Figures released by the Children, etc. Department reveal that the number of families appealing against the allocation of school for a child have increased .
In the Primary sector last year there were 36,000 appeals, a rise of nearly 8,000. Of the appeals 6,000 were successful, a rise of 10% over the previous years.
In the secondary sector over 53,000 appeals were made, of which 13,000 were successful, a slight percentage fall.
The department attributed the increases to families becoming aware of appeal possibilities and also to parents removing children from private schools because of the recession. (Is it possible that the department is actually losing the battle to create schools of sufficient quality to make parents content?)
There is obviously considerable dissatisfaction among parents with a large number of schools and with the allocation system which consigns children to schools unacceptable to their parents. Of the appeals in the primary sector, only about 17% are successful, and in the secondary sector the figure is just under 25%.
Michael Gove, shadow minister, seems to have the right prescription - based in the Swedish solution, to let the schools attractive to parents reveal the poor schools and force changes or closure in the latter.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Admitted at last
The Daily Telegraph yesterday carried the story that the Rural Payments Agency, of DEFRA, lost the confidential details of all farmers in England, roughly 100,000 of them. The details contained bank details, addresses and security passwords.
These, on on one CD and 38 back up tapes, were apparently lost in June 2008. The loss was noticed only when IBM carried out a review of the RPA's computer systems in May this year, - almost a year afterwards. Most of the tapes have now been accounted for.
The IT consultants passed the information to DEFRA officials, but it was not passed further to ministers. Hilary Ben, Environmental Secretary, was told only last week, although RPA had (re)discovered the fact from its own internal audit in September.
This is one of a long line of careless loss of confidential information, lost or mislaid, by government departments. In addition RPA have a poor record in their main function, of delay in handing out EU payments to farmers.
In the meantime farmers are concerned that there is still some information on some farmers which has not been traced. For the rest of us, the carelessness will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and in investigation and administrative costs.
Ministers are in charge of departments, and they should bang together the heads of senior officials, who in turn should make sure that things like this do not happen.
These, on on one CD and 38 back up tapes, were apparently lost in June 2008. The loss was noticed only when IBM carried out a review of the RPA's computer systems in May this year, - almost a year afterwards. Most of the tapes have now been accounted for.
The IT consultants passed the information to DEFRA officials, but it was not passed further to ministers. Hilary Ben, Environmental Secretary, was told only last week, although RPA had (re)discovered the fact from its own internal audit in September.
This is one of a long line of careless loss of confidential information, lost or mislaid, by government departments. In addition RPA have a poor record in their main function, of delay in handing out EU payments to farmers.
In the meantime farmers are concerned that there is still some information on some farmers which has not been traced. For the rest of us, the carelessness will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds in fines and in investigation and administrative costs.
Ministers are in charge of departments, and they should bang together the heads of senior officials, who in turn should make sure that things like this do not happen.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
What a future!
The Department for Children, etc. has just released figures which they claim show a slight improvement in attainment at age 14 in our schools. (It has do be acknowledged that there are actually no Sats test for them, since Balls cancelled them after the marking debacle, so we are relying on teacher (subjective?) evaluation of performance, and the slight improvement may represent a slight optimism on the part of a few teachers.
The results, it must be said, are still very disappointing - 23% of all 14 year-olds did not reach the expected standard in English, or almost a quarter. In science it is 22%, while in maths it is 20%. The claimed changes were an increase in English of 1%, a 2% increase in science while maths was left unchanged.
Girls still out-perform boys in all the three subjects, with gap widest in English at 84% for girls and 79% of boys reaching the standard, and narrowest in maths where the gap was 80% to 79%. In science there was a 3% difference.
If the increase in those achieving the standard is a genuine one, it is to be welcomed, but the overall results in the basic subjects are still very poor.
If a school-leaver lacks sufficient facility in English and Maths, his or her job prospects are not good. Moreover, if they have struggled throughout their school years they have probably not been able to develop competence in other subjects, and their results there will also be weak.
We already have a major unemployment/benefit problem, and these results will clearly not do much to improve this in the future.
The results, it must be said, are still very disappointing - 23% of all 14 year-olds did not reach the expected standard in English, or almost a quarter. In science it is 22%, while in maths it is 20%. The claimed changes were an increase in English of 1%, a 2% increase in science while maths was left unchanged.
Girls still out-perform boys in all the three subjects, with gap widest in English at 84% for girls and 79% of boys reaching the standard, and narrowest in maths where the gap was 80% to 79%. In science there was a 3% difference.
If the increase in those achieving the standard is a genuine one, it is to be welcomed, but the overall results in the basic subjects are still very poor.
If a school-leaver lacks sufficient facility in English and Maths, his or her job prospects are not good. Moreover, if they have struggled throughout their school years they have probably not been able to develop competence in other subjects, and their results there will also be weak.
We already have a major unemployment/benefit problem, and these results will clearly not do much to improve this in the future.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Cleaning up
Speaker Bercow promised to clean up Parliament.
May be he will restore much of the confidence voters used to have. I suspect not because he has cleaned up in another way, by suggesting that changing designation of main house to avoid capital gains tax (flipping) should be excluded from Legg's investigation.
I suspect that it is because he has done it twice.
If there is one element of all the scandals which grates with voters, apart from claiming for a mortgage that you do not have, it is flipping. If it is not illegal, it should be made so. It is a cynical way of avoiding tax, and should be stopped immediately. (It could be in any case if mortgage tax is not treated as an allowable expense, and fewer MPs buy a second house. But will there be other allowances for a first or second house by flipping - carpets, furniture, etc.?
May be he will restore much of the confidence voters used to have. I suspect not because he has cleaned up in another way, by suggesting that changing designation of main house to avoid capital gains tax (flipping) should be excluded from Legg's investigation.
I suspect that it is because he has done it twice.
If there is one element of all the scandals which grates with voters, apart from claiming for a mortgage that you do not have, it is flipping. If it is not illegal, it should be made so. It is a cynical way of avoiding tax, and should be stopped immediately. (It could be in any case if mortgage tax is not treated as an allowable expense, and fewer MPs buy a second house. But will there be other allowances for a first or second house by flipping - carpets, furniture, etc.?
Kelly report
We were supposed to be kept waiting for the report by Sir Christopher Kelly on MP's expenses until next week. Party leaders have seen an advance copy and someone in a party office has leaked some details. It is unfortunate that we do not have a complete picture.
Two things do apparently stand out:
1) In future MP's spouses and close relatives will not be able to be employed as secretaries, researchers, etc. This one has attracted some real anger, partly because some have performed this function efficiently for many years and partly because it means they could spend more time with their spouse.
The problem here is the advantages taken to pay over the odds for very nominal duties in some cases.
I do not have a problem with paid family work, so long as a maximum is set and the work is actually done. In future MPs will presumably have to recruit someone from outside the family and provide them with office, national insurance, pension contributions, etc. I am not sure that any money will be saved.
2) In future there will be no payment of mortgage interest on second homes. This seems eminently sensible. A close family member flies out to Germany every week and stops three or four days, with all expenses paid by his company. He wouldn't expect to receive untaxed help to buy a house there although he has been doing this for three years. Nor would anyone else who works in the private sector. They expect to have all expenses of being away to be covered by their employer.
Why should MPs be different? Why should they be helped to buy a permanent asset, when everyone else is paid expenses? I suspect that spouses like to have a London pad for family use, as well as a valuable asset for sale later. What is required is an arrangement for MPs to be refunded for accommodation for the three nights which most of them spend in London. To avoid any other scams, perhaps the government could buy some property, (- Olympic flats after 2012?), and let them free for MP overnight use.
With some doubt about the spouse employment proposal, I welcome what Sir Christopher is doing.
Two things do apparently stand out:
1) In future MP's spouses and close relatives will not be able to be employed as secretaries, researchers, etc. This one has attracted some real anger, partly because some have performed this function efficiently for many years and partly because it means they could spend more time with their spouse.
The problem here is the advantages taken to pay over the odds for very nominal duties in some cases.
I do not have a problem with paid family work, so long as a maximum is set and the work is actually done. In future MPs will presumably have to recruit someone from outside the family and provide them with office, national insurance, pension contributions, etc. I am not sure that any money will be saved.
2) In future there will be no payment of mortgage interest on second homes. This seems eminently sensible. A close family member flies out to Germany every week and stops three or four days, with all expenses paid by his company. He wouldn't expect to receive untaxed help to buy a house there although he has been doing this for three years. Nor would anyone else who works in the private sector. They expect to have all expenses of being away to be covered by their employer.
Why should MPs be different? Why should they be helped to buy a permanent asset, when everyone else is paid expenses? I suspect that spouses like to have a London pad for family use, as well as a valuable asset for sale later. What is required is an arrangement for MPs to be refunded for accommodation for the three nights which most of them spend in London. To avoid any other scams, perhaps the government could buy some property, (- Olympic flats after 2012?), and let them free for MP overnight use.
With some doubt about the spouse employment proposal, I welcome what Sir Christopher is doing.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
They're growing - bigger and more numerous
Quangos, that is.
A recent report published by the Taxpayers Alliance reveals the growing influence of these creatures which allow governments to dispense patronage, and let others take the blame when something goes wrong.
The TPA calculates that in the UK there are at least 1,500 of them - the governments are even running out of initials for them - there are two called FSA (- the Food Standards Agency and the Financial Services Authority).
It seems that these quasi autonomous non-government agencies employ over half a million staff, although some are so small that have only a few on the pay roll. They also distribute in staff salaries, expensive offices and grants something approaching £100 billion. (In 2007-08, the latest year for which mostly full amounts are known, they disbursed £90 billion, which was an increase of £13 billion on the previous year.)
They are non-government and apparently autonomous, and can act as bureaucrats -widening their empires and appointing ever more staff. They are also unaccountable - to parliament and voters. They are only nominally in the field of a relevant minister. Many of them pay their highest officer more than we pay the Prime Minister!
This is why Cameron and company have announced that they wish to "clip their wings" - to the extent that each quango would be answerable to a parliamentary committee, and the chief would have to appear to state their objectives and their success in achieving them. Scrutiny and cross examination would take place. This, to make the quangos answerable to parliament and the voters.
A recent report published by the Taxpayers Alliance reveals the growing influence of these creatures which allow governments to dispense patronage, and let others take the blame when something goes wrong.
The TPA calculates that in the UK there are at least 1,500 of them - the governments are even running out of initials for them - there are two called FSA (- the Food Standards Agency and the Financial Services Authority).
It seems that these quasi autonomous non-government agencies employ over half a million staff, although some are so small that have only a few on the pay roll. They also distribute in staff salaries, expensive offices and grants something approaching £100 billion. (In 2007-08, the latest year for which mostly full amounts are known, they disbursed £90 billion, which was an increase of £13 billion on the previous year.)
They are non-government and apparently autonomous, and can act as bureaucrats -widening their empires and appointing ever more staff. They are also unaccountable - to parliament and voters. They are only nominally in the field of a relevant minister. Many of them pay their highest officer more than we pay the Prime Minister!
This is why Cameron and company have announced that they wish to "clip their wings" - to the extent that each quango would be answerable to a parliamentary committee, and the chief would have to appear to state their objectives and their success in achieving them. Scrutiny and cross examination would take place. This, to make the quangos answerable to parliament and the voters.
Help for UKIP
Many people who are aghast at the developing new state of Europe, would consider voting for UKIP candidates, except for two things. Firstly, if they voted for UKIP rather than the Tories they might let Brown's lot back in again, and we have suffered enough, and secondly because they are not sure about their other policies, or even if they have any.
Now comes the announcement that UKIP could soon be bankrupt, as they have to forfeit £360,000 for a donation received from a man who mistakenly thought he was on the electoral roll but wasn't. It wasn't as if he was abroad, simply by some oversight or mistake his name did not appear on the roll. UKIP failed to check the roll, and so technically the donation was illegal.
Compare that the Limpdems, whop took £2.5 million from a criminal, - a much more serious offence. So far the Limpdems have not been ordered to hand it over.
If the Limpdems get away with it, I won't be the only one to cry "Foul", and I might just consider giving a donation to UKIP although I couldn't vote for them.
Now comes the announcement that UKIP could soon be bankrupt, as they have to forfeit £360,000 for a donation received from a man who mistakenly thought he was on the electoral roll but wasn't. It wasn't as if he was abroad, simply by some oversight or mistake his name did not appear on the roll. UKIP failed to check the roll, and so technically the donation was illegal.
Compare that the Limpdems, whop took £2.5 million from a criminal, - a much more serious offence. So far the Limpdems have not been ordered to hand it over.
If the Limpdems get away with it, I won't be the only one to cry "Foul", and I might just consider giving a donation to UKIP although I couldn't vote for them.
Monday, 26 October 2009
I'm not sure
if what is meant by "a green tax of £3,300 on new cars" announced today means to replace car registration tax, or whether it means an extra sales tax.
I think that it means the latter, to be accompanied by a thumping increase in tax on fuel.
Have they thought it through? £3,300 on a small family car will be a savage increase for people on limited means, as well as on companies.
I can imagine owners running their old cars into a polluting old age, and putting up the price of second hand cars, which will also be a problem for those on limited means. Never mind, they can travel on polluting buses, and take an hour longer to get to work, because their homes and work do not lie on the same bus route.
But it's all in a good cause! (What happens if people like Christopher Booker are right, and those they quote, and man-made damage to the environment has been wildly exaggerated? We shall all have a cold, dark, impoverished old age for nothing.)
I think that it means the latter, to be accompanied by a thumping increase in tax on fuel.
Have they thought it through? £3,300 on a small family car will be a savage increase for people on limited means, as well as on companies.
I can imagine owners running their old cars into a polluting old age, and putting up the price of second hand cars, which will also be a problem for those on limited means. Never mind, they can travel on polluting buses, and take an hour longer to get to work, because their homes and work do not lie on the same bus route.
But it's all in a good cause! (What happens if people like Christopher Booker are right, and those they quote, and man-made damage to the environment has been wildly exaggerated? We shall all have a cold, dark, impoverished old age for nothing.)
Would this be the Mr. Blair who
- negotiated away our rebate from our excessive payments to the EU?
- deceived us in going to war in Iraq and Iran?
- promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution in 2005?
- committed us to making troops available to the EU?
- brought in the whole paraphernalia on human rights which has turned judges into legislators?
etc., etc.
Is this the man that Foreign Secretary Miliband is avidly supporting to be the new Chief of the EU, with a motorcade so large that the rest of the world will bow in wonder as he sweeps past?
It couldn't be surely? It would compel most of us to join UKIP!
- deceived us in going to war in Iraq and Iran?
- promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution in 2005?
- committed us to making troops available to the EU?
- brought in the whole paraphernalia on human rights which has turned judges into legislators?
etc., etc.
Is this the man that Foreign Secretary Miliband is avidly supporting to be the new Chief of the EU, with a motorcade so large that the rest of the world will bow in wonder as he sweeps past?
It couldn't be surely? It would compel most of us to join UKIP!
A crime is a crime
The HM Inspector of Constabulary has reported that police are almost routinely counting as a non-crime quite vicious cases, including even serious cases of assault or affray.
We had already accustomed ourselves to the fact that police were giving cautions, because it saves them spending time in assembling evidence and report writing. Now we have the situation where serious incidents are not even recorded or investigated.
The recent example of a 17 year old girl who reported rape, and offered her skirt for DNA analysis is a case in point. The police refused to accept the material evidence as they could not access DNA testing cheaply and efficiently!
The result is, of course, that police crime statistics are increasingly unreliable, and government claims that the level of crime is falling cannot be accepted at face value. Any statistics which depend on definition, as well as collection, and when definition is arbitrary, are not worth very much.
We had already accustomed ourselves to the fact that police were giving cautions, because it saves them spending time in assembling evidence and report writing. Now we have the situation where serious incidents are not even recorded or investigated.
The recent example of a 17 year old girl who reported rape, and offered her skirt for DNA analysis is a case in point. The police refused to accept the material evidence as they could not access DNA testing cheaply and efficiently!
The result is, of course, that police crime statistics are increasingly unreliable, and government claims that the level of crime is falling cannot be accepted at face value. Any statistics which depend on definition, as well as collection, and when definition is arbitrary, are not worth very much.
None shall pass
The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday that one in five primary schools is still refusing to identify its brightest students for extra attention to develop their special skills. The reason given is "philosophical issues", that it ideological or political convictions. The extra time for pupils has to be found, admittedly, after school and at week-ends.
A 1999 Act, aimed at encouraging parents of the most intelligent children to send their children to state schools rather than private schools, required this commitment from schools.
So one in five primary schools is breaking the law in refusing to identify and nominate pupils for the government's "gifted and talented" scheme. (In secondary education only 5% of schools fail to comply.)
As head teachers and their staff are presumably aware of the directive, then they should be subjected to discipline if they continue to defy the law. Otherwise the consequence is anarchy, - observing the rules you like and ignoring those you do not.
A 1999 Act, aimed at encouraging parents of the most intelligent children to send their children to state schools rather than private schools, required this commitment from schools.
So one in five primary schools is breaking the law in refusing to identify and nominate pupils for the government's "gifted and talented" scheme. (In secondary education only 5% of schools fail to comply.)
As head teachers and their staff are presumably aware of the directive, then they should be subjected to discipline if they continue to defy the law. Otherwise the consequence is anarchy, - observing the rules you like and ignoring those you do not.
Spare the rod and....?
It has been apparent for some time that disruptive behaviour in class is inhibiting the educational progress of other pupils, and bullying is widespread in its pernicious effects.
We have now reached the proportion that teachers who have tried to deal with disruptive behaviour are finding that there is a lack of support. Even if referral to the head teacher results in exclusion, with decisions beyond the school and appeals from canny parents the offenders are soon back in school to continue their disruptive ways.
Worse, false and malicious reports by pupils lead to teacher suspension and often a drawn out inquiry and on many occasions to loss of the teacher's job.
Much of the fault here is the complete application of the human rights act on behalf of the offenders. What of the rights of teachers and other pupils? These latter seem to be frequently as completely overlooked?
Our educational service is in disarray and collapsing. Ideology is a powerful influence for bad, but when it is empowered by the human rights act the result is truly damaging and unfair.
We have now reached the proportion that teachers who have tried to deal with disruptive behaviour are finding that there is a lack of support. Even if referral to the head teacher results in exclusion, with decisions beyond the school and appeals from canny parents the offenders are soon back in school to continue their disruptive ways.
Worse, false and malicious reports by pupils lead to teacher suspension and often a drawn out inquiry and on many occasions to loss of the teacher's job.
Much of the fault here is the complete application of the human rights act on behalf of the offenders. What of the rights of teachers and other pupils? These latter seem to be frequently as completely overlooked?
Our educational service is in disarray and collapsing. Ideology is a powerful influence for bad, but when it is empowered by the human rights act the result is truly damaging and unfair.
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Registration, registration....
One of the features of NuLabour which is becoming very clear is the desire to obtain as much information as possible about everybody and to control as much as possible of what they do.
We saw this is in the case of two WPCs who did child-minding for each other and were running up against the law because they had not registered, paid, been "safeguarded" ( being CRB checked at work as constables is not sufficient), and also inspected by Ofsted. The outcry led to a promise to take such cases from legislation.
On September 30th a letter from a writer in Edinburgh to the Daily Telegraph gave another illustration. The writer had discussed with a disabled friend that his friend should live rent-free in the writer's flat for a period while the writer was abroad.
I quote from the letter. "I learnt from my local authority that under section 93 of the Anti-Social Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004, this conversation constituted a criminal offence. No one who has not previously registered as a landlord with their local authority, and paid a fat fee for the privilege, may legally engage in such a conversation." I wonder if some of the MPs, whose expenses led to renting a property to family members, have been awarded ASBOs. I can't believe that the English are not under the same control as the Scots!
Churches and village halls must now apply for a licence to permit entertainment on their premises. Some of the halls involved have used entertainment for years to defray expenses. Now they must register, and pay the inevitable fee, for the privilege. Since they could be prosecuted under other regulations if they made a nuisance to nearby residents, why must they register? Some of those on the borderline of financial balance may well be driven into insolvency.
I was led to believe that what consenting adults do in private is not the business of the government, where there are no taxation implications. Childcare arrangements between neighbours who have both been checked, should surely fall into this category also.
NuLabour has a prying, controlling philosophy which is entirely at odds with its desire to be seen as liberal, in areas such as 24 hour drinking.
We saw this is in the case of two WPCs who did child-minding for each other and were running up against the law because they had not registered, paid, been "safeguarded" ( being CRB checked at work as constables is not sufficient), and also inspected by Ofsted. The outcry led to a promise to take such cases from legislation.
On September 30th a letter from a writer in Edinburgh to the Daily Telegraph gave another illustration. The writer had discussed with a disabled friend that his friend should live rent-free in the writer's flat for a period while the writer was abroad.
I quote from the letter. "I learnt from my local authority that under section 93 of the Anti-Social Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004, this conversation constituted a criminal offence. No one who has not previously registered as a landlord with their local authority, and paid a fat fee for the privilege, may legally engage in such a conversation." I wonder if some of the MPs, whose expenses led to renting a property to family members, have been awarded ASBOs. I can't believe that the English are not under the same control as the Scots!
Churches and village halls must now apply for a licence to permit entertainment on their premises. Some of the halls involved have used entertainment for years to defray expenses. Now they must register, and pay the inevitable fee, for the privilege. Since they could be prosecuted under other regulations if they made a nuisance to nearby residents, why must they register? Some of those on the borderline of financial balance may well be driven into insolvency.
I was led to believe that what consenting adults do in private is not the business of the government, where there are no taxation implications. Childcare arrangements between neighbours who have both been checked, should surely fall into this category also.
NuLabour has a prying, controlling philosophy which is entirely at odds with its desire to be seen as liberal, in areas such as 24 hour drinking.
Even the government is saying it.
Andy Burnham, Health Secretary, confirmed that a report from the Department of Health will say what many have susupected, that older people, over the age of 65, are receiving poorer treatment from the NHS. This is true of cancer survival rates, which may be due to longer referral times, and those with mental health problems. Psychiatrists point to the cut-off date for some kinds of treatment and support.
The problem seems to be one of resources, human, physical and monetary.
If you are 75, it could be assumed that you will die fairly soon. You may have unattractive qualities - incontinence, mental confusion, mobility - all of which will make the same treatment more expensive.
The discrimination has been condemned by all and sundry, but where will the extra finance come from?
There now seems to be no mileage in the point that older people contributed their NI all their lives in the belief that their health needs, at least, would be met until they die.There is thus a contract with society. The stronger argument is surely that if it is convenient to "neglect"one vulnerable group, because of costs, where could this end - educationally challenged, physically handicapped? If we start on this road, then we are going down the road which took Nazi victims to the gas chamber!.
The mark of a humane society is that it cares for the vulnerable - the poor, the helpless, the elderly, the misfits. (You don't have to subscribe to the Ten Commandments, but it's there - "honour your fathers and mothers".)
The problem seems to be one of resources, human, physical and monetary.
If you are 75, it could be assumed that you will die fairly soon. You may have unattractive qualities - incontinence, mental confusion, mobility - all of which will make the same treatment more expensive.
The discrimination has been condemned by all and sundry, but where will the extra finance come from?
There now seems to be no mileage in the point that older people contributed their NI all their lives in the belief that their health needs, at least, would be met until they die.There is thus a contract with society. The stronger argument is surely that if it is convenient to "neglect"one vulnerable group, because of costs, where could this end - educationally challenged, physically handicapped? If we start on this road, then we are going down the road which took Nazi victims to the gas chamber!.
The mark of a humane society is that it cares for the vulnerable - the poor, the helpless, the elderly, the misfits. (You don't have to subscribe to the Ten Commandments, but it's there - "honour your fathers and mothers".)
What Osborne didn't say
Interviewed/attacked by Humphrys this morning on Toady, George Osborne gave a satisfactory rebuttal.
He could have said, "Why ask me about what we would do now to overcome recession, because by the time we take power the situation could have changed markedly."
What he did say, and repeated in doing so, was that a major problem is a lack of credit. He offered the idea of a proper credit guarantee scheme. This need not cost the government much money or enlarge the gaping deficit.
What he should have said is that we shall have a bonfire of all those regulations which deter and hinder enterprise, and abolish the interference by much of quangoland. This would cost nothing and would be a great incentive for people to risk their own money, as well as borrowing, and would soak up some of the unemployment. Kenneth Clark's conference promise to cut out one existing piece of red tape for any new one was far too timid.
Bureaucratic red tape, constant changes in the minutiae of company legislation and the full panoply of compliance are a deterrent, as well as a cost on enterprise. Removing many of them would cost the government nothing in lost revenue, but it would liberate and save costs for business.
He could have said, "Why ask me about what we would do now to overcome recession, because by the time we take power the situation could have changed markedly."
What he did say, and repeated in doing so, was that a major problem is a lack of credit. He offered the idea of a proper credit guarantee scheme. This need not cost the government much money or enlarge the gaping deficit.
What he should have said is that we shall have a bonfire of all those regulations which deter and hinder enterprise, and abolish the interference by much of quangoland. This would cost nothing and would be a great incentive for people to risk their own money, as well as borrowing, and would soak up some of the unemployment. Kenneth Clark's conference promise to cut out one existing piece of red tape for any new one was far too timid.
Bureaucratic red tape, constant changes in the minutiae of company legislation and the full panoply of compliance are a deterrent, as well as a cost on enterprise. Removing many of them would cost the government nothing in lost revenue, but it would liberate and save costs for business.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Why has the BNP grown?
How is it that a party with such unacceptable doctrines as the BNP could achieve almost one million votes in the election last June?
There may be a little of British sympathy for the lame dog, but the main reason, I suspect, is two fold:
1) Since most of the people who supported them were working class people, and many previously supporters of the Labour Party, it is probably due to the experience in the areas they come from. If unemployment is high and there are vast numbers of identifiable immigrants, anyone could be easily persuaded that there is a connection between the two. "They" are taking over our country and our jobs. Instinctively and irrationally it is easy to blame the foreigner. This was why Enoch Powell after his famous speech became lionised in some working class sections.
I think that the BNP are reaping success arising from anger at living conditions and lack of money.
2) Without Proportional Representation, at a national level small parties would struggle to win any seats, - they are too few in any one constituency. This applies to respectable parties like the Greens as well. It is for this reason that many countries which employ PR also stipulate a minimum percentage threshold, often 5% of total votes. This not only keeps out the undesirable and evil, but also avoids unstable coalitions which result from too many smaller parties in an assembly.
It could be done even with our "first past the post", as one or two brave independents have shown, but our present system would generally keep out parties like the BNP. To adopt PR everywhere, especially with a "top up list" nationally to maintain strict proportions, would greatly increase the prospect of BNP and the like obtaining seats at Westminster.
There may be a little of British sympathy for the lame dog, but the main reason, I suspect, is two fold:
1) Since most of the people who supported them were working class people, and many previously supporters of the Labour Party, it is probably due to the experience in the areas they come from. If unemployment is high and there are vast numbers of identifiable immigrants, anyone could be easily persuaded that there is a connection between the two. "They" are taking over our country and our jobs. Instinctively and irrationally it is easy to blame the foreigner. This was why Enoch Powell after his famous speech became lionised in some working class sections.
I think that the BNP are reaping success arising from anger at living conditions and lack of money.
2) Without Proportional Representation, at a national level small parties would struggle to win any seats, - they are too few in any one constituency. This applies to respectable parties like the Greens as well. It is for this reason that many countries which employ PR also stipulate a minimum percentage threshold, often 5% of total votes. This not only keeps out the undesirable and evil, but also avoids unstable coalitions which result from too many smaller parties in an assembly.
It could be done even with our "first past the post", as one or two brave independents have shown, but our present system would generally keep out parties like the BNP. To adopt PR everywhere, especially with a "top up list" nationally to maintain strict proportions, would greatly increase the prospect of BNP and the like obtaining seats at Westminster.
Griffin contra mundum
Nick Griffin probably has some justification in his claim that the BBC made Question Time into a lynch mob.
I have seen only clips, but I understand that virtually the whole programme, -all questions, were essentially an attack on him. If the audience was selected to represent all viewpoints, and his party had only 1 million votes in June, or about 6%, then a fair sample could be as much as 94% against him, I suppose. Even so, it would have not been difficult for questioners to find questions on the postal strike, or the EU, or parliamentary expenses, or some such, which might have shown him in a minority of one on the panel but would at least have made it less like a pre-arranged ambush.
The deputy director's comments beforehand that they had to invite Griffin because they are without bias doesn't really wash, - note the deference paid to the LimpDems individually and collectively and the treatment of Tory interviewees, the denunciation of any doubters of the nature and cause of global warming and their selectivity in reporting (- next time see the relish if the polls move in Labour's favour, and the prominence given to the report, and compare this to the virtually complete absence of mentioning any Tory advance.)
I have no time for Griffin or his views, and his thugs/minders worry me, but the attempts to deny him air time and then shout him down remind me rather of the Nazis he so much likes. They were not keen on books which argued a different point of view, or people who had the temerity to advance unacceptable views.
I have seen only clips, but I understand that virtually the whole programme, -all questions, were essentially an attack on him. If the audience was selected to represent all viewpoints, and his party had only 1 million votes in June, or about 6%, then a fair sample could be as much as 94% against him, I suppose. Even so, it would have not been difficult for questioners to find questions on the postal strike, or the EU, or parliamentary expenses, or some such, which might have shown him in a minority of one on the panel but would at least have made it less like a pre-arranged ambush.
The deputy director's comments beforehand that they had to invite Griffin because they are without bias doesn't really wash, - note the deference paid to the LimpDems individually and collectively and the treatment of Tory interviewees, the denunciation of any doubters of the nature and cause of global warming and their selectivity in reporting (- next time see the relish if the polls move in Labour's favour, and the prominence given to the report, and compare this to the virtually complete absence of mentioning any Tory advance.)
I have no time for Griffin or his views, and his thugs/minders worry me, but the attempts to deny him air time and then shout him down remind me rather of the Nazis he so much likes. They were not keen on books which argued a different point of view, or people who had the temerity to advance unacceptable views.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
They are creating problems even when not there
The Department for Children, etc. has published figures for absences from school, presumably for England and Wales, for the period September 2008 to April 2009.
There is one ray of hope, in that the number of students classed as habitual truants, that is missing the equivalent of one day a week, fell slightly, from 304,260 to 272,760, or about 10%. This was in response to a multi-billion pound truancy strategy which, according to shadow minister Nick Gibb, amounts to failure.
Nationally about 65,000 students are missing school every day, with the number of children involved rising by about 3000. This is partly due to truancy, but also due to parents ignoring the warning that they could face fines and prosecution, and taking their children away during term time.
We have a failing educational system, beginning in the home and going on to failures of various kinds in school. Adequate literacy and numeracy has fallen and stubbornly resisted all attempts at redress. It goes without saying that with trouble makers missing from class there will be fewer discipline problems. Those missing however are often those who can least afford to miss any schooling.
There is one ray of hope, in that the number of students classed as habitual truants, that is missing the equivalent of one day a week, fell slightly, from 304,260 to 272,760, or about 10%. This was in response to a multi-billion pound truancy strategy which, according to shadow minister Nick Gibb, amounts to failure.
Nationally about 65,000 students are missing school every day, with the number of children involved rising by about 3000. This is partly due to truancy, but also due to parents ignoring the warning that they could face fines and prosecution, and taking their children away during term time.
We have a failing educational system, beginning in the home and going on to failures of various kinds in school. Adequate literacy and numeracy has fallen and stubbornly resisted all attempts at redress. It goes without saying that with trouble makers missing from class there will be fewer discipline problems. Those missing however are often those who can least afford to miss any schooling.
A big tipple
The number of cases of hospital admission in England because of alcohol consumption has increased by 8% in the year 2007-08 to reach over 860,000 patients. The actual increase is about 175 cases on average for each day of the year. The peak loading on A & E departments may be imagined!
The total included 560,000 people with problems due to drinking, that is who might not have been drunk at the time, including sufferers from cirrhosis of the liver and some involved in traffic accidents.
Deaths from chronic liver disease increased by 2.8.% in 2007-08, to reach 10,928 for men, and by 2.4% to reach 6,293 for women.
The figures were compiled as Local Alcohol Profiles for England, by the North West Public Health Observatory, and includes comparisons between counties and between cities.
It seems superfluous to attempt any comment, as this process has been present for some years. Politicians debate impositions on retailers and taxes on drink, but nothing seems to happen. With an estimated more than one million "alcoholics"in this country, both the personal cost to those suffering abuse and the social cost imposed on society suggest that action is long overdue!
The total included 560,000 people with problems due to drinking, that is who might not have been drunk at the time, including sufferers from cirrhosis of the liver and some involved in traffic accidents.
Deaths from chronic liver disease increased by 2.8.% in 2007-08, to reach 10,928 for men, and by 2.4% to reach 6,293 for women.
The figures were compiled as Local Alcohol Profiles for England, by the North West Public Health Observatory, and includes comparisons between counties and between cities.
It seems superfluous to attempt any comment, as this process has been present for some years. Politicians debate impositions on retailers and taxes on drink, but nothing seems to happen. With an estimated more than one million "alcoholics"in this country, both the personal cost to those suffering abuse and the social cost imposed on society suggest that action is long overdue!
Franglais anyone?
Yesterday brought news that language departments in some universities are unable to recruit sufficient students of good calibre, and so are "dumbing down".
One piece of evidence is the fact that in some colleges the set books are being studied in English translation, rather than in the original language! Some entrants are even received remedial classes, because A levels are not giving sufficient grounding in basic grammar or language.
The cause is undoubtedly the decline in the number of students sitting A level and GCSE in foreign languages. It is difficult to see how the decline may be reversed. Students often find languages difficult, in part because they lack analysis in their own! Schools tend not to encourage students into what are called "difficult subjects" because failures will influence pass rates and school rankings. They "push" students into "less demanding " subjects.
Ultimately, of course, it is a sad reflection on what is happening even earlier in our failed education system.
One piece of evidence is the fact that in some colleges the set books are being studied in English translation, rather than in the original language! Some entrants are even received remedial classes, because A levels are not giving sufficient grounding in basic grammar or language.
The cause is undoubtedly the decline in the number of students sitting A level and GCSE in foreign languages. It is difficult to see how the decline may be reversed. Students often find languages difficult, in part because they lack analysis in their own! Schools tend not to encourage students into what are called "difficult subjects" because failures will influence pass rates and school rankings. They "push" students into "less demanding " subjects.
Ultimately, of course, it is a sad reflection on what is happening even earlier in our failed education system.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
There's more than one way to kill
The latest potential victim is education of children at home.
They and their parents seem about to fall under the heavy hand of government regulation.
Proposals accepted by the government will require parents attempting to teach children at home to register with the local authority, produce a written plan with a statement of their objectives and how they intend to achieve them, and be subject to inspection visits by Ofsted and/or local councils.
Parents thinking that they had removed their children from the bad influences of local politicians and their advisers, and also the over burdening diktats sent down from Whitehall, will now find that they have not escaped entirely. Local authorities will have powers to enter homes and exclude parents while the inspector interviews children, a power which even the police lack.
Behind all this are a number of left wing principles which include:
- All children must be made equal - ridiculous, as anyone with knowledge of children will agree
- The state and its politically motivated advisers and inspectors know better than parents what their children need.
- No section of society may operate which does no conform to our plan.
Thus home education will be confronted with some of the regulation which confronts business, - form filling, inspection, diktat etc. These will disrupt education sufficiently to deter home education. There will also be monetary costs to parents, to cover the high cost enforcement and compliance costs.
If they want to stop something, a government can always ban it, this however will diminish their liberal and democratic credentials.
Alternatively they can load it with such bureaucratic controls and costs, that regulation kills what the government does not like. They are doing it with banking, they have done it with British industry generally and they have done it with the NHS and education. Now the effect of these proposals will extend it to the small segment which at present avoids these stultifying burdens, and reduce it to failure or extinction.
They and their parents seem about to fall under the heavy hand of government regulation.
Proposals accepted by the government will require parents attempting to teach children at home to register with the local authority, produce a written plan with a statement of their objectives and how they intend to achieve them, and be subject to inspection visits by Ofsted and/or local councils.
Parents thinking that they had removed their children from the bad influences of local politicians and their advisers, and also the over burdening diktats sent down from Whitehall, will now find that they have not escaped entirely. Local authorities will have powers to enter homes and exclude parents while the inspector interviews children, a power which even the police lack.
Behind all this are a number of left wing principles which include:
- All children must be made equal - ridiculous, as anyone with knowledge of children will agree
- The state and its politically motivated advisers and inspectors know better than parents what their children need.
- No section of society may operate which does no conform to our plan.
Thus home education will be confronted with some of the regulation which confronts business, - form filling, inspection, diktat etc. These will disrupt education sufficiently to deter home education. There will also be monetary costs to parents, to cover the high cost enforcement and compliance costs.
If they want to stop something, a government can always ban it, this however will diminish their liberal and democratic credentials.
Alternatively they can load it with such bureaucratic controls and costs, that regulation kills what the government does not like. They are doing it with banking, they have done it with British industry generally and they have done it with the NHS and education. Now the effect of these proposals will extend it to the small segment which at present avoids these stultifying burdens, and reduce it to failure or extinction.
Be careful, biscuits may be dnagerous for you
I wonder if G.Brown's initial reluctance to admit that he eats biscuits was related to the spate of news about them.
We were told that about 400 people each year are treated in hospital for injuries related to biscuits, and that 437 council workers fell for a spoof "workplace biscuit risk assessment test".
It seems that a biscuit firm decided in its promotion to use a mild parody of health and safety rules. Many people replied to the spoof assessment, and one council actually monitors tea breaks in case of accidents.
It is a measure of the health and safety mania which grips much of our life, that many are prepared to believe in the risk, and a sizeable number sufficiently to answer questionnaires about workplace consumption of biscuits and its effects.
We were told that about 400 people each year are treated in hospital for injuries related to biscuits, and that 437 council workers fell for a spoof "workplace biscuit risk assessment test".
It seems that a biscuit firm decided in its promotion to use a mild parody of health and safety rules. Many people replied to the spoof assessment, and one council actually monitors tea breaks in case of accidents.
It is a measure of the health and safety mania which grips much of our life, that many are prepared to believe in the risk, and a sizeable number sufficiently to answer questionnaires about workplace consumption of biscuits and its effects.
Their reward...
for not rocking the boat by making further protests about the Legg findings, is for MPs to get a straight salary rise.
The story has been circulating that G.Brown intends to finance an across the board salary increase for all MPs of £3,000, by cutting ministerial salaries by £20,000. (The ministers will apparently get the £3,000 on that part which is an MP's salary.) They will not get the full £3,000, of course, because it will be subject to income tax and N.I., which their expenses were not.
So G.Brown has calculated, and he does very little without calculating the political advantage, that he must head off further MP protest over Legg, even if it infuriates voters.
He may be right, and it may be that voter anger will subside by the time of the election, but Legg and police reports will dribble out over the next few weeks. By next May there may not be a general revulsion against sitting MPs, but there is already a groundswell in certain seats, which Esther Ranzen among others is attempting to ride.
The story has been circulating that G.Brown intends to finance an across the board salary increase for all MPs of £3,000, by cutting ministerial salaries by £20,000. (The ministers will apparently get the £3,000 on that part which is an MP's salary.) They will not get the full £3,000, of course, because it will be subject to income tax and N.I., which their expenses were not.
So G.Brown has calculated, and he does very little without calculating the political advantage, that he must head off further MP protest over Legg, even if it infuriates voters.
He may be right, and it may be that voter anger will subside by the time of the election, but Legg and police reports will dribble out over the next few weeks. By next May there may not be a general revulsion against sitting MPs, but there is already a groundswell in certain seats, which Esther Ranzen among others is attempting to ride.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Admin costs
A few months ago I quoted analysis which shows that the overall cost of educating children in the state and private sectors was approximately the same, at just over £9,000 each per child. The amount spent on teacher wages and classroom needs was very different, however, which is what Labour tend to emphasise.
The difference, of course, is in the relative amounts spent on what may be called administration.
Over the week-end on his blog, Fraser Nelson publishes similar figures in the health sphere.
a
In the NHS for every nurse there is one administrator, whom he calls manager. In the private health service for every 5 nurses there is one administrator.
What this means is that for every pound spent on nurses in the NHS, and pound also goes on administrators. In private health for every pound spent on nurses only 20p is spent on administrators, assuming that spending on nurse and managers is more or less the same.
(I am aware that there are enormous difficulties in making the comparison. If the difference were a matter of a few percentage points, it could be argued that the exercise is futile, but it isn't a small difference. The number of administrators in the NHS is apparently five times as high as in the NHS for the same number of nurses.)
The difference must be due to the various levels of bureaucracy and the information which has to flow up to Whitehall and down from Whitehall, that is from bureaucratic centralisation.
The difference, of course, is in the relative amounts spent on what may be called administration.
Over the week-end on his blog, Fraser Nelson publishes similar figures in the health sphere.
a
In the NHS for every nurse there is one administrator, whom he calls manager. In the private health service for every 5 nurses there is one administrator.
What this means is that for every pound spent on nurses in the NHS, and pound also goes on administrators. In private health for every pound spent on nurses only 20p is spent on administrators, assuming that spending on nurse and managers is more or less the same.
(I am aware that there are enormous difficulties in making the comparison. If the difference were a matter of a few percentage points, it could be argued that the exercise is futile, but it isn't a small difference. The number of administrators in the NHS is apparently five times as high as in the NHS for the same number of nurses.)
The difference must be due to the various levels of bureaucracy and the information which has to flow up to Whitehall and down from Whitehall, that is from bureaucratic centralisation.
In the Lords as well...
The Sunday Times yesterday was the suggestion that a further LimpDem peer may have been slightly dishonest in claiming expenses. (The earlier case involved Lord Rennard, who was also chief executive for the party. He claimed the allowance for being away from home and being in London, when he was living just across the river in Vauxhall.)
This time the possible guilty party is front Bench health spokesperson Baroness Barker. She has lived in London for many years but a few years ago began to claim that her main address was in a remote part of Sussex, near a village which she could not name. This emerged when the Times approached her earlier this year. In September she "flipped" her main home back to London.
This sounds to be another case which is worthy of further investigation.
This time the possible guilty party is front Bench health spokesperson Baroness Barker. She has lived in London for many years but a few years ago began to claim that her main address was in a remote part of Sussex, near a village which she could not name. This emerged when the Times approached her earlier this year. In September she "flipped" her main home back to London.
This sounds to be another case which is worthy of further investigation.
Distant medicine
The Sunday Telegraph yesterday revealed that the government is to close five specialist centres for heart surgery for children. These are the smallest of the 11 centres at the moment.
It is possible to see the potential advantages, - fully used specialist staff and expensive equipment, with fewer units of that equipment.
The problem, which we have seen in this area, is that once you remove an important service the hospital losing it is on a downward slope to further downgrading.
So while it may make economic sense and even medical sense, the end result will be regional centres. We here could soon be 25 miles from full A & E services, which could mean the difference between life and death, but for those without cars it means a two or three bus journey and up to 3 hours each way to visit relatives in hospital.
In the case of the children's heart facilities, it seems that 6 or 7 hospital centres will serve the whole country, and some people will have a very long way to travel.
It is possible to see the potential advantages, - fully used specialist staff and expensive equipment, with fewer units of that equipment.
The problem, which we have seen in this area, is that once you remove an important service the hospital losing it is on a downward slope to further downgrading.
So while it may make economic sense and even medical sense, the end result will be regional centres. We here could soon be 25 miles from full A & E services, which could mean the difference between life and death, but for those without cars it means a two or three bus journey and up to 3 hours each way to visit relatives in hospital.
In the case of the children's heart facilities, it seems that 6 or 7 hospital centres will serve the whole country, and some people will have a very long way to travel.
Anyone with a cat for sale?
A Bolivian immigrant about to be deported has won the right to stay because he and his girlfriend have bought a pet cat.
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has ruled so. An appeal was lodged by the Home Office, but it was rejected. The cat, purchased by the couple, was one of the pieces of evidence that they had built a stable relationship in this country.
Sending him back to Bolivia would apparently breach his human rights to a "private and family life".
Where will it end? Will other immigrants due to be excluded make sure that they have a cat, or a dog, or a budgerigar? And if we have a right to a family life, could ordinary prisoners find right to appeal?
It seems that the cat is here a red herring. The real problem is, yet again, the human rights block on our behaving decently bu firmly with people who have no right to be here.
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has ruled so. An appeal was lodged by the Home Office, but it was rejected. The cat, purchased by the couple, was one of the pieces of evidence that they had built a stable relationship in this country.
Sending him back to Bolivia would apparently breach his human rights to a "private and family life".
Where will it end? Will other immigrants due to be excluded make sure that they have a cat, or a dog, or a budgerigar? And if we have a right to a family life, could ordinary prisoners find right to appeal?
It seems that the cat is here a red herring. The real problem is, yet again, the human rights block on our behaving decently bu firmly with people who have no right to be here.
They don't learn....
First it was "Wintermas" in place of "Christmas" because they decided that the original name might offend non-Christians.
Now multiculturalism could be revived in the east London councils of Waltham Forest and Newham.
This time the proposal is to close schools down for the annual celebrations of Eid ul-Ftr for the Muslims, Diwali for the Hindus and Guru Nanak's birthday for the Sikhs.
Perversely there is no gesture to the Jews, who outnumber Sikhs in the area, nor to any smaller minority groups (The Sikhs number only 0.6% of the population, so there may be other small groups approaching this - Buddhists?) There are no Christian days in school term, so what about Ascension Day, Shrove Tuesday or Corpus Christi?
Unless a school has a very large proportion of one particular religious background, it would seem to be better to allow parents to withdraw children for that day, rather than losing three more days for all children. (The proposal would not apply to Roman Catholic or Church of England schools.
The ludicrous nature of the proposal is in deciding how many other "religions" should be included, and how many children of one of them would have to be on the school roll for a closure to occur. If there is one child of Jedi father, or one vegetarian sun-worshipper, would the school close for everyone? What if the child happened to be away that week, for whatever reason? Would the school still close?
Sensible voices are already suggesting that the idea be dropped. Let us hope that common sense for once will prevail!
Now multiculturalism could be revived in the east London councils of Waltham Forest and Newham.
This time the proposal is to close schools down for the annual celebrations of Eid ul-Ftr for the Muslims, Diwali for the Hindus and Guru Nanak's birthday for the Sikhs.
Perversely there is no gesture to the Jews, who outnumber Sikhs in the area, nor to any smaller minority groups (The Sikhs number only 0.6% of the population, so there may be other small groups approaching this - Buddhists?) There are no Christian days in school term, so what about Ascension Day, Shrove Tuesday or Corpus Christi?
Unless a school has a very large proportion of one particular religious background, it would seem to be better to allow parents to withdraw children for that day, rather than losing three more days for all children. (The proposal would not apply to Roman Catholic or Church of England schools.
The ludicrous nature of the proposal is in deciding how many other "religions" should be included, and how many children of one of them would have to be on the school roll for a closure to occur. If there is one child of Jedi father, or one vegetarian sun-worshipper, would the school close for everyone? What if the child happened to be away that week, for whatever reason? Would the school still close?
Sensible voices are already suggesting that the idea be dropped. Let us hope that common sense for once will prevail!
Sunday, 18 October 2009
The (Scottish) Sunday Herald is reporting that a small group of Labour MPs are trying to prevent further police investigation into MP's expenses, citing the old "privilege" ruling, that MPs may not be prosecuted for what happens within parliament.
They have apparently consulted lawyers.
If this is approved, then we would have two classes or people, one above the law and the rest of us under it, at least as far as public/employer's assets and employees are concerned.
We must allow them to speak freely and honestly, although never again to call each other "honourable" since they have lost this right by their greed and attempts to conceal.
If they succeed in this, then the remedy is in voter,s hands. Do not vote next May/June for anyone who has concealed expenses, and consider only those who have been open and willing to pay back what was asked.
They have apparently consulted lawyers.
If this is approved, then we would have two classes or people, one above the law and the rest of us under it, at least as far as public/employer's assets and employees are concerned.
We must allow them to speak freely and honestly, although never again to call each other "honourable" since they have lost this right by their greed and attempts to conceal.
If they succeed in this, then the remedy is in voter,s hands. Do not vote next May/June for anyone who has concealed expenses, and consider only those who have been open and willing to pay back what was asked.
Did I hear correctly?
Surely not! I heard that the SFA, the failed banking regulator, are proposing that in future banks and other lenders we be responsible if borrowers are not able to continue paying off their mortgages?
Was this the regulator who stood by while some lenders offered 120% mortgages, some of which were six times annual incomes of the borrowers?
So, because the SFA failed to do its job properly, in neglecting to warn lenders of the riskiness of their policies, or even of their whole business model in the case of Northern Rock and others, they are now saying to lenders, "You must carry out full diligence checks, and if for some reason there is a default then you alone will suffer."
I can imagine potential borrowers jumping with joy at this free insurance, and beginning to plan how they can conceal their real financial position.
I can also imagine the market for mortgages drying up, and house prices falling, which nobody wants, except protected buyers!
In a word, crazy, but perhaps I was having a bad day when I heard it all!
Was this the regulator who stood by while some lenders offered 120% mortgages, some of which were six times annual incomes of the borrowers?
So, because the SFA failed to do its job properly, in neglecting to warn lenders of the riskiness of their policies, or even of their whole business model in the case of Northern Rock and others, they are now saying to lenders, "You must carry out full diligence checks, and if for some reason there is a default then you alone will suffer."
I can imagine potential borrowers jumping with joy at this free insurance, and beginning to plan how they can conceal their real financial position.
I can also imagine the market for mortgages drying up, and house prices falling, which nobody wants, except protected buyers!
In a word, crazy, but perhaps I was having a bad day when I heard it all!
Friday, 16 October 2009
The facts
Yesterday a leading official of the Communication Workers Union, the suicide union, claimed that his members needed a significant pay increase because "the public sector unions have lost ground over the last year or two."
Perhaps his union has, but in general as wages fell in the private sector and jobs disappeared wages in the public sector generally rose slightly and numbers of employed increased.
The National Statistics Office recently reported that pay settlements in the public sector over the three months to August 2009 rose at annual rates of 3.4%, while those in the private sector rose at 1.5%. Given that inflation on the RPI now has a negative rate of -1.4, those rates are effectively 4.8% and 2.9%, some people somewhere are doing very nicely, and the public sector is doing rather better, even if we are in recession. (It should be remembered that public sector pensions are mostly final salary and indexed, whereas these are becoming rare in the private sector.)
The spokesman for the postmen should be a little more careful. But just a minute, I thought that the impending strikes were about the nasty bosses imposing unfair demands on our "posties". How did pay get into this?
The bosses may have been beastly, - it is difficult to tell, but what is clear is that customers have been deserting Royal Mail in droves for years, because of cost and unreliability and growing alternatives. Royal Mail have made significant losses, and the pension fund has an enormous hole in it. If a strike takes place, especially if it seriously disrupts the pre-Christmas deliveries, then we may be looking either at privatisation or serious down-sizing and job losses. If it is privatisation, no buyer would consider buying the sclerotic organisation without prior agreement on working practices and/or job losses.
What the union is doing in its short-sighted stance is making down-sizing and job losses almost inevitable.
Perhaps his union has, but in general as wages fell in the private sector and jobs disappeared wages in the public sector generally rose slightly and numbers of employed increased.
The National Statistics Office recently reported that pay settlements in the public sector over the three months to August 2009 rose at annual rates of 3.4%, while those in the private sector rose at 1.5%. Given that inflation on the RPI now has a negative rate of -1.4, those rates are effectively 4.8% and 2.9%, some people somewhere are doing very nicely, and the public sector is doing rather better, even if we are in recession. (It should be remembered that public sector pensions are mostly final salary and indexed, whereas these are becoming rare in the private sector.)
The spokesman for the postmen should be a little more careful. But just a minute, I thought that the impending strikes were about the nasty bosses imposing unfair demands on our "posties". How did pay get into this?
The bosses may have been beastly, - it is difficult to tell, but what is clear is that customers have been deserting Royal Mail in droves for years, because of cost and unreliability and growing alternatives. Royal Mail have made significant losses, and the pension fund has an enormous hole in it. If a strike takes place, especially if it seriously disrupts the pre-Christmas deliveries, then we may be looking either at privatisation or serious down-sizing and job losses. If it is privatisation, no buyer would consider buying the sclerotic organisation without prior agreement on working practices and/or job losses.
What the union is doing in its short-sighted stance is making down-sizing and job losses almost inevitable.
The protests
Altogether now, MPs, "This is retrospective adjustment". They do not want to repay what they have taken in expenses because their claims were within the rules.
There were no rules exactly, at least in detail, but the "wholly, entirely and necessarily" clause which inland revenue will ask about any claim we make was also in the MPs' booklet, as was "not extravagant or luxurious, etc. They may have been vague, but some of the expenditures on large plasma TVs or sound systems, luxurious fittings and furniture, repairs, etc., would be very difficult to justify.
Many seem to have convinced themselves that they should have had a higher salary, so these allowable expenses would make up the difference.
They are not poorly paid, and many would struggle to earn anywhere near as much outside parliament.
As for "retrospectivity", I personally would have more sympathy with them if they had not been so keen to impose retrospective cuts on Fred the Shred, on oil companies or bankers.
There were no rules exactly, at least in detail, but the "wholly, entirely and necessarily" clause which inland revenue will ask about any claim we make was also in the MPs' booklet, as was "not extravagant or luxurious, etc. They may have been vague, but some of the expenditures on large plasma TVs or sound systems, luxurious fittings and furniture, repairs, etc., would be very difficult to justify.
Many seem to have convinced themselves that they should have had a higher salary, so these allowable expenses would make up the difference.
They are not poorly paid, and many would struggle to earn anywhere near as much outside parliament.
As for "retrospectivity", I personally would have more sympathy with them if they had not been so keen to impose retrospective cuts on Fred the Shred, on oil companies or bankers.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
more and more lords and baronesses?
There is much discussion on the blogs today about the fact that Cameron will probably have to create dozens of peerages, in order to overcome the (Blair created) inbuilt Labour majority there, if Cameron becomes PM.
There is speculation about who might be approached - celebrities, people from the arts, etc, but no Tory donors, to prevent accusations of "cash for honours".
So he is going to have to follow Blair, whether he wants it or not, or there may be difficulty in getting bills through. There are, it is true, crossbenchers and LibDems. Altogether it seems that there are probably more peers entitled to attend than there are MPs, and the chamber is no bigger, I believe.
I hope that if Cameron becomes PM he will quickly do away with this constitutional and democratic monster and finish what Blair began by having an entirely elected upper chamber. There are far too many people there who gave up safe seats and were rewarded, or failed as MPs or Speaker, or were ennobled to give the governing party ministerial experience.
The only problem is that he may need to create (short-lived) peerages in order to be sure of getting the legislation through, and there is also a labour recession and mess to clean up, as well as education and health to be rescued.
There is speculation about who might be approached - celebrities, people from the arts, etc, but no Tory donors, to prevent accusations of "cash for honours".
So he is going to have to follow Blair, whether he wants it or not, or there may be difficulty in getting bills through. There are, it is true, crossbenchers and LibDems. Altogether it seems that there are probably more peers entitled to attend than there are MPs, and the chamber is no bigger, I believe.
I hope that if Cameron becomes PM he will quickly do away with this constitutional and democratic monster and finish what Blair began by having an entirely elected upper chamber. There are far too many people there who gave up safe seats and were rewarded, or failed as MPs or Speaker, or were ennobled to give the governing party ministerial experience.
The only problem is that he may need to create (short-lived) peerages in order to be sure of getting the legislation through, and there is also a labour recession and mess to clean up, as well as education and health to be rescued.
The true unemployment
Figures released since the "tougher" assessment introduced for those wishing to claim disability benefit, for the period October 2008 to February 2009, reveal that 70% of those who proceeded as far as assessment were turned down, and had to settle for some other kind of benefit. In fact only about 5% were judged to be so unfit as to qualify for the full benefit of between £95 and £108 per week. The remainder were judged to be able to do a limited amount of work or forecast to be able to so in the future, and received a reduced benefit of £90.
Nobody knows how many of those who were on incapacity benefit before October 2008 would have been able to to work, - in those days there was no formal medical assessment, merely a letter from a doctor. The government has pledged to assess all these fully in the near future.
Those incorrectly assessed as unable to work among the 2.6 million, then could be be as high as almost 2 million. This means that the true unemployment rate could be over 5 million, even ignoring those who merely leave the labour market. (Remembering how the Tories were taunted about a "true" rate of 4% in the 1980s, it is strange that the Tories are not mentioning this.)
Apart from the waste of taxpayers funds in paying fit people to stay at home, and the higher GDP if they worked, there is the extra cost of family despair and breakdown among the recipients.
The government and Tories are belatedly beginning to address the problem, and in different ways expressing "tough love" towards the recipients.
Nobody knows how many of those who were on incapacity benefit before October 2008 would have been able to to work, - in those days there was no formal medical assessment, merely a letter from a doctor. The government has pledged to assess all these fully in the near future.
Those incorrectly assessed as unable to work among the 2.6 million, then could be be as high as almost 2 million. This means that the true unemployment rate could be over 5 million, even ignoring those who merely leave the labour market. (Remembering how the Tories were taunted about a "true" rate of 4% in the 1980s, it is strange that the Tories are not mentioning this.)
Apart from the waste of taxpayers funds in paying fit people to stay at home, and the higher GDP if they worked, there is the extra cost of family despair and breakdown among the recipients.
The government and Tories are belatedly beginning to address the problem, and in different ways expressing "tough love" towards the recipients.
Negative inflation
Those who live from past savings are one group who have suffered during the attack on recession, as interest rates have sunk close to zero. The one crumb of comfort is that since RPI is now in negative territory, although not CPI which is Brown's preferred definition, their costs are going down. (Of course OAPs are something of an exception, - the items which they spend most on - council tax, fuel and power, etc, are not going down.)
The government has decided, to save money presumably, that many benefits will not be increased this year. This includes Disability Allowance, Carer's Allowance and statutory Maternity Allowance. The principle here is the negative RPI, but since many of this group are pensioners, or have similar needs, they are not encountering falling prices for important goods and services.
The remarkable thing is that the old age pension is to be increased, and by 2.4%. So if OAPs faced the negative RPI for all their expenditure, they would be enjoying a rise in pension of 2.4 + 1.4, or 3.8 %.
Has the Government slipped up here, or has it accepted the argument that the RPI facing pensioners is very much in positive territory?
Or is the explanation that there is an election coming soon?
The government has decided, to save money presumably, that many benefits will not be increased this year. This includes Disability Allowance, Carer's Allowance and statutory Maternity Allowance. The principle here is the negative RPI, but since many of this group are pensioners, or have similar needs, they are not encountering falling prices for important goods and services.
The remarkable thing is that the old age pension is to be increased, and by 2.4%. So if OAPs faced the negative RPI for all their expenditure, they would be enjoying a rise in pension of 2.4 + 1.4, or 3.8 %.
Has the Government slipped up here, or has it accepted the argument that the RPI facing pensioners is very much in positive territory?
Or is the explanation that there is an election coming soon?
Why only a little?
Almost everybody who has any experience of business or commerce feels that a major handicap facing British business is the amount of red tape they have to contend with - the regulations which are added annually, the paperwork which must be completed and the all-pervasive interference of government and its quangos. The cost on business is variously estimated up to £100 billion annually. (The SFA have now announced that they intend to be involved significantly in all senior banking appointments. The business community thought that they had dismissed the notion that the government can pick winners, but now the state is deciding to pick victors.)
Even Lord Mandelson feels that there must be a reduction. He called for a reduction, reducing costs by about £3.4 billion by next April, plus a further reduction in obsolete regulations costing about £5 billion annually.
Perhaps he is behind the government announcement, reported in today's Telegraph, that in view of the recession and business difficulties some proposed new regulations will be dropped, and others will be deferred until 2013. The saving for business is estimated at £3.5 billion, out of a new imposition totalling £9 billion.
So two thirds of the extra red tape is till to be imposed.
Kenneth Clark, at the Tories' conference, promised that if elected they would cut one old regulation for every new one introduced, and promised to look savagely any any regulation "voted" as the worst. It is a small gesture, but certainly better than increasing the burden significantly even during a recession.
Even Lord Mandelson feels that there must be a reduction. He called for a reduction, reducing costs by about £3.4 billion by next April, plus a further reduction in obsolete regulations costing about £5 billion annually.
Perhaps he is behind the government announcement, reported in today's Telegraph, that in view of the recession and business difficulties some proposed new regulations will be dropped, and others will be deferred until 2013. The saving for business is estimated at £3.5 billion, out of a new imposition totalling £9 billion.
So two thirds of the extra red tape is till to be imposed.
Kenneth Clark, at the Tories' conference, promised that if elected they would cut one old regulation for every new one introduced, and promised to look savagely any any regulation "voted" as the worst. It is a small gesture, but certainly better than increasing the burden significantly even during a recession.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Pathway to euthanasia?
A number of medical cases recently have been given publicity and caused concern. These have resulted from the application of the "Liverpool Care Pathway".
Medicine is an inexact science, and nowhere is this more true than in the case of diagnosing the imminence of death. The concern relates to cases were patients were designated as dying, so drugs, feeding and liquids were withheld. Subsequently there were indications that the condition was not incurable, and even one or two that the patient revived and lived for some months afterwards when treatment was belatedly restored.
It is understandable that invasive and hopeless treatment is not generally desirable, especially for the very old and very ill. In fact, some people stipulate that they do not wish this treatment if they become too ill to make the decision for themselves.
At the moment medical staff seem to be applying the pathway somewhat rigidly, without a full diagnosis and even without consulting relatives.
If the patient is not able to make a case himself, then doctors must beware of playing God. Above all, even if the patient is dying and medical treatment is to be denied, the giving of liquids could at least ease discomfort even if it prolongs a pain-filled death.
There must be some kind of safeguard built into the process, some added protection to prevent mistakes producing early death. Otherwise we are on the pathway to euthanasia.
Medicine is an inexact science, and nowhere is this more true than in the case of diagnosing the imminence of death. The concern relates to cases were patients were designated as dying, so drugs, feeding and liquids were withheld. Subsequently there were indications that the condition was not incurable, and even one or two that the patient revived and lived for some months afterwards when treatment was belatedly restored.
It is understandable that invasive and hopeless treatment is not generally desirable, especially for the very old and very ill. In fact, some people stipulate that they do not wish this treatment if they become too ill to make the decision for themselves.
At the moment medical staff seem to be applying the pathway somewhat rigidly, without a full diagnosis and even without consulting relatives.
If the patient is not able to make a case himself, then doctors must beware of playing God. Above all, even if the patient is dying and medical treatment is to be denied, the giving of liquids could at least ease discomfort even if it prolongs a pain-filled death.
There must be some kind of safeguard built into the process, some added protection to prevent mistakes producing early death. Otherwise we are on the pathway to euthanasia.
Getting tough?
Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, has announced that he will be getting tough on persistent ASBO offenders. He will prosecute those who break the conditions.
Do you believe it? The police have not hitherto shown much inclination to do anything other than caution, and have their time fully occupied meeting all the other government directives, and form-filling.
This sounds like the usual periodic stick waving by a government which has lost control and doesn't have time to think of anything else. It was clearly prompted by the recent scandal of the Ms. Pilkington and other cases.
So what exactly would he have done? Would he have sent offenders to prison, overruling the prison governors' view that short sentences do not work and ignoring the fact that the prisons are full? Would he have more community sentences, which don't work, and keeping the juvenile offenders out of school?
One of the problems is the definition of antisocial behaviour, which covers everything from dropping litter, to playing music too loudly, to calling insults, to heaving bricks through someone's window, to terrifying vulnerable people. It is too broad and somewhere along the scale it ceases to be antisocial behaviour and becomes crime.
Some American cities have reduced all grades of offending by a zero-tolerance approach. None of it is acceptable. We may not wish to follow their examples, but we must detach some offences and label them as crime and then prosecute them them with the full power of the law.
Do you believe it? The police have not hitherto shown much inclination to do anything other than caution, and have their time fully occupied meeting all the other government directives, and form-filling.
This sounds like the usual periodic stick waving by a government which has lost control and doesn't have time to think of anything else. It was clearly prompted by the recent scandal of the Ms. Pilkington and other cases.
So what exactly would he have done? Would he have sent offenders to prison, overruling the prison governors' view that short sentences do not work and ignoring the fact that the prisons are full? Would he have more community sentences, which don't work, and keeping the juvenile offenders out of school?
One of the problems is the definition of antisocial behaviour, which covers everything from dropping litter, to playing music too loudly, to calling insults, to heaving bricks through someone's window, to terrifying vulnerable people. It is too broad and somewhere along the scale it ceases to be antisocial behaviour and becomes crime.
Some American cities have reduced all grades of offending by a zero-tolerance approach. None of it is acceptable. We may not wish to follow their examples, but we must detach some offences and label them as crime and then prosecute them them with the full power of the law.
Is anyone not guilty?
There is a great deal of anger in Westminster, although perhaps not matched by that in the constituencies.
So many have contributed to this - the committee under the Speaker who drew up the old regulations which were so vague as to permit almost anything, the chief whips who apparently urged members to make sure they claimed anything they could, and the MPs themselves. The Fees Office clearly allowed themselves to be browbeaten into over generous interpretation of claims, and if they approached senior MPs for guidance, then the MPs concerned are doubly guilty.
There is a collective arrogance, with a few honourable exceptions, an arrogance and an overweening sense of their own importance, and therefore of the high remuneration they should have. Until recently they have been happy to grant themselves subsidised epicurean wining and dining, one of the most generous pension schemes anywhere and allowances with minimal certification.
There is little doubt that in cynically "flipping" their designation of main home they have taken everything they could. In trying to claim large cleaning, gardening, repairs and other household subsidies they have again "tried it on". The plasma TVs, the up-market sound systems, the expensive cutlery and glassware and the superior furniture and beds have allowed them to experience a life style beyond the reach of most who have to pay for it. All these are for their second home, where they spend only part of a week, and represent investment in goods which become their possessions to dispose of as they please.
It is to be hoped that the Kelly Inquiry will recommend a system which stops abuses.
In the meantime they must deal with the errors and mistakes of the past. They cannot just draw a line under it. There is too much anger and disconnect. They have indulged and there must be some sort of reckoning. So far the Legg process has attacked apparent errors and reduced allowable gardening and cleaning expences. It remains to be seen if any other fees will come under closer inspection.
It is intolerable that MPs who receive a good salary and pension, in some cases better than they could earn elsewhere, and who claim in excess of £130,00 on average for all allowances and expenses, should ignore the voters. The latter in many cases are in difficult circumstances - without work, losing savings, homeless and facing higher taxes of all sorts.
So many have contributed to this - the committee under the Speaker who drew up the old regulations which were so vague as to permit almost anything, the chief whips who apparently urged members to make sure they claimed anything they could, and the MPs themselves. The Fees Office clearly allowed themselves to be browbeaten into over generous interpretation of claims, and if they approached senior MPs for guidance, then the MPs concerned are doubly guilty.
There is a collective arrogance, with a few honourable exceptions, an arrogance and an overweening sense of their own importance, and therefore of the high remuneration they should have. Until recently they have been happy to grant themselves subsidised epicurean wining and dining, one of the most generous pension schemes anywhere and allowances with minimal certification.
There is little doubt that in cynically "flipping" their designation of main home they have taken everything they could. In trying to claim large cleaning, gardening, repairs and other household subsidies they have again "tried it on". The plasma TVs, the up-market sound systems, the expensive cutlery and glassware and the superior furniture and beds have allowed them to experience a life style beyond the reach of most who have to pay for it. All these are for their second home, where they spend only part of a week, and represent investment in goods which become their possessions to dispose of as they please.
It is to be hoped that the Kelly Inquiry will recommend a system which stops abuses.
In the meantime they must deal with the errors and mistakes of the past. They cannot just draw a line under it. There is too much anger and disconnect. They have indulged and there must be some sort of reckoning. So far the Legg process has attacked apparent errors and reduced allowable gardening and cleaning expences. It remains to be seen if any other fees will come under closer inspection.
It is intolerable that MPs who receive a good salary and pension, in some cases better than they could earn elsewhere, and who claim in excess of £130,00 on average for all allowances and expenses, should ignore the voters. The latter in many cases are in difficult circumstances - without work, losing savings, homeless and facing higher taxes of all sorts.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Voter power
Today in the House of Commons Douglas Carswell was due to introduce his ten minute rule bill.
If he wins sufficient support there will be a great return of power from parties locally and nationally to where it belongs, - the electors.
The bill allows for the provision of "elector recall". This would mean that at any time if the stipulated minimum number of electors signed for it there would be a by-election in the constituency. The sitting MP would theoretically be able to stand for re-election against other candidates. The minimum would have to be set fairly high, say 30% or 40% of electors.
The importance of this is that in any election, even a relative landslide like 1997, 70% of sitting MPs are returned. They are in "safe" seats. Carswell's bill would change this.
At the moment the sitting incumbent has to retain the support of his senior party management locally, and nationally, and so long as the party is not disliked intensely he will be re-elected.
The bill means that MPs who have been poor constituency MPs, or have offended in something like the expenses scandal, could be called to electoral account at any time. It would also deter party headquarters from pitchforking into a safe seat favourite potential candidates who were unwanted by the local electors.
It would make all MPs, even ministers, aware that they cannot ignore their electors. They would have to respond to their wishes or the implied threat.
If the provision became law, and was added to the other proposal of Carswell and Hannan in their book "The Plan"- open primaries, then a small coterie of party officials and central office would lose much of their power to impose candidates on local parties. It would also give electors the power to decide candidates and also to remove them after unsatisfactory performance.
All power to your elbow, Douglas Carswell!
If he wins sufficient support there will be a great return of power from parties locally and nationally to where it belongs, - the electors.
The bill allows for the provision of "elector recall". This would mean that at any time if the stipulated minimum number of electors signed for it there would be a by-election in the constituency. The sitting MP would theoretically be able to stand for re-election against other candidates. The minimum would have to be set fairly high, say 30% or 40% of electors.
The importance of this is that in any election, even a relative landslide like 1997, 70% of sitting MPs are returned. They are in "safe" seats. Carswell's bill would change this.
At the moment the sitting incumbent has to retain the support of his senior party management locally, and nationally, and so long as the party is not disliked intensely he will be re-elected.
The bill means that MPs who have been poor constituency MPs, or have offended in something like the expenses scandal, could be called to electoral account at any time. It would also deter party headquarters from pitchforking into a safe seat favourite potential candidates who were unwanted by the local electors.
It would make all MPs, even ministers, aware that they cannot ignore their electors. They would have to respond to their wishes or the implied threat.
If the provision became law, and was added to the other proposal of Carswell and Hannan in their book "The Plan"- open primaries, then a small coterie of party officials and central office would lose much of their power to impose candidates on local parties. It would also give electors the power to decide candidates and also to remove them after unsatisfactory performance.
All power to your elbow, Douglas Carswell!
Only the very serious for prison?
Last week the prison governors became political (with no protest like that lumped on General Dannatt).
The governors association voted to abolish all prison sentences of under 12 months. Their argument is that short sentences give them little opportunity to reform offenders, and that the cost is high. (Besides which there is a shortage of prison places and overcrowding - could this be their main motive?) It has to be said that the Magistrates' Association, who are responsible for a large majority of imprisonment sentences opposed the idea. The maximum sentence available to them is six months, so they would lose imprisonment as an option.
It has also to be said that those sent to prison may have spent time on remand, so their stay in normal prison may be much briefer. It must also be admitted that the offending rate for those sentenced to 12 months or less is too high - 60% re-offend within two years.
I have no figures on the failure rates for those given more than 12 months in prison, nor for those given the community sentences advocated by the prison governors, but there are apparently many failures of the latter to complete their programmes, perhaps as many as 50% on some schemes, so what do we do with them - send them to prison? What we do know is that many serious, i.e. violent, offenders released early very quickly commit similar crimes.
If incarceration for less than one year is abolished, then presumably we would have to consider giving those who might have received 11 months,or whatever, a sentence above 12 months? If community service is so widely failing, what do we do with those who fail to complete? Presumably they would have to go to prison for more than 12 months?
The governors, and the government with or behind them, urge that it is cheaper to sentence people to community service, but this considers usually only the prison costs against community supervision costs. If we accept Michael Howard's argument, that those in prison cannot commit crimes against the community, then what costs are saved by society by imprisonment? The answer is a large figure, almost certainly larger than the prison cost - insurance, security costs, police costs, hospital costs, etc. These are costs imposed on private citizens in part and rank as less important than public costs for some reason.
So to take the governors' assertion on expense, it could be argued that sentences of less than 12 months should in fact not be abolished or replaced, but rather should be increased, in order to reduce the total cost on society.
The governors association voted to abolish all prison sentences of under 12 months. Their argument is that short sentences give them little opportunity to reform offenders, and that the cost is high. (Besides which there is a shortage of prison places and overcrowding - could this be their main motive?) It has to be said that the Magistrates' Association, who are responsible for a large majority of imprisonment sentences opposed the idea. The maximum sentence available to them is six months, so they would lose imprisonment as an option.
It has also to be said that those sent to prison may have spent time on remand, so their stay in normal prison may be much briefer. It must also be admitted that the offending rate for those sentenced to 12 months or less is too high - 60% re-offend within two years.
I have no figures on the failure rates for those given more than 12 months in prison, nor for those given the community sentences advocated by the prison governors, but there are apparently many failures of the latter to complete their programmes, perhaps as many as 50% on some schemes, so what do we do with them - send them to prison? What we do know is that many serious, i.e. violent, offenders released early very quickly commit similar crimes.
If incarceration for less than one year is abolished, then presumably we would have to consider giving those who might have received 11 months,or whatever, a sentence above 12 months? If community service is so widely failing, what do we do with those who fail to complete? Presumably they would have to go to prison for more than 12 months?
The governors, and the government with or behind them, urge that it is cheaper to sentence people to community service, but this considers usually only the prison costs against community supervision costs. If we accept Michael Howard's argument, that those in prison cannot commit crimes against the community, then what costs are saved by society by imprisonment? The answer is a large figure, almost certainly larger than the prison cost - insurance, security costs, police costs, hospital costs, etc. These are costs imposed on private citizens in part and rank as less important than public costs for some reason.
So to take the governors' assertion on expense, it could be argued that sentences of less than 12 months should in fact not be abolished or replaced, but rather should be increased, in order to reduce the total cost on society.
The guilty and the innocent
MPs are bleating about being caught out and punished retrospectively.
Well, not all,- unlike many Jacqui Smith has broken even the vague rules and gets off fine-free!
There is little doubt that she has broken the rules - claiming that a bedroom at her sister's house was her main home, and therefore able to claim lavishly for her house in Redditch. She may even be guilty of intended deception - claiming that her diaries and personal recollection confirmed that she spent more time (- nights) in London, and even having civil servants obstructing police efforts to obtain those diaries. Police duty diaries, however, confirm that over the two years at issue she spent more time in her constituency house.
So the fiction, and cynicism, has been exposed - she avoided free accommodation in London to which she was entitled, but instead of claiming for rent paid to her sister she claimed for many thousands more for the family home in Worcestershire. (As someone suggested some time ago, were her children really entitled to educational consideration in Redditch?)
So it was a good try, but she was found out, and ticked off for something that many others have been required to repay as ill-gotten gains. She was saved by the Labour-dominated Standards and Privileges Committee.
The Committee decided that there was some dispute about how much of the £100,000 plus she should repay, and therefore it would be appropriate that she repaid nothing!
The logic is marvellous. Next time you are stopped for speeding, but there is doubt about your speed - was it 40 m.p.h or 45 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. area, suggest that it would be unwise to impose any penalty. When tax receipts go adrift in the post, suggest to Inland Revenue that it would be unwise to tax you on that particular item because of the difficulty of computation.
Many MPs are feeling aggrieved at being compelled to pay back something because of retrospective rules, so the committee decision on Ms. Smith will not help.
Well, not all,- unlike many Jacqui Smith has broken even the vague rules and gets off fine-free!
There is little doubt that she has broken the rules - claiming that a bedroom at her sister's house was her main home, and therefore able to claim lavishly for her house in Redditch. She may even be guilty of intended deception - claiming that her diaries and personal recollection confirmed that she spent more time (- nights) in London, and even having civil servants obstructing police efforts to obtain those diaries. Police duty diaries, however, confirm that over the two years at issue she spent more time in her constituency house.
So the fiction, and cynicism, has been exposed - she avoided free accommodation in London to which she was entitled, but instead of claiming for rent paid to her sister she claimed for many thousands more for the family home in Worcestershire. (As someone suggested some time ago, were her children really entitled to educational consideration in Redditch?)
So it was a good try, but she was found out, and ticked off for something that many others have been required to repay as ill-gotten gains. She was saved by the Labour-dominated Standards and Privileges Committee.
The Committee decided that there was some dispute about how much of the £100,000 plus she should repay, and therefore it would be appropriate that she repaid nothing!
The logic is marvellous. Next time you are stopped for speeding, but there is doubt about your speed - was it 40 m.p.h or 45 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. area, suggest that it would be unwise to impose any penalty. When tax receipts go adrift in the post, suggest to Inland Revenue that it would be unwise to tax you on that particular item because of the difficulty of computation.
Many MPs are feeling aggrieved at being compelled to pay back something because of retrospective rules, so the committee decision on Ms. Smith will not help.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Charity begins....... where?
It seems we now have a politicised charitable system. The supposedly independent Charity Commission is now displaying the ideology of the government.
Charity has been refined from "contributing to community benefit" to "contributing massively to those whom the government decides are worthy of help"., although only in respect of education.
Two fee paying schools schools have already lost their charitable status, because they did not supply sufficient bursaries to students whose parents could not afford fees. The remainder have been put on notice to provide evidence that they are providing sufficient benefit.
Sufficient public benefit is hardly objective - the Women's Institute enjoys the status, which helps to keep down fees of members, who are generally hardly poor. The same applies to the University of the Third Age and to many other clubs and societies in my area. They offer a service which they are prepared to offer to others who are willing to pay the (subsidised) subscriptions. Their public benefit in general could not be claimed to be towards the poorest, but they would in general claim to be offering a benefit to society.
Some of the recipients of the tax refunds are much less worthy - exclusive religions, some of whom have very questionable moralities or engage in questionable activities, including implicitly supporting terrorist activity.
Why education only, and why is the best that we have to offer targeted and regulated in this way? To put the question is to answer it. The ideology behind it all is an antipathy towards private education.
But the Charity Commissioner need not bother unduly. If Gove becomes the next "education" secretary and implements his revolutionary proposals, then there will be many more excellent state schools and many of the private schools will close. The Left will be happier in one respect, but unhappy that they will not be able to control and ruin the system.
Charity has been refined from "contributing to community benefit" to "contributing massively to those whom the government decides are worthy of help"., although only in respect of education.
Two fee paying schools schools have already lost their charitable status, because they did not supply sufficient bursaries to students whose parents could not afford fees. The remainder have been put on notice to provide evidence that they are providing sufficient benefit.
Sufficient public benefit is hardly objective - the Women's Institute enjoys the status, which helps to keep down fees of members, who are generally hardly poor. The same applies to the University of the Third Age and to many other clubs and societies in my area. They offer a service which they are prepared to offer to others who are willing to pay the (subsidised) subscriptions. Their public benefit in general could not be claimed to be towards the poorest, but they would in general claim to be offering a benefit to society.
Some of the recipients of the tax refunds are much less worthy - exclusive religions, some of whom have very questionable moralities or engage in questionable activities, including implicitly supporting terrorist activity.
Why education only, and why is the best that we have to offer targeted and regulated in this way? To put the question is to answer it. The ideology behind it all is an antipathy towards private education.
But the Charity Commissioner need not bother unduly. If Gove becomes the next "education" secretary and implements his revolutionary proposals, then there will be many more excellent state schools and many of the private schools will close. The Left will be happier in one respect, but unhappy that they will not be able to control and ruin the system.
Don't pretend to be soldiers for six months!
The announcement that, presumably on grounds of cost, the Territorial Army are not to undertake any training for six months emphsises even more than we shall soon approach the point that we would struggle to defend ourselves if attacked. (I was going to say that our defence capability would be like that of Switzerland, but I remembered that adults there do at least have regular rifle practice!)
Full time soldiers with inadequate gear and support and we now have the TA, already halved, becoming more like "Dad's Army". The TA served with distinction in some of Blair's wars, but unless their training is soon restored it is difficult to see any further contribution.
Is the plan to make the TA something like an unpaid version of the CPSOs? At the moment they will be well short of the professional army.
I suppose that we should not surprised. How long ago was it that paratroopers could not do training drops because there were insufficient planes?
Full time soldiers with inadequate gear and support and we now have the TA, already halved, becoming more like "Dad's Army". The TA served with distinction in some of Blair's wars, but unless their training is soon restored it is difficult to see any further contribution.
Is the plan to make the TA something like an unpaid version of the CPSOs? At the moment they will be well short of the professional army.
I suppose that we should not surprised. How long ago was it that paratroopers could not do training drops because there were insufficient planes?
Fire sale
G. Brown, in an effort to be seen to be more positive, i e not cutting expenditure, than the Tories, is embarking on a quick sale of the few assets left with marketable value.
This is gesture politics.
1) The annual budget deficit for the current year is likely to be in excess of £175 billion, even if we accept his rather optimistic assumptions that economic growth will suddenly appear. (Most experts think that the deficit will be closer to £200 billion, given that unemployment is likely to continue rising for many months yet.) Next year, even with his heroic assumptions, it is likely to be well over £100 billion, because of the unemployment situation and the delay in recovery of business profits.
So the chancellor will have a combined deficit over two years of approaching £300 billion, and additional interest costs of perhaps £10 billion. So his immediate sales which will realise £3 billion over two years will not meet the increased deficit interest costs. It should also be born in mind the assets themselves have been producing an income stream in some cases, it is to be hoped, and these will be lost after sale. In addition there will be selling costs - advertising, negotiation and commission, etc.
There really will be a painfully small net amount with which to try to reduce the deficit.
2) This is not a good time to try to sell anything, especially as potential buyers will know the desperation of the government. Brown has already sold off gold reserves at a price barely a quarter of what they would fetch now, and experts are talking of a considerable further rise in gold prices, even a doubling. The sale of these assets seems to be a repetition.
3) It seems that afterwards he intends to requisition assets held by local authorities. There will be local opposition as it will council rates in the future, and may provoke legal action. So it is not clear how soon any money would be received, and again the value would be small compared to the accumulated deficit.
The action seems to be overtly political. It is also costly in the long run, piling yet more demands on future generations. In my opinion it will make a minuscule contribution to deficit reduction, but at much higher cost.
This is gesture politics.
1) The annual budget deficit for the current year is likely to be in excess of £175 billion, even if we accept his rather optimistic assumptions that economic growth will suddenly appear. (Most experts think that the deficit will be closer to £200 billion, given that unemployment is likely to continue rising for many months yet.) Next year, even with his heroic assumptions, it is likely to be well over £100 billion, because of the unemployment situation and the delay in recovery of business profits.
So the chancellor will have a combined deficit over two years of approaching £300 billion, and additional interest costs of perhaps £10 billion. So his immediate sales which will realise £3 billion over two years will not meet the increased deficit interest costs. It should also be born in mind the assets themselves have been producing an income stream in some cases, it is to be hoped, and these will be lost after sale. In addition there will be selling costs - advertising, negotiation and commission, etc.
There really will be a painfully small net amount with which to try to reduce the deficit.
2) This is not a good time to try to sell anything, especially as potential buyers will know the desperation of the government. Brown has already sold off gold reserves at a price barely a quarter of what they would fetch now, and experts are talking of a considerable further rise in gold prices, even a doubling. The sale of these assets seems to be a repetition.
3) It seems that afterwards he intends to requisition assets held by local authorities. There will be local opposition as it will council rates in the future, and may provoke legal action. So it is not clear how soon any money would be received, and again the value would be small compared to the accumulated deficit.
The action seems to be overtly political. It is also costly in the long run, piling yet more demands on future generations. In my opinion it will make a minuscule contribution to deficit reduction, but at much higher cost.
- the problem is not just in education
The Department for Children, Schools and Education published figures recently showing that while the number of "exclusions" from schools seem to have fallen slightly, there are still far too many.
In particular, in England there were last year 89,000 separate exclusions for physical assault alone! (Even more worrying, there were almost 18,000 for the five to eleven age group!) This was presumably the reason behind the recent proposal by shadow secretary Michael Gove to put former soldiers into school. Discipline is a major problem.
In a school year of, say, 40 weeks, or 200 days, there are thus 450 exclusions per day, on average. In"problem" schools the figure will be much higher, of course.
It would be bad enough if the above figures were for other unacceptable offences, perhaps drugs, or carrying weapons, but these results are for physical assault - on teachers or on other students.
Clearly, among other things which are spoiling education for many and making the teaching profession unattractive physical assault must rank very highly. If class rooms are not places conducive to study and learning, then all is lost!
When students are excluded for other reasons as well, it is probable that many of the worst are serial offenders. Given that many behave in this way because they have fallen behind educationally, such exclusions will not help even though they impose costs on other students.
We probably need no-nonsense former soldiers, although given the rights culture and political correctness, what can they contribute apart from physical presence?
Longer exclusions, with considerable educational input would seem to be the only way to reduce the problem.
In particular, in England there were last year 89,000 separate exclusions for physical assault alone! (Even more worrying, there were almost 18,000 for the five to eleven age group!) This was presumably the reason behind the recent proposal by shadow secretary Michael Gove to put former soldiers into school. Discipline is a major problem.
In a school year of, say, 40 weeks, or 200 days, there are thus 450 exclusions per day, on average. In"problem" schools the figure will be much higher, of course.
It would be bad enough if the above figures were for other unacceptable offences, perhaps drugs, or carrying weapons, but these results are for physical assault - on teachers or on other students.
Clearly, among other things which are spoiling education for many and making the teaching profession unattractive physical assault must rank very highly. If class rooms are not places conducive to study and learning, then all is lost!
When students are excluded for other reasons as well, it is probable that many of the worst are serial offenders. Given that many behave in this way because they have fallen behind educationally, such exclusions will not help even though they impose costs on other students.
We probably need no-nonsense former soldiers, although given the rights culture and political correctness, what can they contribute apart from physical presence?
Longer exclusions, with considerable educational input would seem to be the only way to reduce the problem.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
An education industry
Anders Hultin, who helped design the Swedish educational model which has influenced Tory thinking, warned Tories recently that their hopes might founder if they continued to advocate an education reform which omitted the profit motive. Messrs Gove and Cameron have both accepted the warning.
This might sound very strange to progressives, in that education would become in those parts which adopted the idea of academies in effect an industry.
It should be pointed out that the plans by the two major parties to use the private sector as well as the charitable sector in the provision welfare and getting people back to work, do envisage management fees. It is also true of those agencies currently supplying staff to schools, or even managing schools.
The advantages of profit is at least two-fold:
1) To give successful new schools, i.e. those over subscribed, some capital with which to open new schools to cope with demand.
2) To allow funds which would enable experiment and entrepreneurship. Without profit charities could become complacent, and see waiting lists as a sign of success and a cause for self-satisfaction, rather than a spur to develop other schools. We were an entrepreneurial country until fairly recently. By this means, like the Swedes we could become a world leader in the development of education and improve the outcomes for all young people and not restrict success to the rich only!
The Swedish experience offers examples of the truth of both these.
It may sound strange to talk about an education industry, but it probably needs such a revolution to overcome the vested interest in the current monolithic, top-down failing service we have today.
This might sound very strange to progressives, in that education would become in those parts which adopted the idea of academies in effect an industry.
It should be pointed out that the plans by the two major parties to use the private sector as well as the charitable sector in the provision welfare and getting people back to work, do envisage management fees. It is also true of those agencies currently supplying staff to schools, or even managing schools.
The advantages of profit is at least two-fold:
1) To give successful new schools, i.e. those over subscribed, some capital with which to open new schools to cope with demand.
2) To allow funds which would enable experiment and entrepreneurship. Without profit charities could become complacent, and see waiting lists as a sign of success and a cause for self-satisfaction, rather than a spur to develop other schools. We were an entrepreneurial country until fairly recently. By this means, like the Swedes we could become a world leader in the development of education and improve the outcomes for all young people and not restrict success to the rich only!
The Swedish experience offers examples of the truth of both these.
It may sound strange to talk about an education industry, but it probably needs such a revolution to overcome the vested interest in the current monolithic, top-down failing service we have today.
Hannan and Cameron as one
Cameron didn't quite quote Daniel Hannan in his leader's address to end the Tory Conference, but the ideas were the same. (Hannan's speech was made in the Spring Conference in Cheltenham.)
The gist of both is to point out that both the Limpdems and NuLabour which claim to be progressives but deny the title to the Tories, have advocated and celebrated our ratification of the Lisbon Constitution-Treaty.
The question then, is, is it progressive to enter more deeply into an institution that "no one elects, no one can remove, and that hasn't signed off its accounts for over a decade"? (In fact, I believe that it is 12 or 13 years since signing off.)
There is a constructivism in both the other parties, a desire to create a Europe after their own blueprint, that makes them relegate any idea of democracy to at best a gesture.
"The Project" of a state-like union, (let us give them the benefit of doubt that they are not trying to construct a United Sates of Europe, although many are), will mean less democracy even than before. Ireland will no longer be able to halt progress by referendum, there will be fewer vetoes, and major changes will be made by a simple majority vote.
It was, and will be even more, a remote and popularly disliked institution where major decisions are made by people who were not elected by anyone, who are answerable to no one, who conceal as much as they can and who broke no opposition, (-hence the attempts to smear the new C and R grouping which the Tories have joined.)
The gist of both is to point out that both the Limpdems and NuLabour which claim to be progressives but deny the title to the Tories, have advocated and celebrated our ratification of the Lisbon Constitution-Treaty.
The question then, is, is it progressive to enter more deeply into an institution that "no one elects, no one can remove, and that hasn't signed off its accounts for over a decade"? (In fact, I believe that it is 12 or 13 years since signing off.)
There is a constructivism in both the other parties, a desire to create a Europe after their own blueprint, that makes them relegate any idea of democracy to at best a gesture.
"The Project" of a state-like union, (let us give them the benefit of doubt that they are not trying to construct a United Sates of Europe, although many are), will mean less democracy even than before. Ireland will no longer be able to halt progress by referendum, there will be fewer vetoes, and major changes will be made by a simple majority vote.
It was, and will be even more, a remote and popularly disliked institution where major decisions are made by people who were not elected by anyone, who are answerable to no one, who conceal as much as they can and who broke no opposition, (-hence the attempts to smear the new C and R grouping which the Tories have joined.)
Friday, 9 October 2009
General disatistfaction?
General Dannatt has come in for criticism in some quarters for his promise to be involved with the Tories as adviser and later taking their whip in the Lords.
What has he done?
Without any evidence at all, the government suggested that all his criticisms of military provision previously were from some secret partnership with the Tories. There is a certain sour grapes at the publicity gain to the Tories from the man highly respected even beyond military circles. He has answered this by his statement that he has barely met Cameron, and recently spoken to him only on a fishing holiday shortly before the Tory Conference.
It's alright for the prime minister to make an unwelcome visit to troops overseas for a photo opportunity, and to make announcements from there about troop withdrawals in the middle of the Tories' Conference, but there is no justification for the Tories to gain any publicity.
There may be some criticism from defense contracts and their lobbying firms by the General's insistence on gaining better equipment for troops, buying abroad if necessary. The contractors have a cosy relationship with the government, including Labour members in the Lords, and they would not want this to be disturbed.
Some of the General's former colleagues are said to be concerned. Is his insistence on doing what is best for troops wrong in their eyes? Or is it that he is not so popular with them as he is with the troops and the public?
Should he have kept quiet about his contacts with the Tories, and merely leaked advice? Technically, although retired from his elevated position, he is still a serving soldier until November. After that he is presumably entitled as a private citizen to join any group he wishes?
For the moment he has not yet formally joined the Tories, having only recently come back from holiday. He has said that he will in the future become an adviser and accept a peerage. Is this any more than Lord Mandelson has done?
What has he done?
Without any evidence at all, the government suggested that all his criticisms of military provision previously were from some secret partnership with the Tories. There is a certain sour grapes at the publicity gain to the Tories from the man highly respected even beyond military circles. He has answered this by his statement that he has barely met Cameron, and recently spoken to him only on a fishing holiday shortly before the Tory Conference.
It's alright for the prime minister to make an unwelcome visit to troops overseas for a photo opportunity, and to make announcements from there about troop withdrawals in the middle of the Tories' Conference, but there is no justification for the Tories to gain any publicity.
There may be some criticism from defense contracts and their lobbying firms by the General's insistence on gaining better equipment for troops, buying abroad if necessary. The contractors have a cosy relationship with the government, including Labour members in the Lords, and they would not want this to be disturbed.
Some of the General's former colleagues are said to be concerned. Is his insistence on doing what is best for troops wrong in their eyes? Or is it that he is not so popular with them as he is with the troops and the public?
Should he have kept quiet about his contacts with the Tories, and merely leaked advice? Technically, although retired from his elevated position, he is still a serving soldier until November. After that he is presumably entitled as a private citizen to join any group he wishes?
For the moment he has not yet formally joined the Tories, having only recently come back from holiday. He has said that he will in the future become an adviser and accept a peerage. Is this any more than Lord Mandelson has done?
Any smear will do
The latest is from the New Statesman, and discussed by Iain Dale in "Total Politics" from an interview with Michal Kaminski. Some is published on the former's blog today.
It is very difficult to defend yourself when people have distorted what you have said.It is very difficult to defend yourself if fellow countrymen were guilty of the things you are smeared with.
The charge is of being homophobic, and also anti-Semite.
Kaminski admitted that his position is one which many Christians and others of the right in politics would hold - accepting and being prepared to vote for civil partnerships of same-sex couples, but wanting to insist that this would not be marriage. For religious reasons, or others, marriage performs a function which is not within civil (gay) partnerships, - procreation and nurture of children within a setting with both male and female role models and influences. (For this reason Kaminski and many others are concerned about adoption by same sex couples.)
Kaminski has tried to defend himself, pointing out his contacts with Israel (- that he is no anti-Semite), as well as correcting the record on what he was alleged to have said privately to another person. What else can he do - he has homosexual and Jewish friends, would his detractors like signed affidavits from them?
I suspect that affidavits would not convince his detractors, because their interest is not to learn the truth but merely continue with a vendetta. The real target is, of course, the new centre-right grouping at the EU, and discrediting the Tories while they are at it. While the centre-right were in the acceptable pro-EU EPP group there was little interest.
It is very difficult to defend yourself when people have distorted what you have said.It is very difficult to defend yourself if fellow countrymen were guilty of the things you are smeared with.
The charge is of being homophobic, and also anti-Semite.
Kaminski admitted that his position is one which many Christians and others of the right in politics would hold - accepting and being prepared to vote for civil partnerships of same-sex couples, but wanting to insist that this would not be marriage. For religious reasons, or others, marriage performs a function which is not within civil (gay) partnerships, - procreation and nurture of children within a setting with both male and female role models and influences. (For this reason Kaminski and many others are concerned about adoption by same sex couples.)
Kaminski has tried to defend himself, pointing out his contacts with Israel (- that he is no anti-Semite), as well as correcting the record on what he was alleged to have said privately to another person. What else can he do - he has homosexual and Jewish friends, would his detractors like signed affidavits from them?
I suspect that affidavits would not convince his detractors, because their interest is not to learn the truth but merely continue with a vendetta. The real target is, of course, the new centre-right grouping at the EU, and discrediting the Tories while they are at it. While the centre-right were in the acceptable pro-EU EPP group there was little interest.
Friday, 2 October 2009
The other view from London
The issue of equipment for troops has been raised again.
From the MOD the head of joint capability, Brigadier Abraham, says that there is not only a shortage of vehicles available in Afghanistan, there is also a shortage in this country to enable troops to train with them before leaving for Afghanistan.
In his judgement, it will probably be the end of 2010 before there are sufficient at both ends. It will be even worse, of course, if, as expected, we send more troops out there to prop up things. (The argument from the theatre of war is that more troops will lead to fewer casualties.
It is estimated that the total fleet of mine-resistant vehicles, such as Mastiff and Ridgback, which will be required is 400, and it will take many months to manufacture and transport them.
If there had been enough helicopters, of course, there would have been less need for heavily armoured vehicles.
From the MOD the head of joint capability, Brigadier Abraham, says that there is not only a shortage of vehicles available in Afghanistan, there is also a shortage in this country to enable troops to train with them before leaving for Afghanistan.
In his judgement, it will probably be the end of 2010 before there are sufficient at both ends. It will be even worse, of course, if, as expected, we send more troops out there to prop up things. (The argument from the theatre of war is that more troops will lead to fewer casualties.
It is estimated that the total fleet of mine-resistant vehicles, such as Mastiff and Ridgback, which will be required is 400, and it will take many months to manufacture and transport them.
If there had been enough helicopters, of course, there would have been less need for heavily armoured vehicles.
One hundred and eighty degrees
To judge by his recent speeches, G.Brown intends to make an attack on yobbish behaviour the centre of his attempt to win re-election. His policy was also announced at the recent party conference by Home Secretary Alan Johnson. At least Brown is topical in his flailing.
At the conference Johnson said that every breach of an ASBO order will result in court action. The courts are going to be busy, then, because virtually every ASBO order is breached sooner or later.
This is to reinforced, according to the prime minister, by a plan to take away (some of) the benefits of the parents of ASBO youngsters.
This all results in an about-face.
The Treasury under, ahem, G.Brown, was one of the main obstructions to the efforts of Mr. Blair and his Respect agenda. Blair backed down, and Brown as prime minister disbanded the unit involved.
In 2002 Blair wanted to cut the benefits paid to parents of children who persistently played truant. The party made him back down, the main protagonist was, if you have not already guessed, G.Brown.
We now have Brown as prime minister back-tracking on both - getting tough on ASBO recipients and thinking of cuts to benefits.
The difference was that originally Blair was Brown's obstacle to becoming PM, now Brown's principles are an obstacle to remaining PM. How things change!
At the conference Johnson said that every breach of an ASBO order will result in court action. The courts are going to be busy, then, because virtually every ASBO order is breached sooner or later.
This is to reinforced, according to the prime minister, by a plan to take away (some of) the benefits of the parents of ASBO youngsters.
This all results in an about-face.
The Treasury under, ahem, G.Brown, was one of the main obstructions to the efforts of Mr. Blair and his Respect agenda. Blair backed down, and Brown as prime minister disbanded the unit involved.
In 2002 Blair wanted to cut the benefits paid to parents of children who persistently played truant. The party made him back down, the main protagonist was, if you have not already guessed, G.Brown.
We now have Brown as prime minister back-tracking on both - getting tough on ASBO recipients and thinking of cuts to benefits.
The difference was that originally Blair was Brown's obstacle to becoming PM, now Brown's principles are an obstacle to remaining PM. How things change!
Why is personal attack a left wing thing?
I must define what I mean. I am not talking about the sorry spectacle of Cameron coming close to calling Brown in liar in PMQ - there is very littler else he can do with a man who refuses to tell the truth which everybody knows.
I am talking about the smearing and innuendo where there is no evidence and the attacked person has little chance to rebut from evidence. We are here in the Damian MacBride area, who is reputed to have used invented alacious and scurrilous suggestions.
We have it in Harman with her "joke" about Osborne and lap-dancing, or Milliband's taunt of Tories consorting with Nazis. (The latter has been completely rebutted, and is based on the slurs of Macmillan Scott who denigrated a rival, and others, who do not like to think that there is any group who should be allowed to challenge the 'project' or construction. Macmillan-Scott, now cast adrift by the Tories, is in this an "honorary lefty".)
It seems that Labour will taunt the Tories for at least five months with "nasty", because one or two belonged to an unattractive undergraduate group 25 years ago, and with being children, that is inexperienced. They should be careful on both counts. Some now respectable senior labour figures, eg Dennis Healey, to name the very respected, belonged to the communists when an undergraduate, and considering the mess Labour have made and the turnover of ministers who were nearly all without experience of government, the taunt about experience is double edged.
So why do they do it? I suspect that it comes from an intolerance of conviction, that there is no alternative to their own philosophy and those who differ must be charlatans or worse. The intolerance even extends to debate - with Labour unwilling even to appear with and argue with another legitimate party the BNP. Their views are unacceptable to most people, so why not demolish them? So, I suspect that smear and innuendo is used when evidence is lacking, and where there are no counter arguments.
We face an interesting time before the election. Are we to have a highly personal attack with smear on opponents, or are we to have a serious debate on the future direction of our country? I fear that that for one party it may be the former, and I suspect that the public are wise enough to draw their own conclusions.
I am talking about the smearing and innuendo where there is no evidence and the attacked person has little chance to rebut from evidence. We are here in the Damian MacBride area, who is reputed to have used invented alacious and scurrilous suggestions.
We have it in Harman with her "joke" about Osborne and lap-dancing, or Milliband's taunt of Tories consorting with Nazis. (The latter has been completely rebutted, and is based on the slurs of Macmillan Scott who denigrated a rival, and others, who do not like to think that there is any group who should be allowed to challenge the 'project' or construction. Macmillan-Scott, now cast adrift by the Tories, is in this an "honorary lefty".)
It seems that Labour will taunt the Tories for at least five months with "nasty", because one or two belonged to an unattractive undergraduate group 25 years ago, and with being children, that is inexperienced. They should be careful on both counts. Some now respectable senior labour figures, eg Dennis Healey, to name the very respected, belonged to the communists when an undergraduate, and considering the mess Labour have made and the turnover of ministers who were nearly all without experience of government, the taunt about experience is double edged.
So why do they do it? I suspect that it comes from an intolerance of conviction, that there is no alternative to their own philosophy and those who differ must be charlatans or worse. The intolerance even extends to debate - with Labour unwilling even to appear with and argue with another legitimate party the BNP. Their views are unacceptable to most people, so why not demolish them? So, I suspect that smear and innuendo is used when evidence is lacking, and where there are no counter arguments.
We face an interesting time before the election. Are we to have a highly personal attack with smear on opponents, or are we to have a serious debate on the future direction of our country? I fear that that for one party it may be the former, and I suspect that the public are wise enough to draw their own conclusions.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
Ludwig von Mises from "Human Action" (1949)
We are illustrating what von Mises predicted 60 years ago. G.Brown began to run budget deficits from 2003, and it suited him to keep interest rates as low as possible. (He kept extending the cycle over which he was to balance his books, to avoid having to end his splurge.) Assets bubbles of various kinds were created by the credit expansion, and left unchecked, - he and we were living as if there was no tomorrow.
He may wish to blame the greedy bankers or Americans, but his low interest rate policy and burgeoning pubic debt put us on the path which von Mises indicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
