From October there is to be a change in arrangements for the refund of fees to those charged with motoring offences but acquitted by the courts.
Previously if acquitted, and about 380,000 out of 1.4 million charged in 2007 were acquitted, motorists received 80% of their costs from the state.
In future fees will be limited to the legal aid rate of £60 an hour, or about 25% of what is normally charged. It can cost £2,000 to defend a speeding charge, or between £5,000 and £10,000 to defend a drink-driving charge. In future, then, those acquitted will be reimbursed up to £600 in the former and £1,500 to £3,000 in the latter cases, leaving a large amount to find out of their own pocket.
I have three comments:
1) It will make a difficult decision for those charged. Can I afford to protest my innocence, or should I pretend I was guilty? The latter will have insurance implications for years to come, and possibly job loss.
2) If I sue someone privately, and lose the case, I am liable for their costs. Why should it be any different in the case of prosecution by the government?
3) I assume that that police are not biased or vindictive, but they are capable of making mistakes and accusing falsely someone who is innocent. Why should it be only the wealthy who can afford to protest their innocence?
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Wrong analysis, wrong prescription
On his blog today Robert Peston, BBC Business Correspondent, was guilty of a Brownian mis-analysis in trotting out the Brown line.
What he wrote was that the financial crisis was "caused by the mis-pricing and misallocation of capital by the free market on a magnificent scale."
Leaving aside the assumption of a free market in the presence of what should have been highly regulated, if the authorities had done their work. (In some countries, especially Canada, there was much less trouble, because regulation had done its work properly.)
In fact the markets seemed to have responded rather well to massive mistakes made by bankers and governments in causing the downfall of badly run banks. Again, there were banks which did not fail, because they followed sound traditional banking rules in the absence of adequate regulation.
Let us concede, however, that the Peston assumption is correct, that the "greedy bankers" were partly responsible, in that many of them bought worthless paper in bundles, often including the sub-prime mortgages. The question then becomes, "Were any other groups culpable?"
The finger of accusation must point to governments, who kept interest rates too low too long for political reasons and presided over asset bubbles, including house prices, which could not be sustained, and allowed citizens to accumulate massive debt and insufficient saving to provide the asset base for bank lending.
There were other errors, perhaps for the best of reasons, such as President Clinton encouraging the granting or mortgages to those who would not be able to repay, as well as abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act which would have stopped over-lending.
Finally, the G.Brown-designed regulatory system in the UK was not up to the job. There was confusion and uncertainty. It failed its first test.
Whether there would have been a recession in the absence of greedy banks, I do not know and I suspect no-one knows. They obviously made a contribution. But to ignore the contribution of governments and failures of regulators is to paint a very distorted picture.
Brown wants more and more regulation, not because it will necessarily be any more effective then before, but for doctrinaire reasons and to deflect criticism of his own role in the mess.
What he wrote was that the financial crisis was "caused by the mis-pricing and misallocation of capital by the free market on a magnificent scale."
Leaving aside the assumption of a free market in the presence of what should have been highly regulated, if the authorities had done their work. (In some countries, especially Canada, there was much less trouble, because regulation had done its work properly.)
In fact the markets seemed to have responded rather well to massive mistakes made by bankers and governments in causing the downfall of badly run banks. Again, there were banks which did not fail, because they followed sound traditional banking rules in the absence of adequate regulation.
Let us concede, however, that the Peston assumption is correct, that the "greedy bankers" were partly responsible, in that many of them bought worthless paper in bundles, often including the sub-prime mortgages. The question then becomes, "Were any other groups culpable?"
The finger of accusation must point to governments, who kept interest rates too low too long for political reasons and presided over asset bubbles, including house prices, which could not be sustained, and allowed citizens to accumulate massive debt and insufficient saving to provide the asset base for bank lending.
There were other errors, perhaps for the best of reasons, such as President Clinton encouraging the granting or mortgages to those who would not be able to repay, as well as abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act which would have stopped over-lending.
Finally, the G.Brown-designed regulatory system in the UK was not up to the job. There was confusion and uncertainty. It failed its first test.
Whether there would have been a recession in the absence of greedy banks, I do not know and I suspect no-one knows. They obviously made a contribution. But to ignore the contribution of governments and failures of regulators is to paint a very distorted picture.
Brown wants more and more regulation, not because it will necessarily be any more effective then before, but for doctrinaire reasons and to deflect criticism of his own role in the mess.
Ah, but it all depends who says it.
In his address, G.Brown, in his proposal to consign teenage mothers to hostels (some have nick-named them 'gulags for slags' or 'huts for sluts') and which received rapturous applause, was guilty of an about-face.
Firstly, as Guido Fawkes has pointed out, this policy was similar to the policy advocated by the BNP, hated by Brown as much as he hates the Tories. Earlier in his speech he was applauded when he attacked the BNP, saying that there should be no place for them in British politics.
Secondly, his proposal is not unlike Blair's 1999 plans to house teen mothers in hostels although, unlike Brown, Blair was not proposing to make it compulsory! Brown apparently opposed the proposal.
Thirdly, there are already a number of such hostels, with about 8,000 teenage mums living in them. His plan, it seems, is to build more, in case some of the mums need to be directed there. His plan is not new, and given that it will take a few years to plan and build these residences in a time of financial constraint it seems that he was just window-dressing.
The most amazing thing about the promise, was the the fact that his party applauded it, presumably unaware that it was both an old policy and like that of the BNP. I wonder what his party would say if the Tories promised something similar - "These hard-hearted Tories"?
Firstly, as Guido Fawkes has pointed out, this policy was similar to the policy advocated by the BNP, hated by Brown as much as he hates the Tories. Earlier in his speech he was applauded when he attacked the BNP, saying that there should be no place for them in British politics.
Secondly, his proposal is not unlike Blair's 1999 plans to house teen mothers in hostels although, unlike Brown, Blair was not proposing to make it compulsory! Brown apparently opposed the proposal.
Thirdly, there are already a number of such hostels, with about 8,000 teenage mums living in them. His plan, it seems, is to build more, in case some of the mums need to be directed there. His plan is not new, and given that it will take a few years to plan and build these residences in a time of financial constraint it seems that he was just window-dressing.
The most amazing thing about the promise, was the the fact that his party applauded it, presumably unaware that it was both an old policy and like that of the BNP. I wonder what his party would say if the Tories promised something similar - "These hard-hearted Tories"?
Sour grapes?
Harriet Harman and Lord Mandelson have both attacked the Sun for switching sides, and no longer supporting Labour.
The sheer arrogance is overwhelming. The support should be Labour's by right. How dare they support some other party?
Mandelson is particularly odious - saying that (he knows) Sun readers would prefer a newspaper to a Tory magazine. He didn't complain when the Sun was a Labour magazine.
A word of advice for the Tories. Murdoch latches on to those in government, or soon to be, and he will go back to Labour if he feels it is to his advantage.
The sheer arrogance is overwhelming. The support should be Labour's by right. How dare they support some other party?
Mandelson is particularly odious - saying that (he knows) Sun readers would prefer a newspaper to a Tory magazine. He didn't complain when the Sun was a Labour magazine.
A word of advice for the Tories. Murdoch latches on to those in government, or soon to be, and he will go back to Labour if he feels it is to his advantage.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Still sinking
Official figures show that the economy grew by 0.6% in the second quarter, - April-May 2009.
It may be better than it was, but it's still a matter of falling output and activity. Perhaps the long seen green shoots are still coming, but at the moment it looks more like moss.
All the forecasts are for a long slow recovery, so expect unemployment figures to grow until at least the third quarter of next year. Can Gord delay the election?
It may be better than it was, but it's still a matter of falling output and activity. Perhaps the long seen green shoots are still coming, but at the moment it looks more like moss.
All the forecasts are for a long slow recovery, so expect unemployment figures to grow until at least the third quarter of next year. Can Gord delay the election?
Second best
Sir Richard Handover was asked to review the financial management of the state school system. His report, due to be published soon, was leaked to the Daily Telegraph.
According to the newspaper, yesterday, the report is a damning indictment of waste and mismanagement, with excessive amounts paid for equipment and maintenance. Sir Richard concludes that 6% of the educational budget could be cut without damaging outcomes.
His most striking recommendation was that almost a quarter of the money spent on teaching assistants could be cut, because the contribution of the assistants there was negligible. (There are currently more than 181,000 of these assistants, and 40,000 posts could be abolished in his view. He also suggests that a further 30,000 posts should have further training to raise their contribution to equality with teaching colleagues.
A study by the London Institute of Education earlier this month found that teaching assistants did help to reduce the stress encountered by teachers, but did not boost pupil progress. In some cases the presence of assistants actually held back progress.
So it should be possible to reduce stress by introducing fewer changes and fewer forms, and thus abolish any of these posts. Where they essential educationally, then further training should be given.
To no-one's surprise the unions involved and Ed Balls, rejected the report without countering any of the points made by Sir Richard.
According to the newspaper, yesterday, the report is a damning indictment of waste and mismanagement, with excessive amounts paid for equipment and maintenance. Sir Richard concludes that 6% of the educational budget could be cut without damaging outcomes.
His most striking recommendation was that almost a quarter of the money spent on teaching assistants could be cut, because the contribution of the assistants there was negligible. (There are currently more than 181,000 of these assistants, and 40,000 posts could be abolished in his view. He also suggests that a further 30,000 posts should have further training to raise their contribution to equality with teaching colleagues.
A study by the London Institute of Education earlier this month found that teaching assistants did help to reduce the stress encountered by teachers, but did not boost pupil progress. In some cases the presence of assistants actually held back progress.
So it should be possible to reduce stress by introducing fewer changes and fewer forms, and thus abolish any of these posts. Where they essential educationally, then further training should be given.
To no-one's surprise the unions involved and Ed Balls, rejected the report without countering any of the points made by Sir Richard.
Ever remoter
(Continuing the police theme, the Daily Telegraph yesterday revealed that the retreat of the police is continuing.)
David Ruffley, the shadow policing minister, has obtained information which indicates that the process of closing police stations is continuing, at least at the rate of one a month. (A few are replaced by new stations, but the vast majority are not being replaced.) The true figure could be many more closing, because almost half of police forces refused to provide information.
When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 1,976 police stations in England and Wales, but there has been a net loss of 500 since then.
ACPO, the association of chief police officers, explain the closures as being from budgetary pressures.
The "local" station provides a presence in itself, and a base for officers working in the area. When offices are closed there is no obvious police presence in the area. Police working time is reduced because of the need to travel from and to remote offices.
We must believe the Home Office claims that they have spent much money on electronic means of contact with communities, but in the end it is physical presence which matters, and not merely officers flashing past in their cars. Too many communities have formed the impression that the police are remote, and it is difficult to get them out of their offices or their cars. They are just too remote, and unknown.
David Ruffley, the shadow policing minister, has obtained information which indicates that the process of closing police stations is continuing, at least at the rate of one a month. (A few are replaced by new stations, but the vast majority are not being replaced.) The true figure could be many more closing, because almost half of police forces refused to provide information.
When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 1,976 police stations in England and Wales, but there has been a net loss of 500 since then.
ACPO, the association of chief police officers, explain the closures as being from budgetary pressures.
The "local" station provides a presence in itself, and a base for officers working in the area. When offices are closed there is no obvious police presence in the area. Police working time is reduced because of the need to travel from and to remote offices.
We must believe the Home Office claims that they have spent much money on electronic means of contact with communities, but in the end it is physical presence which matters, and not merely officers flashing past in their cars. Too many communities have formed the impression that the police are remote, and it is difficult to get them out of their offices or their cars. They are just too remote, and unknown.
What are they for, then?
I have posted on the implications of the Ms. Pilkington case.
Since then another case has arisen.
Nikki Collen, mother of two and Open University student, rang the Warwickshire Police from her home in Kenilworth, asking them to come after an incident when a thug kicked down her door and then entered and punched her to the floor. She begged for help. Apparently she had telephoned on previous occasions.
The police promised to send an officer, but after an hour rang back to say that it would be better if they did not attend, as it would inflame the situation. They urged her not to press charges and to "sort it out" herself.
We have only her side of the situation, and we do not know if she was related to the assailant, but on the face of it we seem to have a situation similar that of Ms. Pilkington.
If Ms Collen is mostly accurate, we have a woman assaulted by a thug, with the police refusing to go to see her. It raises the important question, "What are the Police for?" At their minimum level their function is the preservation of law and order!
If it was some sort of domestic incident, it was still assault. If the situation could have escalated, this is no argument for doing nothing. To suggest that she should do something herself is against all recommendations and is on the face of it preposterous.
At the very least, the local council should have been informed and involved.
Since then another case has arisen.
Nikki Collen, mother of two and Open University student, rang the Warwickshire Police from her home in Kenilworth, asking them to come after an incident when a thug kicked down her door and then entered and punched her to the floor. She begged for help. Apparently she had telephoned on previous occasions.
The police promised to send an officer, but after an hour rang back to say that it would be better if they did not attend, as it would inflame the situation. They urged her not to press charges and to "sort it out" herself.
We have only her side of the situation, and we do not know if she was related to the assailant, but on the face of it we seem to have a situation similar that of Ms. Pilkington.
If Ms Collen is mostly accurate, we have a woman assaulted by a thug, with the police refusing to go to see her. It raises the important question, "What are the Police for?" At their minimum level their function is the preservation of law and order!
If it was some sort of domestic incident, it was still assault. If the situation could have escalated, this is no argument for doing nothing. To suggest that she should do something herself is against all recommendations and is on the face of it preposterous.
At the very least, the local council should have been informed and involved.
They're both wrong
The affair of the poor lady from Leicestershire, Ms. Pilkington, and her daughter, has produced the expected responses.
The acting chief constable is desperately sorry. What else could he say? He is the head of an organisation which obeys diktats from Westminster, rather than local people, but he is not alone in that. As the trouble goes back over many years, he can hardly be blamed personally.
G.Brown will make his "make or break" speech today and promises to act tough on the matter of ASBOs. His neglect of the Blair concept means that he can hardly blame anyone else.
So we shall have a brief period while police and councils "act tough" on juvenile offending, perhaps even threatening prison, until they discover that prisons are full.
What happened to the other half of Blair's promise - tough on the causes of crime?
- communities are powerless, adults are forbidden to act, or are afraid, when they see antisocial acts. In the past a clip round the ear would have sufficed.
- police are stretched on other things, and don't seem to venture out of their ivory towers. Don't bother calling them for a minor theft! They had plenty of opportunity in Barwell, but were preoccupied on other targets set by the government.
Blair was right - the activities of feral youths will only be reduced by meaningful punishments - community service orders, if we are squeamish about incarceration. Otherwise ASBOs are merely "badges of honour".
But he was not tough on causes, which go back to inadequate parents and dysfunctional families which combine with an educational system which has little effective discipline or sanction. The former, with too many single parents and parents on benefit since their teens, will be a hard nut to crack, but educationally there could be much firmer discipline with mentoring and role models.
Above all, if police and councils actually had to listen to what their local citizens wanted, rather than being agents of central government, in other words local accountability, then the problem would be reduced.
The acting chief constable is desperately sorry. What else could he say? He is the head of an organisation which obeys diktats from Westminster, rather than local people, but he is not alone in that. As the trouble goes back over many years, he can hardly be blamed personally.
G.Brown will make his "make or break" speech today and promises to act tough on the matter of ASBOs. His neglect of the Blair concept means that he can hardly blame anyone else.
So we shall have a brief period while police and councils "act tough" on juvenile offending, perhaps even threatening prison, until they discover that prisons are full.
What happened to the other half of Blair's promise - tough on the causes of crime?
- communities are powerless, adults are forbidden to act, or are afraid, when they see antisocial acts. In the past a clip round the ear would have sufficed.
- police are stretched on other things, and don't seem to venture out of their ivory towers. Don't bother calling them for a minor theft! They had plenty of opportunity in Barwell, but were preoccupied on other targets set by the government.
Blair was right - the activities of feral youths will only be reduced by meaningful punishments - community service orders, if we are squeamish about incarceration. Otherwise ASBOs are merely "badges of honour".
But he was not tough on causes, which go back to inadequate parents and dysfunctional families which combine with an educational system which has little effective discipline or sanction. The former, with too many single parents and parents on benefit since their teens, will be a hard nut to crack, but educationally there could be much firmer discipline with mentoring and role models.
Above all, if police and councils actually had to listen to what their local citizens wanted, rather than being agents of central government, in other words local accountability, then the problem would be reduced.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Policing and justice
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Paul Stephenson, recently expressed concern at the growing trend to "punish" offenders either with a caution or with an on-the-spot fine. He had concluded that the balance had swung too far in this direction and needed review.
His view is that something like 400,00o offenders annually currently given a fine or caution would be better dealt with via a court appearance, and that the public would have greater confidence in the police if violent thugs had the salutary experience of appearing in court, and if they were made to be supervised by the probation service, or something similar.
The suspicion is that the objective of these out of court penalties is to save time, both in the courts and for officers having to attend court. If so, it is ineffective and self-defeating. Offenders must be exposed to the full rigour of the law, not merely fined as if for a parking offence.
Sir Paul is undoubtedly right, and his doubts should be heeded. This country needs an effective and prompt enforcement service, with no penny pinching.
His view is that something like 400,00o offenders annually currently given a fine or caution would be better dealt with via a court appearance, and that the public would have greater confidence in the police if violent thugs had the salutary experience of appearing in court, and if they were made to be supervised by the probation service, or something similar.
The suspicion is that the objective of these out of court penalties is to save time, both in the courts and for officers having to attend court. If so, it is ineffective and self-defeating. Offenders must be exposed to the full rigour of the law, not merely fined as if for a parking offence.
Sir Paul is undoubtedly right, and his doubts should be heeded. This country needs an effective and prompt enforcement service, with no penny pinching.
Police Service or Police Force?
Are the police our servants, in which case why do they ignore our wishes, or are they the government's enforcer? Is their purpose to achieve targets set centrally by the Home Office, in which case they are becoming a (national) police force?
If you are the victim of theft, you phone the police who make some notes, but they know and you know it's merely to get a crime number in order to claim on your insurance.
I am old enough to remember when AA roadmen saluted members and when the police addressed us as "sir" or "madam". All these have gone in our brave new world. There is a growing chasm between police and public. We seldom see constables except when they are driving or when we go to the police station to report something. Police stations are still closing at a regular rate, and the police seem more and more remote.
Data from the British Crime Survey 2006-07, which was published recently, indicated that more than one in four respondents felt annoyed after contact with the police. In the final event most of the contacts did not result in an official complaint. In fact only 10% of such contacts went on to produce an official complaint.
Last year, according to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) 31,259 complaints were made against the police in England and Wales, an increase of 2,296 on the previous year (2007-08). Approximately 25% were that officers were slow or ineffective, while 20% involved complaints about officer rudeness. (These figures exclude complaints arising from the G20 protests in April, which occurred after the end of the statistical year.)
Both the police and the public will lose if this alienation continues, the former because they will lack support and legitimacy in the minds of the public, and the latter because the police will become less effective at clearing up crime.
We need not a police force, out of touch with us and annoying, but a police service which is sympathetic to our wishes and treats us civilly and as partners in the war against crime.
If you are the victim of theft, you phone the police who make some notes, but they know and you know it's merely to get a crime number in order to claim on your insurance.
I am old enough to remember when AA roadmen saluted members and when the police addressed us as "sir" or "madam". All these have gone in our brave new world. There is a growing chasm between police and public. We seldom see constables except when they are driving or when we go to the police station to report something. Police stations are still closing at a regular rate, and the police seem more and more remote.
Data from the British Crime Survey 2006-07, which was published recently, indicated that more than one in four respondents felt annoyed after contact with the police. In the final event most of the contacts did not result in an official complaint. In fact only 10% of such contacts went on to produce an official complaint.
Last year, according to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) 31,259 complaints were made against the police in England and Wales, an increase of 2,296 on the previous year (2007-08). Approximately 25% were that officers were slow or ineffective, while 20% involved complaints about officer rudeness. (These figures exclude complaints arising from the G20 protests in April, which occurred after the end of the statistical year.)
Both the police and the public will lose if this alienation continues, the former because they will lack support and legitimacy in the minds of the public, and the latter because the police will become less effective at clearing up crime.
We need not a police force, out of touch with us and annoying, but a police service which is sympathetic to our wishes and treats us civilly and as partners in the war against crime.
Inadequate support over there, too much here?
The Daily telegraph has raised concerns about the vast army of bureaucrats in the MOD in Whitehall. As I have blogged before, there is one civil servant for every two active troops, a vast army of civil servants numbering 87,730!
In percentage terms the number of civil servants that we have represents the highest ratio of civil servants to troops in 28 Western Alliance countries. Compared with our 50%, Bulgaria is aiming for 2%, and most countries are imposing cuts.
It would seem that this group of civil servants could well be cut by 20% or even 30%, if the political parties are looking for areas in which to cut.
The MOD is assumed to be one of the best housed departments in Whitehall, and is currently going through a rebuilding and refurbishment which, with running costs will cost £2.346 billion over of 30 years, or £78 million per year. This works out as £23,600 per person per year. (In major cities outside London, the cost per person can be as low as £4,000.) Perhaps it is due to the large plasma TVs, the gymnasium, oak doors, high quality furniture and expensive paintings. Don't tell the troops, that those fighting in Whitehall are so well equipped! This all goes well with the top brass earning £200,000, and with large bonuses for senior civil servants.
The bonuses paid are for the "success" - the MOD in being over-budget and late in just about every project, or mystifyingly buying more expensive and delayed equipment which is needed urgently, and being unable to provide adequate equipment for troops risking life and limb overseas.
In the words from the "Mikado", they should be on the list, "They never would be missed".
In percentage terms the number of civil servants that we have represents the highest ratio of civil servants to troops in 28 Western Alliance countries. Compared with our 50%, Bulgaria is aiming for 2%, and most countries are imposing cuts.
It would seem that this group of civil servants could well be cut by 20% or even 30%, if the political parties are looking for areas in which to cut.
The MOD is assumed to be one of the best housed departments in Whitehall, and is currently going through a rebuilding and refurbishment which, with running costs will cost £2.346 billion over of 30 years, or £78 million per year. This works out as £23,600 per person per year. (In major cities outside London, the cost per person can be as low as £4,000.) Perhaps it is due to the large plasma TVs, the gymnasium, oak doors, high quality furniture and expensive paintings. Don't tell the troops, that those fighting in Whitehall are so well equipped! This all goes well with the top brass earning £200,000, and with large bonuses for senior civil servants.
The bonuses paid are for the "success" - the MOD in being over-budget and late in just about every project, or mystifyingly buying more expensive and delayed equipment which is needed urgently, and being unable to provide adequate equipment for troops risking life and limb overseas.
In the words from the "Mikado", they should be on the list, "They never would be missed".
Consenting adults....?
Two WPCs have been told that they were acting illegally in minding each other's children when their mothers were on duty.
There is no question of risk to the children, since presumably both women would have been checked by the CRB as a condition of their work No, their offence was to offer mutual help without telling the government (agency). They can presumably continue with the arrangement if they register with Ofsted, and presumably pay the relevant fee.
Neither woman paid the other, but they were deemed to have been rewarded by the arrangement.
This is worrying in itself. Families and neighbours do kindnesses for each other. Ought we to declare this on our annual tax returns? "I dug my neighbour's garden he painted my house, notional value £500 to each from each", so we would pay tax on our increased income.
Where will it end? We give apples to our neighbour. She gives us tomatoes, so we are "rewarded for giving the apples, she for giving the tomatoes. The mind cannot quickly conceive how many other implications there are to all this.
The object in registering with Ofsted, I suspect is not to raise some more income. It is part of the mania this government has for control.
There is no question of risk to the children, since presumably both women would have been checked by the CRB as a condition of their work No, their offence was to offer mutual help without telling the government (agency). They can presumably continue with the arrangement if they register with Ofsted, and presumably pay the relevant fee.
Neither woman paid the other, but they were deemed to have been rewarded by the arrangement.
This is worrying in itself. Families and neighbours do kindnesses for each other. Ought we to declare this on our annual tax returns? "I dug my neighbour's garden he painted my house, notional value £500 to each from each", so we would pay tax on our increased income.
Where will it end? We give apples to our neighbour. She gives us tomatoes, so we are "rewarded for giving the apples, she for giving the tomatoes. The mind cannot quickly conceive how many other implications there are to all this.
The object in registering with Ofsted, I suspect is not to raise some more income. It is part of the mania this government has for control.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
What have they got against rural folks?
It's hard for people in the country. They have lost their local shop and post office, their main hospital will become very remote and now we learn that they are likely to lose the dispensing services of their local doctor.
Currently about 1,500 rural GPs offer dispensing services, and so save many patients long and polluting car journeys to the nearest supermarket or city chemist. The NHS has announced that from next Wednesday costs allowed to doctors to cover the costs of dispensing, - not the drugs themselves, will be reduced from £2.14 to £1.95.
The reduction seems small, but could cause a drop in income of as much as £850 per month for each dispensing doctor. The doctors are already suggesting that they will have to make savings in other services to carry this cost.
If doctors make an arrangement with a distant pharmacy, perhaps on line, to dispense those prescriptions so requested, to enable one car owner to fetch all ( if this is legally possible), then patients may not suffer unduly if local dispensing services are lost. If, however, patients have to fetch their prescriptions individually, then costs will obviously rise significantly.
Currently about 1,500 rural GPs offer dispensing services, and so save many patients long and polluting car journeys to the nearest supermarket or city chemist. The NHS has announced that from next Wednesday costs allowed to doctors to cover the costs of dispensing, - not the drugs themselves, will be reduced from £2.14 to £1.95.
The reduction seems small, but could cause a drop in income of as much as £850 per month for each dispensing doctor. The doctors are already suggesting that they will have to make savings in other services to carry this cost.
If doctors make an arrangement with a distant pharmacy, perhaps on line, to dispense those prescriptions so requested, to enable one car owner to fetch all ( if this is legally possible), then patients may not suffer unduly if local dispensing services are lost. If, however, patients have to fetch their prescriptions individually, then costs will obviously rise significantly.
"Now, what else can we tax...?"
News that some councils are resorting to taxing stores and supermarkets for parking spaces they offer their customers, beggars belief. The councils are doing this because central government are denying funds for tasks councils are required to do, so ultimately it is yet another stealth tax by Westminster.
There is talk of charging £600 per parking space per year. If the council has a large supermarket in its area, then with say 150 places then the supermarket would pay £90,000 on top of all the other taxes. It should be remembered that supermarkets already have the (opportunity) cost of the car park - the actual otherwise unproductive valuable land, the sunk costs of tarmacking, the routine maintenance and car park "policing".
Expect support from local shops, whose customers often use the supermarket parking for a quick dash to the local shop(s), because any cost increase to the supermarket is welcome.
Apart from being yet another tax and ever-mounting cost, the implications for the extra tax will depend on how the tax is absorbed. Will it be passed on in higher parking charges, in which case there could be more nearby "side-street" parking, or will it be in higher goods prices, or in the sale of some car-park area or change of use?
Whatever the consequence, in the middle of a recession higher costs is something to be avoided.
There is talk of charging £600 per parking space per year. If the council has a large supermarket in its area, then with say 150 places then the supermarket would pay £90,000 on top of all the other taxes. It should be remembered that supermarkets already have the (opportunity) cost of the car park - the actual otherwise unproductive valuable land, the sunk costs of tarmacking, the routine maintenance and car park "policing".
Expect support from local shops, whose customers often use the supermarket parking for a quick dash to the local shop(s), because any cost increase to the supermarket is welcome.
Apart from being yet another tax and ever-mounting cost, the implications for the extra tax will depend on how the tax is absorbed. Will it be passed on in higher parking charges, in which case there could be more nearby "side-street" parking, or will it be in higher goods prices, or in the sale of some car-park area or change of use?
Whatever the consequence, in the middle of a recession higher costs is something to be avoided.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Men-free areas
The Telegraph reports today on research done by the General Teaching Council, and picked out the experience of boys.
Girls are out-performing boys from an early age, and it's not just sport and computer games.
One reason might possibly be the virtual absence of male role models in the lives of some boys. Many are brought up by a lone mother, but now comes the realisation that the only adult male that many boys will see in their junior school is the caretaker!
Over a quarter of all primary schools are staffed entirely by female teachers, - 4,550 out of 16,900. Overall only 13% of primary teachers are male. The percentage is higher in secondary schools, but in education as a whole only 25.6% teachers are male. In state nurseries only 3% are male. (There may be a reflection of paedophilia, that men are looked upon with some suspicion where the very young are concerned.)
The effect on boys may be imagined. They could see education as a girlish thing, especially if reading material, activities and attitudes are perceived as female. The examination system has come to reward hard work much more than in the past, when ability in a once-off demanding exam was the criterion. Girls generally have more commitment.
There needs to be some change to persuade boys that education is worthwhile. This will need more male teachers, materials which interest and challenge boys, and examination routes where they can shine.
Girls are out-performing boys from an early age, and it's not just sport and computer games.
One reason might possibly be the virtual absence of male role models in the lives of some boys. Many are brought up by a lone mother, but now comes the realisation that the only adult male that many boys will see in their junior school is the caretaker!
Over a quarter of all primary schools are staffed entirely by female teachers, - 4,550 out of 16,900. Overall only 13% of primary teachers are male. The percentage is higher in secondary schools, but in education as a whole only 25.6% teachers are male. In state nurseries only 3% are male. (There may be a reflection of paedophilia, that men are looked upon with some suspicion where the very young are concerned.)
The effect on boys may be imagined. They could see education as a girlish thing, especially if reading material, activities and attitudes are perceived as female. The examination system has come to reward hard work much more than in the past, when ability in a once-off demanding exam was the criterion. Girls generally have more commitment.
There needs to be some change to persuade boys that education is worthwhile. This will need more male teachers, materials which interest and challenge boys, and examination routes where they can shine.
Prosecute them!
The Daily Telegraph this morning seems confident that the mole(s) who leaked the data on MP's expense claims was/were from a group of soldiers earning money between tours in Afghanistan by working in parliament. The motive was apparently sheer anger at the way the MPs were grubbing themselves benefits while the troops fighting for their lives were being denied essential equipment.
I doubt that the government, or one of its agencies, will prosecute the leaker(s). They may have learned their lesson over the Damien Green affair, and they know that public sympathy would be with the troops.
The main reason why they will not prosecute is that it would give troops the opportunity to reveal how badly they have been supported by the government. This would be very damaging.
I doubt that the government, or one of its agencies, will prosecute the leaker(s). They may have learned their lesson over the Damien Green affair, and they know that public sympathy would be with the troops.
The main reason why they will not prosecute is that it would give troops the opportunity to reveal how badly they have been supported by the government. This would be very damaging.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Even better paid down at the surgery?
A recent paper on downgrading our local hospital, and requiring some of our area to travel 30 miles to the nearest major hospital (for some travelling up to 3 hours each way on public transport, if they have no car,) a passing item referred to payments for attendance at the A & E, which is one of the first departments to transfer out.
The wording is a summary and confusing to any who did not attend, but the gist seems to be that currently GPs are being paid for each patient who avoids admission to A & E . Presumably the GPs have to provide certification -" I inserted 6 stitches in the wound" or "I cauterised the bleed."
I had become aware that our local clinic is performing minor operations, and I welcome the trend - we know the doctors and the clinic is near, but payment for avoiding admissions to hospital does sound a little worrying. Is the decision left to the GP, and if the patient avoids hospital, who receives the payment? Given a full morning of surgeries, and afternoons with special clinics and no evening work, when do they actually manage to visit people in their homes?
The wording is a summary and confusing to any who did not attend, but the gist seems to be that currently GPs are being paid for each patient who avoids admission to A & E . Presumably the GPs have to provide certification -" I inserted 6 stitches in the wound" or "I cauterised the bleed."
I had become aware that our local clinic is performing minor operations, and I welcome the trend - we know the doctors and the clinic is near, but payment for avoiding admissions to hospital does sound a little worrying. Is the decision left to the GP, and if the patient avoids hospital, who receives the payment? Given a full morning of surgeries, and afternoons with special clinics and no evening work, when do they actually manage to visit people in their homes?
What do they stand for?
The age-old problem, which existed when I was a member of the old Liberal party for three or four years in the 1970s, is what exactly the party stands for. In my day it was the avoidance of extremes, a middle of the way party positioning itself in the centre of politics.
The problem is that voters accepted this, and the party grew, but now the middle is the area which was occupied by NuLabour and now b y the Conservatives, and the LimpDems could find themselves squeezed out.
It never was a middle of the way party, of course, and when the Social Democrats merged the party took a decidedly centre-left stance, with some members to the left of most of the Labour Party.
The Conference this week has not made anything clearer, I fear, as typified by the utterances of the leader. At the beginning he was trying to outdo everyone else with spending cuts, at the end wanting to hit the (few) wealthy with big taxes to raise the basic tax threshold, and in between we had Uncle Vince miscalculating in his wealth attack on large houses.
For Clegg to picture Labour as doomed and the Tories as empty, wait for two more weeks until they have had the chance to present their (hopefully coherent) policies. Soundbite dismissals may wow the party conference, but will not do much to persuade wavering voters in the country.
The problem is that voters accepted this, and the party grew, but now the middle is the area which was occupied by NuLabour and now b y the Conservatives, and the LimpDems could find themselves squeezed out.
It never was a middle of the way party, of course, and when the Social Democrats merged the party took a decidedly centre-left stance, with some members to the left of most of the Labour Party.
The Conference this week has not made anything clearer, I fear, as typified by the utterances of the leader. At the beginning he was trying to outdo everyone else with spending cuts, at the end wanting to hit the (few) wealthy with big taxes to raise the basic tax threshold, and in between we had Uncle Vince miscalculating in his wealth attack on large houses.
For Clegg to picture Labour as doomed and the Tories as empty, wait for two more weeks until they have had the chance to present their (hopefully coherent) policies. Soundbite dismissals may wow the party conference, but will not do much to persuade wavering voters in the country.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Calling all extremists
The extremists here are those who want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, otherwise the EU Constitution, according to David Miliband.
"Extremist" was the word he used in an interview. He also went on to claim that the Tories will reduce our influence in Brussels. I hadn't noticed that the vast majority of us, who have all sorts of things stuffed down our throats without any hope of redress, have had any influence hitherto. Only Gordon Brown has voted so far on the Lisbon Treaty, without consulting us.
I wonder if many people in this country would label Miliband an extremist, rather. He is happy to have a major democratic deficit, deny our citizens any voice on a major loss of British sovereignty, (as future decisions will be made without treaties), watched as our traditions and institutions were killed off in the name of uniformity and major industries such as fishing destroyed.
Is it extremist to want your country to prosper and above all to want to governed by elected representatives rather than unaccountable eurocrats? Is it extremist to want to bring to heel the wasteful and corrupt parts of the Brussels machine? I suspect not, for the large majority of people in this country who are becoming angrier by the year.
"Extremist" was the word he used in an interview. He also went on to claim that the Tories will reduce our influence in Brussels. I hadn't noticed that the vast majority of us, who have all sorts of things stuffed down our throats without any hope of redress, have had any influence hitherto. Only Gordon Brown has voted so far on the Lisbon Treaty, without consulting us.
I wonder if many people in this country would label Miliband an extremist, rather. He is happy to have a major democratic deficit, deny our citizens any voice on a major loss of British sovereignty, (as future decisions will be made without treaties), watched as our traditions and institutions were killed off in the name of uniformity and major industries such as fishing destroyed.
Is it extremist to want your country to prosper and above all to want to governed by elected representatives rather than unaccountable eurocrats? Is it extremist to want to bring to heel the wasteful and corrupt parts of the Brussels machine? I suspect not, for the large majority of people in this country who are becoming angrier by the year.
Are you feeling lucky, punk?
- the immortal words of Clint Eastwood's policeman character, when confronting a villain.
Is this what our nuclear deterrent will amount to if, as G.Brown offered yesterday to world leaders, we reduce our number of nuclear-armed submarines from four to three?
Given that four submarines has meant that we could arrange that three could be available or at sea while one was being serviced/refitted/repaired, will this mean that there could be times when we don't actually have any submarines of this type at sea, and therefore make us unable to retaliate?
Perhaps the punks will not know that we are playing roulette, or more likely other countries, including the much maligned USA, will have reactive capability to frighten the punks with the idea of mutual destruction.
Is there, in these straightened times, really any point in having three submarines at all?
A final thought, - Brown intends to save the world financial system, is he now attempting to save us all from nuclear destruction by reducing our small deterrent even further. Will anyone listen or react to what he has said?
Is this what our nuclear deterrent will amount to if, as G.Brown offered yesterday to world leaders, we reduce our number of nuclear-armed submarines from four to three?
Given that four submarines has meant that we could arrange that three could be available or at sea while one was being serviced/refitted/repaired, will this mean that there could be times when we don't actually have any submarines of this type at sea, and therefore make us unable to retaliate?
Perhaps the punks will not know that we are playing roulette, or more likely other countries, including the much maligned USA, will have reactive capability to frighten the punks with the idea of mutual destruction.
Is there, in these straightened times, really any point in having three submarines at all?
A final thought, - Brown intends to save the world financial system, is he now attempting to save us all from nuclear destruction by reducing our small deterrent even further. Will anyone listen or react to what he has said?
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
An ambush?
This morning on Toady we had the less than attractive experience of a one-sided shouting match by Limpdem Home Affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, on Eric Pickles.
The exercise seems to have been a calculated attempt by BBC/LibDems to land as many slurs as possible on Pickles in rapid succession, and to shout him down whenever he tried to answer the points. Certainly Huhne seemed well rehearsed and rattled them off at high speed. When Pickles did manage to insert a phrase, Huhne was there to shout him down immediately.
This reflects no credit on the Toady programme or the BBC generally, nor on the interviewer who merely giggled. It was unedifying.
We expect some knock about, with half truth and exaggeration, in political debate, but we expect to have a serious debate, with courtesy shown to political opponents. Above all, we expect an interviewer to try to allow the accused to try to answer points, and to be given equal air time.
The exercise seems to have been a calculated attempt by BBC/LibDems to land as many slurs as possible on Pickles in rapid succession, and to shout him down whenever he tried to answer the points. Certainly Huhne seemed well rehearsed and rattled them off at high speed. When Pickles did manage to insert a phrase, Huhne was there to shout him down immediately.
This reflects no credit on the Toady programme or the BBC generally, nor on the interviewer who merely giggled. It was unedifying.
We expect some knock about, with half truth and exaggeration, in political debate, but we expect to have a serious debate, with courtesy shown to political opponents. Above all, we expect an interviewer to try to allow the accused to try to answer points, and to be given equal air time.
Techical offence
It is to be hoped that owners of businesses who unwittingly employ illegal immigrants, without scrutinizing documents, but lacking her knowledge of the law in the welter of everything else which strangles their firms, are punished in the same way as Baroness Scotland.
This morning she was found guilty of a technical infringement. She knew the law, having helped it through parliament, and was fined half the maximum amount.
Businesses, especially smaller ones and younger ones, have so much red tape and regulation, that it would not be a surprise if they did not unwillingly fully comply. The hope must be that they will be treated equally leniently for a technical infringement.
This morning she was found guilty of a technical infringement. She knew the law, having helped it through parliament, and was fined half the maximum amount.
Businesses, especially smaller ones and younger ones, have so much red tape and regulation, that it would not be a surprise if they did not unwillingly fully comply. The hope must be that they will be treated equally leniently for a technical infringement.
Monday, 21 September 2009
If all are winners, then no-one wins
Researchers have concluded that the gold stickers given to younger children at school to express congratulation and merit for all sorts of achievement. Some of the rewards are for sitting quietly, disposing of debris properly, and even for eating a "good" lunch.
The problem is that if everyone, in line with current ideology, gains a prize, then they can become meaningless. With some children the "prizes" could even become counter-productive.
(It reminds me of the early post-war years of Soviet Socialism when, to encourage productivity in the absence of monetary incentives, they awarded "The Star of Lenin" or other such putty medal and displayed the award on public buildings. What happened, of course, was that other workers saw no advantage and the advertisement suggested "idiots" who got the same money as others but worked harder. The scheme did not last long.)
The problem is that if everyone, in line with current ideology, gains a prize, then they can become meaningless. With some children the "prizes" could even become counter-productive.
(It reminds me of the early post-war years of Soviet Socialism when, to encourage productivity in the absence of monetary incentives, they awarded "The Star of Lenin" or other such putty medal and displayed the award on public buildings. What happened, of course, was that other workers saw no advantage and the advertisement suggested "idiots" who got the same money as others but worked harder. The scheme did not last long.)
Just one example....
of money being squandered. The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday that Ofqual, Labour's quango charged with restoring faith in national educational tests, had employed consultants to find another word to replace "error", a word they didn't want to use in reports because of its suggestion of culpability.
The consultants were paid £3,000 - a very small project compared with some consultants employed by government and quangos. It is its sheer futility and also intended deception which staggers anyone.
At a time when the budget deficit could be as high as £185 billion, it beggars belief that quangos could be wasting money on such a project.
Cameron, the Tory leader, will almost certainly propose the abolition of many quangos as part of his plans to reduce public expenditure. This one, and many others like it, would seem to be a prime candidate.
He has also promised, if elected, to require all government departments to publish on line any items of expenditure greater than £25,000. Perhaps he should reduce this figure, and so catch any further stupid waste of money.
* The proposal which the consultants put forward, to replace "error", was "variation". This is a typical bureaucrat's word, to conceal as much as possible.
The consultants were paid £3,000 - a very small project compared with some consultants employed by government and quangos. It is its sheer futility and also intended deception which staggers anyone.
At a time when the budget deficit could be as high as £185 billion, it beggars belief that quangos could be wasting money on such a project.
Cameron, the Tory leader, will almost certainly propose the abolition of many quangos as part of his plans to reduce public expenditure. This one, and many others like it, would seem to be a prime candidate.
He has also promised, if elected, to require all government departments to publish on line any items of expenditure greater than £25,000. Perhaps he should reduce this figure, and so catch any further stupid waste of money.
* The proposal which the consultants put forward, to replace "error", was "variation". This is a typical bureaucrat's word, to conceal as much as possible.
Half-baked?
In effort to capture more of the left wing of the Labour Party, or pander to their own, the Limpdems are proposing that owners of all houses worth over £1 million should pay an annual wealth tax of half of one per cent. If people own more than one house, including those who rent out properties, will there be aggregation, and if so by what mechanism?
This, of course, is on top of all the other costs and charges that such owners have to face, - highest band council tax, high maintenance costs, stamp duty and inheritance tax, etc.
Given that many owners of country homes are already struggling to maintain large country houses, I can foresee the National Trust increasing its holdings, or more dereliction. The lefties would welcome this, but when a widow living on an inadequate income has to sell her family home, it is not so attractive.
It should be remembered that many houses in London and the S.E. are in this price range. T. Blair will have to give another lecture to cover the cost, but many will not be able to. This tax will fall disproportionately on that region.
There are other serious problems with the proposal.
Who is going to evaluate the houses, and who will pay for this? Will owners be able to challenge the valuation. It will presumably be re-valued annually, because house prices are unpredictable and volatile. Some of the houses are unique, and any valuation will be arbitrary.
What effect will this have on the labour market? Could high fliers be content with a sub-£1 million house and instead buy accommodation elsewhere. Could this be the final fleecing which makes some creative people look for jobs elsewhere.
What effect will this have on the housing market generally? Properties worth just over £1 million will have sale prices depressed, which in turn will depress prices of properties not quite so good which are not fetching £1 million. There could be a trickle effect all the way down.
The whole thing seems an ideological argument made for political purposes, with all sorts of implications, and replacing one sort of inequality with others.
Taxing capital is not a good idea. It is far better to tax incomes, because these may be renewed.
This, of course, is on top of all the other costs and charges that such owners have to face, - highest band council tax, high maintenance costs, stamp duty and inheritance tax, etc.
Given that many owners of country homes are already struggling to maintain large country houses, I can foresee the National Trust increasing its holdings, or more dereliction. The lefties would welcome this, but when a widow living on an inadequate income has to sell her family home, it is not so attractive.
It should be remembered that many houses in London and the S.E. are in this price range. T. Blair will have to give another lecture to cover the cost, but many will not be able to. This tax will fall disproportionately on that region.
There are other serious problems with the proposal.
Who is going to evaluate the houses, and who will pay for this? Will owners be able to challenge the valuation. It will presumably be re-valued annually, because house prices are unpredictable and volatile. Some of the houses are unique, and any valuation will be arbitrary.
What effect will this have on the labour market? Could high fliers be content with a sub-£1 million house and instead buy accommodation elsewhere. Could this be the final fleecing which makes some creative people look for jobs elsewhere.
What effect will this have on the housing market generally? Properties worth just over £1 million will have sale prices depressed, which in turn will depress prices of properties not quite so good which are not fetching £1 million. There could be a trickle effect all the way down.
The whole thing seems an ideological argument made for political purposes, with all sorts of implications, and replacing one sort of inequality with others.
Taxing capital is not a good idea. It is far better to tax incomes, because these may be renewed.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Diplomas oubtful or dead?
The Tories seem to have decided on a major reform of the new diplomas, which combine work-based training and academic study. The first five of these course were offered to sixth formers from 2008, and a further five were introduced this month. The 2008 intake numbered only 10,000 students.
These diplomas were judged, by whom is not clear, to be equivalent to 3.5 A levels.
The Tories have promised that if elected in 2010 they will cancel the three academic diplomas, - in science, languages and humanities, due to start in 2011. This is an indication that they regard the diplomas as an inadequate entrance qualification and preparation for university.
Reforms also include:
- taking the examinations out of the hands of government, and leave it to the Exam Boards to decide which, if any, they wished to offer.
- the diplomas would be pared down and continue to contain only elements which employers value.
- universities have indicated that they would require at least one A level in addition to the diploma for university entrance.
The general conclusion of many people outside the government party seems to be that although the diplomas may be a useful addition when the school leaving age is raised t0 18, - for those who do not aspire to higher education, as they stand they are a poor indicator of a student's potential to cope with higher education.
About 600 students attempted to pass a diploma course in just the one year. Awards were made in August. Of these 178 were awarded a grade, while 34 were awarded a 'U'. The remaining 388 were not graded, indicating that they had failed to pass at least one part of the course. There is a strong suggestion that the parts found difficult were English and Mathematics.
These diplomas were judged, by whom is not clear, to be equivalent to 3.5 A levels.
The Tories have promised that if elected in 2010 they will cancel the three academic diplomas, - in science, languages and humanities, due to start in 2011. This is an indication that they regard the diplomas as an inadequate entrance qualification and preparation for university.
Reforms also include:
- taking the examinations out of the hands of government, and leave it to the Exam Boards to decide which, if any, they wished to offer.
- the diplomas would be pared down and continue to contain only elements which employers value.
- universities have indicated that they would require at least one A level in addition to the diploma for university entrance.
The general conclusion of many people outside the government party seems to be that although the diplomas may be a useful addition when the school leaving age is raised t0 18, - for those who do not aspire to higher education, as they stand they are a poor indicator of a student's potential to cope with higher education.
About 600 students attempted to pass a diploma course in just the one year. Awards were made in August. Of these 178 were awarded a grade, while 34 were awarded a 'U'. The remaining 388 were not graded, indicating that they had failed to pass at least one part of the course. There is a strong suggestion that the parts found difficult were English and Mathematics.
Precedents
It seems that shadow Chancellor George Osborne, perhaps among things, has been considering Canada and Sweden as models of countries which restored their finances from perilous situations in just few years.
Canada in the early 1990s recession undertook retrenchment in government spending after the public finances became seriously unbalanced. The annual budget deficit had reached 9.1% of GDP, and public spending was 70% of GDP.
The government of Jean Chretien decided that mere efficiency savings would be insufficient. Any government spending which could be delivered differently or was not essential was cut. Health spending was virtually all protected.
The result was that the budget deficit was cut to zero in just three years and public debt was reduced by a third in five years.
In Sweden in 1993 the annual budget deficit was 10%, - even higher than in Canada. The government under Goran Persson embarked on a drive to cut this deficit and restore balance. He cut red tape which was holding back Swedish industry, promoted the use of information technology and increased the skills and education of the Swedish workers.
The result was that the deficit had been completely removed within four years.
Sacred cows were sacrificed, pain was endured, but the Canadian and Swedish economies emerged in balance and with better long-term prospects.
Could Britain achieve this? We have a bigger mountain to climb. The budget deficit is likely to be about 14% of GDP, significantly higher than in either of the other two countries, because we had a government running deficits before we reached recession. National debt will have more than doubled, and even if we accept the Brownian idea that future obligations are not debts, it looks as if it will significantly exceed GDP. We are in a far worse situation than we were in 1976, when Mr. Healy was forced to go cap-in-hand to the IMF to be bailed out.
On both measures Britain is significantly more sick. Add in a 12 year neglect of new energy provision, and we cannot allow the debt to rise more by budget deficit. The problem must be attacked immediately.
Canada in the early 1990s recession undertook retrenchment in government spending after the public finances became seriously unbalanced. The annual budget deficit had reached 9.1% of GDP, and public spending was 70% of GDP.
The government of Jean Chretien decided that mere efficiency savings would be insufficient. Any government spending which could be delivered differently or was not essential was cut. Health spending was virtually all protected.
The result was that the budget deficit was cut to zero in just three years and public debt was reduced by a third in five years.
In Sweden in 1993 the annual budget deficit was 10%, - even higher than in Canada. The government under Goran Persson embarked on a drive to cut this deficit and restore balance. He cut red tape which was holding back Swedish industry, promoted the use of information technology and increased the skills and education of the Swedish workers.
The result was that the deficit had been completely removed within four years.
Sacred cows were sacrificed, pain was endured, but the Canadian and Swedish economies emerged in balance and with better long-term prospects.
Could Britain achieve this? We have a bigger mountain to climb. The budget deficit is likely to be about 14% of GDP, significantly higher than in either of the other two countries, because we had a government running deficits before we reached recession. National debt will have more than doubled, and even if we accept the Brownian idea that future obligations are not debts, it looks as if it will significantly exceed GDP. We are in a far worse situation than we were in 1976, when Mr. Healy was forced to go cap-in-hand to the IMF to be bailed out.
On both measures Britain is significantly more sick. Add in a 12 year neglect of new energy provision, and we cannot allow the debt to rise more by budget deficit. The problem must be attacked immediately.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
British but not patriotic
G. Brown has had several attempts to increase the awareness of being British among the people on this island, but this is done without trying to find pride in our history.
Patriotism is a bad thing, according to a majority of teachers. Some feel that children should not be brainwashed by including it. (This is strange, because many of the teachers are willing to brainwash their charges about global warming, left wing political ideology, anti-capitalism, etc. ) Other teachers would prefer to emphasise universal brotherhood instead. This would fit in well with the brainwashing undertaken on behalf of the EU or the UN.)
What is wrong about remembering our Christian tradition and achievements of great Britons in the past? Will recent immigrants feel shut out, reduced in stature? Why insist that their (minority) religions must have equal place? Why did they come here, nobody compelled them!
Education now is much more ideological than it used to be and much more selective. Previous generations, at least those following a liberal agenda offered an overview without compulsion on many of the things which teachers now reject. My generation are all the better for having had this, as we thought out our own positions. The newer generations have been indoctrinated with unexamined ideology.
The result is that those born here, however recently, will become confused as to what the inheritance of Britons is, as will those newcomers on arrival.
Patriotism is a bad thing, according to a majority of teachers. Some feel that children should not be brainwashed by including it. (This is strange, because many of the teachers are willing to brainwash their charges about global warming, left wing political ideology, anti-capitalism, etc. ) Other teachers would prefer to emphasise universal brotherhood instead. This would fit in well with the brainwashing undertaken on behalf of the EU or the UN.)
What is wrong about remembering our Christian tradition and achievements of great Britons in the past? Will recent immigrants feel shut out, reduced in stature? Why insist that their (minority) religions must have equal place? Why did they come here, nobody compelled them!
Education now is much more ideological than it used to be and much more selective. Previous generations, at least those following a liberal agenda offered an overview without compulsion on many of the things which teachers now reject. My generation are all the better for having had this, as we thought out our own positions. The newer generations have been indoctrinated with unexamined ideology.
The result is that those born here, however recently, will become confused as to what the inheritance of Britons is, as will those newcomers on arrival.
Common law
The principal of common law is that it applies everywhere, and must be obeyed by everyone, including those who framed the law.
So Baroness Scotland is in trouble. She was a minister when the laws were passed which made it illegal to employ and illegal immigrant. She is bound by the law as much as anyone else. For six months she employed an illegal immigrant, a lady who came on a student visa and then stayed illegally after her studies ended.
The law states that employers must check visa status on passports. It is not enough that the potential employee has a NI number - these are given out without much check.
The Baroness claims that she saw a document which seemed to indicate the lady's eligibility for employment. Then all the Baroness has to do is to find and produce the document. The argument that "I saw a document" is not evidence of having checked, and if this is accepted there could be a rash of such claims.
We can probably accept that she did not knowingly employ an illegal immigrant, although her staff have been protesting rather much about her good character, so she would avoid the 2 years imprisonment and unlimited fine, but employing without checking can lead to a £10,000 fine per illegal employee. The law was designed to be punitive.
As Attorney General she should know the law and its requirements. If she does not produce the correct documentation. Then she should be prosecuted. If she is not prosecuted in this event, then we shall know that there is one law for rulers and another for the rest of us.
So Baroness Scotland is in trouble. She was a minister when the laws were passed which made it illegal to employ and illegal immigrant. She is bound by the law as much as anyone else. For six months she employed an illegal immigrant, a lady who came on a student visa and then stayed illegally after her studies ended.
The law states that employers must check visa status on passports. It is not enough that the potential employee has a NI number - these are given out without much check.
The Baroness claims that she saw a document which seemed to indicate the lady's eligibility for employment. Then all the Baroness has to do is to find and produce the document. The argument that "I saw a document" is not evidence of having checked, and if this is accepted there could be a rash of such claims.
We can probably accept that she did not knowingly employ an illegal immigrant, although her staff have been protesting rather much about her good character, so she would avoid the 2 years imprisonment and unlimited fine, but employing without checking can lead to a £10,000 fine per illegal employee. The law was designed to be punitive.
As Attorney General she should know the law and its requirements. If she does not produce the correct documentation. Then she should be prosecuted. If she is not prosecuted in this event, then we shall know that there is one law for rulers and another for the rest of us.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Will they issue cotton wool?
Under recommendations from the Home Office, police forces for Health and Safety reasons, are instructing officers not to lock up drunks. Rather, they should take in drunks only as a last resort when the drunk has refused to have medical attention
The police must call ambulances and accompany the drunks to hospital until they have had treatment Many forces are refusing to arrest the drunk and disorderly because the police are responsible for continual supervision while drunks sleep it off. The number of prosecutions has fallen significantly.
These people often have not committed any crime, except perhaps for nuisance, but they have caused considerable expense to the police and community for what is after all a matter of choice.
In other situations people who have hazarded themselves are charged for the costs of helping and treating them. Why should drunks be any different?
The police must call ambulances and accompany the drunks to hospital until they have had treatment Many forces are refusing to arrest the drunk and disorderly because the police are responsible for continual supervision while drunks sleep it off. The number of prosecutions has fallen significantly.
These people often have not committed any crime, except perhaps for nuisance, but they have caused considerable expense to the police and community for what is after all a matter of choice.
In other situations people who have hazarded themselves are charged for the costs of helping and treating them. Why should drunks be any different?
Why am I not surprised?
Universal Engineering, in Weymouth, Dorset, have developed an armoured vehicle which will protect troops from IEDs used by the Taliban and others. The vehicle, called Ranger, has an inviolable inner capsule which will protect crews against any weapons in use.
The Ranger is built to NATO standards, offers the same protection as the Mastiff while being lighter and more manoeuvrable , and the front end, elongated to protect the driver, when damaged can be replaced in one hour. The Ranger is not cheap at £1 million, but nor should it be. The manufacturers will be producing within six months of an order and at up to six a week.
There is likely to be some interest, and Canada has already expressed interest for use in Afghanistan.
British troops will be denied this vehicle, however. The MOD will be buying the much less well armoured Ridgback! Why am I not surprised?
The Ranger is built to NATO standards, offers the same protection as the Mastiff while being lighter and more manoeuvrable , and the front end, elongated to protect the driver, when damaged can be replaced in one hour. The Ranger is not cheap at £1 million, but nor should it be. The manufacturers will be producing within six months of an order and at up to six a week.
There is likely to be some interest, and Canada has already expressed interest for use in Afghanistan.
British troops will be denied this vehicle, however. The MOD will be buying the much less well armoured Ridgback! Why am I not surprised?
It's better in Spain
Postal workers, who are threatening all sorts of troubles to anyone who dares suggest changes to their way of things (- surely a very conservative, reactionary workforce), have recently been boasting on a website about the Spanish practices in which they indulge.
They include going home early if they have finished a round, putting mail back into post boxes if they can't deliver it and pushing cards through the door, for householder collection, even if they have not contacted householders.
Bearing mind that we otherwise have a deteriorating service, presumably as management try to save costs, - fewer collections, none on Sundays or Bank Holiday Mondays, and a delivery service which reaches our house any time between 8.30 and 14.30, there will soon be some angry householders.
I use the post only when I cannot avoid it, - otherwise it's the internet and telephone, and I suspect that there are many others who do the same.
What Royal Mail needs is a dose of competition, which would drive out the inefficient and unwilling. Any monopoly is prone to this 'take it or leave it attitude'.
They include going home early if they have finished a round, putting mail back into post boxes if they can't deliver it and pushing cards through the door, for householder collection, even if they have not contacted householders.
Bearing mind that we otherwise have a deteriorating service, presumably as management try to save costs, - fewer collections, none on Sundays or Bank Holiday Mondays, and a delivery service which reaches our house any time between 8.30 and 14.30, there will soon be some angry householders.
I use the post only when I cannot avoid it, - otherwise it's the internet and telephone, and I suspect that there are many others who do the same.
What Royal Mail needs is a dose of competition, which would drive out the inefficient and unwilling. Any monopoly is prone to this 'take it or leave it attitude'.
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Who pays, who gains?
According to today's Daily Mail, we the taxpayers are paying for an army of trade union officials in various departments of the government, some of whom earn as much as £60,000 in salary. There is a vast army of these shop stewards. The Home Office alone has 13 full-time trade unionists and 70 part-time, plus two administrative staff, who represent four unions.
The costs of this are not easy to discover, but as an example the Business Department "employs" 5 full time staff, who are paid collectively nearly £185,500, that's about £37,000m each, the Foreign Office £employs" 4 full-time and pays collectively £161, 800, or just over £40,000 each.
The times was able to find 83 full-time "employees", but has no numbers for Defence (but pays £4.5 million a year), and no information from the Treasury or DWP.
(These figures were published on the Red Box site today.) With two big departments missing from the findings of the Times newspaper, it is difficult to know what the total figure is, but it must be many millions. In addition, there is the cost of their office space, equipment and sundries and any perks to which they are entitled.
The unions, and their Labour Party friends, would claim that large private companies offer the same, and do so because it helps to reduce and shorten disputes. This may or may not be true in relation to parliament, but in private industry the shareholders know about this, and management would look askance if the privilege was abused.
We are the shareholders, and our money is involved. When were we told?
The other major problem is that there are apparently not enough disputes to reduce or shorten, and the trade unionists engage in other pursuits,- the Daily Mail reports complaints made that this army on the public payroll engage in "far-left political campaigns and making false claims about the Conservative Party. So it's a little like the £10,000 communication allowance we give MPs, only much more expensive.
It is to be hoped that if and when Cameron becomes Prime Minister he will consider cutting this expensive left-wing indulgence, or let them fund it from member contributions, as well as the communication allowance.
The costs of this are not easy to discover, but as an example the Business Department "employs" 5 full time staff, who are paid collectively nearly £185,500, that's about £37,000m each, the Foreign Office £employs" 4 full-time and pays collectively £161, 800, or just over £40,000 each.
The times was able to find 83 full-time "employees", but has no numbers for Defence (but pays £4.5 million a year), and no information from the Treasury or DWP.
(These figures were published on the Red Box site today.) With two big departments missing from the findings of the Times newspaper, it is difficult to know what the total figure is, but it must be many millions. In addition, there is the cost of their office space, equipment and sundries and any perks to which they are entitled.
The unions, and their Labour Party friends, would claim that large private companies offer the same, and do so because it helps to reduce and shorten disputes. This may or may not be true in relation to parliament, but in private industry the shareholders know about this, and management would look askance if the privilege was abused.
We are the shareholders, and our money is involved. When were we told?
The other major problem is that there are apparently not enough disputes to reduce or shorten, and the trade unionists engage in other pursuits,- the Daily Mail reports complaints made that this army on the public payroll engage in "far-left political campaigns and making false claims about the Conservative Party. So it's a little like the £10,000 communication allowance we give MPs, only much more expensive.
It is to be hoped that if and when Cameron becomes Prime Minister he will consider cutting this expensive left-wing indulgence, or let them fund it from member contributions, as well as the communication allowance.
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Is QE a prop?
You would imagine that, from what G.Brown is to say to the Trade Unions this week, and what looks to be the successor attack on the Tories after "Labour Spending, Tory Cuts", despite the vast debts he has run up, he still needs more spending. Quantitative Easing must carry on. The Bank of England for the moment is holding off using the extra money creating assets it has been empowered to use.
The Bank's attitude seems to be to wait and see. G.Brown seems to be a primitive Keynesian, "If there's unemployment hit it with spending!" The Bank sees a danger. If institutions are not performing well, pumping in money may actually be counter productive -frightening credit agencies, reducing our rating and pushing up interest rates, as well as even letting the inflation genie out of the bottle.
The Bank is probably right to wait a little longer. As for the Tories, and as they would not be in power until next June, and need time to analyse and decide on policy when they have the information, it could be 18 months before policy of theirs begins to take effect.
How does G. Brown know that at that time the Tories would be pushing us into new recession?
He doesn't. (He claims that recovery us already with us, and there could be a need to encourage saving and discourage credit at that point)He is merely trying to pretend he has the solution. He is desperate!
The Bank's attitude seems to be to wait and see. G.Brown seems to be a primitive Keynesian, "If there's unemployment hit it with spending!" The Bank sees a danger. If institutions are not performing well, pumping in money may actually be counter productive -frightening credit agencies, reducing our rating and pushing up interest rates, as well as even letting the inflation genie out of the bottle.
The Bank is probably right to wait a little longer. As for the Tories, and as they would not be in power until next June, and need time to analyse and decide on policy when they have the information, it could be 18 months before policy of theirs begins to take effect.
How does G. Brown know that at that time the Tories would be pushing us into new recession?
He doesn't. (He claims that recovery us already with us, and there could be a need to encourage saving and discourage credit at that point)He is merely trying to pretend he has the solution. He is desperate!
Why not stretch the truth?
Last week the BBC and the Independent came very close to a lie. The suggestion was that Russian ships had finally managed for the first time to navigate the north passage was evidence of climate warming.
The truth emerged subsequently that the north passage was first negotiated in 1935, and in several years since at intervals it has been achieved.
Whether their apostolic fervour got the better of them, and what they really meant was "with less aid from ice-breakers", the fact remains that their implication was clear. The Biased Broadcasting Corporation and the Dependent were guilt of misleading.
The truth emerged subsequently that the north passage was first negotiated in 1935, and in several years since at intervals it has been achieved.
Whether their apostolic fervour got the better of them, and what they really meant was "with less aid from ice-breakers", the fact remains that their implication was clear. The Biased Broadcasting Corporation and the Dependent were guilt of misleading.
Saturday, 12 September 2009
Let's expose all the blame!
The Phoenix Four are coming in for all sorts of opprobrium, and they probably deserve it.
But what of the government? It was before Lord Mandelson became business secretary, so he does not not need to wriggle, but others do.
Kenneth Clark, shadow business secretary, asks why the government on 10th April 2005, and after two days into administration, offered a £6.5 million loan. He suggests the main reason, - that there was an election less than four weeks away, and some Birmingham Labour seats could have been at risk.
Leaving aside the possibility of blatant electioneering with public funds, there is another question. Did the relevant officials and their advisers not see that MG Rover had failed, or were they so keen to do something, - anything, that they did not use due diligence?
But what of the government? It was before Lord Mandelson became business secretary, so he does not not need to wriggle, but others do.
Kenneth Clark, shadow business secretary, asks why the government on 10th April 2005, and after two days into administration, offered a £6.5 million loan. He suggests the main reason, - that there was an election less than four weeks away, and some Birmingham Labour seats could have been at risk.
Leaving aside the possibility of blatant electioneering with public funds, there is another question. Did the relevant officials and their advisers not see that MG Rover had failed, or were they so keen to do something, - anything, that they did not use due diligence?
An enviromental disaster
I had not seen this so much in environmental terms as in use of resources, but my anxieties were supported by Edmund King, president of the AA this week.
Every traffic calming measure, usually on grounds of pedestrian safety, has a cost. Car engines at 20 m.p.h have to operate in low gear and so burn more fuel. Every speed bump/ plateau will cause breaking, slowing and then accelerating, which all waste fuel. The same will tend to apply to chicanes. The more there are of these measures, the greater the burning of fuel, and pollution.
If the object is to deter car use, then surely there are more environmentally good ways to achieve this, subsidising electric transport, (although electric engines may not be heard by pedestrians,) or raising all revenue from cars via petrol tax rather than the lump-sum car tax.
We have thus a clash between safety and environment, promoted by different government departments with fervour but clashing here.
Every traffic calming measure, usually on grounds of pedestrian safety, has a cost. Car engines at 20 m.p.h have to operate in low gear and so burn more fuel. Every speed bump/ plateau will cause breaking, slowing and then accelerating, which all waste fuel. The same will tend to apply to chicanes. The more there are of these measures, the greater the burning of fuel, and pollution.
If the object is to deter car use, then surely there are more environmentally good ways to achieve this, subsidising electric transport, (although electric engines may not be heard by pedestrians,) or raising all revenue from cars via petrol tax rather than the lump-sum car tax.
We have thus a clash between safety and environment, promoted by different government departments with fervour but clashing here.
Turn up and prosper
The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that students can raise their final degree award grade simply by turning up regularly to seminars and tutorials.
Until I read further I assumed this meant that turning up for classes increases your ability to achieve a better grade, which seems to support common sense.
But no, what was meant is that perhaps as much as 10% of the marks awarded may be for sufficient attendance! Spokesmen from several universities confirmed the practice of awarding marks for timekeeping. The reason is apparently that otherwise students might drop out and universities find themselves "punished" by a reduction in funding.
This betrays a notion that students are fed by what is said at lectures, and merely have to trot out the material in due course in order to receive a degree - "The mysterious process whereby notes pass from the notebook of the lecturer to the notebook of the student, without passing through the brain of either."
University spokesmen bemoaned the fact that many students did not want to engage in intellectual pursuits to greater understanding which are implied in tutorials and seminars.
If this is the case many students are attempting a fraud, - to pretend they are worthy of a degree. In this they are encouraged by universities under pressure from government to pass as many as possible through the factory system.
Until I read further I assumed this meant that turning up for classes increases your ability to achieve a better grade, which seems to support common sense.
But no, what was meant is that perhaps as much as 10% of the marks awarded may be for sufficient attendance! Spokesmen from several universities confirmed the practice of awarding marks for timekeeping. The reason is apparently that otherwise students might drop out and universities find themselves "punished" by a reduction in funding.
This betrays a notion that students are fed by what is said at lectures, and merely have to trot out the material in due course in order to receive a degree - "The mysterious process whereby notes pass from the notebook of the lecturer to the notebook of the student, without passing through the brain of either."
University spokesmen bemoaned the fact that many students did not want to engage in intellectual pursuits to greater understanding which are implied in tutorials and seminars.
If this is the case many students are attempting a fraud, - to pretend they are worthy of a degree. In this they are encouraged by universities under pressure from government to pass as many as possible through the factory system.
Friday, 11 September 2009
Law making
There has been concern among some people at the way in which some of our judges are making law, rather than applying it.
This was predicted when we signed up to the human rights act, that judges would have much scope in accepting or even inventing and interpreting applications of rights in particular cases.
This morning, in the Daily Telegraph, our most senior judge, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, expressed the opinion that there are too many people in prison, and that more money should be spent on "early prevention"programmes, whatever they are, to try to prevent offences.
He also admitted to a strong sympathy towards those who faced the prospect of a terrible and wished to take their own life beforehand.
On the first issue, it has to be admitted that we do have many people shut up in prison, more per thousand than most other countries in Europe, but it is also true that we send a smaller proportion of convicted offenders than most other countries. The learned judge is right and wrong.
The overall problem is that, although he would be shocked perhaps to hear it, he is treading on the ground of the politicians, partly because they have decided so but mainly because they represent us and are answerable to us. Judges are unaccountable, and their function is to apply the law without favour and without personal opinion.
If it is thought that important laws need to be changed, the correct place is parliament, and his lordship's opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
This was predicted when we signed up to the human rights act, that judges would have much scope in accepting or even inventing and interpreting applications of rights in particular cases.
This morning, in the Daily Telegraph, our most senior judge, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, expressed the opinion that there are too many people in prison, and that more money should be spent on "early prevention"programmes, whatever they are, to try to prevent offences.
He also admitted to a strong sympathy towards those who faced the prospect of a terrible and wished to take their own life beforehand.
On the first issue, it has to be admitted that we do have many people shut up in prison, more per thousand than most other countries in Europe, but it is also true that we send a smaller proportion of convicted offenders than most other countries. The learned judge is right and wrong.
The overall problem is that, although he would be shocked perhaps to hear it, he is treading on the ground of the politicians, partly because they have decided so but mainly because they represent us and are answerable to us. Judges are unaccountable, and their function is to apply the law without favour and without personal opinion.
If it is thought that important laws need to be changed, the correct place is parliament, and his lordship's opinion is no more important than yours or mine.
Are we so unhealthy?
According to the European Heart Network and the European Society of Cardiology, Britain is one of the least healthy countries in Europe for heart disease.
For heart attacks, in 2006 we were sixth worst for men, and fourth worst for women out of the 16 countries investigated. Twice as many per thousand British men (44) die as compared with Dutch men (22), and two and half times as many (44) as in France (17). Among women, who are less prone to death from heart attack, in Britain the figure (11) is much higher than in Iceland and France (both 3), Slovenia and Italy (both 5).
We have a slightly better record on strokes, 10th worst for men and 8th worst for women.
Possible causes are smoking - we are about middle of the range, - 25% of men, 23% of women smoke. In terms of diet - grams of fruit and vegetables, we are better only than Iceland and Ireland. In terms of exercise we are better only than the Italians and the Irish.
How much the respective health or emergency services contributed, is not mentioned.
It has to be said, by one who is a regular critic of the present government, that they have made some attempt to bring this to our attention, and have certainly tried to deal with childhood obesity. But the comment on them and us is "Must do better".
For heart attacks, in 2006 we were sixth worst for men, and fourth worst for women out of the 16 countries investigated. Twice as many per thousand British men (44) die as compared with Dutch men (22), and two and half times as many (44) as in France (17). Among women, who are less prone to death from heart attack, in Britain the figure (11) is much higher than in Iceland and France (both 3), Slovenia and Italy (both 5).
We have a slightly better record on strokes, 10th worst for men and 8th worst for women.
Possible causes are smoking - we are about middle of the range, - 25% of men, 23% of women smoke. In terms of diet - grams of fruit and vegetables, we are better only than Iceland and Ireland. In terms of exercise we are better only than the Italians and the Irish.
How much the respective health or emergency services contributed, is not mentioned.
It has to be said, by one who is a regular critic of the present government, that they have made some attempt to bring this to our attention, and have certainly tried to deal with childhood obesity. But the comment on them and us is "Must do better".
Balmy!
Harriet Harman will be instructing the Audit Commission and Ofsted that they will have responsibility to monitor public bodies to see how they are reducing the class divide. All bodies will have a responsibility to consider how they can "reduce socio-economic inequalities in their policies.
This is surely the ultimate in social engineering. Miss Harman, and others in Whitehall, will receive reports, and could direct resources to be allocated according to her preferences.
Having failed to achieve the objective, of greater equality, through all the many ways of government policy, you would hope that the government would have realised the ineffectiveness of trying to impose a solution from the top by fiat, but apparently not.
If greater equality of outcome is desired, the attack should be to do something about the quality of family life, of selection in education in place of wealth (- selection not based on one examination but on results over four years), and the benefits culture. She really ought to ask herself why we are the most class-ridden society in the developed world, despite the large public sector.
As it is, we have yet another half-baked policy, probably to push credentials of a party leadership candidate, imposing still more burdens on overworked leaders and managers. The sooner this ineffective and destructive lot are removed, the better.
This is surely the ultimate in social engineering. Miss Harman, and others in Whitehall, will receive reports, and could direct resources to be allocated according to her preferences.
Having failed to achieve the objective, of greater equality, through all the many ways of government policy, you would hope that the government would have realised the ineffectiveness of trying to impose a solution from the top by fiat, but apparently not.
If greater equality of outcome is desired, the attack should be to do something about the quality of family life, of selection in education in place of wealth (- selection not based on one examination but on results over four years), and the benefits culture. She really ought to ask herself why we are the most class-ridden society in the developed world, despite the large public sector.
As it is, we have yet another half-baked policy, probably to push credentials of a party leadership candidate, imposing still more burdens on overworked leaders and managers. The sooner this ineffective and destructive lot are removed, the better.
Emasculation
The ISA will begin in earnest on 12th October. The Independent Safeguarding Authority, - the new overarching safeguarding agency, will begin with over 11 million Britons on its database, but will expect to add.
Additions will include any adults who regularly, even infrequently, have other people's children in their charge. This will include, for example, those who share school journeys on a rota with other parents, or those who take children on sporting outings regularly. All will have to be vetted and certified.
This will lead to a reduced flow of volunteers in all sorts of directions, not because they have anything to hide but because of the cost (- over £60) and the sheer silliness of the whole enterprise. Sports groups will suffer, parents will be inconvenienced and there will be more cars on the road! There will also be large costs on the public purse at a time when the government is broke!
There are more insidious costs. Men, in particular, will be very wary of speaking to children, even more of comforting them with an arm round the shoulder, when they are in distress.
There are, unfortunately, many children at risk. Most of these are at risk within the family or with near relatives. This will do nothing for these. There are pedophiles, admittedly, and we most do everything to protect children from them, but they are unlikely to be able to do much in a car driven by a friend of their parents, or in a minibus driven by a parent. In both cases other children are present and there will not be time for anything untoward to happen.
The police know where registered pedophiles live, although we are not permitted to know the details. They are "loners" who will be obvious, and there are other ways of dealing with them. If the government really wants to reduce risk, why not do something about parental control and chat rooms?
As usual we have a large expensive bureaucratic policy, when the real problem is in the home and with families.
Additions will include any adults who regularly, even infrequently, have other people's children in their charge. This will include, for example, those who share school journeys on a rota with other parents, or those who take children on sporting outings regularly. All will have to be vetted and certified.
This will lead to a reduced flow of volunteers in all sorts of directions, not because they have anything to hide but because of the cost (- over £60) and the sheer silliness of the whole enterprise. Sports groups will suffer, parents will be inconvenienced and there will be more cars on the road! There will also be large costs on the public purse at a time when the government is broke!
There are more insidious costs. Men, in particular, will be very wary of speaking to children, even more of comforting them with an arm round the shoulder, when they are in distress.
There are, unfortunately, many children at risk. Most of these are at risk within the family or with near relatives. This will do nothing for these. There are pedophiles, admittedly, and we most do everything to protect children from them, but they are unlikely to be able to do much in a car driven by a friend of their parents, or in a minibus driven by a parent. In both cases other children are present and there will not be time for anything untoward to happen.
The police know where registered pedophiles live, although we are not permitted to know the details. They are "loners" who will be obvious, and there are other ways of dealing with them. If the government really wants to reduce risk, why not do something about parental control and chat rooms?
As usual we have a large expensive bureaucratic policy, when the real problem is in the home and with families.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Cutting government expnditure
Michael Fallon, in today's Telegraph, urges Cameron to take on the huge public sector trade unions, in removing national bargaining. If he did there would be a great battle, as national bargaining is a sacred cow and justifies much of what unions do. Expect strikes and disruptions, as we now have in the Royal Mail, to cause the maximum harm.
Now is, however, a good time to do it. The electorate seem to have taken on board the idea of cuts and austerity to cover the gigantic hole in the public finances. Public sector unions will have less opportunity to threaten, as their jobs come under scrutiny.
Why attempt it, if there will be be disputes?
The main answer is that such bargaining causes major distortions in the labour market which feed through into regional problems. If poorer, or lower income, regions have to apply national rates, then there will be some on national rates earning much more than others locally, because rates are set to allow recruitment in areas where living costs are higher. There will be people willing to work for less in poorer areas, but unable to.
The Unions, of course, do not like markets and try to avoid the fact of demand and supply. They seem to succeed, but not entirely. In higher education, for instance, since lecturers on the same grade and of the same experience must be paid the same, what happens? Those whose subject specialisms permit them to earn more outside higher education,- accountants and mathematicians, for example, will tend to be on higher grades. So the salary grades are the same for everyone, but relative shortages are revealed in grades people occupy.
Wages, like any other price, must reflect shortages and surpluses between professions and regions. Otherwise there could be a serious misallocation of resources. This is precisely what happens with the mathematicians and accountants, otherwise there would be shortages.
In short, national wage bargaining, which is urged on grounds of fairness, will keep some areas poor and some professions under-supplied, which isn't good for the community.
Now is, however, a good time to do it. The electorate seem to have taken on board the idea of cuts and austerity to cover the gigantic hole in the public finances. Public sector unions will have less opportunity to threaten, as their jobs come under scrutiny.
Why attempt it, if there will be be disputes?
The main answer is that such bargaining causes major distortions in the labour market which feed through into regional problems. If poorer, or lower income, regions have to apply national rates, then there will be some on national rates earning much more than others locally, because rates are set to allow recruitment in areas where living costs are higher. There will be people willing to work for less in poorer areas, but unable to.
The Unions, of course, do not like markets and try to avoid the fact of demand and supply. They seem to succeed, but not entirely. In higher education, for instance, since lecturers on the same grade and of the same experience must be paid the same, what happens? Those whose subject specialisms permit them to earn more outside higher education,- accountants and mathematicians, for example, will tend to be on higher grades. So the salary grades are the same for everyone, but relative shortages are revealed in grades people occupy.
Wages, like any other price, must reflect shortages and surpluses between professions and regions. Otherwise there could be a serious misallocation of resources. This is precisely what happens with the mathematicians and accountants, otherwise there would be shortages.
In short, national wage bargaining, which is urged on grounds of fairness, will keep some areas poor and some professions under-supplied, which isn't good for the community.
They never would be missed
Well, some of them would hardly be missed, - especially those who are taking over functions from the elected local authorities. I am referring to quangos.
Cameron, like others before, has his eye of reducing the number and the budget of the bloated quangos. How can this be done?
There must be effective monitoring, and not by other unaccountable quangos. Everything they do must be scrutinised to prevent empire building. Douglas Carswell, who attacks these creatures regularly, suggests that they should be held to account before parliamentary select committees, who should contain members well versed in the area concerned. And why should the members not be encouraged to make lightning visits for inspection, where this is relevant? And why should the committee not hold public hearings to confirm appointments, to keep the matters out of the secrecy of the executive, as in America? There has recently been too much political patronage - to many cronies and London based.
There must be pressure on budgets and on salaries - all changes to be justified fully.
There must be pressure to reduce their scope wherever possible, with the transfer to elected bodies of some functions. The object would be to reduce their functions to the point of zero.
These are non-accountable and very expensive bodies, and Cameron and others are right to want to reduce their numbers and bring them to democratic control.
Cameron, like others before, has his eye of reducing the number and the budget of the bloated quangos. How can this be done?
There must be effective monitoring, and not by other unaccountable quangos. Everything they do must be scrutinised to prevent empire building. Douglas Carswell, who attacks these creatures regularly, suggests that they should be held to account before parliamentary select committees, who should contain members well versed in the area concerned. And why should the members not be encouraged to make lightning visits for inspection, where this is relevant? And why should the committee not hold public hearings to confirm appointments, to keep the matters out of the secrecy of the executive, as in America? There has recently been too much political patronage - to many cronies and London based.
There must be pressure on budgets and on salaries - all changes to be justified fully.
There must be pressure to reduce their scope wherever possible, with the transfer to elected bodies of some functions. The object would be to reduce their functions to the point of zero.
These are non-accountable and very expensive bodies, and Cameron and others are right to want to reduce their numbers and bring them to democratic control.
A new decisiveness?
It seems that many people close to the situation in Afghanistan, are appalled at the very quick and brutal intervention to rescue a hostage journalist. The consequence of the attack was the deaths of an Afghan fighting with us and also a special services British soldier, and several militant deaths. (Militant deaths are, of course, the recruiting sergeant for further enlistment!)
The complaint is that negotiations, involving several local leaders, were well progressed, and the release could have been achieved without bloodshed.
It seems that although the order was signed by ministers Miliband and Ainsworth, G.Brown was also involved in this rapid and decisive move.
We have a long tradition of not caving in to hostage takers, but we have paid a heavy price in death and wounding, for not exploring long enough whether all could have been avoided. Mr. Gung Ho Brown has shown decisiveness, but according to many on the ground a little longer in trying other ways should have been tried.
The complaint is that negotiations, involving several local leaders, were well progressed, and the release could have been achieved without bloodshed.
It seems that although the order was signed by ministers Miliband and Ainsworth, G.Brown was also involved in this rapid and decisive move.
We have a long tradition of not caving in to hostage takers, but we have paid a heavy price in death and wounding, for not exploring long enough whether all could have been avoided. Mr. Gung Ho Brown has shown decisiveness, but according to many on the ground a little longer in trying other ways should have been tried.
Is it five years, maximum?
The government party in this country is safe from removal so long as it can retain internal discipline and loyalty, and thus defeat any votes of no confidence. Prime ministers have found that overall majorities in single figures are extremely difficult, and bring a paralysis or give too much power to relatively small dissenting groups.
One thing we can be sure of, and the ultimate sanction, is that we the voteres can remove unpopular governments and replace them after a maximum of five years, can't we? Isn't this why some Labour MPs are wrestling with the problem that G. Brown is apparently doomed? Should they try to find another leader quickly, and thus give themselves eight months to hope for an improvement in the economy and some dazzling new policies which would save a few Labour seats, even if not enough, or should they continue without much conviction to apparent oblivion with G.Brown?
Apparently, according to constitutional experts there is a question of whether and in what conditions the five year rule could be abrogated. If G. Brown wishes to act constitutionally, a legal case for prolonging could be made. Hitherto all parties have observed the tradition/rule as if it was a fixed law, but....
He wouldn't, would he?
One thing we can be sure of, and the ultimate sanction, is that we the voteres can remove unpopular governments and replace them after a maximum of five years, can't we? Isn't this why some Labour MPs are wrestling with the problem that G. Brown is apparently doomed? Should they try to find another leader quickly, and thus give themselves eight months to hope for an improvement in the economy and some dazzling new policies which would save a few Labour seats, even if not enough, or should they continue without much conviction to apparent oblivion with G.Brown?
Apparently, according to constitutional experts there is a question of whether and in what conditions the five year rule could be abrogated. If G. Brown wishes to act constitutionally, a legal case for prolonging could be made. Hitherto all parties have observed the tradition/rule as if it was a fixed law, but....
He wouldn't, would he?
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
A suitable person?
Yesterday we learned that Speaker Bercow had decided to appoint a personal spin doctor at £100,000 a year, without interview. He appointed a friend.
There are a number of questions here?
Why does he need yet another member of staff when he already has a team? The previous incumbents managed without. What is the purpose of this appointment, - to cover up blunders, to attack MPs who have the gall to attack him? Does it pander to his sense of importance?
This is the man whose responsibility it is to oversee parliamentary allowances and who promised to bring about change.
Nigel Farrage has promised to stand against him. I think that many Tories would not need much urging to vote for UKIP in any case, but Bercow is a renegade and disliked by Tories. It promioses to be an interesting election in Buckingham!
There are a number of questions here?
Why does he need yet another member of staff when he already has a team? The previous incumbents managed without. What is the purpose of this appointment, - to cover up blunders, to attack MPs who have the gall to attack him? Does it pander to his sense of importance?
This is the man whose responsibility it is to oversee parliamentary allowances and who promised to bring about change.
Nigel Farrage has promised to stand against him. I think that many Tories would not need much urging to vote for UKIP in any case, but Bercow is a renegade and disliked by Tories. It promioses to be an interesting election in Buckingham!
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Cameron - further savings at Westminster
Today, in a speech, David Cameron listed further savings which he would make at Westminster. (We had already heard that he intends to require every item of government spending over £25,000 and every public sector salary over £150,000 to be published on line, to abolish the present £10,000 communications allowance (brought in to try to help Labour MPs save their seats), scrapping Regional assemblies and the Standards Board for England and to reduce the number of MPs by 10%.) In addition every quango will be required to justify its existence.
Now, today, we have further illustrations of savings:
1) The budget for parliamentary authorities will be cut by 10 % (saving £50 million annually)
2) Ministerial salaries will be cut by 5%, and frozen during the life of the parliament. (£250,000 savings annually)
3) Subsidisation of MP's food and drink in Parliament to be ended (£5.5 million annually)
4) The budget for official government cars will be cut by a third
5) Abolition of money paid to poublic bodies to lobby politicians (£10 million annually)
6) The Electoral Commission to run more efficiently and end all peripheral activities.
It is to be hoped that more details will emerge but, omitting the uncertain effects of publishing expenditure and salaries, the items above suggest that savings could be of the order of £66 million. This will rise significantly if he carries through his threat to require all quangos to justify what they do. Their budgets run into billions.
The results will still be small in relation to to the massive cuts needed to reduce the public sector debt and meet PFI deadlines as they occur, but at least will indicate that MPs and quasi-parliament will show that they are making cuts.
Summary - a good start, but a long way to go.
Now, today, we have further illustrations of savings:
1) The budget for parliamentary authorities will be cut by 10 % (saving £50 million annually)
2) Ministerial salaries will be cut by 5%, and frozen during the life of the parliament. (£250,000 savings annually)
3) Subsidisation of MP's food and drink in Parliament to be ended (£5.5 million annually)
4) The budget for official government cars will be cut by a third
5) Abolition of money paid to poublic bodies to lobby politicians (£10 million annually)
6) The Electoral Commission to run more efficiently and end all peripheral activities.
It is to be hoped that more details will emerge but, omitting the uncertain effects of publishing expenditure and salaries, the items above suggest that savings could be of the order of £66 million. This will rise significantly if he carries through his threat to require all quangos to justify what they do. Their budgets run into billions.
The results will still be small in relation to to the massive cuts needed to reduce the public sector debt and meet PFI deadlines as they occur, but at least will indicate that MPs and quasi-parliament will show that they are making cuts.
Summary - a good start, but a long way to go.
Onwards and upwards
Year after year schools break records in pass grades achieved by students in GCSE and A-level examinations
When criticisms are advanced that there has been dumbing down, that exams are easier now because they are modular and parts may be re-taken or that students are now taught to pass exams rather than the cores of the various subjects, there is a uniform rebuttal.
The rebuttal is that students are brighter than their predecessors and work harder and that teaching is more efficient. It is difficult to believe that all increase as rapidly as the grades suggest.
Evidence is often impressionistic - about syllabus content, format of questions, etc. Various researchers have compared papers in various subjects over a period of years. A recent study by King's College London and Durham University, into Mathematics standards, is an example. Their conclusion is that although there is a small improvement in some areas, - for example students now are more familiar with decimals, - perhaps because of the use of calculators and also metrication, there are off-setting shortcomings now in understanding fractions.
Overall, it appears that there is little to suggest that there has been any significant improvement in overall mathematical ability over 30 years. In Maths, at least, there seems little to lead us to expect the massive grade inflation which has occurred.
When criticisms are advanced that there has been dumbing down, that exams are easier now because they are modular and parts may be re-taken or that students are now taught to pass exams rather than the cores of the various subjects, there is a uniform rebuttal.
The rebuttal is that students are brighter than their predecessors and work harder and that teaching is more efficient. It is difficult to believe that all increase as rapidly as the grades suggest.
Evidence is often impressionistic - about syllabus content, format of questions, etc. Various researchers have compared papers in various subjects over a period of years. A recent study by King's College London and Durham University, into Mathematics standards, is an example. Their conclusion is that although there is a small improvement in some areas, - for example students now are more familiar with decimals, - perhaps because of the use of calculators and also metrication, there are off-setting shortcomings now in understanding fractions.
Overall, it appears that there is little to suggest that there has been any significant improvement in overall mathematical ability over 30 years. In Maths, at least, there seems little to lead us to expect the massive grade inflation which has occurred.
Measure it by the foot!
The publishers of Tolley's tax guide, the handbook of tax legislation, tell us that it now runs to 11,520 pages, a thousand pages more than last year. (The increase may reflect in part the taxation changes which form part of the counter-recession measures.) The figure is more than double the number of pages when NuLabour took over in 1997.
There has been a massive increase in the amount of tax legislation and in its complexity over the past 12 years.
This will mean massive compliance costs for business, extra staff employed and resources devoted to trying to meet all requirements of the law. There will also be extra costs in employing consultants and auditors, etc. On the government side there are more staff in Revenue and Customs. So one result of the expansion shown by Tolley is the vast extra resources devoted to administering and compiling to satisfy the law. (This is true of individual taxation, where our time is demanded to assemble and report, even paying for postage, where many tax allowances are now effectively "means tested".)
Greater complexity, as is shown in the many mistakes and subsequent adjustments in Family Credit benefits, leads to the possibility of errors which need detection and correction.
We are told that massive savings must be made over the coming years. One way would be to sweep away all the complications so enjoyed by G.Brown, and release resources in the private and public sectors to more productive use.
There has been a massive increase in the amount of tax legislation and in its complexity over the past 12 years.
This will mean massive compliance costs for business, extra staff employed and resources devoted to trying to meet all requirements of the law. There will also be extra costs in employing consultants and auditors, etc. On the government side there are more staff in Revenue and Customs. So one result of the expansion shown by Tolley is the vast extra resources devoted to administering and compiling to satisfy the law. (This is true of individual taxation, where our time is demanded to assemble and report, even paying for postage, where many tax allowances are now effectively "means tested".)
Greater complexity, as is shown in the many mistakes and subsequent adjustments in Family Credit benefits, leads to the possibility of errors which need detection and correction.
We are told that massive savings must be made over the coming years. One way would be to sweep away all the complications so enjoyed by G.Brown, and release resources in the private and public sectors to more productive use.
Apex - it can be done!
The Daily Express reports that Essex police have had a cost-cutting drive called Operation Apex.
The result has been that they have been able to employ 239 extra constables, - 189 basic constables, plus others at more senior grades. Most are already on duty. In each of the 5 areas or territories into which the force is divided an extra 30 or more constables are deployed.
How was it done, and done in one year?
The big money probably came from re-negotiating contracts.
Many small economies were employed, however, including:
-buying petrol at cheaper petrol stations
-consuming less tea and biscuits
-using fewer printers
-buying cheaper pens
-careful purchase and use of sundries - even paper clips!
-a specialist squad was banned from buying expensive kit, including Oakley sunglasses
They haven't finished yet. Over five years that they hope to achieve an extra 600 officers, taking their total force to 4,000. So without increasing expenditure, police staff would have increased by almost 20%.
The ratepayers of Essex must be delighted with the project. Ratepayers elsewhere will be asking, "If it can happen there, why not here as well?"
If it can happen in police budgets, why not in council budgets, why not in Whitehall and in quangos?
The result has been that they have been able to employ 239 extra constables, - 189 basic constables, plus others at more senior grades. Most are already on duty. In each of the 5 areas or territories into which the force is divided an extra 30 or more constables are deployed.
How was it done, and done in one year?
The big money probably came from re-negotiating contracts.
Many small economies were employed, however, including:
-buying petrol at cheaper petrol stations
-consuming less tea and biscuits
-using fewer printers
-buying cheaper pens
-careful purchase and use of sundries - even paper clips!
-a specialist squad was banned from buying expensive kit, including Oakley sunglasses
They haven't finished yet. Over five years that they hope to achieve an extra 600 officers, taking their total force to 4,000. So without increasing expenditure, police staff would have increased by almost 20%.
The ratepayers of Essex must be delighted with the project. Ratepayers elsewhere will be asking, "If it can happen there, why not here as well?"
If it can happen in police budgets, why not in council budgets, why not in Whitehall and in quangos?
Monday, 7 September 2009
Do you feel safe in hospital?
The National Patient Safety Agency recently reported on the extent to which patients are being given the wrong medicine, or the wrong dose.
In 2007 there were at least 37 deaths and 63 cases of severe harm though wrongly administered prescriptions. More than 200 patients every month require further treatment, or die, because of mistakes over medication. (Almost one in five incidents of death or severe harm were because drugs were omitted or delayed.) The wrong doses, - one patient received 100 mg of morphine instead of the 10mg prescribed, or the wrong drugs, figure prominently, but sometimes the medicine had been prescribed for another patient with the same name.
The report, available last week, reported that the number of errors increased from 36,335 in 2005 to 86,085 in 2007. It also stated that the Agency doubted if more than 10% of errors were reported, although probably most very serious ones were. On this basis, there could be as many as 860,000 errors annually through out the NHS as a whole. Of all errors probably 96% result in little or no harm, and are rectified.
The important question is why they occur, and why the number seems to be rising.
Despite all the extra money which has been spent, the NHS is in something of a crisis. Partly, in some places, this is due to staff shortages. In many it is because of the load of administration - form filling and box ticking. In some cases it, like serious infections, due to an overloaded system and sheer staff tiredness.
In 2007 there were at least 37 deaths and 63 cases of severe harm though wrongly administered prescriptions. More than 200 patients every month require further treatment, or die, because of mistakes over medication. (Almost one in five incidents of death or severe harm were because drugs were omitted or delayed.) The wrong doses, - one patient received 100 mg of morphine instead of the 10mg prescribed, or the wrong drugs, figure prominently, but sometimes the medicine had been prescribed for another patient with the same name.
The report, available last week, reported that the number of errors increased from 36,335 in 2005 to 86,085 in 2007. It also stated that the Agency doubted if more than 10% of errors were reported, although probably most very serious ones were. On this basis, there could be as many as 860,000 errors annually through out the NHS as a whole. Of all errors probably 96% result in little or no harm, and are rectified.
The important question is why they occur, and why the number seems to be rising.
Despite all the extra money which has been spent, the NHS is in something of a crisis. Partly, in some places, this is due to staff shortages. In many it is because of the load of administration - form filling and box ticking. In some cases it, like serious infections, due to an overloaded system and sheer staff tiredness.
On the cheap
Parents will discover that local authorities have recently increased the level of free nursery education, in line with government policy.
The actual increases are from 12.5 hours per week to 15 hours, and for 38 weeks in place of the former 33 weeks. (Initially the increases will be restricted to children from less advantaged backgrounds, but from 2010 the increase will be available to all.)
Bearing in mind that many people are convinced that many problems are emanating from poor family background, this is to be welcomed, but....
Many of the "schools" in the private sector which embraced the principle originally are now having doubts, because of inadequate funding. Many have found that complying with Ofsted supervision and visits is expensive. In addition they are acting as social workers, monitoring and reporting on possible problems on behalf of the council and government and complying with Health & Safety, etc.
The result for the private nurseries is that the "loss" they had to cover (income per child per hour from the council of £3.45 did not cover total costs of nearer £6) will now be too great, and many will go out of business, to the loss of many communitites.
They will be replaced by increased council provision (- sorry council-tax payers!), and a loss of variety and choice will make many children less well treated.
As usual, the government in trying to do something "on the cheap" will mean that quality suffers.
The actual increases are from 12.5 hours per week to 15 hours, and for 38 weeks in place of the former 33 weeks. (Initially the increases will be restricted to children from less advantaged backgrounds, but from 2010 the increase will be available to all.)
Bearing in mind that many people are convinced that many problems are emanating from poor family background, this is to be welcomed, but....
Many of the "schools" in the private sector which embraced the principle originally are now having doubts, because of inadequate funding. Many have found that complying with Ofsted supervision and visits is expensive. In addition they are acting as social workers, monitoring and reporting on possible problems on behalf of the council and government and complying with Health & Safety, etc.
The result for the private nurseries is that the "loss" they had to cover (income per child per hour from the council of £3.45 did not cover total costs of nearer £6) will now be too great, and many will go out of business, to the loss of many communitites.
They will be replaced by increased council provision (- sorry council-tax payers!), and a loss of variety and choice will make many children less well treated.
As usual, the government in trying to do something "on the cheap" will mean that quality suffers.
The drink problem
Alcohol related admissions to A & E departments in hospitals are still increasing.
In a written parliamentary answer to a Conservative question, it has emerged that such cases are increasing. They have risen by 33 per cent between 2004/05 and 2007/08, that is from 337,549 to 448,813, or about 925 per day to about 1,230.
Bearing in mind that the bulk of these cases arise on Friday and Saturday evenings, it does not require much imagination to realise that in some areas there will be multiple admissions then.
The pattern of increase is not even.
The most rapid increase was at Kettering General Hospital, with an increase from 686 to 2,150, - an increase of over 213%, while Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells had an increase from 1,192 to 3,584, Burton Hospitals Trust from 738 to 1612, and Bournemouth & Christchurch from 623 to 1,355.
Patently the present policies on alcohol are not working!
The government will be reluctant to abolish their 24 hours drinking culture, as this would involve a loss of face, but they must analyse the returns from the police and from hospitals to see what can be learned.
The cheapness of drink, both in pub promotions and also from supermarkets, is clearly a factor. Medical experts have been urging for several months that a minimum tax per unit of alcohol be imposed. This would have the effect of deterring the consumption of the most intoxicating drinks.
It would also have the effect of equalising tax burden between pubs and supermarkets.
The traditional argument for high excise taxes on strong drinks was partly to deter over-consumption, even if the main objects was government revenue. We now have a major problem, of young people going out after consuming too much and then spending too many hours consuming even more. We also have the heavy cost on the NHS both in A & E treatment of injuries, and also the growing problem of quite avoidable liver disease among relatively young people.
In a written parliamentary answer to a Conservative question, it has emerged that such cases are increasing. They have risen by 33 per cent between 2004/05 and 2007/08, that is from 337,549 to 448,813, or about 925 per day to about 1,230.
Bearing in mind that the bulk of these cases arise on Friday and Saturday evenings, it does not require much imagination to realise that in some areas there will be multiple admissions then.
The pattern of increase is not even.
The most rapid increase was at Kettering General Hospital, with an increase from 686 to 2,150, - an increase of over 213%, while Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells had an increase from 1,192 to 3,584, Burton Hospitals Trust from 738 to 1612, and Bournemouth & Christchurch from 623 to 1,355.
Patently the present policies on alcohol are not working!
The government will be reluctant to abolish their 24 hours drinking culture, as this would involve a loss of face, but they must analyse the returns from the police and from hospitals to see what can be learned.
The cheapness of drink, both in pub promotions and also from supermarkets, is clearly a factor. Medical experts have been urging for several months that a minimum tax per unit of alcohol be imposed. This would have the effect of deterring the consumption of the most intoxicating drinks.
It would also have the effect of equalising tax burden between pubs and supermarkets.
The traditional argument for high excise taxes on strong drinks was partly to deter over-consumption, even if the main objects was government revenue. We now have a major problem, of young people going out after consuming too much and then spending too many hours consuming even more. We also have the heavy cost on the NHS both in A & E treatment of injuries, and also the growing problem of quite avoidable liver disease among relatively young people.
Biological and legal
Two weeks ago, or so, a change in the law has allowed a child to have two mothers - a natural mother who has had fertility treatment with the sperm of some (unknown?) father, and the lesbian partner of that mother. All this in the name of equality of rights. (I assume that in the same way two male homosexuals with a child who is the child of one of them by sperm donation would become equal fathers. I wonder why, in the name of equality the same rights are not granted to two brothers or two sisters?)
The information will be entered on the birth certificate, with complete inequality as between the mothers. It would be interesting to speculate what would happen in the event of divorce. Which "mother" would have custody? We could have the situation that the mother who bore the child loses out, for some reason, because being the natural mother would not be a sufficient reason.
We are beginning to live in a "Brave New World" which shows the stupidity of applying the principle of "rights" to its logical conclusion.
Could we have stepfathers claiming equal rights, and if not why not? Why deny rights because of some biological factor in the past?
It would seem that biology is being replaced by law based on ideology, and the notion of the traditional family being destroyed step by step, and the English language is being slightly mutilated.
The information will be entered on the birth certificate, with complete inequality as between the mothers. It would be interesting to speculate what would happen in the event of divorce. Which "mother" would have custody? We could have the situation that the mother who bore the child loses out, for some reason, because being the natural mother would not be a sufficient reason.
We are beginning to live in a "Brave New World" which shows the stupidity of applying the principle of "rights" to its logical conclusion.
Could we have stepfathers claiming equal rights, and if not why not? Why deny rights because of some biological factor in the past?
It would seem that biology is being replaced by law based on ideology, and the notion of the traditional family being destroyed step by step, and the English language is being slightly mutilated.
As it is spook
The government , as part of its National Literacy Strategy, is producing instructions on the use of grammar, among other things on the use of full stops, question marks and commas. This is published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. It also includes help to distinguish between nouns and verbs.
Quite right, we think, some children are leaving school without mastering these things. This cannot be bad. But this book is intended for teachers, to help them improve their own performance, although they are supposed to be all graduate and fully educated.
This is partly a reflection of the 1970s and 1980s, when "progressive" education ruled that expression was more important than knowledge of English.
It may be, however, also a sign that while young people speak the language, for more than a generation they have not read or written it to any great extent. Their formative years have been spent watching videos or playing computer games. They have a vocabulary, and can make themselves known in speech, but when it comes to writing with emphasis there is a problem.
This may be illustrated in spelling variants - there/their, our/are, where/were, etc, where many people under 50 struggle to know or emphasise the difference.
The progressives were right - it is important to express yourself, but if you cannot express yourself concisely and accurately in writing then nuances and subtlety are lost and the meaning may not be clear.
Quite right, we think, some children are leaving school without mastering these things. This cannot be bad. But this book is intended for teachers, to help them improve their own performance, although they are supposed to be all graduate and fully educated.
This is partly a reflection of the 1970s and 1980s, when "progressive" education ruled that expression was more important than knowledge of English.
It may be, however, also a sign that while young people speak the language, for more than a generation they have not read or written it to any great extent. Their formative years have been spent watching videos or playing computer games. They have a vocabulary, and can make themselves known in speech, but when it comes to writing with emphasis there is a problem.
This may be illustrated in spelling variants - there/their, our/are, where/were, etc, where many people under 50 struggle to know or emphasise the difference.
The progressives were right - it is important to express yourself, but if you cannot express yourself concisely and accurately in writing then nuances and subtlety are lost and the meaning may not be clear.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
When I say something, it doesn't exactly mean what I say.
This morning, on the Toady programme, we had the unedifying spectacle of the Foreign Secretary attempting to explain away an apparently simple statement.
When a Home Office minister, (what was he doing in Libya, anyway?) told the Gadaffi government that when he said "We do not want Mr. Mehgradi to die in prison", it did not mean this. It meant instead, with much hand-wringing, "Since the Blair botched devolution, we have to leave the decision to the Scottish government, but since oil is at stake, of course we would like to release the multi-murderer."
Quite what the Americans are making of all this, having been assured that they would be consulted before any release of the bomber, is that, using the Cameron expression, there is some double dealing here.
The special relationship will not end immediately, because our troops are still dying in Afghanistan, but they must be seeing us as an unreliable ally.
When a Home Office minister, (what was he doing in Libya, anyway?) told the Gadaffi government that when he said "We do not want Mr. Mehgradi to die in prison", it did not mean this. It meant instead, with much hand-wringing, "Since the Blair botched devolution, we have to leave the decision to the Scottish government, but since oil is at stake, of course we would like to release the multi-murderer."
Quite what the Americans are making of all this, having been assured that they would be consulted before any release of the bomber, is that, using the Cameron expression, there is some double dealing here.
The special relationship will not end immediately, because our troops are still dying in Afghanistan, but they must be seeing us as an unreliable ally.
What a let down!
Prime Minister Blair, in foolishly believing that he had made an agreement with the EU that costs and especially agricultural subsidies would be reduced, agreed to a cut in our EU rebate, won by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.
Now we know differently. Our net payment to the EU will rise from £4.1 billion to £6.9 billion by 2011, as the agreement kicks in. In the calendar year 2011 it will rise again to £7.3 billion, or about £289 per UK household.The problem is that the "full and wide-ranging review" of EU spending is being abandoned. The reason given is that officials fear that it would be too contentious and would disrupt other work which they regard as more important.
So the planned November "comprehensive reassessment" of European finances, which would permit a "progressive percentage reduction" in the UK's rebate over the next four years, will not take place. The reduction in the rebate will, however, continue.
Why am I not surprised?
We are in a recession admittedly, but if other countries would struggle with any reduction in benefit from the EU, why are we not to be accorded the same concern by cancelling our increased contribution?
The French, fiercely resisting any reduction in the largess they receive under the CAP, have already managed to put back revision until 2013. It is almost possible to admire the way they have avoided serious revision for at least 30 years, and who would bet against them somehow managing to avoid it even longer?
When it comes to EU bargaining, those who claim that they have put us at the centre of Europe have shown themselves poor at bargaining.
Now we know differently. Our net payment to the EU will rise from £4.1 billion to £6.9 billion by 2011, as the agreement kicks in. In the calendar year 2011 it will rise again to £7.3 billion, or about £289 per UK household.The problem is that the "full and wide-ranging review" of EU spending is being abandoned. The reason given is that officials fear that it would be too contentious and would disrupt other work which they regard as more important.
So the planned November "comprehensive reassessment" of European finances, which would permit a "progressive percentage reduction" in the UK's rebate over the next four years, will not take place. The reduction in the rebate will, however, continue.
Why am I not surprised?
We are in a recession admittedly, but if other countries would struggle with any reduction in benefit from the EU, why are we not to be accorded the same concern by cancelling our increased contribution?
The French, fiercely resisting any reduction in the largess they receive under the CAP, have already managed to put back revision until 2013. It is almost possible to admire the way they have avoided serious revision for at least 30 years, and who would bet against them somehow managing to avoid it even longer?
When it comes to EU bargaining, those who claim that they have put us at the centre of Europe have shown themselves poor at bargaining.
More for less
The Defence Industries Council this week have made the defence industry the pivotal one in our economy. Even those sympathetic must feel that they have gone a little bit over the top.
Two facts they give are, however, incontrovertible:
Defence spending in 1989 amounted to 4.4% of Gross Domestic Product.
Defence spending in 2008 amounted to 2.3% of Gross Domestic Product.
How can these be explained away?
1) That there was an expensive overseas war in 1989, and little or nothing of the case now?
2) That there was a "peace dividend" - a thawing in the cold ward which allowed us to be able to manage with less defence?
3) That the country is much wealthier now, so 2.3% of GDP is a larger amount of money than it seems?
The first point is clearly nonsense. We have been at war in Afghanistan since 2001, and in Iraq from 2003 until recently. The second point might have been true until Blair decided to commit us to a number of wars in various places in the world - Balkans, Africa, Middle East. The third point is untrue because all weaponry, except the very basic bullets, is more sophisticated and expensive. Troops need body armour, night vision 'scopes, massive armour plating on all vehicles, and large helicopter support.
No, sadly, we are trying to conduct various wars on a shoestring. The evidence for this is the fact that Territorial army units, intended for internal defence, have had to be employed overseas.
Our taxes are not paying for efficient and effective war. The cost of the war is largely being paid in the countless deaths of troops who have inadequate protection.
Two facts they give are, however, incontrovertible:
Defence spending in 1989 amounted to 4.4% of Gross Domestic Product.
Defence spending in 2008 amounted to 2.3% of Gross Domestic Product.
How can these be explained away?
1) That there was an expensive overseas war in 1989, and little or nothing of the case now?
2) That there was a "peace dividend" - a thawing in the cold ward which allowed us to be able to manage with less defence?
3) That the country is much wealthier now, so 2.3% of GDP is a larger amount of money than it seems?
The first point is clearly nonsense. We have been at war in Afghanistan since 2001, and in Iraq from 2003 until recently. The second point might have been true until Blair decided to commit us to a number of wars in various places in the world - Balkans, Africa, Middle East. The third point is untrue because all weaponry, except the very basic bullets, is more sophisticated and expensive. Troops need body armour, night vision 'scopes, massive armour plating on all vehicles, and large helicopter support.
No, sadly, we are trying to conduct various wars on a shoestring. The evidence for this is the fact that Territorial army units, intended for internal defence, have had to be employed overseas.
Our taxes are not paying for efficient and effective war. The cost of the war is largely being paid in the countless deaths of troops who have inadequate protection.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Another mayoral good idea
The Evening Standard reports Boris Johnson, London Mayor, as calling for every home to have a water meter installed - at the moment it is voluntary.
Behind his call is the belief that climate changes and a larger population could lead to water shortages.
Some of his proposals are probably already practiced by those with environmental concern:
-turn off the tap while brushing your teeth, (which will save six litres every minute.)
-take shorter showers (nine litres a minute)
- put a solid object in your cistern to replace water per flush
-use your washing machine only fully loaded (save 35 litres per each unnecessary load)
- use a washing up bowl rather than a running tap (nine litres per minute)
It is the proposal to install meters (in all houses by 2015 and flats by 2020) which could have the greatest impact. At the moment about 23% of homes have a meter, so many more could have one.
As non-metered water is paid for by a fixed charge, additional units effectively have a zero extra cost. That is, they are free! It is perfectly logical for anyone to use water to the point where any additional units would produce no benefit to them. There is no incentive to save - leave a dripping tap for months, take long showers, leave the lawn sprinkler on all day.....
Boris Johnson, and others are speaking good sense. Compulsory metering cannot be delayed much longer! People should learn the true cost of water, especially if it becomes scarce, and act appropriately.
Behind his call is the belief that climate changes and a larger population could lead to water shortages.
Some of his proposals are probably already practiced by those with environmental concern:
-turn off the tap while brushing your teeth, (which will save six litres every minute.)
-take shorter showers (nine litres a minute)
- put a solid object in your cistern to replace water per flush
-use your washing machine only fully loaded (save 35 litres per each unnecessary load)
- use a washing up bowl rather than a running tap (nine litres per minute)
It is the proposal to install meters (in all houses by 2015 and flats by 2020) which could have the greatest impact. At the moment about 23% of homes have a meter, so many more could have one.
As non-metered water is paid for by a fixed charge, additional units effectively have a zero extra cost. That is, they are free! It is perfectly logical for anyone to use water to the point where any additional units would produce no benefit to them. There is no incentive to save - leave a dripping tap for months, take long showers, leave the lawn sprinkler on all day.....
Boris Johnson, and others are speaking good sense. Compulsory metering cannot be delayed much longer! People should learn the true cost of water, especially if it becomes scarce, and act appropriately.
An active elected Mayor
Ridley Gove, on today's Conservative Home blog, lauds the mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies.
The mayor, responsible for 250,000 people, has made some sweeping changes:
1) He has not produced plans yet, but he wants all local schools to run themselves.
2) He has ordered budget cuts of between 10% and 15%, as he is convinced that the administration grew fat over decades of Labour rule, and he is aiming for a 3% cut in council tax.
3) He has cut his own pay in half, to £30,000, and he is hoping to cut the chief executive's pay in half to £85,000.
4) He wants to cut the number of councillors by two thirds to only 21.
5) He, as with several Tory controlled councils, will save £80,000 by leaving the ineffective Local Government Association.
6) He has ended Doncaster's twinning arrangements with five other cities, and the associated junketing.
7) He believes that immigrants should learn English, to promote integration, and consequently has abolished the translation services.
As far as I know, he is not a Tory, but he is surely someone of the same spirit.
If he succeeds in Doncaster, there is every argument to overcome the obstacles of change - "It would never work here" and all the vested interests. I was never a real fan of elected mayors, but I must admit to being impressed by this one! He could produce a model which spends elector's money more efficiently and in line with their expressed views.
The mayor, responsible for 250,000 people, has made some sweeping changes:
1) He has not produced plans yet, but he wants all local schools to run themselves.
2) He has ordered budget cuts of between 10% and 15%, as he is convinced that the administration grew fat over decades of Labour rule, and he is aiming for a 3% cut in council tax.
3) He has cut his own pay in half, to £30,000, and he is hoping to cut the chief executive's pay in half to £85,000.
4) He wants to cut the number of councillors by two thirds to only 21.
5) He, as with several Tory controlled councils, will save £80,000 by leaving the ineffective Local Government Association.
6) He has ended Doncaster's twinning arrangements with five other cities, and the associated junketing.
7) He believes that immigrants should learn English, to promote integration, and consequently has abolished the translation services.
As far as I know, he is not a Tory, but he is surely someone of the same spirit.
If he succeeds in Doncaster, there is every argument to overcome the obstacles of change - "It would never work here" and all the vested interests. I was never a real fan of elected mayors, but I must admit to being impressed by this one! He could produce a model which spends elector's money more efficiently and in line with their expressed views.
The state as parent
Andy Sawford, head of the Local Government Information Unit, has given out some revealing information on children in care. This was from the LGIU blog.
In particular what stands out is:
At a time when the government is expanding higher education and aiming for 500 in every 1,000 to go to university, the number of children in care who are achieving this is seven in every thousand. (In fact a higher proportion of children in care go to prison.)
In Denmark 70% of children in care attend university, that is a hundred times as many as in the UK, which suggests that Denmark is better at organising care than we are. (It should be remembered that in Denmark 13% of children attend fee-paying schools, compared with 7% here. Denmark has a system not so dissimilar to the Swedish system advocated by Michael Gove.)
In particular what stands out is:
At a time when the government is expanding higher education and aiming for 500 in every 1,000 to go to university, the number of children in care who are achieving this is seven in every thousand. (In fact a higher proportion of children in care go to prison.)
In Denmark 70% of children in care attend university, that is a hundred times as many as in the UK, which suggests that Denmark is better at organising care than we are. (It should be remembered that in Denmark 13% of children attend fee-paying schools, compared with 7% here. Denmark has a system not so dissimilar to the Swedish system advocated by Michael Gove.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
