Again, many of the Tory MPs and supporters feel that the Labour Party effectively gave a two fingered gesture to the public. They chose a divisive figure, who has virtually no support from his own party, merely to cause difficulties for the Tories. So much for hoping that Parliament has learned from recent events.
So, is it a disaster for the Tories? Should they be planning to unseat the new Speaker if the Tories are the next governing party?
I think that the answer is "no" to both questions.
John Bercow is on probation, and has to walk a fine line. Any perceived misdemeanour, Labour bias or whatever, could be visited on him by choosing an official Conservative candidate to stand against him in his Buckingham constituency. Traditionally the Tories have observed the convention not to stand against a sitting Speaker, but the less principled Labour and LibDems in recent years have opposed the Speaker. Or the Tories could encourage a "well-known" Tory to stand against him as an independent. How popular Bercow is in the constituency, I don't know, but activists and officials there might support another candidate.
Whether any of this would happen is, of course, unknown, but he knows that it is possible and he knows that he cannot afford to offend the Tories. In a word, he is on probation for some months. After the next election, if he survives and decides he is no longer on probation he may be safe for a time. If there is a Conservative (majority) government he will have no protection. His Labour supporting vote was partly because the Tories had got rid of Martin, the Labour Speaker, - "their man", and the Tories have shown themselves quite capable of removing another.
The Party may well feel that in one respect they have gained, - someone has "got rid of this turbulent priest". He may or may not be elevated to the peerage when he finishes as Speaker, but it is very unlikely that he will ever again sit on the Torry benches in the Commons or the Lords. He has burned his bridges.
They disliked him before because of his disloyalty and his "cuddling up" to NuLabour. Many, I think would have preferred him to have crossed the floor of the house. Again, many of the Tory MPs and supporters feel that the Labour Party effectively gave a two fingered gesture to the public. They chose a divisive figure, who has virtually no support from his own party, merely to cause difficulties for the Tories. So much for hoping that Parliament has learned from recent events.
So, is it a disaster for the Tories? Should they be planning to unseat the new Speaker if the Tories are the next governing party?
I think that the answer is "no" to both questions.
John Bercow is on probation, and has to walk a fine line. Any perceived misdemeanour, Labour bias or whatever, could be visited on him by choosing an official Conservative candidate to stand against him in his Buckingham constituency. Traditionally the Tories have observed the convention not to stand against a sitting Speaker, but the less principled Labour and LibDems in recent years have opposed the Speaker. Or the Tories could encourage a "well-known" Tory to stand against him as an independent. How popular Bercow is in the constituency, I don't know, but activists and officials there might support another candidate.
Whether any of this would happen is, of course, unknown, but he knows that it is possible and he knows that he cannot afford to offend the Tories. In a word, he is on probation for some months. After the next election, if he survives and decides he is no longer on probation he may be safe for a time. If there is a Conservative (majority) government he will have no protection. His Labour supporting vote was partly because the Tories had got rid of Martin, the Labour Speaker, - "their man", and the Tories have shown themselves quite capable of removing another.
The Party may well feel that in one respect they have gained, - someone has "got rid of this turbulent priest". He may or may not be elevated to the peerage when he finishes as Speaker, but it is very unlikely that he will ever again sit on the Torry benches in the Commons or the Lords. He has burned his bridges.
Monday, 22 June 2009
Congratulations
to Messrs Cameron and Hague, and others, for setting up the ECR group in the European Parliament - the European Conservatives and Reformists, with at present 55 MEPs from 9 member countries. (Others are in discussion about joining, so the group could become even more significant.) There was some scepticism, even in this country and the party.
CCHQ has published a comprehensive statement on the various party groups involved, and what they all have in common with the Conservatives. But expect the BBC, the Labour Party, the Guardian and the EU establishment to spend much time and column space in attempting ridicule and exposure of some members of the group, - they are nothing if not consistent.
These critics have a problem- they can't understand people who think in a way different to themselves, who see a need for reform of the project or rowing back from the United States of Europe, so they dismiss the others as somehow sub-human and defective.
CCHQ has published a comprehensive statement on the various party groups involved, and what they all have in common with the Conservatives. But expect the BBC, the Labour Party, the Guardian and the EU establishment to spend much time and column space in attempting ridicule and exposure of some members of the group, - they are nothing if not consistent.
These critics have a problem- they can't understand people who think in a way different to themselves, who see a need for reform of the project or rowing back from the United States of Europe, so they dismiss the others as somehow sub-human and defective.
The Thought Police are at it.
It seems that Ed Balls is considering a ban on members of the BNP being allowed to be teachers. This is apparently as a means to ban the party itself.
I personally do not find the party in any way attractive, but then I don't find Ed Balls, who has much in common with the BNP, very attractive either.
The BNP is a legal party, and as long as they stay within the law, it should not be an offence to belong to it. They make an unappetising picture with their thugs/bodyguards, their imagery and their policies which are unlikely to do anything for community cohesion. They bring a bad name to our Union Flag. None of these things is illegal.
There is something deep down in the consciousness of the left in this country, some of whom will behave like fascists in breaking up BNP meetings, that responds aggressively to the BNP. I have suggested that there isso much overlap of policies between the BNP and the far left, so perhaps the matter is one of competition, of "likes" repelling "likes".
I personally do not find the party in any way attractive, but then I don't find Ed Balls, who has much in common with the BNP, very attractive either.
The BNP is a legal party, and as long as they stay within the law, it should not be an offence to belong to it. They make an unappetising picture with their thugs/bodyguards, their imagery and their policies which are unlikely to do anything for community cohesion. They bring a bad name to our Union Flag. None of these things is illegal.
There is something deep down in the consciousness of the left in this country, some of whom will behave like fascists in breaking up BNP meetings, that responds aggressively to the BNP. I have suggested that there isso much overlap of policies between the BNP and the far left, so perhaps the matter is one of competition, of "likes" repelling "likes".
Axis of evil?
Perhaps "George W." was right.
We know of the arms and terrorism which Iran exports to various countries. We know that they are soon to have the atomic bomb. We know of their intransigence.
Now we know that they have little regard for their own people, and are concerned only with preserving their own power. How many have died, how many have been beaten up by the thuggish religious police or others? It seems possible that the election rigging was planned well in advance, and now they are admitting that in many places more than 100% of the electorate voted.
It may be that outgoing president did actually receive more votes, and that his rivals were over-optimistic, but to receive a minority of the votes in areas which were their powerbases and where they should have enjoyed large majorities gives the game away.
Perhaps President Bush mean something different, but it is difficult to think of another government in the modern world, outside of Zimbabwe, which treats its people with such disdain.
We know of the arms and terrorism which Iran exports to various countries. We know that they are soon to have the atomic bomb. We know of their intransigence.
Now we know that they have little regard for their own people, and are concerned only with preserving their own power. How many have died, how many have been beaten up by the thuggish religious police or others? It seems possible that the election rigging was planned well in advance, and now they are admitting that in many places more than 100% of the electorate voted.
It may be that outgoing president did actually receive more votes, and that his rivals were over-optimistic, but to receive a minority of the votes in areas which were their powerbases and where they should have enjoyed large majorities gives the game away.
Perhaps President Bush mean something different, but it is difficult to think of another government in the modern world, outside of Zimbabwe, which treats its people with such disdain.
Sunday, 21 June 2009
The Brown Broadcasting Corporation
(Formerly the Blair Broadcasting Corporation)
The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Gordon Brown is to appear in a special edition of Songs of Praise, the Sunday tea-time Christian broadcast. He is to be interviewed about courage, the subject of his book two years ago, and about people who have inspired him.
It is to be hoped that Messrs Cameron and Clegg will also be invited, so that the BBC retain at least an element of balance. Perhaps Cameron could talk about honesty and truthful people he has admired.
This is cynical and craven - appearance on a religious programme in order to try to restore his image in an election year. We are used to the daily evidence on the Toady programme which allows members of the government virtually unchallenged to make party political broadcasts, but this seems another step. (The BBC has just rejected the suggestion that Alan Sugar should not be allowed to be a member of the government and still front a popular TV programme, during election year.) I suspect that there are some Conservatives who can hardly wait to get into government to clip the wings of the biased BBC, and this is why the BBC is doing all it can to prevent this happening.
The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Gordon Brown is to appear in a special edition of Songs of Praise, the Sunday tea-time Christian broadcast. He is to be interviewed about courage, the subject of his book two years ago, and about people who have inspired him.
It is to be hoped that Messrs Cameron and Clegg will also be invited, so that the BBC retain at least an element of balance. Perhaps Cameron could talk about honesty and truthful people he has admired.
This is cynical and craven - appearance on a religious programme in order to try to restore his image in an election year. We are used to the daily evidence on the Toady programme which allows members of the government virtually unchallenged to make party political broadcasts, but this seems another step. (The BBC has just rejected the suggestion that Alan Sugar should not be allowed to be a member of the government and still front a popular TV programme, during election year.) I suspect that there are some Conservatives who can hardly wait to get into government to clip the wings of the biased BBC, and this is why the BBC is doing all it can to prevent this happening.
Friday, 19 June 2009
The EPP and all that
In a press release earlier this week the president of the EPP finally admitted failure in its attempts to retain the UK Conservative Party in membership (and also the Czech ODS).
The press release committed the EPP to going back to its roots and its priorities.
These roots and priorities, from thir Warsaw manifesto, committed the EPP to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and to maintaining the EU's economy and market systems. There was a rejection of the ideas of market fundamentalists, that is the philosophy and application of markets not constrained by political and especially EU political ambition. For 17 years the Conservative Group has been part of a grouping which has views quite antithetical to those of most conservatives. It is no surprise that Cameron and most of the MEPs have been looking elsewhere.
If Conservatives succeed in forming a more sympathetic group, then the first meeting should be round about the middle of July.
The press release committed the EPP to going back to its roots and its priorities.
These roots and priorities, from thir Warsaw manifesto, committed the EPP to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and to maintaining the EU's economy and market systems. There was a rejection of the ideas of market fundamentalists, that is the philosophy and application of markets not constrained by political and especially EU political ambition. For 17 years the Conservative Group has been part of a grouping which has views quite antithetical to those of most conservatives. It is no surprise that Cameron and most of the MEPs have been looking elsewhere.
If Conservatives succeed in forming a more sympathetic group, then the first meeting should be round about the middle of July.
Phew!
Now we know why Mervyn King rebuked Darling in the former's speech at the Mansion House.
Yesterday the ONS released government borrowing figures for May. During that month the government had a deficit on its account of £19.9 billion. This was the highest monthly figure since publication began in 1993! (last year in May its was £12.2 billion.) When Prudence was ditched and government deficits began to rise, even a few years ago a figure of £19.9 billion would have been high, even for an annual deficit, but to have a monthly deficit of this size is astonishing.
We note that recently the government has been trying to persuade the banks to take onmore of government debt, perhaps fearful that there was not enough appetite among international lenders, and that our AAA rating could be damaged.
Borrowing was expected to rise, as companies folded and jobs disappeared, and it may be that there were special reasons why revenue was low in May.
Several economists are already predicting that Darling's forecast of total borrowing to cover the deficit will be £175 billion in 2009/10 and could be as much as £200 billion. In the first two months the deficit has already been more than £30 billion. With unemployment expected to rise significantly for several months to come, it is not difficult to see why forecasts of a £200 billion deficit are being made.
It all makes G.Brown's posturing on cuts and spending even more ludicrous.
Yesterday the ONS released government borrowing figures for May. During that month the government had a deficit on its account of £19.9 billion. This was the highest monthly figure since publication began in 1993! (last year in May its was £12.2 billion.) When Prudence was ditched and government deficits began to rise, even a few years ago a figure of £19.9 billion would have been high, even for an annual deficit, but to have a monthly deficit of this size is astonishing.
We note that recently the government has been trying to persuade the banks to take onmore of government debt, perhaps fearful that there was not enough appetite among international lenders, and that our AAA rating could be damaged.
Borrowing was expected to rise, as companies folded and jobs disappeared, and it may be that there were special reasons why revenue was low in May.
Several economists are already predicting that Darling's forecast of total borrowing to cover the deficit will be £175 billion in 2009/10 and could be as much as £200 billion. In the first two months the deficit has already been more than £30 billion. With unemployment expected to rise significantly for several months to come, it is not difficult to see why forecasts of a £200 billion deficit are being made.
It all makes G.Brown's posturing on cuts and spending even more ludicrous.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Well done Governor!
At the Mansion House dinner last night Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, once again by implication criticised the economic policies of the "Chancellor" and Mr.Darling, although more G.Brown.
He had some commonsensical things to say about supervision, and the stupidity of the idiot-designed tripartite regulatory system. The bank must ensure economic stability but only by observing and with little power to act. He also suggested that retail banking should be separated from investment banking, the former needing to be much more cautious than the latter
He again expressed concern about the "splurge for growth" and the mounting government debt mountain.
In many respects his speech could have been written by George Osborne, who must have been delighted by what he heard or read.
He had some commonsensical things to say about supervision, and the stupidity of the idiot-designed tripartite regulatory system. The bank must ensure economic stability but only by observing and with little power to act. He also suggested that retail banking should be separated from investment banking, the former needing to be much more cautious than the latter
He again expressed concern about the "splurge for growth" and the mounting government debt mountain.
In many respects his speech could have been written by George Osborne, who must have been delighted by what he heard or read.
Gone quiet on poverty!
G.Brown used to babble on about his achievements in reducing poverty, or at least children living in a poor homes. His various credit schemes designed to achieve his target, have proved expensive to operate and less than effective in effect.
I did hear one of his lieutenants claim recently that they are on target for abolishing child poverty, a claim difficult to reconcile with what has happened, as the goal posts move all the time as they now use relative poverty instead of absolute poverty.
So why is Brown rather silent? Partly, I suspect, because he is vulnerable to the criticism that our society is now more unequal than under Thatcher, and partly because many people are losing jobs, homes, other goods and incomes from the recession. The ranks of the poor, the ranks of recipients of one or more of his credits, have become swollen with "new" poor.
But we now hear little from him apart from the mantra "I am Mr. Spendmore, he, Cameron, is Mr. Cutmore." He seems intent on grinding on with this claim.
I did hear one of his lieutenants claim recently that they are on target for abolishing child poverty, a claim difficult to reconcile with what has happened, as the goal posts move all the time as they now use relative poverty instead of absolute poverty.
So why is Brown rather silent? Partly, I suspect, because he is vulnerable to the criticism that our society is now more unequal than under Thatcher, and partly because many people are losing jobs, homes, other goods and incomes from the recession. The ranks of the poor, the ranks of recipients of one or more of his credits, have become swollen with "new" poor.
But we now hear little from him apart from the mantra "I am Mr. Spendmore, he, Cameron, is Mr. Cutmore." He seems intent on grinding on with this claim.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Other costs of the NHS
We are familiar with the financial costs of the NHS, which spends over £100 billion, or about £1,600 each year for every man, woman and child. (Much of this goes on salaries for caring professionals, medicines and provisions, and expensive equipment.) Few would object, but most would suspect that there is waste in some areas.
There are, however, other costs, - often in suffering, disease and death.
Much of this is put down to a culture of target control from Whitehall.
There are allegations of seriously ill patients kept for hours in ambulances outside A & E departments, or sent on journeys across country, to ensure the departments meet the government target of treating patients within four hours of admission. Sometimes the doors are locked an ambulance drivers have to try to find somewhere else.
Analogously to the police turning a blind eye to offences which will take too much time, some doctors are forced to undertake simpler, quicker, procedures in order to reach targets within a given time. Bed occupancy is too high and cleaning is inadequate, and the result is hospital acquired infection, which can have fatal consequences.
If, as seems likely despite G.Brown's lies, the NHS will have to face financial cuts in the near future or at least have increases lower than the rate of inflation, it is clear that the NHS cannot continue without major change of some sort. One change must be the targets which distort clinical priorities.
There are, however, other costs, - often in suffering, disease and death.
Much of this is put down to a culture of target control from Whitehall.
There are allegations of seriously ill patients kept for hours in ambulances outside A & E departments, or sent on journeys across country, to ensure the departments meet the government target of treating patients within four hours of admission. Sometimes the doors are locked an ambulance drivers have to try to find somewhere else.
Analogously to the police turning a blind eye to offences which will take too much time, some doctors are forced to undertake simpler, quicker, procedures in order to reach targets within a given time. Bed occupancy is too high and cleaning is inadequate, and the result is hospital acquired infection, which can have fatal consequences.
If, as seems likely despite G.Brown's lies, the NHS will have to face financial cuts in the near future or at least have increases lower than the rate of inflation, it is clear that the NHS cannot continue without major change of some sort. One change must be the targets which distort clinical priorities.
BBC monopoly
Discussions are going on urgently at the BBC over the recent recommendation that some of the TV Poll Tax (AKA TV licence), should be handed to non-BBC producers if they engage in public service broadcasting, such as regional news. There is a new urgency in that the commercial competitors are finding advertising revenue diminishing with the recession.
This seems fair, given that much of the BBC broadcasting and other enterprises such as internet, could not be said to be public service broadcasting, unless the term is emptied of all meaning. If so, perhaps some BBC programming might have to become "subscription" broadcasting, that is "standing on its own two feet".
It was interesting, and at times almost comical, to hear Sir Michael Lyons on the Toady programme trying to defend his corner - a channel which receives our poll tax, which enables it to more than compete with commercial channels, which must find advertising revenue, on broadcasting which are hardly public service.
What will happen?
I suspect that some sot of gesture will be made, in an attempt to buy off the growing anger in some quarters over the values, political loyalties and self-indulgence which are easily seen at the BBC. But the gestures will be small, at least immediately, and reluctant. There must be some or the could be an organised non-payment campaign. Charles Moore has already threatened to withhold payment, and others to follow, over the Jonathan Ross affair.
In the longer term, if non-payment takes off, and perhaps with a government less sympathetic to BBC political bias (- the Conservatives), there could even be a major reform to deal with one of the last protected monopolies in the UK.
This seems fair, given that much of the BBC broadcasting and other enterprises such as internet, could not be said to be public service broadcasting, unless the term is emptied of all meaning. If so, perhaps some BBC programming might have to become "subscription" broadcasting, that is "standing on its own two feet".
It was interesting, and at times almost comical, to hear Sir Michael Lyons on the Toady programme trying to defend his corner - a channel which receives our poll tax, which enables it to more than compete with commercial channels, which must find advertising revenue, on broadcasting which are hardly public service.
What will happen?
I suspect that some sot of gesture will be made, in an attempt to buy off the growing anger in some quarters over the values, political loyalties and self-indulgence which are easily seen at the BBC. But the gestures will be small, at least immediately, and reluctant. There must be some or the could be an organised non-payment campaign. Charles Moore has already threatened to withhold payment, and others to follow, over the Jonathan Ross affair.
In the longer term, if non-payment takes off, and perhaps with a government less sympathetic to BBC political bias (- the Conservatives), there could even be a major reform to deal with one of the last protected monopolies in the UK.
Idle hands
Today saw the publication of the latest unemployment figures for the UK.
At the end of March this year the number of people in employment was 451,000 less than at the same time last year. The loss of jobs over the twelve months has accelerated but, of course, the recession had barely started in March 2008, even if people were losing jobs.
Perhaps there is ammunition for the BNP, and criticism of the prime minister who promised "British jobs for British workers". Over the same twelve months the employment of non-UK born people increased by 129,000.
At the end of March this year the number of people in employment was 451,000 less than at the same time last year. The loss of jobs over the twelve months has accelerated but, of course, the recession had barely started in March 2008, even if people were losing jobs.
Perhaps there is ammunition for the BNP, and criticism of the prime minister who promised "British jobs for British workers". Over the same twelve months the employment of non-UK born people increased by 129,000.
How stands the recession.
On April 6th 2009 Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O'Rourke in their Vox column compared the present world recession with that depression of 1929, month by month.
On 4th June they updated it. There are individual graphs for different countries and for different economic variables, some of which are very worrying.
Let them summarise their findings:
1) World industrial production still follows the track of 1929 onwards, with little sign of green shoots.
2) World stock markets have rallied a little since March 2009 and world trade has stabilised, but these are still following a path well below the path in the 1930s.
3) There are differences between nations on changes in industrial output - within Europe, for instance, the UK and Germany are closely following their paths in the 1930s, whereas in France and Italy the present path is well below that in the 1930s. The USA and Canada are also following the 1930s path.
My own conclusion is that although the UK is following the path, month by month, of the 1930s, some other countries are well below. It is impossible to predict whether we shall escape more lightly, however.
Confidence is fragile. Thee was a rise in the UK stock markets, but this seems to have petered out into a plateau, and we wait to see what happens next - buyers and sellers could well be waiting to see what happens next.
If there are any real green shoots, and people have been claiming to see them since at least January, we are by no means out of the woods. Some experts are even discussing the possibility of a "W" recovery pattern - a partial recovery before a further plunge, and with unemployment rising for another two years.
Some politicians, and their supporters, may make reassuring statements ( - there is an election coming), and everything could recover quickly (except employment) once the process starts.
On 4th June they updated it. There are individual graphs for different countries and for different economic variables, some of which are very worrying.
Let them summarise their findings:
1) World industrial production still follows the track of 1929 onwards, with little sign of green shoots.
2) World stock markets have rallied a little since March 2009 and world trade has stabilised, but these are still following a path well below the path in the 1930s.
3) There are differences between nations on changes in industrial output - within Europe, for instance, the UK and Germany are closely following their paths in the 1930s, whereas in France and Italy the present path is well below that in the 1930s. The USA and Canada are also following the 1930s path.
My own conclusion is that although the UK is following the path, month by month, of the 1930s, some other countries are well below. It is impossible to predict whether we shall escape more lightly, however.
Confidence is fragile. Thee was a rise in the UK stock markets, but this seems to have petered out into a plateau, and we wait to see what happens next - buyers and sellers could well be waiting to see what happens next.
If there are any real green shoots, and people have been claiming to see them since at least January, we are by no means out of the woods. Some experts are even discussing the possibility of a "W" recovery pattern - a partial recovery before a further plunge, and with unemployment rising for another two years.
Some politicians, and their supporters, may make reassuring statements ( - there is an election coming), and everything could recover quickly (except employment) once the process starts.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Good for the printing industry, anway
Freedom of information request from More4 News has produced a situation of enormous waste in local and national government. This concerns the printing of leaflets in many languages, to help immigrants, of which some are read by only a few, if any' immigrants. Of the 218 local authorities which supplied figures over half, - 126, said they had increased their spending on this.
Birmingham, a Conservative-controlled council last year spent £361,096 on these multiple translations, but this was not the largest council spender- Glasgow spent £433,470, and Haringey £386,665 (- they might have spent much of this on a decent child protection service - they have literature in 193 different languages, Southwark £360,999 and Sheffield £360,000.
The chief complaint is that much of the literature was unread, and when placed on websites instead received few "hits" in many cases. (Haringey admitted that of 77 translated documents placed on line 26 were never accessed and most of the rest were viewed only once or twice.)
Other public bodies spent large sums on providing translations - the Metropolitan Police £10.6 million, Department for Work and Pensions £4 million, West Midlands Police £2.3 million, the Welsh Assembly £2 million and CPS £1.5 million. These contributed about 40% of the national total of £50.2 million spent on translating documents. This was an increase of 9 percent on the previous year, despite a plea from Hazel Blears, Communities minister, to give more careful consideration before embarking on the process.
(All this is, of course, additional to translator's services brought in to help in interviews of various kinds.)
Most, but not all, newly arrived immigrants settle in communities where there are already people from the same homeland, so there should be others to explain and interpret in their common language. In the absence of this, by arrangement translators could be brought in.
Baroness Warsi, shadow minister for community cohesion, described the situation as a "colossal waste of taxpayers money that flies in the face of common sense." She suggests that the money would be better spent on teaching newcomers to speak English.
Multiculturalism has broken up society. The sooner we can all speak the same language, the greater will be our cohesion.
Birmingham, a Conservative-controlled council last year spent £361,096 on these multiple translations, but this was not the largest council spender- Glasgow spent £433,470, and Haringey £386,665 (- they might have spent much of this on a decent child protection service - they have literature in 193 different languages, Southwark £360,999 and Sheffield £360,000.
The chief complaint is that much of the literature was unread, and when placed on websites instead received few "hits" in many cases. (Haringey admitted that of 77 translated documents placed on line 26 were never accessed and most of the rest were viewed only once or twice.)
Other public bodies spent large sums on providing translations - the Metropolitan Police £10.6 million, Department for Work and Pensions £4 million, West Midlands Police £2.3 million, the Welsh Assembly £2 million and CPS £1.5 million. These contributed about 40% of the national total of £50.2 million spent on translating documents. This was an increase of 9 percent on the previous year, despite a plea from Hazel Blears, Communities minister, to give more careful consideration before embarking on the process.
(All this is, of course, additional to translator's services brought in to help in interviews of various kinds.)
Most, but not all, newly arrived immigrants settle in communities where there are already people from the same homeland, so there should be others to explain and interpret in their common language. In the absence of this, by arrangement translators could be brought in.
Baroness Warsi, shadow minister for community cohesion, described the situation as a "colossal waste of taxpayers money that flies in the face of common sense." She suggests that the money would be better spent on teaching newcomers to speak English.
Multiculturalism has broken up society. The sooner we can all speak the same language, the greater will be our cohesion.
Once a msearer, always a smearer!
Iain Dale's blog contains a copy of a purported e-mail from Harriet Harman sent to those who have deserted the Labour Party over the past few years.
It contains quotations from various people who may or may not be real people. The list includes:
"You can't ride the fence when the Tories and BNP are gaining power"- from Brendan of Durham
"I have re-joined because the Tories will ruin this country."- from Silke of Guildford - you're too late, Silke, Brown has already done it.
There follow there usual lies and half truths - of Tory cuts, even the percentages which the Tories do not yet know, and of the Toires walking by and leaving people.
Do you notice the smear? - associating the Tories with BNP, who are both gaining power - are we to have a BNP government?, or ruination and Labour judged Tory cuts.
As Iain points out, there is not a single positive reason to re-join. The Labour Party has descended a long way from the party which had a vision and would at least debate policies.
I fear for my country.
It contains quotations from various people who may or may not be real people. The list includes:
"You can't ride the fence when the Tories and BNP are gaining power"- from Brendan of Durham
"I have re-joined because the Tories will ruin this country."- from Silke of Guildford - you're too late, Silke, Brown has already done it.
There follow there usual lies and half truths - of Tory cuts, even the percentages which the Tories do not yet know, and of the Toires walking by and leaving people.
Do you notice the smear? - associating the Tories with BNP, who are both gaining power - are we to have a BNP government?, or ruination and Labour judged Tory cuts.
As Iain points out, there is not a single positive reason to re-join. The Labour Party has descended a long way from the party which had a vision and would at least debate policies.
I fear for my country.
Another disappointing Speaker?
I have heard parts of the hustings of candidates for the office of Speaker, and read much.
I was not greatly impressed. Too many of them although speaking about reform, seemed to want to minimise it, and were looking for a way to preserve MPs comfort rather than offering themselves as a leader of parliamentary debate and checking the power of the government
I can see what Douglas Carswell on his blog asked, "Are they choosing a shop steward for MPs or a Speaker for the country's legislature. All the questions were about recess, length of holiday, sympathy on expenses and the allocation of offices and creches."
What hope do we have? Please reconsider, Frank Field, and let your name go forward, to prevent us becoming even more disillusioned with parliament!
I was not greatly impressed. Too many of them although speaking about reform, seemed to want to minimise it, and were looking for a way to preserve MPs comfort rather than offering themselves as a leader of parliamentary debate and checking the power of the government
I can see what Douglas Carswell on his blog asked, "Are they choosing a shop steward for MPs or a Speaker for the country's legislature. All the questions were about recess, length of holiday, sympathy on expenses and the allocation of offices and creches."
What hope do we have? Please reconsider, Frank Field, and let your name go forward, to prevent us becoming even more disillusioned with parliament!
I missed the birthday!
Yesterday, I've just learned, was the 794th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. It was signed on June 15th, 1215.
Much of it was about the rights and powers of the Barons and the limitations of the king, or dealt with weights and measures, but clause 39 should be printed and pasted all over parliament, law courts and police stations:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
Perhaps in those days it did not apply to slaves/surfs/villeins, but we are all free now before the law and must be protected from powerful bodies (corporate or council now rather than Barons) and the power of the state (Big government now, rather than the king).
If we are looking for a national day for England, while April 23rd is a good candidate, June 15th could have a better claim to fame, - a permanent reminder that we should be free from arbitrary judgement, and left unpunished if we do not break the law.
Much of it was about the rights and powers of the Barons and the limitations of the king, or dealt with weights and measures, but clause 39 should be printed and pasted all over parliament, law courts and police stations:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
Perhaps in those days it did not apply to slaves/surfs/villeins, but we are all free now before the law and must be protected from powerful bodies (corporate or council now rather than Barons) and the power of the state (Big government now, rather than the king).
If we are looking for a national day for England, while April 23rd is a good candidate, June 15th could have a better claim to fame, - a permanent reminder that we should be free from arbitrary judgement, and left unpunished if we do not break the law.
Monday, 15 June 2009
Cut or Tax?
Ed Balls, the proxy Chancellor, has been doing the rounds today continuing the lie that the Tories are cutters, whereas Labour by some mysterious alchemy can defy economic rationality and continue to increase spending.
His whole approach seems something of a shambles, and has already needed a response from Liam Byrne to tone it down. Balls, presumably egged on by G.Brown, sees to believe that if you utter a lie often enough people will somehow give up and accept it, even if they know it to be false.
Let us assume that we do not already have the massive public debt mountain, - this is unrealistic, as we know that we are close to losing our AAA credit rating which will make our problems really build up, and consider the alternatives.
Assuming that the cut necessary in public expenditure, as identified in the official (Darling) budget recently, is of the order of 7% across the board, than we are looking at cuts in services of perhaps £50 billion.
Balls-Brown will tell you how many teachers we would have to lose, how many police officers. They produced a dossier recently to this effect.
Assume, however, that the £50billion would have to be met by higher taxation, we would be looking at a basic rate of tax of about 40 extra per cent, i.e. take it to over 60%. Of course, Balls-Brown, in their strange world, would raise tax on the highest incomes, but as they are so few we would finish by driving most of them out of country, as their tax rate approached 100%.
Taxation is not the answer on its own, although it may have to be part of the answer at some point, and if Balls-Brown point out that cuts in spending will cause difficulty for some, then increases in tax will cause massive economic problems.
If you were going to decide on tax changes versus spending changes, you wouldn't want to begin from where we are, - with massive public debt even before the recession and now growing to a record level. With rapidly rising and massive government budget deficit, neither spending cut nor tax increase is attractive, but at the very least we should expect a government to do what the opposition and people are doing, - to take the matter honestly and seriously.
His whole approach seems something of a shambles, and has already needed a response from Liam Byrne to tone it down. Balls, presumably egged on by G.Brown, sees to believe that if you utter a lie often enough people will somehow give up and accept it, even if they know it to be false.
Let us assume that we do not already have the massive public debt mountain, - this is unrealistic, as we know that we are close to losing our AAA credit rating which will make our problems really build up, and consider the alternatives.
Assuming that the cut necessary in public expenditure, as identified in the official (Darling) budget recently, is of the order of 7% across the board, than we are looking at cuts in services of perhaps £50 billion.
Balls-Brown will tell you how many teachers we would have to lose, how many police officers. They produced a dossier recently to this effect.
Assume, however, that the £50billion would have to be met by higher taxation, we would be looking at a basic rate of tax of about 40 extra per cent, i.e. take it to over 60%. Of course, Balls-Brown, in their strange world, would raise tax on the highest incomes, but as they are so few we would finish by driving most of them out of country, as their tax rate approached 100%.
Taxation is not the answer on its own, although it may have to be part of the answer at some point, and if Balls-Brown point out that cuts in spending will cause difficulty for some, then increases in tax will cause massive economic problems.
If you were going to decide on tax changes versus spending changes, you wouldn't want to begin from where we are, - with massive public debt even before the recession and now growing to a record level. With rapidly rising and massive government budget deficit, neither spending cut nor tax increase is attractive, but at the very least we should expect a government to do what the opposition and people are doing, - to take the matter honestly and seriously.
Bigger government
Some hollow amusement resulted from the news that G.Brown's cabinet is now too large to fit in the cabinet room and will have to make use of a larger room. In fact the cabinet size is up to 50% larger than the average over the last 100 years. The costs will have escalated, even if increasingly cabinet members are "unpaid" peers.
Three things follow:
Three things follow:
- The Cabinet will be too large to allow much meaningful discussion, and will be a mere sounding board for Brown and his main cabinet members, an announcement of what has been decided elsewhere.
- The size is both a reflection of the ever intruding state into formerly private areas and is a cause of more intrusion, as the inflated numbers all devise bigger and better ways of achieving this.
- Brown has set up a cabinet within a cabinet - a small group, called G8, - I presume the G refers to his forename. This small group of trusted henchmen will meet every week to make the effective decisions which the main cabinet will rubber stamp.
Cutting government expnditure
G.Brown lied when he said his government would not cut expenditure, unless his present cutting will miraculously come to an end. The government is already cutting costs in many areas.
The latest cut is in higher education, where the government has imposed a cap of 10,00 on the number of additional places available.
This is at a time when universities are expecting a surge in applications, especially from those who might otherwise have been in the labour market but can find no job in the recession. The number of British candidates is up by 8.8% and the number of European applications up by 16.4%.
A sad British result is likely. As our education system fails to provide students of the same quality as in most of the rest of Europe, the conclusion is that many British students will be unsuccessful in finding a place at university, - they will be "crowded out". As many as 80,000 applicants will be unsuccessful, and a large number of these are likely to be British as universities are not permitted to discriminate against those from abroad, in fees or loans.
The latest cut is in higher education, where the government has imposed a cap of 10,00 on the number of additional places available.
This is at a time when universities are expecting a surge in applications, especially from those who might otherwise have been in the labour market but can find no job in the recession. The number of British candidates is up by 8.8% and the number of European applications up by 16.4%.
A sad British result is likely. As our education system fails to provide students of the same quality as in most of the rest of Europe, the conclusion is that many British students will be unsuccessful in finding a place at university, - they will be "crowded out". As many as 80,000 applicants will be unsuccessful, and a large number of these are likely to be British as universities are not permitted to discriminate against those from abroad, in fees or loans.
Not just the Kinnocks
Someone has recently calculated that the Kinnocks, man and wife, have gathered perhaps as much as £10 million from their service at EU headquarters, according to several sites this morning. It may or may not be a fair estimate.
What is clear without doubt is the estimates of costs to this country of representation at Brussels/Strasbourg, produced by the Open Europe organisation.
The European Parliament costs UK taxpayers £1.8 million for each MEP each year. The House of Commons costs us £208,000 per MP per year.
This is partly a reflection of different costs claimed, Brussels £363,000 per MEP and London £148,000 per MP. (The former do not have to produce receipts to claim their allowances, while London MPs have done, although it has not stopped the scandals. At least the scandals came to light!)
There are also massive payments on retirement at Brussels. Each retiring MEP will be paid up to 2 years salary (- nearly £170,000) to help them adjust to their new (reduced) circumstances. The 22 retiring this year will share in a £10 million index-linked pension pot, with an annual pension up to £235,000. They will also be granted up to £65,000 in transition costs, to cover the closing of their offices and laying off staff.
Did someone talk of a gravy train?
What is clear without doubt is the estimates of costs to this country of representation at Brussels/Strasbourg, produced by the Open Europe organisation.
The European Parliament costs UK taxpayers £1.8 million for each MEP each year. The House of Commons costs us £208,000 per MP per year.
This is partly a reflection of different costs claimed, Brussels £363,000 per MEP and London £148,000 per MP. (The former do not have to produce receipts to claim their allowances, while London MPs have done, although it has not stopped the scandals. At least the scandals came to light!)
There are also massive payments on retirement at Brussels. Each retiring MEP will be paid up to 2 years salary (- nearly £170,000) to help them adjust to their new (reduced) circumstances. The 22 retiring this year will share in a £10 million index-linked pension pot, with an annual pension up to £235,000. They will also be granted up to £65,000 in transition costs, to cover the closing of their offices and laying off staff.
Did someone talk of a gravy train?
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Predictable!
The number of families, perhaps as many as 50,000, where parents are undertaking the education of their own children is increasing. This may reflect the recession and rising costs of private education, but the main problem in most cases is local schools where education is of a very poor standard
The reaction of the government has been predictable. Fort the first time, parents will have to register annually with their local educational authority, - the one responsible for the poor school(s), and have to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education. Councils will have the power to force children into a local school against the wishes of the parents.
Is it just the larger number involved, or is it that there are more people rejecting the monolithic standard (failing provision.) Constructivists on the left cannot accept differences and are driven to control and compel to achieve their blueprint.
There has been little if any, complaint hitherto that education suffers when children are educated at home. Instead the left tell us that children educated outside the state system do not acquire skills to cooperate or develop relationships. Really? Have any of these critics been to schools where disciplinary problems are many and bullying is rife, let alone the militancy and interruption caused by many politically motivated or unionised staff.
The reaction of the government has been predictable. Fort the first time, parents will have to register annually with their local educational authority, - the one responsible for the poor school(s), and have to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education. Councils will have the power to force children into a local school against the wishes of the parents.
Is it just the larger number involved, or is it that there are more people rejecting the monolithic standard (failing provision.) Constructivists on the left cannot accept differences and are driven to control and compel to achieve their blueprint.
There has been little if any, complaint hitherto that education suffers when children are educated at home. Instead the left tell us that children educated outside the state system do not acquire skills to cooperate or develop relationships. Really? Have any of these critics been to schools where disciplinary problems are many and bullying is rife, let alone the militancy and interruption caused by many politically motivated or unionised staff.
Bad to worse
I blogged quite recently that those apparently guilty of knife crime, including carrying a knife, are being treated very leniently.
It continues.
Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary, has produced up-to-date figures.
The proportion of "knife criminals" receiving custodial sentences in the last quarter has gone down from 22% to 20%, and the number receiving suspended or community sentence has gone up from 42% to 45%. Only one in five of those convicted of a knife offence actually went to prison, despite significant increases in the maximum sentence which are possible.
This does not sound very much like "tough on crime", or like a government cracking down on the knife culture. (Last year, may I remind you, 8,000 were let off with a caution.)
It continues.
Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary, has produced up-to-date figures.
The proportion of "knife criminals" receiving custodial sentences in the last quarter has gone down from 22% to 20%, and the number receiving suspended or community sentence has gone up from 42% to 45%. Only one in five of those convicted of a knife offence actually went to prison, despite significant increases in the maximum sentence which are possible.
This does not sound very much like "tough on crime", or like a government cracking down on the knife culture. (Last year, may I remind you, 8,000 were let off with a caution.)
Consistency lacking
Why is it that we give full parliamentary privileges, i.e security clearance into Parliament, to former IRA militants who refuse to take up their seats in parliament after being elected as Sinn Fein MPs in Northern Ireland, and give them £500,000 a year collectively, but the government is making moves to make the BNP illegal?
Why it is that BNP MEPs alone are being considered to be denied the right of access, when those with IRA contacts are free to enter parliament. The answer could well be that we would like both groups to be banned from Westminster, but we don't want to offend the IRA.
I hate and detest the BNP and their thugs, but they are a legal party, and even had TV air time because they met the standards. They have broken no known laws, planted no bombs, kneecapped nobody as far as we know, so why invent new laws to try to make them illegal?
When and if they do break some meaningful law, that will be the time to take legal action against any offenders. As it is it looks like the Left attacking the ultra Left, (Make no mistake, the BNP have much more in common with the Left thasn with any party on the right!), because they do not like its thoughts.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Why it is that BNP MEPs alone are being considered to be denied the right of access, when those with IRA contacts are free to enter parliament. The answer could well be that we would like both groups to be banned from Westminster, but we don't want to offend the IRA.
I hate and detest the BNP and their thugs, but they are a legal party, and even had TV air time because they met the standards. They have broken no known laws, planted no bombs, kneecapped nobody as far as we know, so why invent new laws to try to make them illegal?
When and if they do break some meaningful law, that will be the time to take legal action against any offenders. As it is it looks like the Left attacking the ultra Left, (Make no mistake, the BNP have much more in common with the Left thasn with any party on the right!), because they do not like its thoughts.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Saturday, 13 June 2009
The big spenders
Perhaps there is no tomorrow, but G.Brown is spending as if this is the case.
Several sites are quoting the likely extent of the government budget deficit this financial year. It is likely to be approaching £170 billion.
If this is difficult to grasp, on a daily basis the government is borrowing over £450 million every day .
Truly staggering, especially when the man is claiming to increase government expenditure. If he is right about no cuts (does anyone believe this?) then taxation will have to rise - a basic rate of tax of perhaps 25% just to pay the interest on this borrowing and no capital repayment.
Several sites are quoting the likely extent of the government budget deficit this financial year. It is likely to be approaching £170 billion.
If this is difficult to grasp, on a daily basis the government is borrowing over £450 million every day .
Truly staggering, especially when the man is claiming to increase government expenditure. If he is right about no cuts (does anyone believe this?) then taxation will have to rise - a basic rate of tax of perhaps 25% just to pay the interest on this borrowing and no capital repayment.
Friday, 12 June 2009
Throwing it all away, again
We are no longer a mass manufacturer of civilian airliners. but we do lead the world in aircraft wing technology. This technology and some 8,000 jobs are under threat, however.
There seems a possibility that we shall pull out of our order for 25 Airbus A400M heavy military aircraft. There could also be a sizeable penalty. The deadline is 1st July, it seems.
If we do, and our expertise is replaced by US or German/Spanish developed technology, and we lose an important place within Airbus and elsewhere, then a short-term decision will have led to another export and loss of technology.
Ultimately, the cause will be due to our wizard former/present chancellor, G. Brown, who has squandered so much money that we must now reign back, even though he is talking about spending even more.
The effect on the military, already having to fight on selected days or not allowing paratroopers to make drops because of equipment shortages, may be imagined. It fits in with the same philosophy which authorises aircraft carriers but no aircraft to fly from them.
There seems a possibility that we shall pull out of our order for 25 Airbus A400M heavy military aircraft. There could also be a sizeable penalty. The deadline is 1st July, it seems.
If we do, and our expertise is replaced by US or German/Spanish developed technology, and we lose an important place within Airbus and elsewhere, then a short-term decision will have led to another export and loss of technology.
Ultimately, the cause will be due to our wizard former/present chancellor, G. Brown, who has squandered so much money that we must now reign back, even though he is talking about spending even more.
The effect on the military, already having to fight on selected days or not allowing paratroopers to make drops because of equipment shortages, may be imagined. It fits in with the same philosophy which authorises aircraft carriers but no aircraft to fly from them.
Mrs. Thatcher's legacy
Daniel Hannan yesterday spoke at the Oxford Union on the subject, and won narrowly.
He lists on his blog today her achievements, and asks why she is still demonised. His conclusion is that people forget how bad the 1970s were. (I add one further illustration - telephones, supplied by the Post Office in one design and colour virtually, could take up to a year to be installed, and privatisation caused a revolution there.
It suits some on the left to distort the report of history, and claim that somehow before 1979 we were one happy family which she then destroyed by making us all selfish. This is patent nonsense. If they will not accept the willingness of the NUM to plunge us into darkness to further their own ends, then they ought to note the cause of the winter of discontent which left patients in difficulties, the dead unburied and rubbish festering in our streets. You have to be an irrational supporter of Trade Union defeat of democracy.The self-interest was even earlier, going back to 1969 when unions noticed they had been deceived by bargaining for money increases. Thenceforth, aware of inflation, it was percentages and the percentages became so large by the mid 1970s, that inflation briefly touched nearly 30%. The relished their strength, and although they expressed concern about those on fixed income they did little to help them. It was a free for all!
Hannan is right to remind us that there was something called the British Disease in the 1970s - we were a basket case, lagging behind most countries, but by the late 1980s we were out-growing most other countries, and they looked to us for ideas on production and politics.
He is also right to point out that you can't blame her for the closure or rapid change in some old industries. It was subsidising them long after their sell-by-date, for example producing deep-mined coal at a cost far higher than we could purchase it elsewhere, that was dragging the economy down.
Those who choose to live with a mystical and emotional picture of the past may resent what she did and the manner in which she did it, they may resent that she was electorally victorious until her own party got rid of her, but it is a biased and misleading reading of history which prompts many of the criticisms of her.
He lists on his blog today her achievements, and asks why she is still demonised. His conclusion is that people forget how bad the 1970s were. (I add one further illustration - telephones, supplied by the Post Office in one design and colour virtually, could take up to a year to be installed, and privatisation caused a revolution there.
It suits some on the left to distort the report of history, and claim that somehow before 1979 we were one happy family which she then destroyed by making us all selfish. This is patent nonsense. If they will not accept the willingness of the NUM to plunge us into darkness to further their own ends, then they ought to note the cause of the winter of discontent which left patients in difficulties, the dead unburied and rubbish festering in our streets. You have to be an irrational supporter of Trade Union defeat of democracy.The self-interest was even earlier, going back to 1969 when unions noticed they had been deceived by bargaining for money increases. Thenceforth, aware of inflation, it was percentages and the percentages became so large by the mid 1970s, that inflation briefly touched nearly 30%. The relished their strength, and although they expressed concern about those on fixed income they did little to help them. It was a free for all!
Hannan is right to remind us that there was something called the British Disease in the 1970s - we were a basket case, lagging behind most countries, but by the late 1980s we were out-growing most other countries, and they looked to us for ideas on production and politics.
He is also right to point out that you can't blame her for the closure or rapid change in some old industries. It was subsidising them long after their sell-by-date, for example producing deep-mined coal at a cost far higher than we could purchase it elsewhere, that was dragging the economy down.
Those who choose to live with a mystical and emotional picture of the past may resent what she did and the manner in which she did it, they may resent that she was electorally victorious until her own party got rid of her, but it is a biased and misleading reading of history which prompts many of the criticisms of her.
Tory Leadership out of touch?
The PoliticsHome website promoted a survey of 1,208 adults earlier this week to ask people what they think about expenditure by the NHS.
Respondents were reminded of the claim that the NHS will face a £15 billion funding shortfall, and asked whether the spending should be protected, or whether NHS like virtually all other departments should face cuts. The former seems to be the preferred position of the Conservative hierarchy.
The results may seem surprising:
Broken down by party affiliation or support, the first percentage is that suggesting that NHS spending should be protected from major cuts with bigger cuts in the remaining, the second that the NHS should look for savings like other departments.
Conservative 19% and 80%
Labour 46% and 50%
LibDem 33% and 66%
None/other 33% and 60%
All four groups favour the option of requiring the NHS to look for savings, Labour supporters only slightly so, and by implication accept some cuts. Weighting the results according to the number in each of the four groups gives the result. THOSE WISHING THE NHS TO FACE CUTS 63%, THOSE WISHING TO PROTECT IT 33%.
It would seem that leaders of the two main parties are both out of touch with their supporters, perhaps because Brown and Co are trying to snare the Tories, and the Tories are trying to avoid it. A large majority of voters seem to have accepted the fact that there is some "fat" in the NHS system, perhaps from the recent ONS conclusion that despite massive injections of money the NHS has exhibited a decline in productivity.
Respondents were reminded of the claim that the NHS will face a £15 billion funding shortfall, and asked whether the spending should be protected, or whether NHS like virtually all other departments should face cuts. The former seems to be the preferred position of the Conservative hierarchy.
The results may seem surprising:
Broken down by party affiliation or support, the first percentage is that suggesting that NHS spending should be protected from major cuts with bigger cuts in the remaining, the second that the NHS should look for savings like other departments.
Conservative 19% and 80%
Labour 46% and 50%
LibDem 33% and 66%
None/other 33% and 60%
All four groups favour the option of requiring the NHS to look for savings, Labour supporters only slightly so, and by implication accept some cuts. Weighting the results according to the number in each of the four groups gives the result. THOSE WISHING THE NHS TO FACE CUTS 63%, THOSE WISHING TO PROTECT IT 33%.
It would seem that leaders of the two main parties are both out of touch with their supporters, perhaps because Brown and Co are trying to snare the Tories, and the Tories are trying to avoid it. A large majority of voters seem to have accepted the fact that there is some "fat" in the NHS system, perhaps from the recent ONS conclusion that despite massive injections of money the NHS has exhibited a decline in productivity.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Could we (or Boris) do anything about the RMT?
The RMT is a bully, throwing its weight around without thought of consequences, and weeping crocodile tears. This seems to happen very regularly, and cause loss and inconvenience to so many, that it is pertinent to ask whether anything can be done to reduce the consequences or reduce its power.
I assume that the Ronald Reagan solution isn't possible here. (the President confronted the troublesome air control operators, and gave them a deadline on pain of dismissal. When they wouldn't comply, he sacked them.)
There needs to be some medium term preparations, with many possibilities.
1) Privatisation, and breaking the system into several sections to be licensed to private operators. The operators would need to be able to sack and employ other (lower cost) staff. Such a policy would need a sympathetic (Tory?) government in support of Boris.
2) Make contingency plans for extra buses, by encouraging new operatives into the transport market. Some regulations could be suspended permanently or temporarily. Rules governing taxi and similar vehicles likewise
Margaret Thatcher defeated the miners by laying in stocks, and then taking them on at a time when they could not win. Boris should be considering making similar preparations.
The RMT drivers are extremely well paid, those on the left can hardly claim that they need to strike when those will pay for the increases in pay and pensions including millions who earn a good deal less.
I assume that the Ronald Reagan solution isn't possible here. (the President confronted the troublesome air control operators, and gave them a deadline on pain of dismissal. When they wouldn't comply, he sacked them.)
There needs to be some medium term preparations, with many possibilities.
1) Privatisation, and breaking the system into several sections to be licensed to private operators. The operators would need to be able to sack and employ other (lower cost) staff. Such a policy would need a sympathetic (Tory?) government in support of Boris.
2) Make contingency plans for extra buses, by encouraging new operatives into the transport market. Some regulations could be suspended permanently or temporarily. Rules governing taxi and similar vehicles likewise
Margaret Thatcher defeated the miners by laying in stocks, and then taking them on at a time when they could not win. Boris should be considering making similar preparations.
The RMT drivers are extremely well paid, those on the left can hardly claim that they need to strike when those will pay for the increases in pay and pensions including millions who earn a good deal less.
Is PR dead, then?
Interest in electoral reform is suddenly interesting the government, as it seems to be believe that it was our voting system which made MPs claim all the naughty things they did on their expenses. I confess I do not follow the logic of this connection.
They mumble about safe seats and MPs for life, although again, there does not seem to be any connection between the size of the majority and the degree of misdemeanour.
If they are serious about attacking the problem, then any system of proportional representation seems to be a dead duck, as it will probably let in the BNP and other undesirable parties. (If they are legal, why should they not have a small place? Is the thought police arranging everything?)
There is no need to change the present system, but it could be improved in several ways:
1) Adjust the size of constituencies more often. They would have to do this under the Brown favoured system of AV. The system would give greater representation within a constituency, but what about between them? Is it right that it would take 50,000 voters in a large constituency to elect an MP, but only 30,000 in a small one. Is this fair?
2) Institute primaries, so all voters choose the candidates for all parties, if they wish. The system, seems to work well in the USA, which uses our "first past the post" Poorly performing MPs are likely to be effectively deselected even if their constituency officials support him or her.
3) Allow for recall, whereby when a certain proportion of the electors call for it there must be another election. Brown seems to favour something like this, although so many calls would be made now, I suspect, that his party would go down to defeat. It wouldn't apply now, of course, so he is safe in mentioning it, and if by some mischance he were re-elected next Spring, he could always change again to suit his party.
They mumble about safe seats and MPs for life, although again, there does not seem to be any connection between the size of the majority and the degree of misdemeanour.
If they are serious about attacking the problem, then any system of proportional representation seems to be a dead duck, as it will probably let in the BNP and other undesirable parties. (If they are legal, why should they not have a small place? Is the thought police arranging everything?)
There is no need to change the present system, but it could be improved in several ways:
1) Adjust the size of constituencies more often. They would have to do this under the Brown favoured system of AV. The system would give greater representation within a constituency, but what about between them? Is it right that it would take 50,000 voters in a large constituency to elect an MP, but only 30,000 in a small one. Is this fair?
2) Institute primaries, so all voters choose the candidates for all parties, if they wish. The system, seems to work well in the USA, which uses our "first past the post" Poorly performing MPs are likely to be effectively deselected even if their constituency officials support him or her.
3) Allow for recall, whereby when a certain proportion of the electors call for it there must be another election. Brown seems to favour something like this, although so many calls would be made now, I suspect, that his party would go down to defeat. It wouldn't apply now, of course, so he is safe in mentioning it, and if by some mischance he were re-elected next Spring, he could always change again to suit his party.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Muddled Tory thinking on the NHS
Several people today, including Janet Daley and David Hughes of the Telegraph, have felt that the Tories have persevered too long with Labour spending plans in order to avoid criticism from Labour.
This is till largely true over the NHS, and perhaps Cameron's personal experience in the treatment his son Ivan received has coloured his thinking.
Everybody agrees that the NHS will have to spend more on new drugs, more expensive equipment, and even staff, as people live longer and disease comes more readily under control. This, I assume, was the basis of the thinking of the Confederation as they claimed that the NHS would be short of about £15 billion in funding over the three years after 2011.
But this is to ignore a number of things:
1) Since 1997 spending on the NHS has trebled, but productivity has gone down, according to the Office for National Statistics. There havebeen massive pay increases for some health practitioners, when the government negotiators succomed to the BMA negotiators.
2) The NHS is a monopoly, or near monoply, supplier, and has become producer orientated in recent years. Like any monopoly, it tolerates inefficient pratices and it has demarcation problems. Brown was warned that if he continued to pump in money but without reforming the organisation, it would become less efficient. Our having to accept poor health results in some areas, compared to Europe when we are funding at a similar level, is another symptom.
1) and 2) are clearly about the same problem, but there is a further point.
3) There are some services which arguably the NHS should not finance, such as IVF treatment, some cosmetic surgery, and injuries suffered through lifestyle (-rock or mountain climbing and other extreme sports.) If motorists are to be charged for ambulance,cuppa or whatever, after an accident, then there are probably others who ought to pay as well.
This is not a static situation. The Tories should guarantee expenditure, but only if a thorough-going reform is considered. Otherwise they will repeat the Brown mistake, with diminishing returns for extra money pumped in.
This is till largely true over the NHS, and perhaps Cameron's personal experience in the treatment his son Ivan received has coloured his thinking.
Everybody agrees that the NHS will have to spend more on new drugs, more expensive equipment, and even staff, as people live longer and disease comes more readily under control. This, I assume, was the basis of the thinking of the Confederation as they claimed that the NHS would be short of about £15 billion in funding over the three years after 2011.
But this is to ignore a number of things:
1) Since 1997 spending on the NHS has trebled, but productivity has gone down, according to the Office for National Statistics. There havebeen massive pay increases for some health practitioners, when the government negotiators succomed to the BMA negotiators.
2) The NHS is a monopoly, or near monoply, supplier, and has become producer orientated in recent years. Like any monopoly, it tolerates inefficient pratices and it has demarcation problems. Brown was warned that if he continued to pump in money but without reforming the organisation, it would become less efficient. Our having to accept poor health results in some areas, compared to Europe when we are funding at a similar level, is another symptom.
1) and 2) are clearly about the same problem, but there is a further point.
3) There are some services which arguably the NHS should not finance, such as IVF treatment, some cosmetic surgery, and injuries suffered through lifestyle (-rock or mountain climbing and other extreme sports.) If motorists are to be charged for ambulance,cuppa or whatever, after an accident, then there are probably others who ought to pay as well.
This is not a static situation. The Tories should guarantee expenditure, but only if a thorough-going reform is considered. Otherwise they will repeat the Brown mistake, with diminishing returns for extra money pumped in.
Brown's lies and tricks are more quickly seen
The claim "The Tories will cut services, but we shall increase them" was seen through and then published on the web (thank goodness for it) within about 2 hours.
It took the Institute of Fiscal Studies took almost 24 to decipher the recent budget trickery, but now it is an hour or two. Brown's problem will get worse as we experience more of his subterfuge and deceit. We learn his tricks, mainly of definition.
The finding?
If you take Labour's budget announcements on taxation, inflation and debt costs, and the assumption that the Tories made on the effect of protecting the NHS from cuts, then both sides come to the same conclusion, that for the three years from 2011 other departments will each have to face an accumulated deficit of 10% in government funding. This is in real terms.
And if you assume that the NHS will face the same cuts as everybody else, than all departments will face the same accumulated reduction in finance of 7% over the three years, again in real terms.
G. Brown was being quite dishonest, as he must have known, in claiming with present government decisions on taxation and forecasts that government plans were no different to what Lansley, perhaps unwisely, revealed this morning. The figures he quoted were the published expenditure increases in money terms, and took no account of increase in prices or the debt position.
It took the Institute of Fiscal Studies took almost 24 to decipher the recent budget trickery, but now it is an hour or two. Brown's problem will get worse as we experience more of his subterfuge and deceit. We learn his tricks, mainly of definition.
The finding?
If you take Labour's budget announcements on taxation, inflation and debt costs, and the assumption that the Tories made on the effect of protecting the NHS from cuts, then both sides come to the same conclusion, that for the three years from 2011 other departments will each have to face an accumulated deficit of 10% in government funding. This is in real terms.
And if you assume that the NHS will face the same cuts as everybody else, than all departments will face the same accumulated reduction in finance of 7% over the three years, again in real terms.
G. Brown was being quite dishonest, as he must have known, in claiming with present government decisions on taxation and forecasts that government plans were no different to what Lansley, perhaps unwisely, revealed this morning. The figures he quoted were the published expenditure increases in money terms, and took no account of increase in prices or the debt position.
Neverneverland economics
PMQ today witnessed both the lack of vision (if you don't have anything better, attack the opposition) and blindness (or is it sheer dishonesty) of our world saviour.
Last Friday, in his press conference, G. Brown amazed the assembled press corps by claiming that government expenditure will rise over the next few years. They all knew he was lying, just as he was lying about not wanting to replace Darling with Balls as chancellor.
He repeated the lie again today. Despite the massive forecast accumulating government debt which is threatening our AAA credit rating, he reeled off a list of increases which were dazzling in their unreality.
Very few people doubt that because of his earlier rash of spending and the consequent recession, whoever leads the next government will have to face a truly enormous mountain of debt. In fact the figures announced by the chancellor in the Budget, although taking most people's breath away, are generally regarded on the extreme side of optimistic, to put it kindly, and are already appearing to be so after just two months into the financial year.
So the choice is between reduced expenditure of some severity or increased taxation of some enormity, or some position in between, and with our Standard & Poors rating threatening to make the burden much greater if debt rises significantly one of these options must be chosen.
G.Brown is either lying or failing to understand, and with the claim for wizardry he makes regularly it must surely be the former.
Last Friday, in his press conference, G. Brown amazed the assembled press corps by claiming that government expenditure will rise over the next few years. They all knew he was lying, just as he was lying about not wanting to replace Darling with Balls as chancellor.
He repeated the lie again today. Despite the massive forecast accumulating government debt which is threatening our AAA credit rating, he reeled off a list of increases which were dazzling in their unreality.
Very few people doubt that because of his earlier rash of spending and the consequent recession, whoever leads the next government will have to face a truly enormous mountain of debt. In fact the figures announced by the chancellor in the Budget, although taking most people's breath away, are generally regarded on the extreme side of optimistic, to put it kindly, and are already appearing to be so after just two months into the financial year.
So the choice is between reduced expenditure of some severity or increased taxation of some enormity, or some position in between, and with our Standard & Poors rating threatening to make the burden much greater if debt rises significantly one of these options must be chosen.
G.Brown is either lying or failing to understand, and with the claim for wizardry he makes regularly it must surely be the former.
The EU loves Brown, if nobody else does
Or at least they want him to be kept in power until the next stage of the project is completed, and Ireland has seen the error of its thinking and voted for the treaty/constitution.
The same motive may be seen in two other leading pro-EU bodies, - the Guardian newspaper and the Financial Times.
The Guardian is leading the charge in claiming that the Tories, in leaving the largely europhile EPP and helping set up a more companionable slightly eurosceptic grouping, is joining a set of odd-balls and worse, despite many pointing out that many of the same uncomfortable views are in the EPP itself and in the socialist grouping, - but these are alright as they are europhiles! The BBC is joining the chorus, - no surprise there, given the BBC bias.
Now the FT, probably our most euro-fanatical daily, is joining in . They have somehow worked out what everybody is is unable to do, that the BNP takes its votes from the Tories, while even the New Satesman and many others rightly see the BNP as being to the left of Labour. Now the FT is describing UKIP as "far-right".
These are examples of left wing smear and sneer, - give labels and repeat them often enough and you can defeat rational argument. Perhaps we should not expect much more from the Guardian, - do Michael White and Polly Toynbee write for them?, and they have form. We ought to be able to expect more from a business newspaper which claims to act rationally in judging the business world.
The same motive may be seen in two other leading pro-EU bodies, - the Guardian newspaper and the Financial Times.
The Guardian is leading the charge in claiming that the Tories, in leaving the largely europhile EPP and helping set up a more companionable slightly eurosceptic grouping, is joining a set of odd-balls and worse, despite many pointing out that many of the same uncomfortable views are in the EPP itself and in the socialist grouping, - but these are alright as they are europhiles! The BBC is joining the chorus, - no surprise there, given the BBC bias.
Now the FT, probably our most euro-fanatical daily, is joining in . They have somehow worked out what everybody is is unable to do, that the BNP takes its votes from the Tories, while even the New Satesman and many others rightly see the BNP as being to the left of Labour. Now the FT is describing UKIP as "far-right".
These are examples of left wing smear and sneer, - give labels and repeat them often enough and you can defeat rational argument. Perhaps we should not expect much more from the Guardian, - do Michael White and Polly Toynbee write for them?, and they have form. We ought to be able to expect more from a business newspaper which claims to act rationally in judging the business world.
There's the Cabinet and there's the other cabinet
Benedict Brogan points out this morning in his Telegraph Blog, that First Lord Lord Mandelson is acquiring a very large team, - the DBIS is now business, skills, universities, and anything else you can think of.
The super-department now has 11 ministers, counting his Lordship, of whom 7 are ministers of state, the rest mere parliamentary under-secretaries. All in all it must represent about 10% of the entire cabinet.
Brogan cheekily points out, 5 are nor elected MPs but are in the Lords. (It is, of,course note yet clear whether Sir/Lord Alan Sugar will be added to this.) So we have a Labour government, looking more and more like a nineteenth century cabinet, with so many peers.
None of these are accountable to the electorate, or open to questioning in the Commons, and they are appointed for life.
The democratic deficit gets larger by the week!
The big plus for us all is that although we do not not know how good Mandy will be at leading a diverse department, - his gifts hitherto are behind the scenes briefing, for and against, and managing spin. At least, if he has more departmental responsibility, his spinning and briefing time will be more limited.
The super-department now has 11 ministers, counting his Lordship, of whom 7 are ministers of state, the rest mere parliamentary under-secretaries. All in all it must represent about 10% of the entire cabinet.
Brogan cheekily points out, 5 are nor elected MPs but are in the Lords. (It is, of,course note yet clear whether Sir/Lord Alan Sugar will be added to this.) So we have a Labour government, looking more and more like a nineteenth century cabinet, with so many peers.
None of these are accountable to the electorate, or open to questioning in the Commons, and they are appointed for life.
The democratic deficit gets larger by the week!
The big plus for us all is that although we do not not know how good Mandy will be at leading a diverse department, - his gifts hitherto are behind the scenes briefing, for and against, and managing spin. At least, if he has more departmental responsibility, his spinning and briefing time will be more limited.
Brown is NuLabour after all
It seems that G.Brown is following in the steps of T.Blair, in pushing through half-baked, ill-thought-out constitutional and other changes, all to suit the needs of the party, Project and supporters.
This morning's were of course principally the proposal for electoral change, - hints have been given that he wants to introduce the AV (Alternative Vote system). This system, which is not a PR system, and will almost certainly concentrate more power in the hands of a few at Westminster, is to be rushed through, with Alan Johnson, the probable next leader of Labour, suggesting a referendum with the general election next year, or whenever.
The mind boggles. We are still labouring under botched and unfinished constitutional change brought in by Blair, with an upper house of unelected cronies, failed MPs and others appointed by the prime minister, -the only difference being that we are only saddled with them for life! We also have the running sore of devolution, where MPs from devolved parts of the UK are able to vote on purely English issues, but not vice versa, and where citizens of devolved areas have higher government expenditure per head.
This morning's were of course principally the proposal for electoral change, - hints have been given that he wants to introduce the AV (Alternative Vote system). This system, which is not a PR system, and will almost certainly concentrate more power in the hands of a few at Westminster, is to be rushed through, with Alan Johnson, the probable next leader of Labour, suggesting a referendum with the general election next year, or whenever.
The mind boggles. We are still labouring under botched and unfinished constitutional change brought in by Blair, with an upper house of unelected cronies, failed MPs and others appointed by the prime minister, -the only difference being that we are only saddled with them for life! We also have the running sore of devolution, where MPs from devolved parts of the UK are able to vote on purely English issues, but not vice versa, and where citizens of devolved areas have higher government expenditure per head.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Lord Sugar
The BBC are trying to defend the indefensible - that Alan Sugar become a member of the government and also continue to lead one of their successful programmes, in both cases in the area of entrepreneurial promotion.
They try smokescreen - Lords Whinston and Bragg, both avowed Labour supporters, but they are not members of the government, they tried Ken Clark and his series on Jazz, but he was not then in the shadow cabinet, and there seems little direct connection between jazz and parliamentary politics.
The question is quite simple - the government can appoint any adviser it thinks can help, BUT HE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A PEER. The have appointed hundreds, possibly thousands over the past 12 years who have not been elevated.
The difference here is surely that they want Sugar to be able to speak in debates and give answers in the House of Lords. His record over the past few years as an entrepreneur has not been the most outstanding, so others could do the job equally well. They want him as an icon - poor boy made good, and a labour supporter, on the TV and in parliament, in the run up to the next election.
The appointment is all about bolstering Brown's position - we have been in recession for a year now, so why was Sugar not asked before?
And the BBC meekly falls into line with its political fellow-travellers.
They try smokescreen - Lords Whinston and Bragg, both avowed Labour supporters, but they are not members of the government, they tried Ken Clark and his series on Jazz, but he was not then in the shadow cabinet, and there seems little direct connection between jazz and parliamentary politics.
The question is quite simple - the government can appoint any adviser it thinks can help, BUT HE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A PEER. The have appointed hundreds, possibly thousands over the past 12 years who have not been elevated.
The difference here is surely that they want Sugar to be able to speak in debates and give answers in the House of Lords. His record over the past few years as an entrepreneur has not been the most outstanding, so others could do the job equally well. They want him as an icon - poor boy made good, and a labour supporter, on the TV and in parliament, in the run up to the next election.
The appointment is all about bolstering Brown's position - we have been in recession for a year now, so why was Sugar not asked before?
And the BBC meekly falls into line with its political fellow-travellers.
Monday, 8 June 2009
The future of democracy?
I have just heard on the World at One, a spokesmen for the postal workers make the statement, "We've looked after them, now they must look after us." Them/they is the Labour Party to which the postal workers contribute generously, and the looking after is cancelling the intention to sell off part of Royal Mail.
This is worrying on two accounts.
Firstly, what does it say when a contributor to a political party expects a "return" on their gift? Is this a case that all voters are equal but some are more equal than others? (The same concern would apply if any business made a contribution to any political party, or to MPs, in return for favours. We would call this electoral corruption.) Doubtless such graft occurs whatever party is in control, and it is wrong. Perhaps we should be glad that the postal workers have spoken openly about the influence they expect.
Everybody and every body should have the right to speak out in defence of their rights, and even to pressurise the government, even using the corrupting influence of lobbying firms. We cannot have the situation where whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
Secondly, the statement suggests that Royal Mail belongs to postal workers, and no-one else has a legal interest in what happens to it. If it does not raise funds, Royal Mail, will probably have to close its final salary pension scheme, or will the union demand subsidies from the taxpayer to maintain it. What voice do taxpayers have in this?
This is worrying on two accounts.
Firstly, what does it say when a contributor to a political party expects a "return" on their gift? Is this a case that all voters are equal but some are more equal than others? (The same concern would apply if any business made a contribution to any political party, or to MPs, in return for favours. We would call this electoral corruption.) Doubtless such graft occurs whatever party is in control, and it is wrong. Perhaps we should be glad that the postal workers have spoken openly about the influence they expect.
Everybody and every body should have the right to speak out in defence of their rights, and even to pressurise the government, even using the corrupting influence of lobbying firms. We cannot have the situation where whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
Secondly, the statement suggests that Royal Mail belongs to postal workers, and no-one else has a legal interest in what happens to it. If it does not raise funds, Royal Mail, will probably have to close its final salary pension scheme, or will the union demand subsidies from the taxpayer to maintain it. What voice do taxpayers have in this?
Euro-elections - were they on PR?
I have just looked at the results broken down by region.
The system was supposed to allocate seats by the proportion of votes cast. It doesn't, within the regions.
A typical result, with three seats, could be something like:
Party x - 130,000 votes
Party y - 120,000 votes
Party z - 70,000 votes
party next - 65,000 votes
The first three parties each elect one MEP, but the remaining parties, even though between, if there are seven or eight, they collectively receive 100,000 votes, have not MEP.
Te corollary is that unless there is some sort of additional national top up of seats, an additional list, in my example party next could call itself very unlucky, and party x also. You could think of situations where the parties electing MEPs could actually have a minority, i.e. less than 50% of total votes cast in that region.
I can understand major parties encouraging a multiplicity of small parties - it increases their own chances. I am afraid that Blair has led us into another nonsense.
The system was supposed to allocate seats by the proportion of votes cast. It doesn't, within the regions.
A typical result, with three seats, could be something like:
Party x - 130,000 votes
Party y - 120,000 votes
Party z - 70,000 votes
party next - 65,000 votes
The first three parties each elect one MEP, but the remaining parties, even though between, if there are seven or eight, they collectively receive 100,000 votes, have not MEP.
Te corollary is that unless there is some sort of additional national top up of seats, an additional list, in my example party next could call itself very unlucky, and party x also. You could think of situations where the parties electing MEPs could actually have a minority, i.e. less than 50% of total votes cast in that region.
I can understand major parties encouraging a multiplicity of small parties - it increases their own chances. I am afraid that Blair has led us into another nonsense.
No glories of literature
Michael Rosen, the outgoing children's Laureate, - he retires tomorrow, last week had some trenchant criticisms of the way children are taught English literature.
Children, he claimed, in many places are being taught from work sheets, with bits of stories or books pre-digested, rather than being encouraged to read and discover the glories of literature and language themselves. Hundreds of thousands of children seldom even attempt to read a whole book.
He would have to admit that other, apparently more attractive, pursuits are winning the battle, - videos, electronic games, TV, sport, etc., and parents do not seem to be encouraging their children to read.
If this problem were addressed, there would be no need for the second best, spoon-fed, worksheets. And GCSE questions, and even A level, could be based on understanding, rather than regurgitating what has been drilled into them and committed to memory.
Children, he claimed, in many places are being taught from work sheets, with bits of stories or books pre-digested, rather than being encouraged to read and discover the glories of literature and language themselves. Hundreds of thousands of children seldom even attempt to read a whole book.
He would have to admit that other, apparently more attractive, pursuits are winning the battle, - videos, electronic games, TV, sport, etc., and parents do not seem to be encouraging their children to read.
If this problem were addressed, there would be no need for the second best, spoon-fed, worksheets. And GCSE questions, and even A level, could be based on understanding, rather than regurgitating what has been drilled into them and committed to memory.
Interviewing technique
This morning on the Toady programme John Humphrys "lost it". Shouting at George Osborne after inviting him to answer questions, was not interviewing but mere rudeness.
Perhaps Humphrys had a case, and Osborne some questions to answer. We never found out. I think that a producer or someone else must have whispered in Humphry's ear because later in the programme he was much more gentle.
Is it a personal thing, or is it that Osborne was representing the enemy party? I can only hope that in future Humphrys learns to keep his cool, or tries to cut down an interviewee more rationally and calmly. It was most unedifying, and revealed nothing except Humphrys's rudeness.
Perhaps Humphrys had a case, and Osborne some questions to answer. We never found out. I think that a producer or someone else must have whispered in Humphry's ear because later in the programme he was much more gentle.
Is it a personal thing, or is it that Osborne was representing the enemy party? I can only hope that in future Humphrys learns to keep his cool, or tries to cut down an interviewee more rationally and calmly. It was most unedifying, and revealed nothing except Humphrys's rudeness.
The BBC/Labour Party Narrative
They are singing from the same hymn sheet, as usual. This morning it is that the Labour vote was disastrous because of the expenses scandal, but the Tories did badly in the circumstances, barely increasing their vote. The same statements keep coming up, we can only assume that the spin department at Number 10 sent out one of their e-mails, and included the BBC on the list.
The truth is rather different:
Brown's and Labour's poll ratings were low even before the expenses scandal. It has been some months since they were less than ten points behind the Tories. I will concede that Cameron has dealt with the issue better and more honestly, but the expenses most widely quoted are the moat and bird house, both "small" but Tory expenses. In some areas with Tory MPs who have been exposed, there was doubtless a "kick up the b*m" abstention or vote for a rival.
The Tories have done well. Many of those who voted for UKIP, the second placed party, were those who in Westminster elections would normally vote Tory, - some were even Tory members who want to express a vote to exit the EU, rather than merely trying to renegotitate terms. The two leading parties who garner votes from eurosceptics, the Tories and UKIP, thus had nearly 50% of total votes cast.
The total vote is down, so to even increase their vote slightly is also an achievement for the Tories.
The BBC narrative is false. Although they would hate to admit it, there is now a very large majority who want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution - upwards of 60%, and if they are punishing Labour for anything, it is probably because they went back on their promise to hold a referendum.
The truth is rather different:
Brown's and Labour's poll ratings were low even before the expenses scandal. It has been some months since they were less than ten points behind the Tories. I will concede that Cameron has dealt with the issue better and more honestly, but the expenses most widely quoted are the moat and bird house, both "small" but Tory expenses. In some areas with Tory MPs who have been exposed, there was doubtless a "kick up the b*m" abstention or vote for a rival.
The Tories have done well. Many of those who voted for UKIP, the second placed party, were those who in Westminster elections would normally vote Tory, - some were even Tory members who want to express a vote to exit the EU, rather than merely trying to renegotitate terms. The two leading parties who garner votes from eurosceptics, the Tories and UKIP, thus had nearly 50% of total votes cast.
The total vote is down, so to even increase their vote slightly is also an achievement for the Tories.
The BBC narrative is false. Although they would hate to admit it, there is now a very large majority who want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution - upwards of 60%, and if they are punishing Labour for anything, it is probably because they went back on their promise to hold a referendum.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
A-Level under threat again
- this time not from the government with some mad-brained scheme to reduce the effectiveness of exams still further and make qualifications easier to obtain. They have other things on their mind, and Ed Balls in any case had been boning up on economics in readiness for taking over the Chancellorship.
No, this time the implied threat comes from one of our top universities. Imperial College London are confronted with far too many applicants each with grade 'A' in all subjects. (Of course, we are told, there has been no reduction in standards, no dumbing-down, students really are so much brighter than their counterparts 20 years ago.)
Confronted with too many applicants equally qualified the College has decided that it may well have to hold entrance tests and hold longer interviews. (They also reject the Ballsian "diplomas" as further dumbing- down.) Last year a quarter of all A level papers gained an 'A' grade, and 20,000 students received 'A' grades in all subjects attempted.
Exam paper content is easier,- in comparing old papers, the courses are modular and parts may be repeated, and there is a large element of non-exam assessed work.
There has been talk of such things happening before, but Imperial College are now preparing seriously for aptitude tests, especially in mathematics.
No, this time the implied threat comes from one of our top universities. Imperial College London are confronted with far too many applicants each with grade 'A' in all subjects. (Of course, we are told, there has been no reduction in standards, no dumbing-down, students really are so much brighter than their counterparts 20 years ago.)
Confronted with too many applicants equally qualified the College has decided that it may well have to hold entrance tests and hold longer interviews. (They also reject the Ballsian "diplomas" as further dumbing- down.) Last year a quarter of all A level papers gained an 'A' grade, and 20,000 students received 'A' grades in all subjects attempted.
Exam paper content is easier,- in comparing old papers, the courses are modular and parts may be repeated, and there is a large element of non-exam assessed work.
There has been talk of such things happening before, but Imperial College are now preparing seriously for aptitude tests, especially in mathematics.
Saturday, 6 June 2009
Who's right
We have long known of G.Brown's inability to admit an error. (Before him Blair would apologise for other's mistakes, the nation's, but seldom his own, - does it go with the job?)
Presumably while voters by a large majority, membership of his party (according to a YouGov survey) and probably a majority of MPs of all parties all want an general election soon, we are unlikely to get one as our Dear Leader knows better.
I think that the only people who want one for dispassionate reasons, with little self interest, are the general citizenry. Brown doesn't because he knows best (or thinks that his only chance is to hang on, in common with the some MPs, in the hope of something happening to improve the chance of re-election.) Among other Labour MPs the desire to remove him is to improve re-election prospects.
Among Tories, it is difficult to know what they think. Are they pleased with the living dead carrying on, a dead-duck PM and a superannuated cabinet? They might be, if they doubt that significant green shoots of recovery will come by next May. Or do they think that after expense-gate and Thursday's election, the sooner an election is held the better. In any event, while they may believe that their policies are best, their concern is to maximise the chance of election.
The electorate, who change governments about every 10 years when they grow tired of them or their broken promises, are probably the only people who are not thinking in purely in self-interest.
So what will happen? If the Labour rebels manage to drag G. Brown from his throne, and install another leader, then there would be a prospect an an election in the autumn. Surely Labour would not expect yet another unelected leader to be anything more than a caretaker?
Otherwise, expect a long attrition until the Labour Party Conference in September, when something could happen, even without a new leader. But if he can persuade them that he really is an all-knowing superman .....
Presumably while voters by a large majority, membership of his party (according to a YouGov survey) and probably a majority of MPs of all parties all want an general election soon, we are unlikely to get one as our Dear Leader knows better.
I think that the only people who want one for dispassionate reasons, with little self interest, are the general citizenry. Brown doesn't because he knows best (or thinks that his only chance is to hang on, in common with the some MPs, in the hope of something happening to improve the chance of re-election.) Among other Labour MPs the desire to remove him is to improve re-election prospects.
Among Tories, it is difficult to know what they think. Are they pleased with the living dead carrying on, a dead-duck PM and a superannuated cabinet? They might be, if they doubt that significant green shoots of recovery will come by next May. Or do they think that after expense-gate and Thursday's election, the sooner an election is held the better. In any event, while they may believe that their policies are best, their concern is to maximise the chance of election.
The electorate, who change governments about every 10 years when they grow tired of them or their broken promises, are probably the only people who are not thinking in purely in self-interest.
So what will happen? If the Labour rebels manage to drag G. Brown from his throne, and install another leader, then there would be a prospect an an election in the autumn. Surely Labour would not expect yet another unelected leader to be anything more than a caretaker?
Otherwise, expect a long attrition until the Labour Party Conference in September, when something could happen, even without a new leader. But if he can persuade them that he really is an all-knowing superman .....
dealing with debt
We know of a series of tax rises which are to hit us over the next two years and after. These were announced or not announced in various places in the last budget statement.
Business are already facing a rise of 2% on the uniform business rate. It was to have been 5%, but the remaining 3% will be phased in over the next two years.
Tax on alcohol and tobacco went up 2% in April 2009, fuel duty will rise by 2p a litre in September and then by inflation plus 1p in April 2010.
At the end of 2009 VAT will rise to its original 17.5%, having largely flopped.
In April 2010 income taxes will rise for (those still remaining) high earners., with the 50% band for all those earning more than £150,000 p.a., which will raise little or no extra revenue for the government, and a pound for pound reduction in tax allowances on all incomes over £100,000.
In April 2011 the tax relief at 40% on pension contributions will be abolished, and employees and employers will each pay 0.5% extra National Insurance contributions.
There are potentially massive increases to come, and there may still be time for Darling to increase others in the Autumn and Spring, if Brown and Darling are still in power. Experts are already suggesting that even on Darling's present forecasts of growth in government debt over the next five years, without spending cuts income tax rates would have to almost double in an attempt to deal with the debt.
There are many experts who suggest that Darling's growth estimates are very, very optimistic, - another way of saying very unreasonable. If the experts are right then the public finances are going to be even worse.
Business are already facing a rise of 2% on the uniform business rate. It was to have been 5%, but the remaining 3% will be phased in over the next two years.
Tax on alcohol and tobacco went up 2% in April 2009, fuel duty will rise by 2p a litre in September and then by inflation plus 1p in April 2010.
At the end of 2009 VAT will rise to its original 17.5%, having largely flopped.
In April 2010 income taxes will rise for (those still remaining) high earners., with the 50% band for all those earning more than £150,000 p.a., which will raise little or no extra revenue for the government, and a pound for pound reduction in tax allowances on all incomes over £100,000.
In April 2011 the tax relief at 40% on pension contributions will be abolished, and employees and employers will each pay 0.5% extra National Insurance contributions.
There are potentially massive increases to come, and there may still be time for Darling to increase others in the Autumn and Spring, if Brown and Darling are still in power. Experts are already suggesting that even on Darling's present forecasts of growth in government debt over the next five years, without spending cuts income tax rates would have to almost double in an attempt to deal with the debt.
There are many experts who suggest that Darling's growth estimates are very, very optimistic, - another way of saying very unreasonable. If the experts are right then the public finances are going to be even worse.
He's not deceiving anyone any more
Well, almost. There could have been few journalists at his press conference yesterday who believed what G. Brown said about his re-appointment of Alister Darling.
Brown claimed that he had never intended to replace Darling as Chancellor. We have seen his studied refusal to praise Darling, for several days. This was so evident that Cameron used up at least two of his questions last Wednesday on the issue. Stories were emerging, briefings in the Brown style, that Balls was to be the next chancellor.
A less obvious "porkie" was Fraser Nelson's attempt to pin him down to admit that there will have to be reductions/savings in government expenditure. Nelson introduced his question by referring to Brown's presbyterian upbringing and his father's advice to tell the truth.
In fact there are already signs that reductions or savings are being made. Nelson used carefully worked out figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, that given the need to reduce an horrendous government debt mountain, and the present plans for this, there would have to be unacceptably high tax increases or else spending reductions.
Brown claimed that expenditure would continue to rise, despite the debt mountain. (He has already tried to browbeat Darling into a further expansion of fiscal stimulus/quantitative easing, so perhaps he is not lying. Perhaps he is becoming detached from reality!)
Brown claimed that he had never intended to replace Darling as Chancellor. We have seen his studied refusal to praise Darling, for several days. This was so evident that Cameron used up at least two of his questions last Wednesday on the issue. Stories were emerging, briefings in the Brown style, that Balls was to be the next chancellor.
A less obvious "porkie" was Fraser Nelson's attempt to pin him down to admit that there will have to be reductions/savings in government expenditure. Nelson introduced his question by referring to Brown's presbyterian upbringing and his father's advice to tell the truth.
In fact there are already signs that reductions or savings are being made. Nelson used carefully worked out figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, that given the need to reduce an horrendous government debt mountain, and the present plans for this, there would have to be unacceptably high tax increases or else spending reductions.
Brown claimed that expenditure would continue to rise, despite the debt mountain. (He has already tried to browbeat Darling into a further expansion of fiscal stimulus/quantitative easing, so perhaps he is not lying. Perhaps he is becoming detached from reality!)
Friday, 5 June 2009
Damian Green - the cost
What the cost has been to Damian Green and his family of the ill-advised and ill- mounted attempt to prosecute him for doing his duty, only Damian himself will know.
What we do know now is the cost of the police investigation. In total it came to £109,000. About 20 counter-terrorism officers were employed to raid his home and offices. These costs are among the £66,000 spent on police overtime. A further £35,000 was spent on obtaining legal advice, (it seems that the police or those who instigated the investigation were very serious in trying to make it stick!) A sum of £6,000 was spent on forensic investigations, examining his mobile phones and computers, and £2,476 on (miscellaneous ) expenses.
Green himself described it as a "colossal waste of taxpayer's money". There may be an even bigger question which relates to the behaviour of the Home Office in claiming that there was an issue of national security when it was merely political embarrassment, to the behaviour of the Speaker and also to the behaviour of the police.
The £109,000 has been quietly released, in the run up to elections with attention diverted there. Perhaps the hope that such expenditure will be missed. It is an example of dreadful waste by the Executive, and the hiope must be that an MP will raise the whole matter in the Commons.
What we do know now is the cost of the police investigation. In total it came to £109,000. About 20 counter-terrorism officers were employed to raid his home and offices. These costs are among the £66,000 spent on police overtime. A further £35,000 was spent on obtaining legal advice, (it seems that the police or those who instigated the investigation were very serious in trying to make it stick!) A sum of £6,000 was spent on forensic investigations, examining his mobile phones and computers, and £2,476 on (miscellaneous ) expenses.
Green himself described it as a "colossal waste of taxpayer's money". There may be an even bigger question which relates to the behaviour of the Home Office in claiming that there was an issue of national security when it was merely political embarrassment, to the behaviour of the Speaker and also to the behaviour of the police.
The £109,000 has been quietly released, in the run up to elections with attention diverted there. Perhaps the hope that such expenditure will be missed. It is an example of dreadful waste by the Executive, and the hiope must be that an MP will raise the whole matter in the Commons.
School type and performance
A paper published yesterday by the Centre for Economic Performance, of the London School of Economics, compared the changes in performance of some academies with other schools.
They compared the short term changes in GCSE performance of 27 schools which were awarded academy status between 2002 and 2006. They conclude that there was no statistically significant difference.
We assume that there were sufficient 'other' schools to make the comparison. The results suggest that there is a wider range of increased achievement in the 'other' schools, even if the average is the same.
The Department for children commented that surveys show that parents like academies, and their children are happy to go to them. Did anyone do a similar survey for the 'others'?
It is known that David Cameron and Michael Gove are in favour of academies, so what are the implications for their policies?
It must be noted that these are very early findings, as the authors themselves admit. They may need time to change and for cohorts to work through the full 5 years of secondary education to the GCSE. They are still in some ways experimental, and may deliver better results.
The sample is very small, of necessity, and the catchment areas may not be typical. If Gove/Cameron schools are introduced, either to "compete" with or take over present 'other' schools, it is difficult to predict what might happen.
In general, and without knowing their methodology in detail, I would have to say that the findings are interesting, but we would need a longer run of results in more areas before deciding which type of school delivers better performance.
Gove/Cameron have been talking of a greater degree of freedom and independence for schools. Even the academies are subject to central government controls.
They compared the short term changes in GCSE performance of 27 schools which were awarded academy status between 2002 and 2006. They conclude that there was no statistically significant difference.
We assume that there were sufficient 'other' schools to make the comparison. The results suggest that there is a wider range of increased achievement in the 'other' schools, even if the average is the same.
The Department for children commented that surveys show that parents like academies, and their children are happy to go to them. Did anyone do a similar survey for the 'others'?
It is known that David Cameron and Michael Gove are in favour of academies, so what are the implications for their policies?
It must be noted that these are very early findings, as the authors themselves admit. They may need time to change and for cohorts to work through the full 5 years of secondary education to the GCSE. They are still in some ways experimental, and may deliver better results.
The sample is very small, of necessity, and the catchment areas may not be typical. If Gove/Cameron schools are introduced, either to "compete" with or take over present 'other' schools, it is difficult to predict what might happen.
In general, and without knowing their methodology in detail, I would have to say that the findings are interesting, but we would need a longer run of results in more areas before deciding which type of school delivers better performance.
Gove/Cameron have been talking of a greater degree of freedom and independence for schools. Even the academies are subject to central government controls.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Realignment of political parties?
Matthew Parris in today's Times newspaper suggests that the Labour tradition has to re-find itself and discover what it stands for. Tony Blair effectively destroyed old Labour, clause 4 and all, but apart from soundbites and slogans never fully developed New Labour, or hadn't when he was deposed.
There are still Blairites in parliament, who may have worked out what they stand for and who are conducting guerrilla battles with G.Brown.
Assume for a moment that today's elections deliver a massive blow to Labour, perhaps knocking them into fourth place in total votes cast, behind the Tories, UKIP and the LibDems. What then, if the parliamentary party falls into infighting?
Most parties have "wings", that is they are broad churches. The Tories have right wing eurosceptic,with market dominated policies, and a progressive left wing more favourable to the EU.
Labour may be more complicated. Originally there were two elements - the traditional working class socialist/Marxist trade union wing, and the Fabian/intellectual wing of socialists. They had common causes but differences. The former group tended to emphasise collective bargaining, the latter constructivism.
The LibDems embrace those who are virtually socialist and statist, and others who embrace a notion of market and personal freedom. The former could be happy in the Labour Party, the latter in the Blairite wing and with the left of the Tory Party.
Is it possible that any convulsions following the expected poor results for Labour if they happen, could produce a realignment. The Blairites could join the right wing of the LibDems, or the left wing of the Tories, the left wing of the LibDems joining intellectual socialists to form a Social Democratic Party.
Is it possible that the main two parties could be enhanced Tory and enhanced LibDems, with a small die hard Trade-Union-financed Socialist Party, perhaps with the Greens, to become the third party?
The permutations are endless, and this is all speculation about things that could be a year or two away. If Matthew Parris is right, and Labour has to find a role and message, who knows what could happen? Arguably politics could become as fluid as it has been for some time.
There are still Blairites in parliament, who may have worked out what they stand for and who are conducting guerrilla battles with G.Brown.
Assume for a moment that today's elections deliver a massive blow to Labour, perhaps knocking them into fourth place in total votes cast, behind the Tories, UKIP and the LibDems. What then, if the parliamentary party falls into infighting?
Most parties have "wings", that is they are broad churches. The Tories have right wing eurosceptic,with market dominated policies, and a progressive left wing more favourable to the EU.
Labour may be more complicated. Originally there were two elements - the traditional working class socialist/Marxist trade union wing, and the Fabian/intellectual wing of socialists. They had common causes but differences. The former group tended to emphasise collective bargaining, the latter constructivism.
The LibDems embrace those who are virtually socialist and statist, and others who embrace a notion of market and personal freedom. The former could be happy in the Labour Party, the latter in the Blairite wing and with the left of the Tory Party.
Is it possible that any convulsions following the expected poor results for Labour if they happen, could produce a realignment. The Blairites could join the right wing of the LibDems, or the left wing of the Tories, the left wing of the LibDems joining intellectual socialists to form a Social Democratic Party.
Is it possible that the main two parties could be enhanced Tory and enhanced LibDems, with a small die hard Trade-Union-financed Socialist Party, perhaps with the Greens, to become the third party?
The permutations are endless, and this is all speculation about things that could be a year or two away. If Matthew Parris is right, and Labour has to find a role and message, who knows what could happen? Arguably politics could become as fluid as it has been for some time.
What kind of new regulator for MP expenses
G.Brown, when he recognised that the system of MP's expenses could no longer be concealed from voter scrutiny, allowed the Speaker to be removed for having failed to monitor the system satisfactorily, among other things.
There would presumably have been nothing to offend his presbyterian conscience if the whole system continued to be concealed. The Daily Telegraph, early on condemned for using cheque-book journalism to obtain the the grisly leaked details, was eventually praised when it published enough for actions to be utterly unacceptable and an offence against his conscience.
He has overacted in response. As MPs are apparently unable to act with his presbyterian rectitude, there must be some outside independent investigatory and penal agency to make sure that further offending does not occur.
There is here a huge implicit criticism of the Fees Office, who gave in to some unethical demands by powerful MPs and encouraged them other directions. Their failure, if any, was to try to operate a system inadequately defined and not properly reviewed when so many abused it. In actual fact, many of the expenditures featured by the Telegraph were applications rejected or toned down, - £4000 TVs for instance, or had to be allowed because freedom was given to MPs to choose which residence to designate as the first home.
Who will choose the Regulator and his team? Will the whips arrange for some government sympathetic and cooperative person to be appointed, and what arrangements can be put in place to make sure that the regulated do not "capture" the regulator, as happens in many cases? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Will the Regulator be subject to the FOI Act? Will investigators be allowed to pursue enquiries into suspected abuses, or will all information disappear into a black box with eventual summary justice? Will MPs be permitted to challenge what they think is wrong, and if so, how?
The regulator will be effectively a quango. To whom will it be accountable, - to the government, parliament, voters who pay for the expenses? We have been too long in a system of secrecy and suspicion of abuse covered up by MPs or their representatives. The court of public opinion is not going to look favourably on a system operated by MPs, after recent experience.
The anger felt by many people is not just the abuses, but also the lengths gone to to perpetuate their concealment.
The best regulator of all, and the cheapest by far, is openness, is revelation of practices which do not apparently conform to the details of any scheme. Some voters have tasted blood, and others would discipline their MP if details are published in full or are capable of being investigated by researchers. Transparency in the use of taxpayers money must be essential.
There would presumably have been nothing to offend his presbyterian conscience if the whole system continued to be concealed. The Daily Telegraph, early on condemned for using cheque-book journalism to obtain the the grisly leaked details, was eventually praised when it published enough for actions to be utterly unacceptable and an offence against his conscience.
He has overacted in response. As MPs are apparently unable to act with his presbyterian rectitude, there must be some outside independent investigatory and penal agency to make sure that further offending does not occur.
There is here a huge implicit criticism of the Fees Office, who gave in to some unethical demands by powerful MPs and encouraged them other directions. Their failure, if any, was to try to operate a system inadequately defined and not properly reviewed when so many abused it. In actual fact, many of the expenditures featured by the Telegraph were applications rejected or toned down, - £4000 TVs for instance, or had to be allowed because freedom was given to MPs to choose which residence to designate as the first home.
Who will choose the Regulator and his team? Will the whips arrange for some government sympathetic and cooperative person to be appointed, and what arrangements can be put in place to make sure that the regulated do not "capture" the regulator, as happens in many cases? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Will the Regulator be subject to the FOI Act? Will investigators be allowed to pursue enquiries into suspected abuses, or will all information disappear into a black box with eventual summary justice? Will MPs be permitted to challenge what they think is wrong, and if so, how?
The regulator will be effectively a quango. To whom will it be accountable, - to the government, parliament, voters who pay for the expenses? We have been too long in a system of secrecy and suspicion of abuse covered up by MPs or their representatives. The court of public opinion is not going to look favourably on a system operated by MPs, after recent experience.
The anger felt by many people is not just the abuses, but also the lengths gone to to perpetuate their concealment.
The best regulator of all, and the cheapest by far, is openness, is revelation of practices which do not apparently conform to the details of any scheme. Some voters have tasted blood, and others would discipline their MP if details are published in full or are capable of being investigated by researchers. Transparency in the use of taxpayers money must be essential.
What everybody has been saying...
Well perhaps not everybody, - G.Brown and E.Balls its authors are still saying that our tri-partite banking regulation structure is among the best in the world. They are urging that parts, - the Treasury and the FSA should have even more power and be more intrusive!
This week the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee concluded in a report that our system was "unable to fulfil one of its main purposes", that of maintaining stability during the present crisis. The report urges that important powers should be handed back to the Bank of England, rather than spread among the three regulating groups. A major problem with the system was the lack of clarity on the various roles, according to the Chairman, Lord Vallance.
The Centre for Policy Studies, also this week published a paper by Sir Martin Jacomb, a former Bank Director, which comes to a similar conclusion on this. He advocates that the FSA should become a subsidiary of the Bank, describing the present system as having been a disaster.
Sir Martin suggests that the tri-partite system was set up to retain ultimate control for the Treasury. It could be added that it was designed and implemented hurriedly by the two politicians, the then Chancellor and his adviser, and with insufficient consultation with people in the City who knew more than they did.
The two designers may possibly become Prime Minister and Chancellor in the next few days, a thought which does not do much to calm the fears of the City. Having got it disastrously wrong in the system which replaced a good one with long experience, it is difficult to see what confidence we can have.
This week the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee concluded in a report that our system was "unable to fulfil one of its main purposes", that of maintaining stability during the present crisis. The report urges that important powers should be handed back to the Bank of England, rather than spread among the three regulating groups. A major problem with the system was the lack of clarity on the various roles, according to the Chairman, Lord Vallance.
The Centre for Policy Studies, also this week published a paper by Sir Martin Jacomb, a former Bank Director, which comes to a similar conclusion on this. He advocates that the FSA should become a subsidiary of the Bank, describing the present system as having been a disaster.
Sir Martin suggests that the tri-partite system was set up to retain ultimate control for the Treasury. It could be added that it was designed and implemented hurriedly by the two politicians, the then Chancellor and his adviser, and with insufficient consultation with people in the City who knew more than they did.
The two designers may possibly become Prime Minister and Chancellor in the next few days, a thought which does not do much to calm the fears of the City. Having got it disastrously wrong in the system which replaced a good one with long experience, it is difficult to see what confidence we can have.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
An attack on the NHS
After August 1st, the NHS will come under strain, and with it lives could be lost. The current president of the Royal College of Surgeons claims that young surgeons could be inadequately trained in future, waiting lists rise and even hospitals close.
The cause is the European Working Time directive, which will limit a week's work to everyone in the UK to a maximum of 48 hours, - legislation devised to limit the number of hours lorry drivers can drive or workers operate heavy machinery.
At the very least some wards or hospitals may be forced to close. The Daily telegraph had originally concluded that this could cost the NHS the equivalent of 9,000 junior doctors.
The deadline has not been suddenly sprung upon us, and in fairness to the government they have made some progress in reducing hours. It still remains true that there were too many trained doctors for available funds in recent years, and many have emigrated. It is also true that many young doctors have been pressurised recently to lie about their hours, and pretend that they worked only 48.
As I have said before, you wouldn't employ this lot to organise a "you-know-what" in a brewery!
The cause is the European Working Time directive, which will limit a week's work to everyone in the UK to a maximum of 48 hours, - legislation devised to limit the number of hours lorry drivers can drive or workers operate heavy machinery.
At the very least some wards or hospitals may be forced to close. The Daily telegraph had originally concluded that this could cost the NHS the equivalent of 9,000 junior doctors.
The deadline has not been suddenly sprung upon us, and in fairness to the government they have made some progress in reducing hours. It still remains true that there were too many trained doctors for available funds in recent years, and many have emigrated. It is also true that many young doctors have been pressurised recently to lie about their hours, and pretend that they worked only 48.
As I have said before, you wouldn't employ this lot to organise a "you-know-what" in a brewery!
Why did they do it?
Recently three so-called Tory grandees, Lords Patten, Brittain and Garel-Jones, have protested against the Tory plan to leave the EPP (European Peoples' Party, - a centre-right group at Brussels/Strasburg. They are identifying with various left wing writers, Guardian, etc, and Labour speakers, as well as Jose Manuel Barroso.
Furthermore, the Grandees have made known their views at a time likely to do most damage to the Tory cause just before a Euro-election, which is why the Guardian and Labour are also involved. The UKIP leadership must be highly delighted.
The image that these people are trying to put across is that the Tories are about to leave a very reasonable and accommodating EPP, and join a group with members who have strange views on climate change and sexual and racial issues. The party will become marginalised, it is said.
A number of things ought to be said to explode all this:
1) Roger Helmer, MEP, last week week pointed out on his blog that the group is already marginalised, - within the EPP. The EPP is very much pro-federalism, and EU statehood, thus very much a prime mover in the project. They gave an undertaking to respect the Conservative position on Constitutional matters, but have never allowed that position to be mentioned by the group, with a federalist leader speaking on their behalf allegedly. Group money has been spent exclusively on the promotion of federalism.
Helmer feels that they are wanted because their numbers boost the money coming to the EPP, which otherwise wants them to keep quiet. The EU promoters do not want any sceptical group, and they have already made it harder to gain funds by raising the number of nationalities required in the membership of a group.
It Helmer's view being outside and not muzzled by the EPP will mean that they will be able to accumulate support from many countries, and upset the cosy leadership assumption that there is no widespread opposition to what they are creating.
2) The EPP has within it some elements who hold views similar to those condemned by Mr. Barroso, - the Polish Civic Platform, Forza Italia, the German CDU and the Austrian People's Party. A candidate to join the EPP is Alleanza Nazionale, the Italian fascist grouping. These are acceptable to Barrosso, and to Patten/Brittain/Garel-Jones, presumably because they are federalist?
3) The racist, homophobic views which the critics condemn in the parties the Tories may associate with are also found within the main left group, the Party of European Socialists, especially the Self-defence League. The group also includes a former IRA man, a former German terrorist and sundry communist sympathisers.
4) The Tories in helping to form an independent group will be able to use resources to campaign for the kind of Europe they believe in, and will have a consistence in what they say at home and in Europe. This has largely been lost since Mrs. T.
Furthermore, the Grandees have made known their views at a time likely to do most damage to the Tory cause just before a Euro-election, which is why the Guardian and Labour are also involved. The UKIP leadership must be highly delighted.
The image that these people are trying to put across is that the Tories are about to leave a very reasonable and accommodating EPP, and join a group with members who have strange views on climate change and sexual and racial issues. The party will become marginalised, it is said.
A number of things ought to be said to explode all this:
1) Roger Helmer, MEP, last week week pointed out on his blog that the group is already marginalised, - within the EPP. The EPP is very much pro-federalism, and EU statehood, thus very much a prime mover in the project. They gave an undertaking to respect the Conservative position on Constitutional matters, but have never allowed that position to be mentioned by the group, with a federalist leader speaking on their behalf allegedly. Group money has been spent exclusively on the promotion of federalism.
Helmer feels that they are wanted because their numbers boost the money coming to the EPP, which otherwise wants them to keep quiet. The EU promoters do not want any sceptical group, and they have already made it harder to gain funds by raising the number of nationalities required in the membership of a group.
It Helmer's view being outside and not muzzled by the EPP will mean that they will be able to accumulate support from many countries, and upset the cosy leadership assumption that there is no widespread opposition to what they are creating.
2) The EPP has within it some elements who hold views similar to those condemned by Mr. Barroso, - the Polish Civic Platform, Forza Italia, the German CDU and the Austrian People's Party. A candidate to join the EPP is Alleanza Nazionale, the Italian fascist grouping. These are acceptable to Barrosso, and to Patten/Brittain/Garel-Jones, presumably because they are federalist?
3) The racist, homophobic views which the critics condemn in the parties the Tories may associate with are also found within the main left group, the Party of European Socialists, especially the Self-defence League. The group also includes a former IRA man, a former German terrorist and sundry communist sympathisers.
4) The Tories in helping to form an independent group will be able to use resources to campaign for the kind of Europe they believe in, and will have a consistence in what they say at home and in Europe. This has largely been lost since Mrs. T.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Sitting down, but not yet
Almost every day we hear or read of further MPs who will not seek re-election at the next General Election, but none are resigning immediately. Even the (former) Speaker has not indicated exactly when he will retire as an MP.
We know why the rash of "resignations" is occurring - unjustifiable expense claims, anger of constituents, etc., and we know why they wish to delay the actual moment for some months, and it isn't the desire to save constituency parties the costs of two elections in under 12 months. It seems to be be to maximise their own earnings and pensions! There could be another twelve months of a good income and expenses.
Some have spoken of feeling the pressure of modern parliamentary life, of having other things to do, giving more time to their family or disliking the acrimony and pressure from voters. All these reasons/excuses would suggest an early departure rather than a long drawn-out one.
Many of these have made little contribution to Westminster debates, to judge by their attendance record. What contribution will they make in the constituency as they serve out their notice? The only advantage to the party of the MP is to give a potential successor time to make himself or herself known. There is also the advantage to NuLabour of avoiding potentially damaging by-election results.
Why should disgraced or worn out and ineffective MPs be allowed to swan around Westminster for several more months to enrich themselves at our expense? There needs to be an early General Election!
We know why the rash of "resignations" is occurring - unjustifiable expense claims, anger of constituents, etc., and we know why they wish to delay the actual moment for some months, and it isn't the desire to save constituency parties the costs of two elections in under 12 months. It seems to be be to maximise their own earnings and pensions! There could be another twelve months of a good income and expenses.
Some have spoken of feeling the pressure of modern parliamentary life, of having other things to do, giving more time to their family or disliking the acrimony and pressure from voters. All these reasons/excuses would suggest an early departure rather than a long drawn-out one.
Many of these have made little contribution to Westminster debates, to judge by their attendance record. What contribution will they make in the constituency as they serve out their notice? The only advantage to the party of the MP is to give a potential successor time to make himself or herself known. There is also the advantage to NuLabour of avoiding potentially damaging by-election results.
Why should disgraced or worn out and ineffective MPs be allowed to swan around Westminster for several more months to enrich themselves at our expense? There needs to be an early General Election!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
