Those given an "alcohol binge ASBO", will be able to reduce any penalty by agreeing to go an alcohol awareness course, to try to modify their behaviour.
But they must pay for the course themselves - a sum between £100 and £200.
How many do you think might elect to do this?
Neither do I!
Monday, 31 August 2009
"Off with his head""
The knee-jerk reaction by the Queen, as told by Lewis Carroll, seems to have a counterpart in NuLabour. If there's a problem, the reaction seems to be "Ban it, pass laws, attach penalties."
This, I suspect is why they have made little impact on social problems - passing laws does not deal with underlying problems.
The latest "Ban it" emerged this morning with the news that to attack the binge drinking problem, magistrates are to have the power to impose "alcohol ASBOs. Drunks may be banned from particular pubs or other drink suppliers, of from particular areas. Once an order has been imposed, there will be a hefty £2,500 fine for any infraction.
Given that fewer "ordinary" ASBOs are being applied for, as they do not work, it is nothing short of amazing that the government intends to use this approach towards drunks.
Who will do the monitoring of the bans? Will publicans and all their staff have copious "wanted" type photos of all those with a ban, which they must regularly consult? Does the system depend on pubs, off-licences, supermarkets, etc. reporting suspects to the police? Alternatively, will the hard pressed police have to schedule more late night duties by officers, and seek to cover every drinking place in a town? I can see this being popular with them.
The next stage, I suspect is to ban all drinkers in town centres, because it will be all too easy for friends of drinkers to obtain drinks for them from supermarkets, etc.? So the problem may be dispersed to "trendy" suburbs. Many of the binge drinkers buy, and consume, vast amounts of alcohol from supermarkets and consume it before setting out for hard drinking.
Much more sensible would seem to be the Scottish approach - ban all special offers, happy hours, etc. In addition, many health experts are urging the imposition of a minimum price per unit of alcohol. There would be protests from supermarkets, because it would take away some of their price advantage, but is the health of binge drinkers and the high cost to the NHS not more important than a slight reduction in supermarket profits?
This, I suspect is why they have made little impact on social problems - passing laws does not deal with underlying problems.
The latest "Ban it" emerged this morning with the news that to attack the binge drinking problem, magistrates are to have the power to impose "alcohol ASBOs. Drunks may be banned from particular pubs or other drink suppliers, of from particular areas. Once an order has been imposed, there will be a hefty £2,500 fine for any infraction.
Given that fewer "ordinary" ASBOs are being applied for, as they do not work, it is nothing short of amazing that the government intends to use this approach towards drunks.
Who will do the monitoring of the bans? Will publicans and all their staff have copious "wanted" type photos of all those with a ban, which they must regularly consult? Does the system depend on pubs, off-licences, supermarkets, etc. reporting suspects to the police? Alternatively, will the hard pressed police have to schedule more late night duties by officers, and seek to cover every drinking place in a town? I can see this being popular with them.
The next stage, I suspect is to ban all drinkers in town centres, because it will be all too easy for friends of drinkers to obtain drinks for them from supermarkets, etc.? So the problem may be dispersed to "trendy" suburbs. Many of the binge drinkers buy, and consume, vast amounts of alcohol from supermarkets and consume it before setting out for hard drinking.
Much more sensible would seem to be the Scottish approach - ban all special offers, happy hours, etc. In addition, many health experts are urging the imposition of a minimum price per unit of alcohol. There would be protests from supermarkets, because it would take away some of their price advantage, but is the health of binge drinkers and the high cost to the NHS not more important than a slight reduction in supermarket profits?
Saturday, 29 August 2009
Forces statistics
Lord Guthrie, former Chief of Defence Staff, reinforced the (withheld) findings of Bernard Gray (-wasted £35 billion in defence projects), with a stinging attack on the MOD.
"At the head of this unwieldy edifice are six ministers, each enjoying a private office and their own staff - six private empires, with their own turf to be jealously guarded. Sadly, bigger does not mean more efficient; usually quite the opposite." Mistakes are made by indecisive ministers, hordes of special advisers and a demoralised set of civil servants.
In fact there are 87,000 staff at the MOD, almost one for every 2 members of the forces. The forces are under strength, - 5,000 in total, 2,000 in the army, despite this being a very good recruitment time because of recession and unemployment. The army should amount to 101,000, but this total includes people not on the front line even if they are needed - logistics, stores, cooks, trainers, etc.
As we have seen , because of overstretch in Iraq/Afghanistan, and in many places throughout the world, the government has been denying the men on the front line not only equipment but also reinforcements.
This government is indicted on three grounds:
- It has committed too many troops in too many wars.
- It has failed to supply sufficient troops now in Afghanistan. The result is that our troops can defeat the Taliban and capture land at some personal cost, but does not have enough troops to hold on to the land, and the Taliban re-emerge and take it.
- It has failed consistently to provide our troops with personal items, - one mother is regularly sending her son clothing and socks, or with life-saving helicopters and mine detection equipment.
In a word, incompetence in the MOD is overcome only by the excellence and dedication of our troops, and failure at the MOD has led to something 1,000 casualties , or over 10% of troop0s at risk.
"At the head of this unwieldy edifice are six ministers, each enjoying a private office and their own staff - six private empires, with their own turf to be jealously guarded. Sadly, bigger does not mean more efficient; usually quite the opposite." Mistakes are made by indecisive ministers, hordes of special advisers and a demoralised set of civil servants.
In fact there are 87,000 staff at the MOD, almost one for every 2 members of the forces. The forces are under strength, - 5,000 in total, 2,000 in the army, despite this being a very good recruitment time because of recession and unemployment. The army should amount to 101,000, but this total includes people not on the front line even if they are needed - logistics, stores, cooks, trainers, etc.
As we have seen , because of overstretch in Iraq/Afghanistan, and in many places throughout the world, the government has been denying the men on the front line not only equipment but also reinforcements.
This government is indicted on three grounds:
- It has committed too many troops in too many wars.
- It has failed to supply sufficient troops now in Afghanistan. The result is that our troops can defeat the Taliban and capture land at some personal cost, but does not have enough troops to hold on to the land, and the Taliban re-emerge and take it.
- It has failed consistently to provide our troops with personal items, - one mother is regularly sending her son clothing and socks, or with life-saving helicopters and mine detection equipment.
In a word, incompetence in the MOD is overcome only by the excellence and dedication of our troops, and failure at the MOD has led to something 1,000 casualties , or over 10% of troop0s at risk.
Those horrednous stories...
I refer to the stories of appalling treatment received by thousands of (mostly elderly) NHS patients in hospital.
The vast majority of us when we visit hospital receive perfectly adequate treatment if not very good treatment. Do other countries experience these minority problems? The answer is yes, and they were mostly in countries under socialism which have now improved with the replacement of socialism.
So, while we have never had a fully socialist state here, does the NHS show some characteristics as a socialised enterprise?
In two respects, yes.
1) There is little alternative for patients, unless they are wealthy. There is little choice. The service is a monopoly with no threats against poor performance. The vast majority of nurses and doctors are unaffected by this, but the small minority, especially those resentful of being overworked and unappreciated, are.
2) Finance is limited, cut-backs are constantly been made in response to directives from Whitehall. Posts have been frozen. There are staff shortages, caused by and causing the very high periods off work which we read about recently.
There are other factors.
Many of those who experienced the poor treatment were elderly, confused, frightened and perhaps unable to plead their own cases. In addition there could be problems of incontinence, not the most attractive duties for nurses now all graduate, given increasing responsibilities, and involved in the high technology aspects of health care. Geriatric wards probably suffer from financial cutbacks and staff shortages.
There is little doubt that nurses increasingly find much of their time is used to update, log and report writing. They have to join in the unending provision of statistics to be reported to PCT and higher. In this respect they are like the police, who spend large parts of their time on admin.
There can be no doubt that if there were genuine "competition" and real choice by patients, we would have a relatively cheap way of outlawing bad treatment. Reports would be out, and doctors and patients would avoid the situations of poor care. Under-use in the departments concerned would threaten staff, or at least lead to internal review and improvement.
In no other area of life, except the BBC, again a large monopoly in many respects, would poor service not be followed by a lack of demand and a consequent need to improve. In no other area is there always a temptation to offer a"take it or leave it" service.
The vast majority of us when we visit hospital receive perfectly adequate treatment if not very good treatment. Do other countries experience these minority problems? The answer is yes, and they were mostly in countries under socialism which have now improved with the replacement of socialism.
So, while we have never had a fully socialist state here, does the NHS show some characteristics as a socialised enterprise?
In two respects, yes.
1) There is little alternative for patients, unless they are wealthy. There is little choice. The service is a monopoly with no threats against poor performance. The vast majority of nurses and doctors are unaffected by this, but the small minority, especially those resentful of being overworked and unappreciated, are.
2) Finance is limited, cut-backs are constantly been made in response to directives from Whitehall. Posts have been frozen. There are staff shortages, caused by and causing the very high periods off work which we read about recently.
There are other factors.
Many of those who experienced the poor treatment were elderly, confused, frightened and perhaps unable to plead their own cases. In addition there could be problems of incontinence, not the most attractive duties for nurses now all graduate, given increasing responsibilities, and involved in the high technology aspects of health care. Geriatric wards probably suffer from financial cutbacks and staff shortages.
There is little doubt that nurses increasingly find much of their time is used to update, log and report writing. They have to join in the unending provision of statistics to be reported to PCT and higher. In this respect they are like the police, who spend large parts of their time on admin.
There can be no doubt that if there were genuine "competition" and real choice by patients, we would have a relatively cheap way of outlawing bad treatment. Reports would be out, and doctors and patients would avoid the situations of poor care. Under-use in the departments concerned would threaten staff, or at least lead to internal review and improvement.
In no other area of life, except the BBC, again a large monopoly in many respects, would poor service not be followed by a lack of demand and a consequent need to improve. In no other area is there always a temptation to offer a"take it or leave it" service.
Friday, 28 August 2009
When are we to have a debate?
The various parties try to close down debate by dismissing any who try as two faced (-Mandelson) or peculiar (Cameron) on Hannan. There is passion and ideology here, which makes rational debate difficult.
The NHS has three major problems, true whoever is prime minister:
1) It is a free service financed out of taxation. Being free means that patients will tend to overuse or abuse the service, and financed by taxation means that it will generally be short of finance, since taxes are not popular. This problem will get worse, as the elderly part of our population grows, with all the drugs and equipment they need, and the number of working taxpayers diminishes. There will be fewer and fewer paying for more and more.
2) It is a bureaucratic monopoly of such size that it is difficult to control it from the centre. The vast army of civil servants and administrators must try to interpret the wishes of government, while the government must try to monitor some 1.4 million employees in various locations. Proposals to devolve decisions downwards will result in accusations of postcode lottery, as patient needs mean that the full range of services and facilities must be available in every location. The NHS could become even more producer dominated, rather than patient led.
3) The largest workforce in the UK, and among the largest in the world, have votes and will naturally use their democratic power to preserve their situations and resist change if they lose. We are currently witnessing the strikes in Royal Mail, and there were earlier strikes in transport. To the extent that worker power in nationalised "industries" defeats the government, more costs or burdens will be placed on other sectors which do not carry the same clout.
There may be other problems. Of those I mention, the first is the most serious and probably explains why the many complaints we have heard recently have related to older people.
Ultimately reform of the system must be made, and must answer major questions:
How can the system be made more efficient, saving funds for medicine?
Are there any services which are not strictly medical, for which a charge ought to be made? (This already happens - prescriptions, accommodation, etc.)
Currently the government both finances and supplies the health service. Why need this be the case?
Our national socialised health service is the only one in the world, outside Cuba, and is no longer "the envy of the world" in terms of outcomes. Why have other countries no less humane than us chosen to provide health services in other ways?
The NHS has three major problems, true whoever is prime minister:
1) It is a free service financed out of taxation. Being free means that patients will tend to overuse or abuse the service, and financed by taxation means that it will generally be short of finance, since taxes are not popular. This problem will get worse, as the elderly part of our population grows, with all the drugs and equipment they need, and the number of working taxpayers diminishes. There will be fewer and fewer paying for more and more.
2) It is a bureaucratic monopoly of such size that it is difficult to control it from the centre. The vast army of civil servants and administrators must try to interpret the wishes of government, while the government must try to monitor some 1.4 million employees in various locations. Proposals to devolve decisions downwards will result in accusations of postcode lottery, as patient needs mean that the full range of services and facilities must be available in every location. The NHS could become even more producer dominated, rather than patient led.
3) The largest workforce in the UK, and among the largest in the world, have votes and will naturally use their democratic power to preserve their situations and resist change if they lose. We are currently witnessing the strikes in Royal Mail, and there were earlier strikes in transport. To the extent that worker power in nationalised "industries" defeats the government, more costs or burdens will be placed on other sectors which do not carry the same clout.
There may be other problems. Of those I mention, the first is the most serious and probably explains why the many complaints we have heard recently have related to older people.
Ultimately reform of the system must be made, and must answer major questions:
How can the system be made more efficient, saving funds for medicine?
Are there any services which are not strictly medical, for which a charge ought to be made? (This already happens - prescriptions, accommodation, etc.)
Currently the government both finances and supplies the health service. Why need this be the case?
Our national socialised health service is the only one in the world, outside Cuba, and is no longer "the envy of the world" in terms of outcomes. Why have other countries no less humane than us chosen to provide health services in other ways?
Thursday, 27 August 2009
The dividing wall
Today Theresa May, shadow work and pensions minister, gave a well trailed speech to the think tank "Policy Exchange". In it she disclosed the result of work the Tories have done on unemployment during the period of NuLabour. It was based on a recent population survey, in conjunction with the results of the 2001 general census.
The findings are bleak
- nearly two million adults in Britain have never had a job.
- a further 3 million have not worked since Labour came to power Thus 5 million have been out of work for over at least 11 years.
- in the worst areas up to a quarter adults have not had a job since 1996.
She gave an illustration of a "worst area" - Newham, in East London. Here 43,850 (or about a quarter) have not worked since 1997, and 2,400 (or about 1%) have never worked in their lives.
Many of these have not appeared in unemployment statistics, because of the nature of their benefits, e.g. incapacity benefit. A recent study estimated the actual unemployment rate could be 8 or 10 million, rather than the 2,435,000 currently registered as such.
Policy Exchange itself recently estimated that six million people in Britain are living on various sorts of jobless benefit, and the cost could be as much as £193 billion now having risen from £93 billion in 1997.
The shadow minister before her address spoke of NuLabour hiding these people for over 10 years, and "building a wall between the working and the workless."
The findings are bleak
- nearly two million adults in Britain have never had a job.
- a further 3 million have not worked since Labour came to power Thus 5 million have been out of work for over at least 11 years.
- in the worst areas up to a quarter adults have not had a job since 1996.
She gave an illustration of a "worst area" - Newham, in East London. Here 43,850 (or about a quarter) have not worked since 1997, and 2,400 (or about 1%) have never worked in their lives.
Many of these have not appeared in unemployment statistics, because of the nature of their benefits, e.g. incapacity benefit. A recent study estimated the actual unemployment rate could be 8 or 10 million, rather than the 2,435,000 currently registered as such.
Policy Exchange itself recently estimated that six million people in Britain are living on various sorts of jobless benefit, and the cost could be as much as £193 billion now having risen from £93 billion in 1997.
The shadow minister before her address spoke of NuLabour hiding these people for over 10 years, and "building a wall between the working and the workless."
Smile, you're not on camera
The Metropolitan Police have confirmed recently from a large survey that CCTV cameras have made little contribution to solving crime generally, despite the large number of them. There are about 1 million cameras in London, and a further 1.8 million elsewhere.
The effectiveness in solving crime, except for some special cases, such as thefts from cars in car parks, is small, and expensive.
The cameras are installed because people feel more secure, and because local councils have a further (unnoticed) way of snooping on people. Officials can also always shrug their shoulders at failure to prosecute criminals by claiming that they did try.
The problem is that generally the images are not clear enough to enable identification to be confident, and in some cases the storage of images has failed.
The effectiveness in solving crime, except for some special cases, such as thefts from cars in car parks, is small, and expensive.
The cameras are installed because people feel more secure, and because local councils have a further (unnoticed) way of snooping on people. Officials can also always shrug their shoulders at failure to prosecute criminals by claiming that they did try.
The problem is that generally the images are not clear enough to enable identification to be confident, and in some cases the storage of images has failed.
Boys losing...
Educational statistics for a few years have suggested that boys have been overtaken and left behind by girls.
Some have suggested that changes in the nature of education, and especially examinations, was the cause.
It is now becoming apparent that the failure of boys begins within the first two years of school, and relates to basic subjects and especially reading. This is not peculiar to this country. Money has already been spent and will be spent, - books designed to appeal to boys and men encouraged into schools to act as reading role models for boys.
As with many other problems among children, there can be a lack of parental encouragement, coupled with a greater interest and access to television and video games.
Some have suggested that changes in the nature of education, and especially examinations, was the cause.
It is now becoming apparent that the failure of boys begins within the first two years of school, and relates to basic subjects and especially reading. This is not peculiar to this country. Money has already been spent and will be spent, - books designed to appeal to boys and men encouraged into schools to act as reading role models for boys.
As with many other problems among children, there can be a lack of parental encouragement, coupled with a greater interest and access to television and video games.
If they ask where were you born....?
The Tories released figures showing a worrying increase in births taking place outside proper maternity facilities.
In 2007 there were nearly 3,500 such cases, but in 2008 the figure had risen to nearly 4,000, a large increase.
There were over the two years 2,997 unintended births at home, which may reflect miscalculation by parents, or traffic delays by medical staff or ambulances. A further 63 happened in ambulances and 608 during other journeys to hospital, and 10 in hospital car parks.
These account for roughly half of all cases, and for understandable causes. It is the others which raise concern.
- 117 were in A & E departments, and 4 in other minor injury units.
-115 were in other departments in hospitals
- 3 were born in corridors
- 33 were born in unspecified areas of hospitals. including lifts, toilets or offices.
While the large number born at home or in transit is understandable, if not acceptable, it is the above 168 which do cause concern, plus the 399 which took place in maternity units, but not in labour wards. They were in post-natal and pre-natal wards and reception areas.
These concerns about the suitability are the distress caused to parents, the lack of equipment, and above all the overload they suggest.
The Royal College of Midwives admit that the service is under considerable stretch, and staff are having to work harder and harder. There is, the college claims, a shortage of 5,000 midwives. The NHS, and beyond it the government, must accept responsibility for this situation. The service is underfunded and in many places at breaking point.
In 2007 there were nearly 3,500 such cases, but in 2008 the figure had risen to nearly 4,000, a large increase.
There were over the two years 2,997 unintended births at home, which may reflect miscalculation by parents, or traffic delays by medical staff or ambulances. A further 63 happened in ambulances and 608 during other journeys to hospital, and 10 in hospital car parks.
These account for roughly half of all cases, and for understandable causes. It is the others which raise concern.
- 117 were in A & E departments, and 4 in other minor injury units.
-115 were in other departments in hospitals
- 3 were born in corridors
- 33 were born in unspecified areas of hospitals. including lifts, toilets or offices.
While the large number born at home or in transit is understandable, if not acceptable, it is the above 168 which do cause concern, plus the 399 which took place in maternity units, but not in labour wards. They were in post-natal and pre-natal wards and reception areas.
These concerns about the suitability are the distress caused to parents, the lack of equipment, and above all the overload they suggest.
The Royal College of Midwives admit that the service is under considerable stretch, and staff are having to work harder and harder. There is, the college claims, a shortage of 5,000 midwives. The NHS, and beyond it the government, must accept responsibility for this situation. The service is underfunded and in many places at breaking point.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Game keepers become poachers
Last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph revealed a picture of cronyism and waste in the NHS.
The Health Service makes frequent and regular use of consultants, especially in areas like IT management and technology. Some of the consultants are paid up to £2,000 per day.
The figures run to many millions, for instance 111 consulting contracts in 2007-08 cost £132 million. In the three years from 2005-06 the department and its agencies for IT and Purchasing and Supply spent £470 million on management consultants.
The situation is more worrying, given the number of Labour peers, former civil servants and even former ministers who are in the employ of many of the companies involved. Some have spoken of an ever faster revolving door between government and its favourite consultants.
Some are unashamedly lobbying companies, although former officials and MPs are forbidden to be involved for a few months after yielding their positions.
Many doctors and nurses, observing what is going on and the waste involved, tend to estimate what the cost is to NHS patients, - 60,000 hip operations or annual salaries of 22,000 nurses.
At the moment hospitals collectively have been told to plan for £15 billion of efficiency savings. It is to be hoped that the department and ministry also constrain themselves as never before.
The Health Service makes frequent and regular use of consultants, especially in areas like IT management and technology. Some of the consultants are paid up to £2,000 per day.
The figures run to many millions, for instance 111 consulting contracts in 2007-08 cost £132 million. In the three years from 2005-06 the department and its agencies for IT and Purchasing and Supply spent £470 million on management consultants.
The situation is more worrying, given the number of Labour peers, former civil servants and even former ministers who are in the employ of many of the companies involved. Some have spoken of an ever faster revolving door between government and its favourite consultants.
Some are unashamedly lobbying companies, although former officials and MPs are forbidden to be involved for a few months after yielding their positions.
Many doctors and nurses, observing what is going on and the waste involved, tend to estimate what the cost is to NHS patients, - 60,000 hip operations or annual salaries of 22,000 nurses.
At the moment hospitals collectively have been told to plan for £15 billion of efficiency savings. It is to be hoped that the department and ministry also constrain themselves as never before.
Another piece of evidence
That A level standards are being reduced, largely for ideological reasons, few people doubt. Only the die hard egalitarians who are determined to pretend that all people have equal academic or intellectual gifts believe otherwise now, I suspect. (It's strange that they do not pretend that all have equal artistic, musical or athletic abilities - inequalities here have long since bee recognised.)
The recent evidence came in the fact that students who receive a grade A at 'A'-level in Mathematics are not all equally capable when it come to passing the Cambridge University entrance exam in the subject. In fact a third fail.
Mathematics has shown the most rapid increase in grades and apparent achievement in the NuLabour period. In 1999 28.3% of candidates achieved a grade A pass. By 2009 the figure was 45%. It might be possible to think of reasons other than "dumbing down", for example students unsuited to choose the subject are more efficiently filtered out to other subjects now.
Given the poor performance of pupils in mathematics at key stages, which is not improving, it is difficult to see how they could suddenly become so much better at age 18. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion reported by academics in other more objective subjects, that there has been a reduction in expected quality at all the various grade levels.
The recent evidence came in the fact that students who receive a grade A at 'A'-level in Mathematics are not all equally capable when it come to passing the Cambridge University entrance exam in the subject. In fact a third fail.
Mathematics has shown the most rapid increase in grades and apparent achievement in the NuLabour period. In 1999 28.3% of candidates achieved a grade A pass. By 2009 the figure was 45%. It might be possible to think of reasons other than "dumbing down", for example students unsuited to choose the subject are more efficiently filtered out to other subjects now.
Given the poor performance of pupils in mathematics at key stages, which is not improving, it is difficult to see how they could suddenly become so much better at age 18. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion reported by academics in other more objective subjects, that there has been a reduction in expected quality at all the various grade levels.
Fairness or loss of language capacity?
An article in the Daily Mail on Monday last reported that some quangos are imposing changes on the use of phrases by staff, on the grounds that some expressions might find them offensive.
So, for instance "right hand man" must be replaced by second in command. Since both have been used for many years, and convey different senses, the former suggests reliability the latter formal relationship, the change will cause a loss in the precision of language.
I can understand that "master bedroom" might offend, and it has a perfect replacement in "main bedroom", but I suggest that "master your brief" is inadequately replaced by "perfect your brief" and "master plan" by "comprehensive plan" loses something in translation.
In the same way "gentleman's agreement" loses connotations when translated as "unwritten agreement" or "agreement based on trust", as both elements and others are included in the original phrase.
Many of the offending phrases have their origins in the mists of time, but to replace them with a less than adequate and matter-of-fact modern translation really does make our language poorer for it. It also suggests that political correctness brigade have too much time on their hands.
So, for instance "right hand man" must be replaced by second in command. Since both have been used for many years, and convey different senses, the former suggests reliability the latter formal relationship, the change will cause a loss in the precision of language.
I can understand that "master bedroom" might offend, and it has a perfect replacement in "main bedroom", but I suggest that "master your brief" is inadequately replaced by "perfect your brief" and "master plan" by "comprehensive plan" loses something in translation.
In the same way "gentleman's agreement" loses connotations when translated as "unwritten agreement" or "agreement based on trust", as both elements and others are included in the original phrase.
Many of the offending phrases have their origins in the mists of time, but to replace them with a less than adequate and matter-of-fact modern translation really does make our language poorer for it. It also suggests that political correctness brigade have too much time on their hands.
One law for some....
Damien Green M.P. has recently revealed that his name and DNA sample have been removed from the national Police database. He, of course, is a political figure in a party which could next year have considerable political clout.
He admitted that it was a small victory, but that there are still 850,00 records and thus a fair proportion of the 5.2% of all individuals whose records are on the database, which ought not to be there. This large group of people have never been convicted or even tried. This, despite a ruling from Europe that it is illegal.
Some of these people whose records are on the database are perhaps unaware of the fact, as they know they have no criminal record. Among them is also the civil servant who leaked to Damien Green the facts which the government was trying to cover up.
There is thus another affront here - that some people are less important, or have no powerful support, are are fighting a lone and unavailing battle to persuade the government to do what it has a legal duty to do.
He admitted that it was a small victory, but that there are still 850,00 records and thus a fair proportion of the 5.2% of all individuals whose records are on the database, which ought not to be there. This large group of people have never been convicted or even tried. This, despite a ruling from Europe that it is illegal.
Some of these people whose records are on the database are perhaps unaware of the fact, as they know they have no criminal record. Among them is also the civil servant who leaked to Damien Green the facts which the government was trying to cover up.
There is thus another affront here - that some people are less important, or have no powerful support, are are fighting a lone and unavailing battle to persuade the government to do what it has a legal duty to do.
Monday, 24 August 2009
The two nations
Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, has reported on his investigation into the higher incidence of crime committed against poorer people. He draws the conclusion that NuLabour has failed the very people it claimed to be wanting to help most.
-unemployed people are twice as likely to be a victim of crime than the average person (in 2008/9 7.6% of unemployed were victims, compared to 3.2% for all adults.
- those who have never worked or are long-term unemployed are more at risk of violence than someone in a professional occupation.
-households with lowest incomes (under £10,000) at most at risk of violence
-people living in the 20 percent most deprived areas in England are more at risk (4.5%) than those living in the 20 percent least deprived areas (2.2%)
From elsewhere we know that the poor, as defined by those on the left, i.e. with income less than 60% of median income, are becoming more numerous. Children growing up there are less likely to succeed educationally, even at a low level of achievement, and they like their parents are more likely to become living permanently on benefit.
Blair was prophetic in 2001 "When a culture is allowed to grow outside society's mainstream - alienated, with no hope, a culture of broken homes, truancy, poor education, drugs, no job, or dead jobs.....when we sow the seeds of such a culture, we should not be surprised at the harvest we reap." He at least saw the cause.
At the Labour Party Conference in 2008, G. Brown die not appear to see the cause of the problem, and merely waffled, "People feel their communities are changing before their eyes and it's increasing their anxiety about crime and anti-social behaviour. And so we will the be the party of law and order." He probably doesn't speak to Blair. He ought to have a word with Ian Duncan Smith or Chris Grayling.
-unemployed people are twice as likely to be a victim of crime than the average person (in 2008/9 7.6% of unemployed were victims, compared to 3.2% for all adults.
- those who have never worked or are long-term unemployed are more at risk of violence than someone in a professional occupation.
-households with lowest incomes (under £10,000) at most at risk of violence
-people living in the 20 percent most deprived areas in England are more at risk (4.5%) than those living in the 20 percent least deprived areas (2.2%)
From elsewhere we know that the poor, as defined by those on the left, i.e. with income less than 60% of median income, are becoming more numerous. Children growing up there are less likely to succeed educationally, even at a low level of achievement, and they like their parents are more likely to become living permanently on benefit.
Blair was prophetic in 2001 "When a culture is allowed to grow outside society's mainstream - alienated, with no hope, a culture of broken homes, truancy, poor education, drugs, no job, or dead jobs.....when we sow the seeds of such a culture, we should not be surprised at the harvest we reap." He at least saw the cause.
At the Labour Party Conference in 2008, G. Brown die not appear to see the cause of the problem, and merely waffled, "People feel their communities are changing before their eyes and it's increasing their anxiety about crime and anti-social behaviour. And so we will the be the party of law and order." He probably doesn't speak to Blair. He ought to have a word with Ian Duncan Smith or Chris Grayling.
The truth will out
- thanks to leakers and whistleblowers.
The report by Bernard Gray, former adviser to Labour defence ministers, makes devastating conclusions. The main one is that the incompetence of the MOD is harming and will continue to harm our current military operations. With friends like these at home, who needs enemies?
It is a story of delay and vast cost overrun. His words were, "£35 billion over budget and five years behind schedule, and could not be afforded in the long run." "How can it be that it takes 20 years to buy a ship,or aircraft, or tank? Why does it always seem to cost at least twice what was thought? Even worse, at the end of the wait, why does it never quite seem to do what it was supposed to do?"
The report, which was leaked to the Sunday Times, has been downgraded by the MOD as a draft, and will be edited and included in a forthcoming Green Paper on defence to be published next year and lead to a full-scale strategic defence review after the general election. The report itself will be published in due course.
The words "long grass" come to mind. Such a serious revelation ought to be changing procurement policy immediately, and thus saving the lives of some of our troops, but clearly (Labour) political considerations are more important.
The report by Bernard Gray, former adviser to Labour defence ministers, makes devastating conclusions. The main one is that the incompetence of the MOD is harming and will continue to harm our current military operations. With friends like these at home, who needs enemies?
It is a story of delay and vast cost overrun. His words were, "£35 billion over budget and five years behind schedule, and could not be afforded in the long run." "How can it be that it takes 20 years to buy a ship,or aircraft, or tank? Why does it always seem to cost at least twice what was thought? Even worse, at the end of the wait, why does it never quite seem to do what it was supposed to do?"
The report, which was leaked to the Sunday Times, has been downgraded by the MOD as a draft, and will be edited and included in a forthcoming Green Paper on defence to be published next year and lead to a full-scale strategic defence review after the general election. The report itself will be published in due course.
The words "long grass" come to mind. Such a serious revelation ought to be changing procurement policy immediately, and thus saving the lives of some of our troops, but clearly (Labour) political considerations are more important.
Friday, 21 August 2009
The PFI cloud
Private Finance Initiatives, the means whereby since 1997 hospitals and other infrastructure has been built on a "use-now-pay-later basis", have multiplied. About 100 PCTs are operating such schemes. The project is financed by private construction, and then leased back to the public sector for a specified number of years before the construction cost isrepaid by the PCT or other user.
The point was to have the "immediate" use when there was no finance to build, or there was a wish to keep it off the public accounts.
By the end of the present financial year, about £5 billion of the £60 billion PFI used by the NHS will have been repaid. During the next spending review period , 2011-2014 a further £4.18 billion is due to be repaid, meaning about £1 billion more annual repayments than hitherto. Bearing in mind that the total spending on the NHS is about £100 billion, and is likely to be frozen despite the mounting needs, the extra PFI payments will constitute a very heavy extra burden.
The NHS told the Treasury recently that the value of the buildings is about £12 billion, or only one fifth of the debt. PFI projects also have higher running costs, about 30%, than other similar schemes financed traditionally.
In at least one area, in South London and Kent, where four hospitals are facing debts the one to be closed will be the only one, in Sidcup, which is not PFI. The reason is that the other three are PFI financed and have little scope to cut fixed costs.
PFI has brought on stream more hospitals than would otherwise havebeen possible, and benefited the present generation, but at a great cost in the remaining years of the leasing contracts. Those who will lose out are those who are at need in the present and immediately following medium term, when services are cut back.
The point was to have the "immediate" use when there was no finance to build, or there was a wish to keep it off the public accounts.
By the end of the present financial year, about £5 billion of the £60 billion PFI used by the NHS will have been repaid. During the next spending review period , 2011-2014 a further £4.18 billion is due to be repaid, meaning about £1 billion more annual repayments than hitherto. Bearing in mind that the total spending on the NHS is about £100 billion, and is likely to be frozen despite the mounting needs, the extra PFI payments will constitute a very heavy extra burden.
The NHS told the Treasury recently that the value of the buildings is about £12 billion, or only one fifth of the debt. PFI projects also have higher running costs, about 30%, than other similar schemes financed traditionally.
In at least one area, in South London and Kent, where four hospitals are facing debts the one to be closed will be the only one, in Sidcup, which is not PFI. The reason is that the other three are PFI financed and have little scope to cut fixed costs.
PFI has brought on stream more hospitals than would otherwise havebeen possible, and benefited the present generation, but at a great cost in the remaining years of the leasing contracts. Those who will lose out are those who are at need in the present and immediately following medium term, when services are cut back.
ASBOs - going without lamentation
The end may be sight for ASBOs, the "penalty" imposed on young people after being found guilty of anti-social behaviour.
Fewer orders are being issued - 2005 - 4,122, 2006 - 2,705, 2007 - 2,299. This is almost certainly not because young people are behaving more responsibly. It may indicate a loss of confidence in them by legal and law enforcement agencies.
In some cases offenders are waiting up to two years to be served with the orders, as police and administration grinds on. In the meantime, behaviour is unlikely to be restrained.
Those who who do receive orders are increasingly breaking the orders. In some parts of the country it is as much as 8 out of 10 offenders, and on average across the whole country each offender breaks his order four times. Between 2006 and 2007 the proportion of adults breaking orders rose from 50% to 54%, and of juveniles from 61% to 64%.
In the early years the comment was made that some juvenile offenders even saw the orders as "badges of honour", conferring street credibility and approval among peers.
Fewer orders are being issued - 2005 - 4,122, 2006 - 2,705, 2007 - 2,299. This is almost certainly not because young people are behaving more responsibly. It may indicate a loss of confidence in them by legal and law enforcement agencies.
In some cases offenders are waiting up to two years to be served with the orders, as police and administration grinds on. In the meantime, behaviour is unlikely to be restrained.
Those who who do receive orders are increasingly breaking the orders. In some parts of the country it is as much as 8 out of 10 offenders, and on average across the whole country each offender breaks his order four times. Between 2006 and 2007 the proportion of adults breaking orders rose from 50% to 54%, and of juveniles from 61% to 64%.
In the early years the comment was made that some juvenile offenders even saw the orders as "badges of honour", conferring street credibility and approval among peers.
Put the MOD on the front line!
The MOD has finally woken up to the fact that there are insufficient fully armoured vehicles, and insufficient helicopters to be used instead to ferry troops about safely. They also seem to have taken on board, (after how many troops killed by IEDs?), that it is better to invest in surveillance equipment to detect Taliban movement and bomb laying, to prevent explosions.
But the word is that they have decided to buy a drone called Watchkeeper.
Their coming up to date, belatedly, is thus undone by buying a machine which will be delayed in availability and will not carry any munitions, rather than the cheaper, more quickly available Reaper, which the Taliban have come to fear.
We are already using one of the US Reapers, launched by our troops in their part of Helmand, but then taken over in flight by Americans thousands of miles away!
There is one thing you can say for the MOD - they are consistent in lateness and incompetence.
But the word is that they have decided to buy a drone called Watchkeeper.
Their coming up to date, belatedly, is thus undone by buying a machine which will be delayed in availability and will not carry any munitions, rather than the cheaper, more quickly available Reaper, which the Taliban have come to fear.
We are already using one of the US Reapers, launched by our troops in their part of Helmand, but then taken over in flight by Americans thousands of miles away!
There is one thing you can say for the MOD - they are consistent in lateness and incompetence.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Alzheimer's is a medical problem
The family of a lady in Worcester, required to sell her house and pay her care fees when Alzheimer's disease required her to be admitted to a nursing home, have set a large problem for the NHS.
The family appealed to the Health Service Ombudsman, and the latter agreed that the original decision of the NHS Trust involved was wrong. They had said that it was a social problem rather than a medical one, and for five years until she died the family paid £130,000. They wrote many letters asking the PCT to reassess her situation, but without avail.
Elderly people must pay for their residential care unless their needs are deemed to be health-related, that is not merely aged related infirmity. Even if bed-ridden, as the lady in Worcester was, and requiring 24 hour care, no financial help is available from the NHS.
The case has enormous ramifications for financing the NHS. Although other trusts may have interpreted the government guidelines in the same way as the Ombudsman, many under financial pressure have given the same assessment as Worcester. There are thus perhaps hundreds of Alzheimer patients and families who will now press their cases, with the result that the NHS nationally may have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even millions, in financing care and making back payments.
The family appealed to the Health Service Ombudsman, and the latter agreed that the original decision of the NHS Trust involved was wrong. They had said that it was a social problem rather than a medical one, and for five years until she died the family paid £130,000. They wrote many letters asking the PCT to reassess her situation, but without avail.
Elderly people must pay for their residential care unless their needs are deemed to be health-related, that is not merely aged related infirmity. Even if bed-ridden, as the lady in Worcester was, and requiring 24 hour care, no financial help is available from the NHS.
The case has enormous ramifications for financing the NHS. Although other trusts may have interpreted the government guidelines in the same way as the Ombudsman, many under financial pressure have given the same assessment as Worcester. There are thus perhaps hundreds of Alzheimer patients and families who will now press their cases, with the result that the NHS nationally may have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even millions, in financing care and making back payments.
Let's all be beastly to the bankers
What have our leaders got against bankers? It seems that bankers are to be singled out for salary restrictions? Leaving aside footballers, who at the top level are paid obscene amounts, and pop stars, why do the critics single out bankers? Why not senior civil servants who receive annual bonuses despite poor performance in their departments, and why not senior staff at the BBC? Both these groups are paid directly by the tax payer!
This morning I even heard the Chancellor expressing concern to Evan Davies about the bonuses because the bankers brought about the recession! There may be an element of truth in this, but governments are equally to blame - President Clinton ended the Glass-Steagall amendment after 60 years and enabled the confusion of different sorts of banking. He also pushed lenders hard to grant mortgages to lower income groups who could not afford them, - the impetus to the development of junk paper which brought down the system. And why not blame the almighty regulators who took their eyes off the ball? It was obvious that by borrowing from the market to make loans, - borrowing short to lend long, was extremely risky.
In our own country G.Brown built up a debt mountain in both the public and private sectors which has had a profound impact on our economy.
Ah, but they, the bankers, bought the junk paper greedily. That's true, they ought to have shown more diligence, but neither shareholders nor regulators seemed to notice their carelessness.
Having studied annual company reports over many years, it used to surprise how much space was devoted to remuneration. I quickly saw that directors, in league with institutional shareholders, were paying themselves too much - in all sorts of companies. There is a strong case to make all directors more answerable to shareholders, but why single out the bankers?
What will be the result of any clamp down, by Brown/Darling or by Osborne?
1) Loss of staff and expertise to other countries where returns are higher
2) Payments in other ways - banks paying for goodies such as personal pensions, cars and petrol, use of bank's helicopter or aeroplane, holidays overseas in bank-owned apartments, etc, etc.
1) and 2) are obviously connected, and represent two answers to the same problem.
This morning I even heard the Chancellor expressing concern to Evan Davies about the bonuses because the bankers brought about the recession! There may be an element of truth in this, but governments are equally to blame - President Clinton ended the Glass-Steagall amendment after 60 years and enabled the confusion of different sorts of banking. He also pushed lenders hard to grant mortgages to lower income groups who could not afford them, - the impetus to the development of junk paper which brought down the system. And why not blame the almighty regulators who took their eyes off the ball? It was obvious that by borrowing from the market to make loans, - borrowing short to lend long, was extremely risky.
In our own country G.Brown built up a debt mountain in both the public and private sectors which has had a profound impact on our economy.
Ah, but they, the bankers, bought the junk paper greedily. That's true, they ought to have shown more diligence, but neither shareholders nor regulators seemed to notice their carelessness.
Having studied annual company reports over many years, it used to surprise how much space was devoted to remuneration. I quickly saw that directors, in league with institutional shareholders, were paying themselves too much - in all sorts of companies. There is a strong case to make all directors more answerable to shareholders, but why single out the bankers?
What will be the result of any clamp down, by Brown/Darling or by Osborne?
1) Loss of staff and expertise to other countries where returns are higher
2) Payments in other ways - banks paying for goodies such as personal pensions, cars and petrol, use of bank's helicopter or aeroplane, holidays overseas in bank-owned apartments, etc, etc.
1) and 2) are obviously connected, and represent two answers to the same problem.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
The pattern of 'A' levels.
I have mentioned before that university admissions boards are growing concerned at the number of "easier" A levels taken by students because grades helped the overall school's result. The universities look more kindly at the conceptually more demanding subjects because they provide a better foundation for undergraduate study.
Cambridge University Examinations Board has recently shown that subjects attempted by students seem to be a reflection of the student gender, ethnicity, social class and type of school attended. They surveyed almost 6,000 A level students.
"Non-white" applicants were 20 times more likely to have studied accountancy, and twice as likely to have studied maths, economics and chemistry.
Of pupils in fee-paying schools 40 percent took courses in maths, compared with only 22 percent in state comprehensives.
Recently announced intentions by the Tories, to encourage the more important core subjects, as a better foundation for university, have produced the not unexpected criticisms from those on the left, of elitism and false distinctions between subjects. But on this issue the Tories have taken the hint from universities, that an A level in Dance, Catering or Film Studies while being challenging does not provide a very good basis from which to launch on a degree course.
Cambridge University Examinations Board has recently shown that subjects attempted by students seem to be a reflection of the student gender, ethnicity, social class and type of school attended. They surveyed almost 6,000 A level students.
"Non-white" applicants were 20 times more likely to have studied accountancy, and twice as likely to have studied maths, economics and chemistry.
Of pupils in fee-paying schools 40 percent took courses in maths, compared with only 22 percent in state comprehensives.
Recently announced intentions by the Tories, to encourage the more important core subjects, as a better foundation for university, have produced the not unexpected criticisms from those on the left, of elitism and false distinctions between subjects. But on this issue the Tories have taken the hint from universities, that an A level in Dance, Catering or Film Studies while being challenging does not provide a very good basis from which to launch on a degree course.
The last year to relax in Europe?
The EU is tightening up on the powers which may be exerted through a European arrest warrant, to be extended next year when the UK and other members have signed up.
The number of such warrants served on UK visitors to mainland Europe in 2007 was 504, but the Home Office forecast that from next April the number could rise from anywhere between 1,000 and 1,700.
Don't imagine that you are safe because any misdemeanours are small. A Briton, who stole a chicken in a drunken prank while in Eastern Europe, was arrested here and sent back there although he had returned the chicken.
Under the agreement the UK has no choice but to extradite any citizen arrested here on a warrant issued anywhere in the EU, without any forms justifying the arrest. Furthermore the trials could be in foreign languages, and to standards which we would find unacceptable in this country.
The moral seems to be, "Behave yourself, and don't give them any excuse."
The number of such warrants served on UK visitors to mainland Europe in 2007 was 504, but the Home Office forecast that from next April the number could rise from anywhere between 1,000 and 1,700.
Don't imagine that you are safe because any misdemeanours are small. A Briton, who stole a chicken in a drunken prank while in Eastern Europe, was arrested here and sent back there although he had returned the chicken.
Under the agreement the UK has no choice but to extradite any citizen arrested here on a warrant issued anywhere in the EU, without any forms justifying the arrest. Furthermore the trials could be in foreign languages, and to standards which we would find unacceptable in this country.
The moral seems to be, "Behave yourself, and don't give them any excuse."
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
The uninsured
From the Obama rhetoric it is easy to envisage 48 million people dying at home, because they have no health insurance, and because the old die and are not in work to pay insurance we assume that most are old.
There is an article today on The Adam Smith Institute site by Steve Bettison which corrects this. He uses data from the US Census Office, but because of the number of citizens we are still awaiting the 2008 survey, so it is anyone's guess what the exact current situation as a result of the recession.
About 47 million, or 15% of the total population were uninsured.
Of these approaching 10 million were people who were not US citizens but foreigners.
A further 32 million were in households earning at least $25,000 (of whom over 9 million were earning over $75,000) $25,000 should have enabled sufficient insurance.
So we are looking at perhaps 4 million actual US citizens who were not earning sufficient income to take out insurance, at most 1.5 % of the population.
In age terms there were 686,000 over the age of 65 who were uninsured. There were also over 18 million aged 18-34, who could expect to be at low risk of illness and therefore choose not to take out insurance.
So our assumption that it is mostly the unwaged elderly who are insured, is not really accurate. The picture is much more complex, and to talk of 46 million for whom "we must make arrangements" could be very misleading.
There is an article today on The Adam Smith Institute site by Steve Bettison which corrects this. He uses data from the US Census Office, but because of the number of citizens we are still awaiting the 2008 survey, so it is anyone's guess what the exact current situation as a result of the recession.
About 47 million, or 15% of the total population were uninsured.
Of these approaching 10 million were people who were not US citizens but foreigners.
A further 32 million were in households earning at least $25,000 (of whom over 9 million were earning over $75,000) $25,000 should have enabled sufficient insurance.
So we are looking at perhaps 4 million actual US citizens who were not earning sufficient income to take out insurance, at most 1.5 % of the population.
In age terms there were 686,000 over the age of 65 who were uninsured. There were also over 18 million aged 18-34, who could expect to be at low risk of illness and therefore choose not to take out insurance.
So our assumption that it is mostly the unwaged elderly who are insured, is not really accurate. The picture is much more complex, and to talk of 46 million for whom "we must make arrangements" could be very misleading.
Don't use the word 'academic'
The Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University recently published a report on courses to train graduate teachers. This was based on data collected by the Training and Development Agency for Schools in 2007/08.
Two areas of concern were noted.
In the case of courses admitting students to a B.A. in Education, i.e. not a postgraduate teaching qualification for graduates from specialist courses but a degree course offering subject education and a teaching qualification together, those wishing to teach science at secondary level frequently lacked the normal entry qualification of two subjects at 'A' level.
In fact of these intending science teachers less than a third had two 'A' levels.
In the case of specialist graduates who wish to take a postgraduate teaching qualification, there was a marked difference between degree levels of those who wished to teach "unpopular" subjects, such as maths and foreign languages, reflecting the fact that education colleges find it difficult to recruit graduates with good awards (1st class, or upper second - fewer than half of their recruits had these levels. Of those with the 'good' awards only two thirds actually went into teaching when they finished the course.) In he case of intending history teachers 80% had decent awards and the same percentage actually went into teaching afterwards.
The consequence of all this is that in some subjects, maths science and foreign languages for instance, the 'quality' of future teachers as judged by their own qualifications is low and rejection of the profession is high. This may reflect shortages and rewards elsewhere.
Whatever the cause, there must be concern over these findings, about the quality of impotant teaching areas in the future.
Two areas of concern were noted.
In the case of courses admitting students to a B.A. in Education, i.e. not a postgraduate teaching qualification for graduates from specialist courses but a degree course offering subject education and a teaching qualification together, those wishing to teach science at secondary level frequently lacked the normal entry qualification of two subjects at 'A' level.
In fact of these intending science teachers less than a third had two 'A' levels.
In the case of specialist graduates who wish to take a postgraduate teaching qualification, there was a marked difference between degree levels of those who wished to teach "unpopular" subjects, such as maths and foreign languages, reflecting the fact that education colleges find it difficult to recruit graduates with good awards (1st class, or upper second - fewer than half of their recruits had these levels. Of those with the 'good' awards only two thirds actually went into teaching when they finished the course.) In he case of intending history teachers 80% had decent awards and the same percentage actually went into teaching afterwards.
The consequence of all this is that in some subjects, maths science and foreign languages for instance, the 'quality' of future teachers as judged by their own qualifications is low and rejection of the profession is high. This may reflect shortages and rewards elsewhere.
Whatever the cause, there must be concern over these findings, about the quality of impotant teaching areas in the future.
What passes for democracy
Richard Littlejohn, in today's Daily Mail as a humourous, sometime scurrilous, article on Lord Mandelson. It is worth reading to see the reinstatement of offender, and restoration of favour.
As a sample Littlejohn summarises,
"It is simply accepted as perfectly natural that an unelected recidivist, twice forced to resign from government in disgrace, should be parachuted into the House of Lords by an unelected, utterly discredited Prime Minister and proclaimed 'the most powerful man in Britain'".
It fits in with a party which issues a communication allowance to enable Labour MPs to try to save their seat, which restricts FE building to colleges in labour marginals, and which regularly uses opublic money to buy votes (- hence the burrying of the report on public money to Longbridge.)
There may be some sort of distorted version of democracy here, but if so, I fail to see it.
As a sample Littlejohn summarises,
"It is simply accepted as perfectly natural that an unelected recidivist, twice forced to resign from government in disgrace, should be parachuted into the House of Lords by an unelected, utterly discredited Prime Minister and proclaimed 'the most powerful man in Britain'".
It fits in with a party which issues a communication allowance to enable Labour MPs to try to save their seat, which restricts FE building to colleges in labour marginals, and which regularly uses opublic money to buy votes (- hence the burrying of the report on public money to Longbridge.)
There may be some sort of distorted version of democracy here, but if so, I fail to see it.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Postscript
An additional note to my posting on medication for cancer patients - from The Rarer Cancers Forum.
They have discovered that over the past 3 years 1,000 cancer patients have been refused drugs because the medication was not licensed for their disease. These are generally rarer forms of cancer.
Patients and their doctors can appeal, but one in three is turned down.
The consequence is that patients can pay for the drugs themselves. This is very generous of the NHS when these patients have been paying national insurance for many years, and in some cases this is the first big claim.
In France patients are 55% more likely to get theses drugs.
"Free for all, free at the point of need" I wonder if they would like to rephrase this. It is a free-for-all, and those who can pay survive longer, those who can't - hard luck!
They have discovered that over the past 3 years 1,000 cancer patients have been refused drugs because the medication was not licensed for their disease. These are generally rarer forms of cancer.
Patients and their doctors can appeal, but one in three is turned down.
The consequence is that patients can pay for the drugs themselves. This is very generous of the NHS when these patients have been paying national insurance for many years, and in some cases this is the first big claim.
In France patients are 55% more likely to get theses drugs.
"Free for all, free at the point of need" I wonder if they would like to rephrase this. It is a free-for-all, and those who can pay survive longer, those who can't - hard luck!
The lottery
Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph revealed the results of much research on spending on cancer treatment across different Primary Care Trusts. The data, from NHS records, analysed differences between 150 PCTs.
The results are nothing short of astounding. The highest spending PCT identified was Tower Hamlets, a relatively poor area in East London, which spent £14,295 on average on each cancer patient. The lowest spending PCT was East Leicestershire and Rutland with £4,989. Without listing all the highest and all the lowest spenders, from the list it is clear that spending is higher in metropolitan or large urban areas, and lower in rural areas. (Does this reflect a difference in funding which favours certain areas, or does it reflect a difference in patient campaigning?)
Within individual PCTs there is also, according to the Sunday Telegraph report, a large difference in outcomes between patients who are given certain cancer drugs and those who are refused.
In the case of University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust the Telegraph compared the fate of 40 patients who were given the drugs Sutent and Nexavar for kidney cancer, with 40 from whom it was withheld. Those given the drug survived on average 22 months, while those from whom it was withheld survived 7 months.
In the recent debate about the future of the NHS, whatever else is true, it is not true that all receive the same treatment for cancer. There is a post code lottery!
The results are nothing short of astounding. The highest spending PCT identified was Tower Hamlets, a relatively poor area in East London, which spent £14,295 on average on each cancer patient. The lowest spending PCT was East Leicestershire and Rutland with £4,989. Without listing all the highest and all the lowest spenders, from the list it is clear that spending is higher in metropolitan or large urban areas, and lower in rural areas. (Does this reflect a difference in funding which favours certain areas, or does it reflect a difference in patient campaigning?)
Within individual PCTs there is also, according to the Sunday Telegraph report, a large difference in outcomes between patients who are given certain cancer drugs and those who are refused.
In the case of University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust the Telegraph compared the fate of 40 patients who were given the drugs Sutent and Nexavar for kidney cancer, with 40 from whom it was withheld. Those given the drug survived on average 22 months, while those from whom it was withheld survived 7 months.
In the recent debate about the future of the NHS, whatever else is true, it is not true that all receive the same treatment for cancer. There is a post code lottery!
Easier, but.....
Sixth formers in comprehensive schools are turning against physics as a subject to study at A level, and turning to Media Studies.
In 1997 in state comprehensives, 3,000 studied Media Studies. In 2009 the number had risen to 12,000. Over the same period the number studying Physics has dropped from 12,126 to 10,118, having reached 9,916 om 2005.
Does this matter, after all the more you enjoy a subject, the easier you will be able to discipline yourself in study, and shouldn't you choose the subjects you find easiest?
This is true, but many of the better universities regard such an A level as a poor preparation for an academic course at university. (Unless, of course, they are claiming to offer it at degree level, as some do, in which case students should ask which job possibilities will open with that qualification.)
There is no substitute for the mental rigour of following the academic thinkers, discoverers and inventors of centuries gone by. Media Studies and others like Sports Science, Golf Course Management,etc., may provide a breadth of knowledge (fitting in well with the "learn-in-and-then-forget-it" modular structure of A levels) but not the depth of concept.
There seems little doubt that some subjects are "easier" than others, and that in the past schools have persuaded students to take these in order to to obtain the highest possible rating for the school.
There are some who claim that the "traditional" subjects are showing signs of recovery, with English, the sciences, Maths and History, etc., showing early signs of recovery. This is good, so long as colleges can avoid dumbing down in these subjects.
In 1997 in state comprehensives, 3,000 studied Media Studies. In 2009 the number had risen to 12,000. Over the same period the number studying Physics has dropped from 12,126 to 10,118, having reached 9,916 om 2005.
Does this matter, after all the more you enjoy a subject, the easier you will be able to discipline yourself in study, and shouldn't you choose the subjects you find easiest?
This is true, but many of the better universities regard such an A level as a poor preparation for an academic course at university. (Unless, of course, they are claiming to offer it at degree level, as some do, in which case students should ask which job possibilities will open with that qualification.)
There is no substitute for the mental rigour of following the academic thinkers, discoverers and inventors of centuries gone by. Media Studies and others like Sports Science, Golf Course Management,etc., may provide a breadth of knowledge (fitting in well with the "learn-in-and-then-forget-it" modular structure of A levels) but not the depth of concept.
There seems little doubt that some subjects are "easier" than others, and that in the past schools have persuaded students to take these in order to to obtain the highest possible rating for the school.
There are some who claim that the "traditional" subjects are showing signs of recovery, with English, the sciences, Maths and History, etc., showing early signs of recovery. This is good, so long as colleges can avoid dumbing down in these subjects.
Friday, 14 August 2009
The burden of it all
The Tories recently revealed that schools are being inundated with massive amounts of necessary reading. They estimate that the government has sent them documents containing almost 1.3 million words over a 12 month period. This is one and half times the number of words in the traditional King James or Authorised version of the Bible! Between April 2008 and April 2009 schools were e-mailed 3,982 pages of documents.
Michael Gove complained, "Instead of giving teachers the powers they need over discipline or fixing the devaluation of the examination system, Ed Balls is swamping schools with such a tide of paper that it is obvious heads cannot read more than a fraction.
I am sure that schools would benefit from a knowledge of some of the esoteric and politically correct publications, but it is just overload. Why not save the money and employ more teachers?
Michael Gove complained, "Instead of giving teachers the powers they need over discipline or fixing the devaluation of the examination system, Ed Balls is swamping schools with such a tide of paper that it is obvious heads cannot read more than a fraction.
I am sure that schools would benefit from a knowledge of some of the esoteric and politically correct publications, but it is just overload. Why not save the money and employ more teachers?
Where does spin end and lying begin?
Mandelson, the Lord High Everything Else, probably did himself as much harm as he did to George Osborne, his intended victim, in the famous interview with Evan Davis this week. If you heard the interview on Toady, you will know that Davis was unimpressed, despite his sympathies.
The main porky was that there would have been far in excess of 500,000 more unemployed at the moment but for action by government and Bank.
What is untruthful is the "far in excess of". What the Treasury had forecast was that there could eventually be up to 500,000 jobs saved. This Darling quoted in his Budget speech. In fact Oxford Economics published a forecast recently suggested that the stimulus of November 2008 might have saved 35,000 jobs, but in future years higher taxes to repay the debt could cause a loss of jobs, with 2012 itself 91,000 fewer. It is quite possible that government action will have had a perverse effect, although the reduction in interest rates by the Bank almost certainly had a beneficial effect.
His Lordship then when on to say that the conservatives opposed all strands of government policy, which is mostly arrant nonsense.. The only policy they have opposed was the ineffective cut in VAT rate, although they did warn that the results of Quantitative Easing are not easy to predict. In fact one or two of the policies, including business deferment of taxes due, were originally proposed by the Tories, as was support to enable banks to lend.
It would be easy to complain about the lies spread about with encouragement from the BBC, but in fact Mandelson has probably shot himself in the foot. Nobody now believes anything Brown says, and Mandelson is wearing his mantel.
The main porky was that there would have been far in excess of 500,000 more unemployed at the moment but for action by government and Bank.
What is untruthful is the "far in excess of". What the Treasury had forecast was that there could eventually be up to 500,000 jobs saved. This Darling quoted in his Budget speech. In fact Oxford Economics published a forecast recently suggested that the stimulus of November 2008 might have saved 35,000 jobs, but in future years higher taxes to repay the debt could cause a loss of jobs, with 2012 itself 91,000 fewer. It is quite possible that government action will have had a perverse effect, although the reduction in interest rates by the Bank almost certainly had a beneficial effect.
His Lordship then when on to say that the conservatives opposed all strands of government policy, which is mostly arrant nonsense.. The only policy they have opposed was the ineffective cut in VAT rate, although they did warn that the results of Quantitative Easing are not easy to predict. In fact one or two of the policies, including business deferment of taxes due, were originally proposed by the Tories, as was support to enable banks to lend.
It would be easy to complain about the lies spread about with encouragement from the BBC, but in fact Mandelson has probably shot himself in the foot. Nobody now believes anything Brown says, and Mandelson is wearing his mantel.
A expensive business...
Figures uncovered by the Tories from FOI requests reveal where the costs of the NHS could be reduced, or resources put to better use.
In 2007/08 Primary Care Trusts spent £1.2 billion on administrators and clerical staff, an increase of 81% on the figure in 2003/04, - a massive increase. The total is now approaching double the £700 million spent on anti-cancer drugs in 2008/09, when some patients were denied drugs because resources were limited.
In addition in 2007/08 £139 million was spent on consultancy fees, almost three times the figure of £53 million in 2003/04.
PCTs are spending £115 million a year on agency staff, - both administrative and clerical, which is more than twice what was spent in 2003/04.
It is ironic that one of the recent of many changes, call them reforms if you are of a generous mind, was to halve the number of PCTs, from 303 to 152, which was to save £250 million a year which could be devoted to front line services. As we have seen, spending has continued to rise inexorably. If the reorganisation did save some expenditure, it means from the above figures that profligacy is even worse that shown in my second paragraph.
These figures do not include the administrative and other costs of London based bureaucrats. Nor do they include the £600 million per year, as they estimated cost of patients not turning up for appointments. There were 6.5 million of these in 2007/08, costing about £100 each. You cannot lay this last at the door of any NHS staff, of course.
In 2007/08 Primary Care Trusts spent £1.2 billion on administrators and clerical staff, an increase of 81% on the figure in 2003/04, - a massive increase. The total is now approaching double the £700 million spent on anti-cancer drugs in 2008/09, when some patients were denied drugs because resources were limited.
In addition in 2007/08 £139 million was spent on consultancy fees, almost three times the figure of £53 million in 2003/04.
PCTs are spending £115 million a year on agency staff, - both administrative and clerical, which is more than twice what was spent in 2003/04.
It is ironic that one of the recent of many changes, call them reforms if you are of a generous mind, was to halve the number of PCTs, from 303 to 152, which was to save £250 million a year which could be devoted to front line services. As we have seen, spending has continued to rise inexorably. If the reorganisation did save some expenditure, it means from the above figures that profligacy is even worse that shown in my second paragraph.
These figures do not include the administrative and other costs of London based bureaucrats. Nor do they include the £600 million per year, as they estimated cost of patients not turning up for appointments. There were 6.5 million of these in 2007/08, costing about £100 each. You cannot lay this last at the door of any NHS staff, of course.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
How they think
The government are apparently concerned at the gap between the number of those unemployed and the number of those actually claiming benefit. How kind of them.
It seems that three quarters of a million of those who have lost jobs since the recession began have not attempted to claim unemployment benefit or Job-seekers' Allowance. The result is that they do not appear in official statistics of the unemployed, which is based on claimants. (I doubt whether the aim of the government is to discover and publish the true level of unemployment, somehow!)
The government explanation, and assumption, is that these people are the sort who are too proud to think of asking for benefits.
There are other suggestions as to the reason.
The government suggests that some choose to live from the proceeds of their redundancy pay,
which is a slight variation of their main reason.
There is the also the fact that some expect to find another job soon, and are spending time in searching, - a kind of frictional unemployment.
The conditions attached to government help may be a deterrent - the need to report at an employment office, when travelling may be difficult, or perhaps the amount is regarded as derisory.
The may be some legal impediment - illegal immigrants, cash/N.I insurance free workers, etc.
The government is intending to recruit large numbers of outreach officers to contact, advise and encourage those who are recently unemployed. Unless the non-claimants cannot read English, or are of limited intelligence, this seems a waste of money. Whatever their motives, these people have chosen not to apply. Why, then, pursue them?
It seems that three quarters of a million of those who have lost jobs since the recession began have not attempted to claim unemployment benefit or Job-seekers' Allowance. The result is that they do not appear in official statistics of the unemployed, which is based on claimants. (I doubt whether the aim of the government is to discover and publish the true level of unemployment, somehow!)
The government explanation, and assumption, is that these people are the sort who are too proud to think of asking for benefits.
There are other suggestions as to the reason.
The government suggests that some choose to live from the proceeds of their redundancy pay,
which is a slight variation of their main reason.
There is the also the fact that some expect to find another job soon, and are spending time in searching, - a kind of frictional unemployment.
The conditions attached to government help may be a deterrent - the need to report at an employment office, when travelling may be difficult, or perhaps the amount is regarded as derisory.
The may be some legal impediment - illegal immigrants, cash/N.I insurance free workers, etc.
The government is intending to recruit large numbers of outreach officers to contact, advise and encourage those who are recently unemployed. Unless the non-claimants cannot read English, or are of limited intelligence, this seems a waste of money. Whatever their motives, these people have chosen not to apply. Why, then, pursue them?
We wouldn't want anything to happen to them, after all
The Daily Express today apparently announced a massive and very expensive security crackdown at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. between Sept 27th and Oct1st- I have not read the paper, - at first I thought that the report was some kind of hoax.
Brighton has a tragic history of violence to the governing party, so perhaps they go to even more pains to ensure security.
The newspaper announced that Operation Otter will involve:
For the duration of the conference police will seal off a secure island site around the Brighton centre, Hilton Metropole and Russell Road car park. They have already written to businesses and homes affected. Will there be compensation for businesses? Residents presumably will have special passes, and will not be under houses detention.
Squads of police officers will visit and conduct door to door interviews with many householders and workers in Brighton, whether these are 'merely' those living within the island or whether further afield in Brighton is not made clear. Those interviewed will be obliged to produce documentary evidence of identification - passports, birth certificates, driving licences, proof of employment and even names of referees who can vouch as to their character. The officers will also ask questions about religious affiliation and any connection with Muslim fanaticism.
I presume that other precautions will be taken,besides security at entrance doors, - sealing all drain gratings, inspecting closely all guest rooms for long time bombs, searching the Conference premises every day, and so on.
Some questions:
I assume that something similar will take place at the conferences of the other parties which follow the Labour one, or are they more expendable.
Whether or not the other parties "enjoy" the same protection, who is to foot the bill for all this? The sum must be colossal. I have a sneaking suspicion that although these are party conferences, and not government events, the cost will fall on the tax-payer. Otherwise the Labour Party could lose much support in Brighton and Sussex.
It's remarkable that when Alan Duncan and others complain that they are treated like "sh..ts", that we the taxpayers should honour them by paying so much for their safety.
Brighton has a tragic history of violence to the governing party, so perhaps they go to even more pains to ensure security.
The newspaper announced that Operation Otter will involve:
For the duration of the conference police will seal off a secure island site around the Brighton centre, Hilton Metropole and Russell Road car park. They have already written to businesses and homes affected. Will there be compensation for businesses? Residents presumably will have special passes, and will not be under houses detention.
Squads of police officers will visit and conduct door to door interviews with many householders and workers in Brighton, whether these are 'merely' those living within the island or whether further afield in Brighton is not made clear. Those interviewed will be obliged to produce documentary evidence of identification - passports, birth certificates, driving licences, proof of employment and even names of referees who can vouch as to their character. The officers will also ask questions about religious affiliation and any connection with Muslim fanaticism.
I presume that other precautions will be taken,besides security at entrance doors, - sealing all drain gratings, inspecting closely all guest rooms for long time bombs, searching the Conference premises every day, and so on.
Some questions:
I assume that something similar will take place at the conferences of the other parties which follow the Labour one, or are they more expendable.
Whether or not the other parties "enjoy" the same protection, who is to foot the bill for all this? The sum must be colossal. I have a sneaking suspicion that although these are party conferences, and not government events, the cost will fall on the tax-payer. Otherwise the Labour Party could lose much support in Brighton and Sussex.
It's remarkable that when Alan Duncan and others complain that they are treated like "sh..ts", that we the taxpayers should honour them by paying so much for their safety.
Sad, very sad
At the end of June, 2.43 million people were unemployed, an increase of 220,000 over the three months, and the highest total since 1995.
What in someways is even more worrying is that the number of NEETS, 16-24 year-olds, reached 928,000, and they now constitute 38% of all unemployed.
They are among the cheapest workers to employ, and are in theory more flexible and energetic, even if they lack experience, yet the are losing jobs.
NEETs presented a worrying number even before the recession, and a sad illustration of the quality of our education system and qualifications. Then, and even more now, they present a potential massive future problem.
Many are unskilled, and will find it difficult to secure well-paid jobs when recovery does begin. Many will will be long-term benefit recipients, and many will drift into crime. There will be a social cost for some time to come. There will be a a large personal cost to them. As I blogged recently they face a massive risk of drifting into drugs and alcohol and encountering an early death.
Sadly, they have been neglected, despite all the rhetoric, and they and others still at school will be a major problem facing the next government.
What in someways is even more worrying is that the number of NEETS, 16-24 year-olds, reached 928,000, and they now constitute 38% of all unemployed.
They are among the cheapest workers to employ, and are in theory more flexible and energetic, even if they lack experience, yet the are losing jobs.
NEETs presented a worrying number even before the recession, and a sad illustration of the quality of our education system and qualifications. Then, and even more now, they present a potential massive future problem.
Many are unskilled, and will find it difficult to secure well-paid jobs when recovery does begin. Many will will be long-term benefit recipients, and many will drift into crime. There will be a social cost for some time to come. There will be a a large personal cost to them. As I blogged recently they face a massive risk of drifting into drugs and alcohol and encountering an early death.
Sadly, they have been neglected, despite all the rhetoric, and they and others still at school will be a major problem facing the next government.
Oh Dear!
We now know that both Germany and France enjoyed an output growth in the second quarter this year (April to June). It was small, admittedly, - only 0.3%, but nonetheless a growth, suggesting that they have turned the corner and are recovering.
How did the UK economy perform, given that G. Brown reckoned earlier that we were best placed of all for recovery? The answer is that the UK economy shrank still further, that national output was down 0.8%, and in the second quarter we were still in recession.
The saviour of world banking does not seem quite to able at restoring growth to his own economy.
How did the UK economy perform, given that G. Brown reckoned earlier that we were best placed of all for recovery? The answer is that the UK economy shrank still further, that national output was down 0.8%, and in the second quarter we were still in recession.
The saviour of world banking does not seem quite to able at restoring growth to his own economy.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Mr. Consistency
"I tell you we have learnt from past mistakes. Just as you cannot spend your way out of recession, you cannot, in a global economy, simply spend your way through a recovery either."
Sober, realistic and honest words - but who said them? They were spoken by Gordon Brown, at the Labour Party Conference in September 1996, and to emphasise his point he turned on his critics on the left of the party and said, "..losing control of public spending deosn't help the poor."
These words were unearthed by the Tories, and quoted by George Osborne yesterday.
In 1996 G.Brown was beginning his relationship with Miss Prudence. He ditched her, after 2000 and formed his alliance with Miss Gofa Broke, an altogether racier prospect. Now he does nothing but quote Miss Broke. Ah how things change. He is under her emtional spell.
Sober, realistic and honest words - but who said them? They were spoken by Gordon Brown, at the Labour Party Conference in September 1996, and to emphasise his point he turned on his critics on the left of the party and said, "..losing control of public spending deosn't help the poor."
These words were unearthed by the Tories, and quoted by George Osborne yesterday.
In 1996 G.Brown was beginning his relationship with Miss Prudence. He ditched her, after 2000 and formed his alliance with Miss Gofa Broke, an altogether racier prospect. Now he does nothing but quote Miss Broke. Ah how things change. He is under her emtional spell.
Condemned though innocent
The Criminal Records Bureau, part of the way by which the government collects data on us, is not just a pain in the neck because of the time a check may sometimes take. It is also prone to serious mistakes.
In the twelve months to March 31st, 2009, no fewer than 1,570 individuals suffered from errors or potential errors, from mistakes made by the CRB, compared with 680 in the previous year. During the year the Bureau processed 3.9. million certificates, an increase of 5000,000 on the previous year and the highest since the Bureau began in 2002. In its first year it checked 1.5 million people.
The errors are of three kinds:
Some people have been accused of more serious offences that any for which they came to be on the register.
Some people are the victims of a confusion in identity.
In some cases people are given a clean record because offences have been omitted.
Many are ignorant of the fact that they are on the register, and discover only when a need arises. A woman recently discovered she was on the register because she left older children playing in a park while she dashed briefly to a local shop.
In the twelve months to March 31st, 2009, no fewer than 1,570 individuals suffered from errors or potential errors, from mistakes made by the CRB, compared with 680 in the previous year. During the year the Bureau processed 3.9. million certificates, an increase of 5000,000 on the previous year and the highest since the Bureau began in 2002. In its first year it checked 1.5 million people.
The errors are of three kinds:
Some people have been accused of more serious offences that any for which they came to be on the register.
Some people are the victims of a confusion in identity.
In some cases people are given a clean record because offences have been omitted.
Many are ignorant of the fact that they are on the register, and discover only when a need arises. A woman recently discovered she was on the register because she left older children playing in a park while she dashed briefly to a local shop.
BOGOF
DEFRA has been thinking, "How can we reduce food waste?"
They have come to the conclusion that we collectively leave things mouldering in our fridges until they have to be thrown out. The result, says the logic, is that we should buy it in smaller quantities.
The final conclusion is that one policy must be to reduce how much food we take home, and so they are planning to outlaw BOGOF, that is "buy one and get one free" offers from supermarkets.
Ultimately it is based on a report by WRAP, a quango devoted to cutting waste. They have difficulty in discriminating between all waste, including potato peelings, apple cores, coffee grounds, tea leaves, cheese rind, etc and waste more narrowly defined - food which goes "off", such as partially consumed food with the remainder forgotten the following day, yogurts over date, etc., or merely food left on the plate. (An increase in some of these is a sign of a better diet, with more fresh food and less pre-prepared or tinned food.)
Wrap takes the more general definition and decides that we waste one third, whereas the narrower definition would suggest a total under 20%. This smaller figure is admittedly still probably significant.
But the idea of intervention is stupid. What do they expect supermarkets, and others, to do if they have too much stock left? Is two for one any worse than price reductions? Are the latter to be banned if we still do not comply? If unsold stock, condemned by the government's own rules about "sell by date" and "consume by dates", the ban will mean that the supermarkets will waste the food rather than us. The only difference is that we will not get the benefit!
I can see the next government action - weighing supermarket waste bins and fining them. They do not seem to appreciate that in a free society, and ours is still nominally free, production and supply decisions are made without knowing what will happen in the future. While we are free, even nominally, what business is it of the government if I, rather than the supermarket, waste otherwise unsold food?
This seems like fanatics who have run wild in the silly season! The target is the wrong one. The EU generally, and the Common Agricultural Policy in general wastes much more, and while our government may not waste much food it wastes tremendous quantities of resources and finance, especially in promoting quangos like Wrap and inefficient departments like DEFRA.
They have come to the conclusion that we collectively leave things mouldering in our fridges until they have to be thrown out. The result, says the logic, is that we should buy it in smaller quantities.
The final conclusion is that one policy must be to reduce how much food we take home, and so they are planning to outlaw BOGOF, that is "buy one and get one free" offers from supermarkets.
Ultimately it is based on a report by WRAP, a quango devoted to cutting waste. They have difficulty in discriminating between all waste, including potato peelings, apple cores, coffee grounds, tea leaves, cheese rind, etc and waste more narrowly defined - food which goes "off", such as partially consumed food with the remainder forgotten the following day, yogurts over date, etc., or merely food left on the plate. (An increase in some of these is a sign of a better diet, with more fresh food and less pre-prepared or tinned food.)
Wrap takes the more general definition and decides that we waste one third, whereas the narrower definition would suggest a total under 20%. This smaller figure is admittedly still probably significant.
But the idea of intervention is stupid. What do they expect supermarkets, and others, to do if they have too much stock left? Is two for one any worse than price reductions? Are the latter to be banned if we still do not comply? If unsold stock, condemned by the government's own rules about "sell by date" and "consume by dates", the ban will mean that the supermarkets will waste the food rather than us. The only difference is that we will not get the benefit!
I can see the next government action - weighing supermarket waste bins and fining them. They do not seem to appreciate that in a free society, and ours is still nominally free, production and supply decisions are made without knowing what will happen in the future. While we are free, even nominally, what business is it of the government if I, rather than the supermarket, waste otherwise unsold food?
This seems like fanatics who have run wild in the silly season! The target is the wrong one. The EU generally, and the Common Agricultural Policy in general wastes much more, and while our government may not waste much food it wastes tremendous quantities of resources and finance, especially in promoting quangos like Wrap and inefficient departments like DEFRA.
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
No surprise from an urban political party.
Nick Herbert, shadow Defra secretary, has been working out figures of changes in the level of UK self-sufficiency in agricultural products during the period of NuLabour rule. His results are dramatic:
In indigenous foods self- sufficiency has fallen - 1998 82% to 2008 73%
The UK Trade gap in food, feed and drink was widened in real terms - 1998- 2007 by 62% (£15.2 billion.)
Under Labour 36,000 hectares of plant land for vegetables have been lost 1997 153,000 to 2008 11600
Land producing fresh fruit has fallen from 36,000 to 28,000 hectares over the same period
The land for cereal growing has fallen from 3,358,000 hectares to 3,274,000
The number of dairy cows has fallen from 2,453,000 to 1,909,000
The number of beef cattle has fallen from 1,811,000 to 1,670,000
The number of pigs has fallen from 7,834,000 to 4,714,000
The sheep and lamb flock has fallen from 43,983,000 to 33,131,000
The number of poultry has fallen from 169, 901,000 to 166,200,000
What else would you expect from a government which clearly has little understanding of rural life (- closure of Post Offices) or values (fox hunting), and has virtually no MPs in rural seats? It has done little to redress the power balance between farmers and supermarkets, and caused many farmers to leave the industry.
Together with the EU it has increased the regulatory burden on farmers, refused to attach British country of origin labels, and been happy to see the decline of an industry in which we were once a world leader. Above all, to promote European solidarity, it has allowed the industry to shrivel.
In indigenous foods self- sufficiency has fallen - 1998 82% to 2008 73%
The UK Trade gap in food, feed and drink was widened in real terms - 1998- 2007 by 62% (£15.2 billion.)
Under Labour 36,000 hectares of plant land for vegetables have been lost 1997 153,000 to 2008 11600
Land producing fresh fruit has fallen from 36,000 to 28,000 hectares over the same period
The land for cereal growing has fallen from 3,358,000 hectares to 3,274,000
The number of dairy cows has fallen from 2,453,000 to 1,909,000
The number of beef cattle has fallen from 1,811,000 to 1,670,000
The number of pigs has fallen from 7,834,000 to 4,714,000
The sheep and lamb flock has fallen from 43,983,000 to 33,131,000
The number of poultry has fallen from 169, 901,000 to 166,200,000
What else would you expect from a government which clearly has little understanding of rural life (- closure of Post Offices) or values (fox hunting), and has virtually no MPs in rural seats? It has done little to redress the power balance between farmers and supermarkets, and caused many farmers to leave the industry.
Together with the EU it has increased the regulatory burden on farmers, refused to attach British country of origin labels, and been happy to see the decline of an industry in which we were once a world leader. Above all, to promote European solidarity, it has allowed the industry to shrivel.
Well, what a surprise!
It seems that only some of the F.E. colleges dotted about the country which had been promised finance to build or improve premises by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), will actually now receive the money.
In fact under 10 percent will, - 13 out of over 150 schemes. This minority will receive £544 million towards the total cost of £714 million.
The strange thing is that by some coincidence all the 13 which received the go ahead in in Labour constituencies, in most of which Labour is fighting a rearguard action to resist listing a seat. One, Battersea, has a majority of 163, while Dartford is defending one of 706. There surely is no coincidence that there is an election next year! (Government claims that the process was carried by the independent? SLC using objective consultants, does not really convince, given Labour's unceasing attempts to rig just about everything else.)
In fact under 10 percent will, - 13 out of over 150 schemes. This minority will receive £544 million towards the total cost of £714 million.
The strange thing is that by some coincidence all the 13 which received the go ahead in in Labour constituencies, in most of which Labour is fighting a rearguard action to resist listing a seat. One, Battersea, has a majority of 163, while Dartford is defending one of 706. There surely is no coincidence that there is an election next year! (Government claims that the process was carried by the independent? SLC using objective consultants, does not really convince, given Labour's unceasing attempts to rig just about everything else.)
Words fail me!
Caught out in all manner of dubious expenses claims, MPs lost the goodwill of the voters to a large extent.
Since then, however, they have accepted for themselves a more generous subsistence allowance, and one with less transparency than before.
Now they have agreed to set up a publicly funded childcare service for their children. They will pay for it, but there will be public funding because of the variations in usage. The scheme will be useful if there are emergency or late night sittings and votes, but might otherwise be lightly used.
The rest of us are subject to the need to eat, and to make occasional emergency arrangements for child care. The former will be sometimes financed by employers but will be also rigorously monitored, the latter in most cases will be our own responsibility. Why should MPs be any different?
Since then, however, they have accepted for themselves a more generous subsistence allowance, and one with less transparency than before.
Now they have agreed to set up a publicly funded childcare service for their children. They will pay for it, but there will be public funding because of the variations in usage. The scheme will be useful if there are emergency or late night sittings and votes, but might otherwise be lightly used.
The rest of us are subject to the need to eat, and to make occasional emergency arrangements for child care. The former will be sometimes financed by employers but will be also rigorously monitored, the latter in most cases will be our own responsibility. Why should MPs be any different?
Monday, 10 August 2009
What future for the family?
Early last week the Christian charity CARE published the results of its third annual investigation into the perverse incentive structures that face low income couples.
A former senior tax accountant with Price Waterhouse examined the financial positions of 98 couples. It is widely accepted that there is an incentive for such couples to live apart. He discovered that this has grown larger.
In cases where no maintenance is paid 76 out of 98 families would be better off financially if they lived apart. It was 75 out of 98 the previous year, but the actual penalty was the same in both years, or £68 per week.
In cases where maintenance is paid, 74 out of 98 would be better off if they lived apart. This represents a significant increase from the previous year when only 65 would have been better off apart. The penalty cost has also increased, from £48 per week to £58.
Other statistics have revealed that there are more children in two parent families in poverty than children in one parent families. This is an important blot on our welfare system, and something must be done.
A former senior tax accountant with Price Waterhouse examined the financial positions of 98 couples. It is widely accepted that there is an incentive for such couples to live apart. He discovered that this has grown larger.
In cases where no maintenance is paid 76 out of 98 families would be better off financially if they lived apart. It was 75 out of 98 the previous year, but the actual penalty was the same in both years, or £68 per week.
In cases where maintenance is paid, 74 out of 98 would be better off if they lived apart. This represents a significant increase from the previous year when only 65 would have been better off apart. The penalty cost has also increased, from £48 per week to £58.
Other statistics have revealed that there are more children in two parent families in poverty than children in one parent families. This is an important blot on our welfare system, and something must be done.
Another attempted cover up.
It was to be expected that when the government clearly wished to delay publication of the report into MOD procurement by Bernard Gray there was clearly something big to be concealed from us.
It was almost equally expected that there would be some kind of leak. The BBC received not literary sections, but rather illustratory slides.
Three of the most damaging comments are
1) Project management does not really exist within the department - merely muddle
2) the MOD does not know the price of any kit.
3) The top 40 programmes annually expect an 80% overrun on time and 40% overrun on cost, because the MOD can't afford to pay for the projects on schedule. (The decision to delay the super-carriers will add a further £1.1 billion to their cost, for example.)
We see illustrations of these, and complaints, from Afghanistan on regular basis. Lives are being lost because of bungling ineptitude.
In the financially straightened circumstances of the near future, and the critical phase of the situation in Afghanistan, some heads need to be knocked together and better controls introduced.
It was almost equally expected that there would be some kind of leak. The BBC received not literary sections, but rather illustratory slides.
Three of the most damaging comments are
1) Project management does not really exist within the department - merely muddle
2) the MOD does not know the price of any kit.
3) The top 40 programmes annually expect an 80% overrun on time and 40% overrun on cost, because the MOD can't afford to pay for the projects on schedule. (The decision to delay the super-carriers will add a further £1.1 billion to their cost, for example.)
We see illustrations of these, and complaints, from Afghanistan on regular basis. Lives are being lost because of bungling ineptitude.
In the financially straightened circumstances of the near future, and the critical phase of the situation in Afghanistan, some heads need to be knocked together and better controls introduced.
Neets in the News
Neets, (young Not in Education, Employment or Training), are in the news. This is a significant sector in the age group 16 to 24.
It seems that the next unemployment analysis will indicate that they now number one million, or about one in six of that age group. They receive benefits, but otherwise their life is full of despair, and they live with little prospect of the dignity of employment, now or in the future.Unless, that is, something is done to help them.
What is terrifying is the disclosure made recently by John Coles, the government's director general of schools. He reported that one city in the North of England had examined in the longer term what happens to NEETs, in particular, the cohort of 10 years ago. The neets in that city had not gone into anything, except drugs and drinking. In the country as a whole drug use among neets is about 71 per cent, compared with 45% for non-neets. (Neets are more common in the cities of northern England than in the south.)
The result was that the study found that 15% of neets had died within the 10 years. Other studies have shown that neets are more likely to suffer depression and poor physical health.
These figures might have caused a shock in Victorian times, but in the 21st century, with welfare state and all, they are even more shocking.
The government introduced a £4 billion New Deal scheme, confidently expecting to reduce the number on benefits, but even if they found employment they were usually back on benefits within a year.
Such "sticking plasters" for the 16-24 age group are too late. Whatever other means are tried, something must be done about the quality of parenting and early school life. This is where many neets are created.
It seems that the next unemployment analysis will indicate that they now number one million, or about one in six of that age group. They receive benefits, but otherwise their life is full of despair, and they live with little prospect of the dignity of employment, now or in the future.Unless, that is, something is done to help them.
What is terrifying is the disclosure made recently by John Coles, the government's director general of schools. He reported that one city in the North of England had examined in the longer term what happens to NEETs, in particular, the cohort of 10 years ago. The neets in that city had not gone into anything, except drugs and drinking. In the country as a whole drug use among neets is about 71 per cent, compared with 45% for non-neets. (Neets are more common in the cities of northern England than in the south.)
The result was that the study found that 15% of neets had died within the 10 years. Other studies have shown that neets are more likely to suffer depression and poor physical health.
These figures might have caused a shock in Victorian times, but in the 21st century, with welfare state and all, they are even more shocking.
The government introduced a £4 billion New Deal scheme, confidently expecting to reduce the number on benefits, but even if they found employment they were usually back on benefits within a year.
Such "sticking plasters" for the 16-24 age group are too late. Whatever other means are tried, something must be done about the quality of parenting and early school life. This is where many neets are created.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Care, and a light touch, is needed
How much more Quantitative Easing should we have?
It seems a good thing, - increasing the cash base at ‘banks’ and thus enabling them to lend more to house buyers and businesses. After all, as supporters keep telling us, to a large extent banks have reacted to receiving the new money created by their sales of securities to the Bank of England by building up the balances which had fallen so low. Surely more QE will prompt them to lend more, as cash does not produce much in the way of interest.
The lack of lending, we are told, has not increased the money supply greatly, so monetarists are probably reassured that monetary expansion thus far does not imply an inflation danger. We could follow Alan Greenspan of the Fed, and prop everything up with monetary expansion.
There is an easy assumption that if inflation seems to be recurring, the government and Bank could merely put things into reverse.
The problem is the use of monetary policy to achieve rapid ends, in a world of uncertain confidence, rapid change, time lags in measuring the money supply and then altering it sufficiently, is fraught with difficulty. The problem is also one of deciding which indicators are important, - there may be green shoots – rising house prices, re-stocking, etc., but unemployment is likely to rise for another year at least and there will be further corporate failures and thus falling output.
Our present problems were partly caused by very low interest rates which were low because of response to falling markets. The result was debt, rising asset prices and over-valued housing, and all their accompanying problems when the reverse came. If QE is expanded we could have another asset bubble, which will require higher interest rates. This is turn could throw a delicate situation into chaos and bring any recovery to a juddering halt.
The Bank of England in applying for an expansion of EQ capacity, because of the greater depth of recession than most of us realised. Let us hope that they are very careful in using it.
Saturday, 8 August 2009
What is their real point?
The Sun newspaper yesterday quoted statistics which suggest that the areas with most speed cameras have the worst road safety records.
In fact the big five which have 2,000 cameras between them, - London, West Midlands, Lancashire, Thames Valley and Greater Manchester, fill five of the top six for the number of serious crashes.
Last year drink-drive accidents killed 430 people, compared with 410 the year before, - an increase of nearly 5%.
This is still more weight to the arguments that the cameras are intended to raise revenue, rather than saving lives.
In fact the big five which have 2,000 cameras between them, - London, West Midlands, Lancashire, Thames Valley and Greater Manchester, fill five of the top six for the number of serious crashes.
Last year drink-drive accidents killed 430 people, compared with 410 the year before, - an increase of nearly 5%.
This is still more weight to the arguments that the cameras are intended to raise revenue, rather than saving lives.
The POOR dears
The Daily Mirror yesterday quoted the Taxpayers' Alliance recent investigation of MP's salaries.
Some of us have heard their bleats that they applied for large expenses because they were poor;y paid at £64,766 for a back-bencher. To this should be added heavily subsidised meals and drink at the House of Commons, the ability to buy a house on mortgage without paying all the mortgage
The investigation showed that this level of pay is higher than 95% of all full time earnings. (Somehow the mirror claims this puts them in the top 3%.)
This does not seem low when we remember that they work very often two full days and two part days each week, and little more than 30 weeks in the year.
It seems that public service is not sufficient and they want a salary in line with their own inflated valuation of their importance.
Some of us have heard their bleats that they applied for large expenses because they were poor;y paid at £64,766 for a back-bencher. To this should be added heavily subsidised meals and drink at the House of Commons, the ability to buy a house on mortgage without paying all the mortgage
The investigation showed that this level of pay is higher than 95% of all full time earnings. (Somehow the mirror claims this puts them in the top 3%.)
This does not seem low when we remember that they work very often two full days and two part days each week, and little more than 30 weeks in the year.
It seems that public service is not sufficient and they want a salary in line with their own inflated valuation of their importance.
Friday, 7 August 2009
The post code lottery, again.
Since health is rationed other than by price, and financed out of taxes, it is likely that there will always be shortages and a need to establish priorities.
Sometimes the health good is rationed over time - you have to wait a period before your need is met, perhaps an operation.
If the need is immediate, then usually resources are found - A & E, for example, although charges are beginning even here, or intensive care - unless no beds are available.
The current issue concerns IVF. The postcode lottery according to Grant Shapps, shadow minister, has worsened over the last two years. Perhaps this is because it is not usually an immediate need.
He tells us that 80% of PCTs are failing to observe the NICE (-National Institute for Clinical Excellence) ruling guidelines which require that three full cycles of IVF treatment should be provided for any couple. Two of the Primary Care Trusts admit to not having provided any IVF treatment in the past two years. Half refuse treatment for couples with existing children, even if the marriage is a second one and only one of the partners has children.
One in eight PCTs fails to comply with NICE rulings on age of mother. A woman could bizarrely find herself too young in one area and too old in another.
The government in Tony Blair promised the three cycles of treatment, but it did not provide the means. As a relatively non-urgent procedure and with many other pressing claims, it is understandable that PCTs in many cases give it a low priority.
There does seem to be injustice here, depending on area of residence. Perhaps one solution would be to rescind the promise of three treatments completely and offer subsidised treatment or low interest loans. We are talking about £5,000 per treatment, so even three such would not cost much more than a family car.
IVF, like cosmetic surgery, is non-urgent and not threatening to health or life. The latter is not permitted free on the NHS. Perhaps the latter should be also.
Sometimes the health good is rationed over time - you have to wait a period before your need is met, perhaps an operation.
If the need is immediate, then usually resources are found - A & E, for example, although charges are beginning even here, or intensive care - unless no beds are available.
The current issue concerns IVF. The postcode lottery according to Grant Shapps, shadow minister, has worsened over the last two years. Perhaps this is because it is not usually an immediate need.
He tells us that 80% of PCTs are failing to observe the NICE (-National Institute for Clinical Excellence) ruling guidelines which require that three full cycles of IVF treatment should be provided for any couple. Two of the Primary Care Trusts admit to not having provided any IVF treatment in the past two years. Half refuse treatment for couples with existing children, even if the marriage is a second one and only one of the partners has children.
One in eight PCTs fails to comply with NICE rulings on age of mother. A woman could bizarrely find herself too young in one area and too old in another.
The government in Tony Blair promised the three cycles of treatment, but it did not provide the means. As a relatively non-urgent procedure and with many other pressing claims, it is understandable that PCTs in many cases give it a low priority.
There does seem to be injustice here, depending on area of residence. Perhaps one solution would be to rescind the promise of three treatments completely and offer subsidised treatment or low interest loans. We are talking about £5,000 per treatment, so even three such would not cost much more than a family car.
IVF, like cosmetic surgery, is non-urgent and not threatening to health or life. The latter is not permitted free on the NHS. Perhaps the latter should be also.
House prices are rising, is this good?
For those who own houses, and especially for those who are living with negative equity, this will improve their wealth to debt ratio. House builders will also see a promise of demand rising at last.
Higher house prices are not so attractive to those on low incomes who are struggling to get their feet on the housing ladder. They are also dangerous in that the last (private) credit boom prices seemed to be stimulated by rising asset prices which gave a false sense of well-being.
From the community's point of view, the housing shortage which led to housing price inflation also led to affordable housing becoming unaffordable.
We need a housing market not overheated by a credit boom and low interest rates, and not so controlled that the market cannot find an equilibrium price in every sector. In this was there would be reasonable prices for starter/affordable homes, which cover the cost of building and land, and equilibrium prices in all sectors.
Are rising house prices a good? Yes, if they are not rising rapidly in a credit boom, and if in each sector the market is allowed to find its level.
Higher house prices are not so attractive to those on low incomes who are struggling to get their feet on the housing ladder. They are also dangerous in that the last (private) credit boom prices seemed to be stimulated by rising asset prices which gave a false sense of well-being.
From the community's point of view, the housing shortage which led to housing price inflation also led to affordable housing becoming unaffordable.
We need a housing market not overheated by a credit boom and low interest rates, and not so controlled that the market cannot find an equilibrium price in every sector. In this was there would be reasonable prices for starter/affordable homes, which cover the cost of building and land, and equilibrium prices in all sectors.
Are rising house prices a good? Yes, if they are not rising rapidly in a credit boom, and if in each sector the market is allowed to find its level.
Lat's have Glass-Steagall again!
It looks as if the anti-market, anti-liberal EU and the similarly blinkered government in this country will try to imposes such rigid conditions and supervision of our financial system that the UK most of all, and the rest of Europe also, will suffer.
The consequence of all embracing regulations, with regulators clambering all over institutions, will be the death of innovation and creativity, and loss of financial business to other centres - the US and Asia, and possibly Switzerland. I would expect our institutions with global connections to move as much as possible of their work overseas.
Britain has been pre-eminent in financial matters for centuries because of its readiness to adapt and find new solutions. This will be difficult under a repressive regulatory regime.
There are alternatives to tons of red-tape and interference by government.
One is to make the present system more effective. It proved deficient not because it lacked laws or powers but because it did not do what it should have done, - there was failure, and partly because of the tripartite confusion cobbled together by G. Brown. If ratios, percentages and central bank nudges and actions were fully employed, and questions asked about new assets, then much of the banking collapse could have been avoided, as it was in Canada.
The second is to make banks small enough to fail, and be allowed to fail. That is, to reinforce market discipline. Many experts are agreed that the cross-subsidisation of retail and wholesale banking led to many of the risks. If banks were again divided into retail, that is deposit soliciting and loan offering, and wholesale, that is moving huge sums around the interbank and other markets, then the latter could not subsidise the former.
Part of the problem was practices whereby when individual deposits failed, because of a drastic reduction in personal saving, banks could transfer sums from interbank wings or borrow from the market, often with much greater risk.
We need something like Glass-Steagall, a regulation introduced in 1929 after the "Crash" by two US senators with those names. It separated commercial banks from investment banks. It worked well for 60 years until President Clinton was persuaded to repeal it. Something similar happened here as banks expanded into mortgage lending and building societies became banks.
(Clinton was also a villain in leaning on the American building societies to lend to more to those on low-incomes and therefore risky borrowers, leading to bad paper assets which were bundled up and sold to greedy banks.)
If banking functions were thus kept entirely separate, preferably in separate firms, market discipline would be enforced. In the last ten years a shortage of deposits would lead to rising interest rates and a rising interest rate would produce more saving and less borrowing on houses and other things. The credit boom would have been resisted and house prices would not have followed their crazy upward path.
The consequence of all embracing regulations, with regulators clambering all over institutions, will be the death of innovation and creativity, and loss of financial business to other centres - the US and Asia, and possibly Switzerland. I would expect our institutions with global connections to move as much as possible of their work overseas.
Britain has been pre-eminent in financial matters for centuries because of its readiness to adapt and find new solutions. This will be difficult under a repressive regulatory regime.
There are alternatives to tons of red-tape and interference by government.
One is to make the present system more effective. It proved deficient not because it lacked laws or powers but because it did not do what it should have done, - there was failure, and partly because of the tripartite confusion cobbled together by G. Brown. If ratios, percentages and central bank nudges and actions were fully employed, and questions asked about new assets, then much of the banking collapse could have been avoided, as it was in Canada.
The second is to make banks small enough to fail, and be allowed to fail. That is, to reinforce market discipline. Many experts are agreed that the cross-subsidisation of retail and wholesale banking led to many of the risks. If banks were again divided into retail, that is deposit soliciting and loan offering, and wholesale, that is moving huge sums around the interbank and other markets, then the latter could not subsidise the former.
Part of the problem was practices whereby when individual deposits failed, because of a drastic reduction in personal saving, banks could transfer sums from interbank wings or borrow from the market, often with much greater risk.
We need something like Glass-Steagall, a regulation introduced in 1929 after the "Crash" by two US senators with those names. It separated commercial banks from investment banks. It worked well for 60 years until President Clinton was persuaded to repeal it. Something similar happened here as banks expanded into mortgage lending and building societies became banks.
(Clinton was also a villain in leaning on the American building societies to lend to more to those on low-incomes and therefore risky borrowers, leading to bad paper assets which were bundled up and sold to greedy banks.)
If banking functions were thus kept entirely separate, preferably in separate firms, market discipline would be enforced. In the last ten years a shortage of deposits would lead to rising interest rates and a rising interest rate would produce more saving and less borrowing on houses and other things. The credit boom would have been resisted and house prices would not have followed their crazy upward path.
"A poor man's A-level"
Ed Balls, now supported by the supposedly independent Ofqual, the examination regulator, is hell-bent on starting his new grand diploma era. Ofqual is undertaking to watch the development and observe if it meets the imposed criteria, - a little hard on the guinea pigs who have given two years of study
We give him the benefit of doubt, and assume that this has nothing to do with a possible upcoming election for leadership of the Labour Party, but it does seem a real haste to impose a great deal of work on schools and other bodies with only one year to go before a general election, when the new qualification could die a death. Probably he feels so strongly against 'A' levels that he wishes to damage them seriously before he leaves.
The Daily Telegraph disclosed in April that a letter had been sent to Balls, and signed by every examination board in the country, urging him to delay implementation and allow longer for possible revision to make sure of university recognition. Balls ignored their warning.
One Board, OCR, based on Cambridge University, is seriously considering withdrawing from the qualification. They are concerned that "pupils will ultimately be offered nothing more than a poor man's 'A' level or GCSE" as things stand in the present structure of diploma. Edexcel and AQA, the other two major boards in England are declining to comment.
Michael Gove, shadow secretary, feels no restraint. "No serious figure in the education world believes these qualifications should replace A-levels. They are a vanity project driven entirely by Ed Balls's desire to undermine the existing gold standard."
We give him the benefit of doubt, and assume that this has nothing to do with a possible upcoming election for leadership of the Labour Party, but it does seem a real haste to impose a great deal of work on schools and other bodies with only one year to go before a general election, when the new qualification could die a death. Probably he feels so strongly against 'A' levels that he wishes to damage them seriously before he leaves.
The Daily Telegraph disclosed in April that a letter had been sent to Balls, and signed by every examination board in the country, urging him to delay implementation and allow longer for possible revision to make sure of university recognition. Balls ignored their warning.
One Board, OCR, based on Cambridge University, is seriously considering withdrawing from the qualification. They are concerned that "pupils will ultimately be offered nothing more than a poor man's 'A' level or GCSE" as things stand in the present structure of diploma. Edexcel and AQA, the other two major boards in England are declining to comment.
Michael Gove, shadow secretary, feels no restraint. "No serious figure in the education world believes these qualifications should replace A-levels. They are a vanity project driven entirely by Ed Balls's desire to undermine the existing gold standard."
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Failure in SATS
If, as expected, about 35,000 children will have left junior schools this summer without adequate ability to read or write, we shall be adding a further group to the 450,000 or so who have progressed with the same "handicap" since 1997.
All these have failed to achieve level three of the tests, let alone level four which is the looked for level for this age.
Leaving aside the complaints about marking accuracy and efficiency, and appeals by families or schools for re-marking, if the figure is anything approaching 35,000 it means that a further group will go to secondary school with a lack of competence in English needed for virtually all secondary classes. Unless resources are devoted to remedial teaching, these "failing students" will fall progressively further behind, become de-motivated and be candidates for truanting and disruption. There is an inevitability about it.
All these have failed to achieve level three of the tests, let alone level four which is the looked for level for this age.
Leaving aside the complaints about marking accuracy and efficiency, and appeals by families or schools for re-marking, if the figure is anything approaching 35,000 it means that a further group will go to secondary school with a lack of competence in English needed for virtually all secondary classes. Unless resources are devoted to remedial teaching, these "failing students" will fall progressively further behind, become de-motivated and be candidates for truanting and disruption. There is an inevitability about it.
rules, rules, H & S, rules
A woman in Bolton was forbidden entry to a leisure centre pool because she had two children with her. The rule is that there had to be a second adult with them. Health & Safety insists on this.
Does the pool not have a "life guard" as part of its service?
If you have four children do you need four adults, or is three enough, or two even? We could finish with a very crowded swimming pool.
The lady is a single mother, wanting to take he two children to do healthy exercise, as urged by the government. Who is to be the additional adult?
Does the pool not have a "life guard" as part of its service?
If you have four children do you need four adults, or is three enough, or two even? We could finish with a very crowded swimming pool.
The lady is a single mother, wanting to take he two children to do healthy exercise, as urged by the government. Who is to be the additional adult?
Yet another stealth jobs tax
It seems that the government has developed a scheme to raise more money from motorists who work and need their car for work. Any employer with more than 10 staff parking spaces will be charged £250 per place per year by the local authority, although the government could well cut their grant and get the benefit, although the tax is said to be for local transport improvement. Within a couple of years the annual charge will be £350. Firms will be entitled to pass on the cost to their staff.
This fresh attack on motorists arrives because the government had to back down on "pay as you drive" pricing, for the moment.
Nottingham is to be the pioneer in this new tax in 2012, and with an estimated 40,000 commuters driving into Nottingham up to $10 million pounds will be extracted, depending how many people park where there ten or more places. Nationally the ten million driving to work daily could cause £3 billion in extra tax.
Unsurprisingly, other towns, including Milton Keynes, Exeter, Cambridge and Oxford, have shown an interest, while Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield are thought to be interested.
Some motorists will be harder hit than others, for instance those on night shift when there is less public transport, and those for whom there is no convenient public transport service whose travel time will be lengthened.
There may be ways round it for smaller employers. Those currently with not many more than 10 places could replace spaces above ten with flower beds, etc., and rotate those who wish to continue on a regular basis. Thus, say, two would lose parking rights for six weeks, and then a different two, and so on. This is still worsening employment conditions, as it would if the firms built on or sold present parking areas.
This fresh attack on motorists arrives because the government had to back down on "pay as you drive" pricing, for the moment.
Nottingham is to be the pioneer in this new tax in 2012, and with an estimated 40,000 commuters driving into Nottingham up to $10 million pounds will be extracted, depending how many people park where there ten or more places. Nationally the ten million driving to work daily could cause £3 billion in extra tax.
Unsurprisingly, other towns, including Milton Keynes, Exeter, Cambridge and Oxford, have shown an interest, while Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield are thought to be interested.
Some motorists will be harder hit than others, for instance those on night shift when there is less public transport, and those for whom there is no convenient public transport service whose travel time will be lengthened.
There may be ways round it for smaller employers. Those currently with not many more than 10 places could replace spaces above ten with flower beds, etc., and rotate those who wish to continue on a regular basis. Thus, say, two would lose parking rights for six weeks, and then a different two, and so on. This is still worsening employment conditions, as it would if the firms built on or sold present parking areas.
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
More and more for less and less
More and more money for less and less input - that is what MPs have achieved.
We have commented before that they have less and less to do, as increasingly legislation is invented in Brussels or by ministers at Westminster.
Last Sunday the Mail on Sunday revealed that working days in parliament are shortening. In 1980-81 under Mrs. Thatcher, sittings lasted 9 hours and 7 minutes on average and there has been a decline more or less continuously since then to 7 hours and 40 minutes in 2006-07. I calculate this to be a decline of 16%. This may largely be due to the present government which, to make its own life more tolerable, has abolished late night sittings.
We have also noticed that many members are actually in London overnight only 3 nights each week, arriving during the day on Mondays and leaving during the day on Thursdays, although both are "sitting" days, so it is the case that some are in Westminster only half the week.
As if this were not enough, the number of weeks with sitting has gone down over the years. The average since the Second World War is 209 days, but in 2007 it was only 146 days or approximately 29 weeks.
So the rank and file at Westminster are really part-timers. Is it any surprise that many decided they could earn additional money elsewhere in their free time?
(Of course many claim, and some doubtless achieve, constituency work in their free time. Much of this arguably ought to be done by people called councillors, except that they have little power as mere rubber stamps of central government these days.)
We pay them as our representatives in Westminster, to represent our views and needs in the great debates. This, as we have seen, is a lesser and lesser occupation of their time, especially as much of what they decide is nodded through as if rubber stamped.
Against all this, they have tried to pay themselves more and more. Recently it emerged that daily subsistence would be higher, and with no documentary confirmation, than the system discredited by the expenses scandal. They are still enjoying considerable subsidies on their wining and dining at the House as well, and their resettlement allowance is massive when they finish.
It is difficult not be feel angry.
We have commented before that they have less and less to do, as increasingly legislation is invented in Brussels or by ministers at Westminster.
Last Sunday the Mail on Sunday revealed that working days in parliament are shortening. In 1980-81 under Mrs. Thatcher, sittings lasted 9 hours and 7 minutes on average and there has been a decline more or less continuously since then to 7 hours and 40 minutes in 2006-07. I calculate this to be a decline of 16%. This may largely be due to the present government which, to make its own life more tolerable, has abolished late night sittings.
We have also noticed that many members are actually in London overnight only 3 nights each week, arriving during the day on Mondays and leaving during the day on Thursdays, although both are "sitting" days, so it is the case that some are in Westminster only half the week.
As if this were not enough, the number of weeks with sitting has gone down over the years. The average since the Second World War is 209 days, but in 2007 it was only 146 days or approximately 29 weeks.
So the rank and file at Westminster are really part-timers. Is it any surprise that many decided they could earn additional money elsewhere in their free time?
(Of course many claim, and some doubtless achieve, constituency work in their free time. Much of this arguably ought to be done by people called councillors, except that they have little power as mere rubber stamps of central government these days.)
We pay them as our representatives in Westminster, to represent our views and needs in the great debates. This, as we have seen, is a lesser and lesser occupation of their time, especially as much of what they decide is nodded through as if rubber stamped.
Against all this, they have tried to pay themselves more and more. Recently it emerged that daily subsistence would be higher, and with no documentary confirmation, than the system discredited by the expenses scandal. They are still enjoying considerable subsidies on their wining and dining at the House as well, and their resettlement allowance is massive when they finish.
It is difficult not be feel angry.
Big Brother is alive and stationed in Whitehall
The Daily Express a week or so ago published an article which is difficult to believe. In fact, I had to look at the date, to make sure it was not 1st April.
The report is that Ed Balls intends to install 24 hour CCTV cameras in the homes of 20,000 problem families. The intention is to spy on the families to see if children are there in school time, see how late they go to bed and also what food they eat. Private security guards will call to make home checks. Presumably there is also a curfew?
Already 2,000 families have been subject to this "sin-bin" supervision, at a cost varying between £5,000 and £20,000 per house. At most the total cost could thus be eventually £400 million. The intention is that every local authority will eventually have the provision available.
It is not only shocking that after 12 years, and rejecting powers to headteachers to exclude troublesome children, that government should now turn to this high-handed and excessive technique. (Will it work, or will the children go out and roam the streets in school hours as before to disappear from surveillance? Are there cameras in every room to observe unacceptable behaviour, or will the family adjourn to the woodshed?)
The Orwellian future is with us. Big Brother is already collecting personal details, watching our cars, and now watching some in the privacy of their homes. It is the last, desperate throw of a government which has run out of ideas and lost control.
The report is that Ed Balls intends to install 24 hour CCTV cameras in the homes of 20,000 problem families. The intention is to spy on the families to see if children are there in school time, see how late they go to bed and also what food they eat. Private security guards will call to make home checks. Presumably there is also a curfew?
Already 2,000 families have been subject to this "sin-bin" supervision, at a cost varying between £5,000 and £20,000 per house. At most the total cost could thus be eventually £400 million. The intention is that every local authority will eventually have the provision available.
It is not only shocking that after 12 years, and rejecting powers to headteachers to exclude troublesome children, that government should now turn to this high-handed and excessive technique. (Will it work, or will the children go out and roam the streets in school hours as before to disappear from surveillance? Are there cameras in every room to observe unacceptable behaviour, or will the family adjourn to the woodshed?)
The Orwellian future is with us. Big Brother is already collecting personal details, watching our cars, and now watching some in the privacy of their homes. It is the last, desperate throw of a government which has run out of ideas and lost control.
Safe or soon?
The MOD, presumably to counter the accusation that our troops in Afghanistan have insufficient helicopter provision, despite the claims of G. Brown, are now rushing out 6 Merlin helicopters to aid troop movements in the war.
In fact they are rushing them out by December, so quickly that they will not be able to give them armoured protection against Taliban smalls arm fire or RPGs! Can anyone think of any other government which is so slow to respond and so callous to send equipment which has limited use?
So the troops may be able to avoid roadside bombs, but only at the cost of flying in planes which give them little protection against low technology armaments.
The government has effectively washed its hands by saying that if there is a problem the commanders on the spot must judge when it is safe to use the helicopters.
I can suggest an immediate use. Keep the Merlins in reserve to transport VIPs, including members of HM govt., when they visit Afghanistan. They would have to be flown by Kamikaze volunteer pilots, of course.
In fact they are rushing them out by December, so quickly that they will not be able to give them armoured protection against Taliban smalls arm fire or RPGs! Can anyone think of any other government which is so slow to respond and so callous to send equipment which has limited use?
So the troops may be able to avoid roadside bombs, but only at the cost of flying in planes which give them little protection against low technology armaments.
The government has effectively washed its hands by saying that if there is a problem the commanders on the spot must judge when it is safe to use the helicopters.
I can suggest an immediate use. Keep the Merlins in reserve to transport VIPs, including members of HM govt., when they visit Afghanistan. They would have to be flown by Kamikaze volunteer pilots, of course.
Monday, 3 August 2009
Right observation, wrong prescription
At last some MPs are concerned about the possible dumbing down of degree courses and inflation of awards. A report published by a committee observes that the percentage of first class degrees awarded has risen from 7.7 in 1996-97 to 13.3 in 2008/2009, almost doubling. Similarly the number of "upper seconds" has risen from 53% to 61%. So on leaving University now 74.3 % are awarded one of the two upper grades.
This is consistent with reducing the difficulty of 'A' levels, and seems to imply a reduction in the difficulty of first degrees. It would be good to see at which institutions there are above average awards of these degree classes, and in which subjects (- media studies, sport studies?)
The MPs then draw the wrong conclusion and make the wrong prescription. They suggest an Ofsted-like body which will maintain standards and equivalence across courses and institutions.(Yes, another quango, which we had no need of until NuLabour came along.) Does anyone doubt that in the name of social engineering standards would fall further, the Russell Group would endeavour to become private and British students would feel the need to study abroad to obtain a worthwhile qualification?
This is consistent with reducing the difficulty of 'A' levels, and seems to imply a reduction in the difficulty of first degrees. It would be good to see at which institutions there are above average awards of these degree classes, and in which subjects (- media studies, sport studies?)
The MPs then draw the wrong conclusion and make the wrong prescription. They suggest an Ofsted-like body which will maintain standards and equivalence across courses and institutions.(Yes, another quango, which we had no need of until NuLabour came along.) Does anyone doubt that in the name of social engineering standards would fall further, the Russell Group would endeavour to become private and British students would feel the need to study abroad to obtain a worthwhile qualification?
Give them the tools and they'll finish the job
On Sunday there were two glaring examples of the failure of the Ministry of Defence to equip our troops adequately. (There were actually three reports, but the issue of poor provision of helicopters raised by the Tories has probably had sufficient coverage.)
In the Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker recalls the exposure by himself and Richard North in 2005 of the scandal of the purchase of 401 Panther command vehicles which cost £166 million. (This was in the excitement of standardising equipment with our EU partners in the name of integration. The vehicles were made by Iveco, the Italian company.)
The mistake was discovered soon, and the vehicles were stored. Eventually at a further cost of £20 million 67 of them were adapted for use in Afghanistan. In the field, despite the cost of £700,000 on each, they were found so unsuitable that they were banned from operational duties. (Booker notes that the UK could have followed the example of the Irish and the Swedes
and bought battle-ready RG-32Ms for a quarter of the price paid.)
In the Mail on Sunday Christopher Leake describes an anti-bomb device which has saved dozens of US lives in encounters with IEDs/roadside bombs. The device is the Self-Protection Adaptive Roller Kit (SPARK). This is a front- bolted unit rather like a gang mower, which allows rollers to precede the vehicle, explode the ordnance and absorb the blast of any explosion.
Recently In Kandahar a bomb completely destroyed the SARK unit but left the vehicle and occupants undamaged. SPARK units seem to be relatively unsophisticated, and therefor expendable.
The Americans are very pleased with SPARK, and delighted to use it although it is built by Pearson Engineering on Tyneside, UK.
To their slight credit the MOD bought 12 units, but they have been mothballed because the Army does not have mounting kits to attach them to vehicles.
Do we deserve the troops we have out there, and do we deserve to win?
In the Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker recalls the exposure by himself and Richard North in 2005 of the scandal of the purchase of 401 Panther command vehicles which cost £166 million. (This was in the excitement of standardising equipment with our EU partners in the name of integration. The vehicles were made by Iveco, the Italian company.)
The mistake was discovered soon, and the vehicles were stored. Eventually at a further cost of £20 million 67 of them were adapted for use in Afghanistan. In the field, despite the cost of £700,000 on each, they were found so unsuitable that they were banned from operational duties. (Booker notes that the UK could have followed the example of the Irish and the Swedes
and bought battle-ready RG-32Ms for a quarter of the price paid.)
In the Mail on Sunday Christopher Leake describes an anti-bomb device which has saved dozens of US lives in encounters with IEDs/roadside bombs. The device is the Self-Protection Adaptive Roller Kit (SPARK). This is a front- bolted unit rather like a gang mower, which allows rollers to precede the vehicle, explode the ordnance and absorb the blast of any explosion.
Recently In Kandahar a bomb completely destroyed the SARK unit but left the vehicle and occupants undamaged. SPARK units seem to be relatively unsophisticated, and therefor expendable.
The Americans are very pleased with SPARK, and delighted to use it although it is built by Pearson Engineering on Tyneside, UK.
To their slight credit the MOD bought 12 units, but they have been mothballed because the Army does not have mounting kits to attach them to vehicles.
Do we deserve the troops we have out there, and do we deserve to win?
Still in nappies?
The Sunday Telegraph this week reported a growing problem in reception classes, of children who first arrive for school not having been fully potty trained. These are actually five years old or approaching that age.
The charity Education and Resources for Improving Childhood Continence (ERIC) is running at least one course each month to help school nurses cope with the number of children turning up to school wearing nappies, and there are discussions to extend this provision to teachers.
Most children have traditionally been potty trained by somewhere between their second and third birthdays, although there may be persistent problems where there are special medical conditions.
The reasons advanced for the growing trend are working parents who have insufficient time or energy to undertake the process. There are also some who decide to wait "until the child is ready".
The end result is that in the past week I have read and written about two different problems which are holding up education progress in the early years. Last week it was children arriving with no literary skills at all. This week arriving with inadequate potty training.
Both cases show parents who have not devoted enough time to their children, and both explain how the important basics in education are hampered.
The charity Education and Resources for Improving Childhood Continence (ERIC) is running at least one course each month to help school nurses cope with the number of children turning up to school wearing nappies, and there are discussions to extend this provision to teachers.
Most children have traditionally been potty trained by somewhere between their second and third birthdays, although there may be persistent problems where there are special medical conditions.
The reasons advanced for the growing trend are working parents who have insufficient time or energy to undertake the process. There are also some who decide to wait "until the child is ready".
The end result is that in the past week I have read and written about two different problems which are holding up education progress in the early years. Last week it was children arriving with no literary skills at all. This week arriving with inadequate potty training.
Both cases show parents who have not devoted enough time to their children, and both explain how the important basics in education are hampered.
Unobserved
We were told over the week-end that offenders released early or under community service orders over the past two years committed 94 murders and 105 rapes. Adding in all other serious offences brings in a total of 1000. Those under supervision in the two years ending April 2009, committed on average 10 serious crimes a week.
The Ministry of Justice rings its hands and sends its sympathy to those who have suffered.
Questions need to asked. All the offenders had been convicted of offences previously. This means one or more of three things. The prison service has failed in a big way to spot potential further offenders in allowing early release , the judiciary in permitting non-custodial sentences and the probation service in its supervision.
Behind all these three are government departments who deny extra prison space and/or finance, and who seem incapable of consistent management.
The Ministry of Justice rings its hands and sends its sympathy to those who have suffered.
Questions need to asked. All the offenders had been convicted of offences previously. This means one or more of three things. The prison service has failed in a big way to spot potential further offenders in allowing early release , the judiciary in permitting non-custodial sentences and the probation service in its supervision.
Behind all these three are government departments who deny extra prison space and/or finance, and who seem incapable of consistent management.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
