The Food Standards Agency (FSA), not to be confused with the Financial services Authority (FSA), is intending to order manufacturers of chocolates and snacks to produce their products in smaller sizes. This is in an effort to reduce calorie and fat intake among children, in the fight against obesity.
So, for instance, 49 gramme chocolate bars must also be produced in 40 gramme size, and 58 gramme bars will be reduced in size to 50 gramme. Fizzy drinks of 330 ml must be reduced to 250 ml.
There will be protests. Re-tooling and production costs will rise. It is likely that prices will not fall by the same amount, thus contributing to inflation., and if prices do fall will some children eat two bars instead of one? Many of us are concerned that a non-elected body is trying to decide our patterns of consumption by fiat. They have not done this with equally dangerous products for adults, - alcohol for instance, but merely attached a high tax, or warning.
There are alternatives - taxation for instance. I am surprised that a cash-starved government has not already thought of this one.
Or why not attach traffic light or other messages of disparagement and discouragement? Have they given up on education, of parents or children, with lurid pictures of diseased teeth or fat children unable to run?
Friday, 31 July 2009
Says it all really....
The Department for Children, Schools and Families has recently undertaken a large sample survey of abilities of 5 year-olds in schools in England at the end of their first year in school. In fact their sample was 230,000, or about 42% of the entire age group.
The findings are appalling:
- 25% of boys cannot write their own name, after one year in school, and 15% of girls.
- A similar percentage of boys have difficulty holding a pencil correctly.
- In educational development, boys are behind girls when they arrive at school.
- Even after one year in school 30% of boys, and 23% of girls struggle to recite the alphabet.
- At the same stage almost 20% of boys and 15% of girls cannot count to ten.
There are many reasons why boys lag behind girls, but more important are other questions:
What is happening in families before school and in out of school hours?
Why is the government pressing ahead with all sorts of non-basic topics when remedial attention is so obviously required by so many. Do they really need sex education, for instance, when so many lack basic literary and numerical skills?
The much despised middle and professional classes, who prepare their children before school, and inculcate a willingness to learn, must have counterparts in other sectors in society, or there will be very limited social mobility. Children who begin with the identified disadvantages will fall further and further behind others and eventually become benefit-dependent unemployables like their parents.
The findings are appalling:
- 25% of boys cannot write their own name, after one year in school, and 15% of girls.
- A similar percentage of boys have difficulty holding a pencil correctly.
- In educational development, boys are behind girls when they arrive at school.
- Even after one year in school 30% of boys, and 23% of girls struggle to recite the alphabet.
- At the same stage almost 20% of boys and 15% of girls cannot count to ten.
There are many reasons why boys lag behind girls, but more important are other questions:
What is happening in families before school and in out of school hours?
Why is the government pressing ahead with all sorts of non-basic topics when remedial attention is so obviously required by so many. Do they really need sex education, for instance, when so many lack basic literary and numerical skills?
The much despised middle and professional classes, who prepare their children before school, and inculcate a willingness to learn, must have counterparts in other sectors in society, or there will be very limited social mobility. Children who begin with the identified disadvantages will fall further and further behind others and eventually become benefit-dependent unemployables like their parents.
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
One huge subsidy
European union agricultural subsidies, a very large part of the 42% of the EU budget which is devoted to agriculture, are becoming less agricultural. Agriculture is being interpreted to include "food" producers and even land owners.
Major subsidy payments have been made to Haribo, sweet manufacturer, Ligabue, a company supplying catering services to airlines and luxury liners, Tate & Lyle, sugar refiners, Arids Roma, in road making, and so on. In addition large payments are made to large landowners, including our Queen and the Catholic Church.
The research organsiation Farmsubsidy.org has been able to identify many of these from extra information provided by member governments which overcome the meagre and sketchy details supplied by the EU itself.
The EU is becoming a vast and complicated subsidy system, with subsidies continuing for national political reasons and with subsidies in some cases given to firms in competition with each other.
Sadly we have moved far away from the concept of a common market, whatever lip-service is paid to this when new regulations are imposed.
Major subsidy payments have been made to Haribo, sweet manufacturer, Ligabue, a company supplying catering services to airlines and luxury liners, Tate & Lyle, sugar refiners, Arids Roma, in road making, and so on. In addition large payments are made to large landowners, including our Queen and the Catholic Church.
The research organsiation Farmsubsidy.org has been able to identify many of these from extra information provided by member governments which overcome the meagre and sketchy details supplied by the EU itself.
The EU is becoming a vast and complicated subsidy system, with subsidies continuing for national political reasons and with subsidies in some cases given to firms in competition with each other.
Sadly we have moved far away from the concept of a common market, whatever lip-service is paid to this when new regulations are imposed.
Another step to educational mediocrity?
On Sunday the Telegraph revealed details about the government's new diploma qualification in engineering. This counts for 3.5 A levels as, presumably, do other diplomas whose deficiencies are yet to become common knowledge.
The staggering thing is that the overall weighted result of the two parts of the examination is taken, so that a student could theoretically reveal little understanding of engineering in the written test, yet pass overall by a good project. Needless to say the project will be assessed internally by teachers, and no-one outside the situation will know how much of the work for the project was done by the student unaided.
So we have a situation where a student could obtain a university place on the basis of the shakiest understanding of the principles of engineering.
The game was given away by documents from Ofqual which from trials had to admit that if students were required to obtain a pass mark in both of the parts of the diploma, there would be a failure rate of 80%. This, then, shows the ultimate dumbing down and a qualification which universities will surely be very wary of accepting in student's own interests.
Add to this that many of the different "subjects" available as diplomas are multi-discipline, - construction, media, health and information technology. This must mean that although there is a challenge of breadth of subject the depth will be lacking.
I fear for the future of this country in a competitive world where our students encounter young people who have studied subjects in depth.
The staggering thing is that the overall weighted result of the two parts of the examination is taken, so that a student could theoretically reveal little understanding of engineering in the written test, yet pass overall by a good project. Needless to say the project will be assessed internally by teachers, and no-one outside the situation will know how much of the work for the project was done by the student unaided.
So we have a situation where a student could obtain a university place on the basis of the shakiest understanding of the principles of engineering.
The game was given away by documents from Ofqual which from trials had to admit that if students were required to obtain a pass mark in both of the parts of the diploma, there would be a failure rate of 80%. This, then, shows the ultimate dumbing down and a qualification which universities will surely be very wary of accepting in student's own interests.
Add to this that many of the different "subjects" available as diplomas are multi-discipline, - construction, media, health and information technology. This must mean that although there is a challenge of breadth of subject the depth will be lacking.
I fear for the future of this country in a competitive world where our students encounter young people who have studied subjects in depth.
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Means versus objectives, government style
There has been an on-going debate about inadequate resources for our troops in Afghanistan, and usually conducted in terms of risk to the troops from road-side bombs.
The government is, however, not merely callous in deciding that the troops must achieve more with less, it is also confused in what it wants to achieve.
The stated objectives include to deny a large area in the country to the Taliban, at least until the elections are over, to re-build the country and to prepare the locals to resist insurgents after our departure.
The government wishes to capture and hold a significant area with a troop level that is not adequate. (It implicitly admitted this by sending out one hundred troops for the duration of the election, and then recalling them.)
What is needed is sufficient troops to take, and then to hold, areas at present occupied by the Taliban. Military leaders feel that his cannot be done with present troop levels and resources. Military leaders drew up plans involving fortified tower outposts to detect insurgent movements. These would have needed more troops and more helicopters to supply them. Ideally it would also require high flying "drone" aircraft to detect movement by day and night. These the US have, but not our troops.
The lack of helicopters is hampering operations not merely because we are losing troops who have to travel by land, or losing injured because there are insufficient helicopters, it is also limiting a "rapid response" ability to harry the Taliban whenever they re-appear.
So many times in Afghanistan we have taken land but not been able to hold it as we went on to take more. The sacrifice of lives and the waste of resources seems pointless when the Taliban wait until it is safe to return to land from which they have been driven.
The government is, however, not merely callous in deciding that the troops must achieve more with less, it is also confused in what it wants to achieve.
The stated objectives include to deny a large area in the country to the Taliban, at least until the elections are over, to re-build the country and to prepare the locals to resist insurgents after our departure.
The government wishes to capture and hold a significant area with a troop level that is not adequate. (It implicitly admitted this by sending out one hundred troops for the duration of the election, and then recalling them.)
What is needed is sufficient troops to take, and then to hold, areas at present occupied by the Taliban. Military leaders feel that his cannot be done with present troop levels and resources. Military leaders drew up plans involving fortified tower outposts to detect insurgent movements. These would have needed more troops and more helicopters to supply them. Ideally it would also require high flying "drone" aircraft to detect movement by day and night. These the US have, but not our troops.
The lack of helicopters is hampering operations not merely because we are losing troops who have to travel by land, or losing injured because there are insufficient helicopters, it is also limiting a "rapid response" ability to harry the Taliban whenever they re-appear.
So many times in Afghanistan we have taken land but not been able to hold it as we went on to take more. The sacrifice of lives and the waste of resources seems pointless when the Taliban wait until it is safe to return to land from which they have been driven.
Do they think that we are fools?
The Daily Telegraph claimed this morning that MPs have secretly awarded themselves a better subsistence allowance to replace the £400 per month food allowance they had previously. The new allowance, £25 for every night spent away from their main residence, with no receipts needed and no details required.
So, if they stopped five nights each week, and went home at week-ends, they could amass approaching £600 per month, or fifty per cent more than their food allowance. They will also enjoy travel expenses and mortgage interest costs, as well as office and staff allowances, as before. (The truth is, of course, that many spend only three nights a week when Parliament is in session, before sloping off for an extended week-end.)
The Telegraph gave the slightly misleading impression that this conspiracy has all been cooked up since the expenses scandal broke three months ago. In fact the details had been produced as early as last January, agreed in March and to be implemented in their new "green book" in early July.
The newspaper is correct to say that this is the first time we have heard of it, which is quite remarkable if true. Why has "Put things Right" Brown not seen what was coming, nor "Protester" Cameron?
There are even larger questions. Why do they need such an allowance? If they were not MPs they would still have to feed themselves, and they do enjoy a high salary. And why is it not transparent? If we looked to find another job which paid a good salary and then as much as £7,000 a year in food allowance without any receipts or details, we would be hard pressed to find one.
So, if they stopped five nights each week, and went home at week-ends, they could amass approaching £600 per month, or fifty per cent more than their food allowance. They will also enjoy travel expenses and mortgage interest costs, as well as office and staff allowances, as before. (The truth is, of course, that many spend only three nights a week when Parliament is in session, before sloping off for an extended week-end.)
The Telegraph gave the slightly misleading impression that this conspiracy has all been cooked up since the expenses scandal broke three months ago. In fact the details had been produced as early as last January, agreed in March and to be implemented in their new "green book" in early July.
The newspaper is correct to say that this is the first time we have heard of it, which is quite remarkable if true. Why has "Put things Right" Brown not seen what was coming, nor "Protester" Cameron?
There are even larger questions. Why do they need such an allowance? If they were not MPs they would still have to feed themselves, and they do enjoy a high salary. And why is it not transparent? If we looked to find another job which paid a good salary and then as much as £7,000 a year in food allowance without any receipts or details, we would be hard pressed to find one.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Aid again
Alex Singleton, on the Telegraph Three Line Whip yesterday, in a few words virtually demolishes the government white paper on international development, as being cliches and self-congratulations.
He criticises much of what passes for aid by quoting from Dr. Marian Tupy, an African Aid expert.
Between 1975 and 2005 Africa received $24.60 per person per year in aid. China received only $1.50 and India $2.11. The developed world has concentrated on Africa in some measure.
Over the same period India grew by 3.5% a year, and China by 7.9%, while Africa shrank by 0.16% per year, - it is becoming poorer, despite the vast sums pumped in in aid.
There may be problems in Africa associated with tribal boundaries which do not correspond with boundaries designed by the long gone colonial powers. Most of us would suspect that Africa has too many corrupt leaders, who have salted away aid, misdirected it or spent it on vainglorious projects.
Whatever the reason, if aid has made any contribution at all, in alleviating disasters for instance, it has many no contribution to development.
Earlier this week I mentioned the recent Conservative thinking - vouchers, that is bottom up development, rather than the wasteful top-down aid.
He criticises much of what passes for aid by quoting from Dr. Marian Tupy, an African Aid expert.
Between 1975 and 2005 Africa received $24.60 per person per year in aid. China received only $1.50 and India $2.11. The developed world has concentrated on Africa in some measure.
Over the same period India grew by 3.5% a year, and China by 7.9%, while Africa shrank by 0.16% per year, - it is becoming poorer, despite the vast sums pumped in in aid.
There may be problems in Africa associated with tribal boundaries which do not correspond with boundaries designed by the long gone colonial powers. Most of us would suspect that Africa has too many corrupt leaders, who have salted away aid, misdirected it or spent it on vainglorious projects.
Whatever the reason, if aid has made any contribution at all, in alleviating disasters for instance, it has many no contribution to development.
Earlier this week I mentioned the recent Conservative thinking - vouchers, that is bottom up development, rather than the wasteful top-down aid.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Mislaid....
We have known for some time that this government is careless with prisoners. Three years ago Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, admitted that more than one thousand foreign prisoners were wrongly released, as there had not been consideration for deportation.
We also know that many prisoners have been released very early, to free up places in our over-crowded prisons, and that many of them have gone on to commit very serious offences.
Now it seems that almost 1,000 criminals, including murderers and rapists who should have been re-imprisoned are still at large, and that at least 59 have committed new offences, including rape and robbery. One of those missing last year, Dano Sonnex, killed two French students last year.
The police, government and probation service are all trying to pass the blame. It may be that all should hold their hands up as guilty, but the fact remains that dangerous men are free to roam our streets and commit further serious crimes.
We also know that many prisoners have been released very early, to free up places in our over-crowded prisons, and that many of them have gone on to commit very serious offences.
Now it seems that almost 1,000 criminals, including murderers and rapists who should have been re-imprisoned are still at large, and that at least 59 have committed new offences, including rape and robbery. One of those missing last year, Dano Sonnex, killed two French students last year.
The police, government and probation service are all trying to pass the blame. It may be that all should hold their hands up as guilty, but the fact remains that dangerous men are free to roam our streets and commit further serious crimes.
Don't speak out of turn, in fact don't speak at all
A dinner lady last week in Essex was suspended from work and facing disciplinary action for breaching confidentiality - she told parents, accidentally as she assumed that the school would have told them, that their daughter had been severely bullied at school.
Their daughter had been tied up to a fence during the lunch time break and whipped with a skipping rope. The dinner lady intervened to release her.
The mother and the suspended dinner lady met and had a conversation by chance in the local Beaver Scout group.
The family had received a communication from the school which said that the daughter had been hurt by other children, but no details were given. They were shocked when they heard the details and immediately removed the girl and her brother from the school.
Why were they not given the details by the school, or alternatively called in to the school? It would seem that the school was trying to conceal what had happened, in the hope that the whole matter would "go away".
This is the very worst aspect of our nanny state - withholding significant details and keeping us in the dark to ease their problems. There is a real problem of transparency and accountability.
Their daughter had been tied up to a fence during the lunch time break and whipped with a skipping rope. The dinner lady intervened to release her.
The mother and the suspended dinner lady met and had a conversation by chance in the local Beaver Scout group.
The family had received a communication from the school which said that the daughter had been hurt by other children, but no details were given. They were shocked when they heard the details and immediately removed the girl and her brother from the school.
Why were they not given the details by the school, or alternatively called in to the school? It would seem that the school was trying to conceal what had happened, in the hope that the whole matter would "go away".
This is the very worst aspect of our nanny state - withholding significant details and keeping us in the dark to ease their problems. There is a real problem of transparency and accountability.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Private education wins?
One of the greatest failures of the Blair/Brown area has been the failure to promote social mobility, the process by which children from poorer homes are able to increase their life chances by their own creativity and ability, aided by the educational system. Social mobility now is, in fact, less than before 1997
Advocates of grammar schools will point out endlessly how they, and others, were able to rise from severe deprivation to success because they won a place in a grammar school. Such schools were the greatest promoters of social mobility devised by man, and social mobility has diminished since ideologues succeeded in closing so many.
Now, as many people have pointed out, success has been to the private schools (curiously called public schools). This could well be reflected by the next intake of MPs in 2010, and the cabinet formed, that those who are confined to the (failing) state school system are unlikely to be reflected in great numbers.
In the period from 1944 until the late 1960s, grammar schools produced men and women of ability, and a series of our prime ministers, - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher.Now we seem destined to have prime ministers and cabinets overwhelmingly from the 7% of children who attended private schools and achieved results which took them to the best universities.
There are still many state school educated who achieve a mark in industry or commerce, but even there too the private schools are over represented.
The end result of the failed experimentation with comprehensive education has been the victory for private schools.
Advocates of grammar schools will point out endlessly how they, and others, were able to rise from severe deprivation to success because they won a place in a grammar school. Such schools were the greatest promoters of social mobility devised by man, and social mobility has diminished since ideologues succeeded in closing so many.
Now, as many people have pointed out, success has been to the private schools (curiously called public schools). This could well be reflected by the next intake of MPs in 2010, and the cabinet formed, that those who are confined to the (failing) state school system are unlikely to be reflected in great numbers.
In the period from 1944 until the late 1960s, grammar schools produced men and women of ability, and a series of our prime ministers, - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher.Now we seem destined to have prime ministers and cabinets overwhelmingly from the 7% of children who attended private schools and achieved results which took them to the best universities.
There are still many state school educated who achieve a mark in industry or commerce, but even there too the private schools are over represented.
The end result of the failed experimentation with comprehensive education has been the victory for private schools.
To cut or not to cut?
There is an on-going discussion about whether people in the public sector should have their pay cut, to make sure that they share some of the pain of those in the private sector who have lost jobs or are working for much reduced incomes.
As the public sector workers generally have better pensions (-final salary) and greater job security, there is an equity issue here. Until the last four years on average wages were greater in the private sector, but now wages are greater in the public sector, so the justification for better pensions, etc., has gone. At the moment public sector wages are still rising, while prices are falling, - the RPI is in negative territory, so they gain in two ways.
In addition under Blair/Brown employment in the public sector has risen by 17%, while in the private sector it rose by 10%. There are now 4.56 million workers in the public sector, so what happens to them has a significant effect on the economy.
Public sector union leaders cannot answer the moral case, so they fall back on "We are in the middle of a three year agreement, which cannot be changed midway" type of argument. This is valueless - private sector workers thought that they had a legal deal but that collapsed in redundancy.
At the very least public sector pay should be frozen, but there does also seem to be a case for temporary cuts.
With over four and half million workers in the public sector, any reduction in the wage bill will help the government achieve expenditure cuts, which everyone except G.Brown now seems to regard as vital to save us from a worse fate.
As the public sector workers generally have better pensions (-final salary) and greater job security, there is an equity issue here. Until the last four years on average wages were greater in the private sector, but now wages are greater in the public sector, so the justification for better pensions, etc., has gone. At the moment public sector wages are still rising, while prices are falling, - the RPI is in negative territory, so they gain in two ways.
In addition under Blair/Brown employment in the public sector has risen by 17%, while in the private sector it rose by 10%. There are now 4.56 million workers in the public sector, so what happens to them has a significant effect on the economy.
Public sector union leaders cannot answer the moral case, so they fall back on "We are in the middle of a three year agreement, which cannot be changed midway" type of argument. This is valueless - private sector workers thought that they had a legal deal but that collapsed in redundancy.
At the very least public sector pay should be frozen, but there does also seem to be a case for temporary cuts.
With over four and half million workers in the public sector, any reduction in the wage bill will help the government achieve expenditure cuts, which everyone except G.Brown now seems to regard as vital to save us from a worse fate.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Good thinking
Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow International Development minister, is reported to be considering the policy of giving "vouchers" for aid and education directly to the poorest people in the world, to be redeemed with any aid organisation or educational institution.
There are already suggestions of disapproval from some aid organisations at this proposal to give freedom of choice to recipients of aid. This is to be expected, as it is in some way competition with them and a possible yardstick against which they may be compared. (In the early days some of them spent a large proportion of money raised on palatial headquarters and high salaries, and even now some of their senior staff enjoy high salaries.)
I see a number of benefits of the proposal.
It may be expected to benefit poor people, rather than finishing up in a numbered bank account of one of the country's politicians. It will be focussed on deepest need, and we hope with identification to prevent the richer or stronger misappropriating the voucher.
It will give choice and self-esteem to the recipients, who are customers rather than being like a queue of supplicants like farm animals at feeding time.
A decent education will pay an enormous benefit in the long run, helping to life all countries out of poverty and dependence.
There are already suggestions of disapproval from some aid organisations at this proposal to give freedom of choice to recipients of aid. This is to be expected, as it is in some way competition with them and a possible yardstick against which they may be compared. (In the early days some of them spent a large proportion of money raised on palatial headquarters and high salaries, and even now some of their senior staff enjoy high salaries.)
I see a number of benefits of the proposal.
It may be expected to benefit poor people, rather than finishing up in a numbered bank account of one of the country's politicians. It will be focussed on deepest need, and we hope with identification to prevent the richer or stronger misappropriating the voucher.
It will give choice and self-esteem to the recipients, who are customers rather than being like a queue of supplicants like farm animals at feeding time.
A decent education will pay an enormous benefit in the long run, helping to life all countries out of poverty and dependence.
Idiocy!
Iain Dale today on his blog reports on a lack of common sense in local government.
West Sussex Council have undertaken to spend £80 a day to send a boy to the second choice school of his parents, because there is no bus. They live 350 yards outside the catchment area for their first choice school, which presumably is much nearer their home or for which there is a bus.
Isn't it kind of them? £400 per week for him to travel in comfort, or £16,000 each year or £80,000 over the school career in the lower school.
It's lunacy, but it could have been worse. Just imagine that there was a reciprocal movement in the opposite direction if West Sussex adopted the lottery!! (Was it them or Brighton which espoused this other nonsense?)
It would be interesting to discover what the hard pressed ratepayers think about this, as they scrabble together money to pay their ever increasing rate demands.
West Sussex Council have undertaken to spend £80 a day to send a boy to the second choice school of his parents, because there is no bus. They live 350 yards outside the catchment area for their first choice school, which presumably is much nearer their home or for which there is a bus.
Isn't it kind of them? £400 per week for him to travel in comfort, or £16,000 each year or £80,000 over the school career in the lower school.
It's lunacy, but it could have been worse. Just imagine that there was a reciprocal movement in the opposite direction if West Sussex adopted the lottery!! (Was it them or Brighton which espoused this other nonsense?)
It would be interesting to discover what the hard pressed ratepayers think about this, as they scrabble together money to pay their ever increasing rate demands.
The milch cows
The Sunday Telegraph revealed yesterday that parking fees and charges levied by local councils have more than doubled since 1997, from £5.5. billion in 1997-98 to £12.6 billion in 2007-08.
In many cases this was in an attempt to keep down council tax increases or keep within the government imposed caps. This was frequently because government block grants were mean. The government has even made a virtue of it, denying all responsibility but claiming it is good if it makes people walk.
To make a virtue out of a vice is cynical, because many people live some distance away from their work place, having chosen not to re-locate after changing jobs because of HIP charges and stamp duty, as well as the traditional financial and non-financial costs.
Not only do increases make another drain on poorer people in the nature of a regressive tax, it also introduces anti-competitive elements in retail markets. Some can compete with supermarkets and their free parking only by keeping parking charges low. Another consequence is that side streets within walkable distance of the town centre become free parking areas.
As government stealth taxes go, this is one of the worst.
In many cases this was in an attempt to keep down council tax increases or keep within the government imposed caps. This was frequently because government block grants were mean. The government has even made a virtue of it, denying all responsibility but claiming it is good if it makes people walk.
To make a virtue out of a vice is cynical, because many people live some distance away from their work place, having chosen not to re-locate after changing jobs because of HIP charges and stamp duty, as well as the traditional financial and non-financial costs.
Not only do increases make another drain on poorer people in the nature of a regressive tax, it also introduces anti-competitive elements in retail markets. Some can compete with supermarkets and their free parking only by keeping parking charges low. Another consequence is that side streets within walkable distance of the town centre become free parking areas.
As government stealth taxes go, this is one of the worst.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Time to take the adjective away?
Peter Oborne, in the Daily Mail today, repeats his thesis about the lying political class. Blair is castigated, and Keith Vaz is added to the list of offenders, for continuing in parliament even when documentary evidence revealed that he was lying.
Surprisingly, Oborne confesses that when G. Brown became prime minister Oborne actually expected him to be more truthful. Those of us who were used to his "brownies" since 1997 were less sure. So often he came up with pronouncements which depended on carefully constructed bases, which were never admitted or acknowledged, or special definitions or using different measures of inflation in a single comparison. He has virtually ruled out the difference between investment, which sounds virtuous, and expenditure, which is unpopular. He arbitrarily left indebtedness off the balance sheet and cheerfully ignored anything which did not suit his case.
Recently in PMQ, of course, he has lost face. His attempted deceits have been rumbled very quickly, by the IFS and by people like Faser Nelson.
He told Blair that there was nothing the latter could say that Brown would ever believe, and many of us now say the same about Brown. He is just not able to speak the truth in a straight forward way. The inability has spread to some of his acolytes, especially Balls and Knight.
Some of the lying or deception is trivial, - Blair could not have seen Milburn play for the Toon, but some is very serious and it happens often enough to suggest that the long held convention that members are honourable and do not lie has now been abrogated.
Being caught out in a lie is no longer a reason to be suspended or sacked, or Vaz would have gone long ago.
Given that the many expenses fiddles involved behaviour according to the (lax) rules set, some rather dishonourable people will continue, at least to the next election. The relative few who were guilty of fraud have gone or will go, and ought to be prosecuted.
Now we know that lying regularly occurs, perhaps we should petition parliament to drop the title honourable or right honourable until they demonstrate that they are just that.
I am not optimistic. The recently introduced Parliamentary Standards Bill has a clause which offers prosecution and even jail for any member caught lying, but Jack Straw and others are already rowing back on this!
We have a bunch of elected representatives whose behaviour and morality would not be tolerated on the Stock Exchange or in the board rooms of banks and large businesses. It is about time that they earned the adjective "honourable".
Surprisingly, Oborne confesses that when G. Brown became prime minister Oborne actually expected him to be more truthful. Those of us who were used to his "brownies" since 1997 were less sure. So often he came up with pronouncements which depended on carefully constructed bases, which were never admitted or acknowledged, or special definitions or using different measures of inflation in a single comparison. He has virtually ruled out the difference between investment, which sounds virtuous, and expenditure, which is unpopular. He arbitrarily left indebtedness off the balance sheet and cheerfully ignored anything which did not suit his case.
Recently in PMQ, of course, he has lost face. His attempted deceits have been rumbled very quickly, by the IFS and by people like Faser Nelson.
He told Blair that there was nothing the latter could say that Brown would ever believe, and many of us now say the same about Brown. He is just not able to speak the truth in a straight forward way. The inability has spread to some of his acolytes, especially Balls and Knight.
Some of the lying or deception is trivial, - Blair could not have seen Milburn play for the Toon, but some is very serious and it happens often enough to suggest that the long held convention that members are honourable and do not lie has now been abrogated.
Being caught out in a lie is no longer a reason to be suspended or sacked, or Vaz would have gone long ago.
Given that the many expenses fiddles involved behaviour according to the (lax) rules set, some rather dishonourable people will continue, at least to the next election. The relative few who were guilty of fraud have gone or will go, and ought to be prosecuted.
Now we know that lying regularly occurs, perhaps we should petition parliament to drop the title honourable or right honourable until they demonstrate that they are just that.
I am not optimistic. The recently introduced Parliamentary Standards Bill has a clause which offers prosecution and even jail for any member caught lying, but Jack Straw and others are already rowing back on this!
We have a bunch of elected representatives whose behaviour and morality would not be tolerated on the Stock Exchange or in the board rooms of banks and large businesses. It is about time that they earned the adjective "honourable".
Younger and younger....
The Daily Telegraph revealed BMA figures yesterday which must concern all of us, that drunkenness is reaching to younger and younger children.
For the age group 12-15 years, last year 4,441 were admitted to hospital for emergency treatment after drinking.
For the age group 16-17 years, the figure was 7,766 patients.
For those under 12 years of age the figure was 181. Every 48 hours on average a child less than 12 is treated in hospital for binge drinking. In fact like their older counterparts, most admissions are on Friday and Saturday nights. Every week-end children of this age group will be brought to hospital after passing out in the street. Ten years ago this would have been an occasional thing, but now it is virtually every week-end.
A consultant paediatrician reported that the youngest patient he had encountered was aged just 8 years old. He had been found unconscious in the street.
The concern is that these youngsters are likely to be doing long term damage. There is already a significant rise in liver damage among the under 35s. They are also by-passing the pleasures of youth for a drunken binge-filled unconsciousness.
Questions arise?
Where are they getting the drink, or the money to buy? Who is guilty or aiding and abetting?
What has happened to parental guidance and discipline, or appropriate education in school?
Is it now time to follow the advice of some who recommend a minimum tax per unit of alcohol, to thwart the opportunity of youngsters buying the cheapest and most potent drinks?
For the age group 12-15 years, last year 4,441 were admitted to hospital for emergency treatment after drinking.
For the age group 16-17 years, the figure was 7,766 patients.
For those under 12 years of age the figure was 181. Every 48 hours on average a child less than 12 is treated in hospital for binge drinking. In fact like their older counterparts, most admissions are on Friday and Saturday nights. Every week-end children of this age group will be brought to hospital after passing out in the street. Ten years ago this would have been an occasional thing, but now it is virtually every week-end.
A consultant paediatrician reported that the youngest patient he had encountered was aged just 8 years old. He had been found unconscious in the street.
The concern is that these youngsters are likely to be doing long term damage. There is already a significant rise in liver damage among the under 35s. They are also by-passing the pleasures of youth for a drunken binge-filled unconsciousness.
Questions arise?
Where are they getting the drink, or the money to buy? Who is guilty or aiding and abetting?
What has happened to parental guidance and discipline, or appropriate education in school?
Is it now time to follow the advice of some who recommend a minimum tax per unit of alcohol, to thwart the opportunity of youngsters buying the cheapest and most potent drinks?
Friday, 3 July 2009
Lottery or prison?
Harrow council, after looking for a legal category under which to prosecute a mother who effectively lied to get her child into the school she preferred, in the end accused her of fraud. There is a loophole in the (as usual badly drafted because rushed) legislation, which meant that Harrow had to withdraw the prosecution, but the government is rushing through an amendment to plug this.
The council said that it had to act in fairness to other families (whose children had also been consigned to second best?)
Why should we have this position, such that in the judgement of parents (and others) the life chances of some children are reduced by this rationing? Catchment areas are no solution - we get mothers lying about residence or wealthy parents buying houses which are expensive because of the school. A lottery is a gesture of despair, - the only equality is before the dice is rolled.
The only solution is for good schools to drive out bad ones, as in the Swedish model, and Danish, advocated by Michael Gove, with resources targeted at pupils who because of family dysfunctionality or failure at earlier schools are in need of remedial help. It will probably also need temporary removal for extra help of disruptive students.
Despite all the money pumped in over the past 8 years, we still protect schools which too many parents reject. Why should this be tolerated?
The council said that it had to act in fairness to other families (whose children had also been consigned to second best?)
Why should we have this position, such that in the judgement of parents (and others) the life chances of some children are reduced by this rationing? Catchment areas are no solution - we get mothers lying about residence or wealthy parents buying houses which are expensive because of the school. A lottery is a gesture of despair, - the only equality is before the dice is rolled.
The only solution is for good schools to drive out bad ones, as in the Swedish model, and Danish, advocated by Michael Gove, with resources targeted at pupils who because of family dysfunctionality or failure at earlier schools are in need of remedial help. It will probably also need temporary removal for extra help of disruptive students.
Despite all the money pumped in over the past 8 years, we still protect schools which too many parents reject. Why should this be tolerated?
Tackling poverty
Those on the left some 35 years ago redefined poverty not as an absolute level of income, but as an arbitrary percentage. The standard now is a family income of not more than 60% of the national median income, that is the middle income if all were laid out according to size.
Apart from the fact that such a definition means that there will always be inequality, a rise in even a few incomes in one region can increase the poverty in others without changing anything there, because the national median income has risen.
Since in low wage areas prices, housing and other factors tend also to be low, should the median not be the median in that area or region? Otherwise poverty will be falsely measured, and benefits increased. There will be less incentive to work, higher unemployment, etc. This is born out by the finding of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation paper that in Wales 32 % of children, - 192,000, live in poverty. The same is probably true of other low wage regions in the west and north.
Furthermore, unless something is done to increase productivity and incomes in these areas, the situation will be an enduring one. Unemployment and welfare dependency will become a common situation.
The problem is a reflection of the arbitrary definition based on a national "average".
Apart from the fact that such a definition means that there will always be inequality, a rise in even a few incomes in one region can increase the poverty in others without changing anything there, because the national median income has risen.
Since in low wage areas prices, housing and other factors tend also to be low, should the median not be the median in that area or region? Otherwise poverty will be falsely measured, and benefits increased. There will be less incentive to work, higher unemployment, etc. This is born out by the finding of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation paper that in Wales 32 % of children, - 192,000, live in poverty. The same is probably true of other low wage regions in the west and north.
Furthermore, unless something is done to increase productivity and incomes in these areas, the situation will be an enduring one. Unemployment and welfare dependency will become a common situation.
The problem is a reflection of the arbitrary definition based on a national "average".
To make them better
Recently Ed Balls suggested a five year renewable licence for teacher accreditation. Those who have caused disquiet could thus be removed. Something like 25,000 fall into this category. They wouldn't be removed immediately. Common justice demands that they should be given the opportunity to retrain and improve their technique. So we could be looking at 7 or 8 years before they are finally removed.
Yesterday Mr. Gove, in a speech to the Institute of Physics, suggested his ideas on improving the quality of teachers.
1) They should obtain at least a grade B in English and Mathematics at GCSE, before they could be considered for teacher training.
2) A honours degree of at least 2 (ii) level would be required. Currently about 1,200 applicants with a third class degree are accepted for training annually.
3) In future a multiple or resits in literacy and numeracy tests will not be permitted.
These seem to be eminently sensible. GCSE and degree grades have been devalued. The present C grade required at GCSE would be equivalent to a bare pass, grade 6, in the old GCE examination. A Third class honours now would be little more than an attendance qualification.
But Gove would surely admit that these of themselves are not sufficient. Some personalities are not ideal for teaching at some levels, and there has to be a level of commitment.
My own conviction is that Gove's suggestion would improve quality of teaching, but would not filter out all who are destined to become square pegs in round holes. Many will leave of their own volition when they realise that they are not suited for teaching, but there will be a residual who plough on through sheer inertia. This last group will have tobe faced with some sort of mechanism that leads to elimination.
Yesterday Mr. Gove, in a speech to the Institute of Physics, suggested his ideas on improving the quality of teachers.
1) They should obtain at least a grade B in English and Mathematics at GCSE, before they could be considered for teacher training.
2) A honours degree of at least 2 (ii) level would be required. Currently about 1,200 applicants with a third class degree are accepted for training annually.
3) In future a multiple or resits in literacy and numeracy tests will not be permitted.
These seem to be eminently sensible. GCSE and degree grades have been devalued. The present C grade required at GCSE would be equivalent to a bare pass, grade 6, in the old GCE examination. A Third class honours now would be little more than an attendance qualification.
But Gove would surely admit that these of themselves are not sufficient. Some personalities are not ideal for teaching at some levels, and there has to be a level of commitment.
My own conviction is that Gove's suggestion would improve quality of teaching, but would not filter out all who are destined to become square pegs in round holes. Many will leave of their own volition when they realise that they are not suited for teaching, but there will be a residual who plough on through sheer inertia. This last group will have tobe faced with some sort of mechanism that leads to elimination.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Have they tried sanctions?
Voter apathy is growing. The last two general elections saw record low numbers voting, even when it had been made easier by postal voting. In 2005 only a third of the 18 to 24 year-olds voted.
They were offered free iPods with which to vote, (did they actually carry through with this wheeze at great cost?), so you would not even have to leave your chair and post a freepost vote in the post box. Hazel Blears, I think, suggested free doughnuts! In the bare results of one ward which I saw, only about half the postal votes were returned by post. (Some could, I admit, have been used on the day in person.)
All this suggests the many are not motivated to vote. Should we pay them to vote? Could we use other incentives, -" participation in a large prize lottery if you vote", a discount on your rates, shopping vouchers, etc.?
Or could we use sanctions? In some countries voting is compulsory. After all, courageous men and women struggled over many years for a full adult suffrage, and it's an insult to their memory of we do not vote.
Surely a better suggestion is to inquire why so many do not vote. Is there a clue from the million who marched in protest through London in opposition to the Iraq War, or the half million who marched against the hunting ban. Are these the same who do in fact vote in elections?
I suggest that the difference between marches and voting is that the marchers feel that they might just make something happen, the people with power might notice their message. Non-voters have the assumption that their vote will not change anything.
The European Parliament to which we elect MEPs has little power, except to sign off the accounts, which they have refused for 12 years. Otherwise the MEPs spend their sessions in the chamber rubber stamping bills which have been prepared by unelected ministers and functionaries.
At Westminster, much has been delegated to over 1,000 quangos who run our daily lives. What remains is increasingly dictated by Brussels, or decided by the prime minister-dictator of the day and the small coterie who surround him. His whips then compel the ordinary members of the governing party to vote for the bills. They turn up for the divisions (voting times) regularly, without having taken part in the debates or even knowing much about the matter under discussion. If one party or another has a large majority in you constituency, then why bother to vote, and if they have a very small vote share, again why vote?
We might expect turnout for local elections to be better than for general elections. After all voters know immediately the effects of policies, and they live among the councillors. In fact turnout is even lower, in some places as low as 20%.
Does this threaten my thesis that voting is discouraged because it never changes anything? Not at all! So much that local councils do is determined for them by instructions and conditions which come with grants from central government. The local councils have lost much autonomy. Councillors individually have lost even more. From some idiotic laws introduced by Pie-eater Prescott, councillors must not be involved in local issues, or this will debar them from speaking or voting.
So what could be done? Voting has to have effect, or it is discouraged.
There will need to be reforms in parliament, so that MPs challenge the executive. Seats on select committees, and their chairmanships, must be by secret ballot in parliament, not by whips. Debated subjects must not be almost entirely decided by the executive. There must be free votes on this. And Brussels? Perhaps I had better not say, and try to keep my blood pressure down.
A number of other things could be done - primaries for each party, so the whole community decides who stands. There could be recalls - when an unsatisfactory MP is made to face re-election without waiting for the next general election. Why not binding referenda?
Why not wrest power away from Westminster and give much more autonomy to local government and local people?
If they feel that their vote will matter, may lead to change in the desired direction or thwart change in an undesirable direction, I can almost guarantee that more people will take interest and bother to vote. It would certainly do something about those self-important, self-seeking timid individuals on parliamentary benches as well! Quite a gain!
They were offered free iPods with which to vote, (did they actually carry through with this wheeze at great cost?), so you would not even have to leave your chair and post a freepost vote in the post box. Hazel Blears, I think, suggested free doughnuts! In the bare results of one ward which I saw, only about half the postal votes were returned by post. (Some could, I admit, have been used on the day in person.)
All this suggests the many are not motivated to vote. Should we pay them to vote? Could we use other incentives, -" participation in a large prize lottery if you vote", a discount on your rates, shopping vouchers, etc.?
Or could we use sanctions? In some countries voting is compulsory. After all, courageous men and women struggled over many years for a full adult suffrage, and it's an insult to their memory of we do not vote.
Surely a better suggestion is to inquire why so many do not vote. Is there a clue from the million who marched in protest through London in opposition to the Iraq War, or the half million who marched against the hunting ban. Are these the same who do in fact vote in elections?
I suggest that the difference between marches and voting is that the marchers feel that they might just make something happen, the people with power might notice their message. Non-voters have the assumption that their vote will not change anything.
The European Parliament to which we elect MEPs has little power, except to sign off the accounts, which they have refused for 12 years. Otherwise the MEPs spend their sessions in the chamber rubber stamping bills which have been prepared by unelected ministers and functionaries.
At Westminster, much has been delegated to over 1,000 quangos who run our daily lives. What remains is increasingly dictated by Brussels, or decided by the prime minister-dictator of the day and the small coterie who surround him. His whips then compel the ordinary members of the governing party to vote for the bills. They turn up for the divisions (voting times) regularly, without having taken part in the debates or even knowing much about the matter under discussion. If one party or another has a large majority in you constituency, then why bother to vote, and if they have a very small vote share, again why vote?
We might expect turnout for local elections to be better than for general elections. After all voters know immediately the effects of policies, and they live among the councillors. In fact turnout is even lower, in some places as low as 20%.
Does this threaten my thesis that voting is discouraged because it never changes anything? Not at all! So much that local councils do is determined for them by instructions and conditions which come with grants from central government. The local councils have lost much autonomy. Councillors individually have lost even more. From some idiotic laws introduced by Pie-eater Prescott, councillors must not be involved in local issues, or this will debar them from speaking or voting.
So what could be done? Voting has to have effect, or it is discouraged.
There will need to be reforms in parliament, so that MPs challenge the executive. Seats on select committees, and their chairmanships, must be by secret ballot in parliament, not by whips. Debated subjects must not be almost entirely decided by the executive. There must be free votes on this. And Brussels? Perhaps I had better not say, and try to keep my blood pressure down.
A number of other things could be done - primaries for each party, so the whole community decides who stands. There could be recalls - when an unsatisfactory MP is made to face re-election without waiting for the next general election. Why not binding referenda?
Why not wrest power away from Westminster and give much more autonomy to local government and local people?
If they feel that their vote will matter, may lead to change in the desired direction or thwart change in an undesirable direction, I can almost guarantee that more people will take interest and bother to vote. It would certainly do something about those self-important, self-seeking timid individuals on parliamentary benches as well! Quite a gain!
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Who doesn't want them?
Who doesn't want cuts in government spending in order to to reduce the rapidly growing mountain of government debt and restore some balance in public finances without taxing incomes to a massive extent?
G.Brown for one, but as he lies about most things we can't be sure what he really thinks, and perhaps a few of his henchmen.
Surveys of public opinion have shown that the public understand the parlous state of the finances and are willing to consider cuts in government expenditure. In fact as many as 70% are of this opinion, although some seem to to have a desire to protect health spending to some extent.
Now comes a statement from the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission, Steve Bundred, "Both political parties have pledged that whatever happens they will protect health and education. I think that's a big mistake. Health and Education are the two services that have been most generously funded over the past decade but they are among the most inefficient services."
This is remarkable in that Bundred was a Labour member of the old GLC in the 1980s, and a staunch supporter of Ken Livingstone, and he speaks for a quango which probably knows more than anyone else what waste there is in government departments. They have saved much public money, and yet they still feel that there is much to save.
The only problem is that those in charge of the services at various levels, and who have done very well financially from the Brown generosity, will react by causing evident problems before they really get to grip with the true waste.
When local councils must save money, they will close day centres , or reduce time at leisure centres, to make sacrifice apparent, before they consider reducing redundant staff, all this in support of their contention that there really is no waste in their area.
It may need to be brutal, with a freeze on staff salaries and recruitment, and a transfer to other areas. Given our predicament, there can be no sacred cows.
G.Brown for one, but as he lies about most things we can't be sure what he really thinks, and perhaps a few of his henchmen.
Surveys of public opinion have shown that the public understand the parlous state of the finances and are willing to consider cuts in government expenditure. In fact as many as 70% are of this opinion, although some seem to to have a desire to protect health spending to some extent.
Now comes a statement from the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission, Steve Bundred, "Both political parties have pledged that whatever happens they will protect health and education. I think that's a big mistake. Health and Education are the two services that have been most generously funded over the past decade but they are among the most inefficient services."
This is remarkable in that Bundred was a Labour member of the old GLC in the 1980s, and a staunch supporter of Ken Livingstone, and he speaks for a quango which probably knows more than anyone else what waste there is in government departments. They have saved much public money, and yet they still feel that there is much to save.
The only problem is that those in charge of the services at various levels, and who have done very well financially from the Brown generosity, will react by causing evident problems before they really get to grip with the true waste.
When local councils must save money, they will close day centres , or reduce time at leisure centres, to make sacrifice apparent, before they consider reducing redundant staff, all this in support of their contention that there really is no waste in their area.
It may need to be brutal, with a freeze on staff salaries and recruitment, and a transfer to other areas. Given our predicament, there can be no sacred cows.
Their number is growing
We are constantly reminded of those who suffer during this recession, - the unemployed, house owners, those dependent on their savings, etc.
We tend not to think about the NEETS. Their plight is bad and could have repercussions for years to come. NEETS are young people in the age range 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training. Their number could each one million this summer, - the highest level since records began. Among them "white" teenagers and adults are 20% more likely to be in this category than their black or Asian counterparts, largely because of a failed education system.
The number is rising because many have lost their jobs through the recession, and there are fewer job vacancies, but this year there will be about 60,000 who applied for university but were not accepted because there were limits on numbers imposed by the government.
In the first quarter of 2008 there were 810,000 NEETS, by the first quarter of 2009 this had risen to 935,000, and school leavers and failed university applicants are likely to push the figure above one million.
The government is working hard to create 100,000 jobs and apprenticeships, but this is unlikely to make much of a dent on the problem
We shall have a large pool of young, fit and energetic people with nothing to occupy their time. It is not difficult to see some of them slipping into some sort of antisocial behaviour or other crime.
It is bad enough that these resources are not used, and that the young people will lack money in their pockets. What is worse is that missed educational and training opportunities could set career plans back some years. With talk of 50% of all A level students going to university, and now capping the numbers, the government has misled and deceived students.
The recession has been with us about five quarters, and some are predicting that there will be no significant recovery for another four, and then only a slow recovery at best. If there are to be any spending areas fully or partially protected from spending cuts in the future, then this dreadful waste of young talent must be a priority.
We tend not to think about the NEETS. Their plight is bad and could have repercussions for years to come. NEETS are young people in the age range 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training. Their number could each one million this summer, - the highest level since records began. Among them "white" teenagers and adults are 20% more likely to be in this category than their black or Asian counterparts, largely because of a failed education system.
The number is rising because many have lost their jobs through the recession, and there are fewer job vacancies, but this year there will be about 60,000 who applied for university but were not accepted because there were limits on numbers imposed by the government.
In the first quarter of 2008 there were 810,000 NEETS, by the first quarter of 2009 this had risen to 935,000, and school leavers and failed university applicants are likely to push the figure above one million.
The government is working hard to create 100,000 jobs and apprenticeships, but this is unlikely to make much of a dent on the problem
We shall have a large pool of young, fit and energetic people with nothing to occupy their time. It is not difficult to see some of them slipping into some sort of antisocial behaviour or other crime.
It is bad enough that these resources are not used, and that the young people will lack money in their pockets. What is worse is that missed educational and training opportunities could set career plans back some years. With talk of 50% of all A level students going to university, and now capping the numbers, the government has misled and deceived students.
The recession has been with us about five quarters, and some are predicting that there will be no significant recovery for another four, and then only a slow recovery at best. If there are to be any spending areas fully or partially protected from spending cuts in the future, then this dreadful waste of young talent must be a priority.
Norwich v Glasgow
Why is it that the election in the former Speaker's constituency will not be held until November, when the by-election in Norwich, which became vacant two whole weeks later is to be held in July?
Does G.Brown ever really do anything which does not either benefit his party or make difficulties for the Tories?
The anomaly above about election dates is a perfect example. It is in the best interest of the Labour Party in general and G. Brown in particular.
A July election will give the Tories very little time, and perhaps there really are still a few people who believe the Brownian lies about future debt and cuts. The majority is small, and the seat expendable.
Glasgow looks like a certain loss, to the SNP, but he wants Labour to have the maximum time possible to smear and sneer their way to possible victory. He has more to lose in a Scottish defeat, and he wishes to delay it as long as possible.
In elections for councillors, a maximum of 60 days is permitted between a death or resignation before a new election must be held. Why is it different in the case of Westminster?
Does G.Brown ever really do anything which does not either benefit his party or make difficulties for the Tories?
The anomaly above about election dates is a perfect example. It is in the best interest of the Labour Party in general and G. Brown in particular.
A July election will give the Tories very little time, and perhaps there really are still a few people who believe the Brownian lies about future debt and cuts. The majority is small, and the seat expendable.
Glasgow looks like a certain loss, to the SNP, but he wants Labour to have the maximum time possible to smear and sneer their way to possible victory. He has more to lose in a Scottish defeat, and he wishes to delay it as long as possible.
In elections for councillors, a maximum of 60 days is permitted between a death or resignation before a new election must be held. Why is it different in the case of Westminster?
The reward for failure
is apparently a peerage - for Michael Martin, the first Speaker to be dragged from office for 300 years.
I think that he is a good and kindly man, - many people testify how his approach was almost paternal towards new MPs as they tried to find their way about parliament and its traditions. Both my grandfathers were kindly and good men, but I wouldn't have recommended them for a peerage.
The fact is that as a Speaker he was a flop, - biased in favour of his former colleagues on the Labour benches and even seeking to protect the PM from embarrassment. He led the attempt to cover up expenses, he gave no leadership in reform and he certainly did not stand firm for parliament against the executive. He failed in his duty in the Damien Green affair.
Ah, but don't all Speakers receive a peerage on resignation. Yes, but he was pushed out.
The truth is that he is another crony given a meal ticket and an unelected place in parliament. It is becoming something of a disgrace, and a reflection of the sad state of our democracy, that there are so many ex-party hacks, of all colours, there because of prime ministerial patronage.
Some used to complain about hereditary peers. Is the present system really any better?
It is time to elect the upper house.
I think that he is a good and kindly man, - many people testify how his approach was almost paternal towards new MPs as they tried to find their way about parliament and its traditions. Both my grandfathers were kindly and good men, but I wouldn't have recommended them for a peerage.
The fact is that as a Speaker he was a flop, - biased in favour of his former colleagues on the Labour benches and even seeking to protect the PM from embarrassment. He led the attempt to cover up expenses, he gave no leadership in reform and he certainly did not stand firm for parliament against the executive. He failed in his duty in the Damien Green affair.
Ah, but don't all Speakers receive a peerage on resignation. Yes, but he was pushed out.
The truth is that he is another crony given a meal ticket and an unelected place in parliament. It is becoming something of a disgrace, and a reflection of the sad state of our democracy, that there are so many ex-party hacks, of all colours, there because of prime ministerial patronage.
Some used to complain about hereditary peers. Is the present system really any better?
It is time to elect the upper house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
