It was announced that Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Opposition leader, had cancelled a trip to this country, because a British judge had issued a warrant for her arrest.
Her crime seems to have been that she was a minister during the Israeli/Gazan troubles recently.
We do not know who sought the arrest, although it sounds as if it was granted on the basis of Human Rights. So are we now to assume that anyone who is connected to any opposition to one of the in-groups, such as Hammas, as downtrodden and innocent, may effectively be black-balled or even arrested? Would such a person be tried here for an "offence" committed elsewhere? Can we invite, and allow safe entry to, any foreign political leader who belongs to a party or state not in favour here?
Do British judges now claim the power to judge cases of alleged abuses conducted abroad? Add to this the fact that we are powerless to return known trouble-making terrorists to their countries of origin in case the little darlings are prosecuted, and you wonder what protection we, the law abiding, actually get under the Human Rights legislation.
If protesters can now prevent a democratically elected leading member of a liberal democracy visiting us, where are we going? This sounds more like ideological justice rather than the rule of Law, and it sounds as if some members of the judiciary are allowing their own prejudices to swamp their judgments.
The proposed bill of rights, based on something like Magna Carta, cannot some too soon, with rights enshrined in constitutiona , and not subject to arbitrary suspension or interpretation.
Above all, we must eject any judicial activism.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Good for the Irish!
The Irish, just about the only country with a more threatening economic situation than our own, are preparing savage cuts in order to produce a prospect of balance. They have little choice, because they have signed away any latitude by fixing their exchange rate as a Euro currency member.
At the same time G.Brown is proposing to spend even more, in some wild dash for growth or electoral salvation. He is invoking the name of Keynes, as are many others, who in the face of a credit-caused recession are recommending still more credit creation.
There is no time to explain the Theory evolved by Keynes, but merely its main thrust. When there is unemployment, he suggests, and therefore inadequate total spending, the government should spend to make up some or all of the shortfall. Few, I think, would doubt this in the case of a full-blown depression such as in the 1930s. (It should be remembered, however, that despite massive public works programmes and social benefits, in 1931 unemployment stood at 17.4% and the Dow Jones Index at 140 and by 1938 unemployment was still at 17.4% and the Dow had dropped to 121. If the Keynesian remedy was working, it was working rather slowly!
There is an alternative view - that unemployment is not merely from a lack of total demand, but also from a serious imbalance in the economy which requires serious correction. Keynes's prescription does not deal with this.
In the early 1980s 285 ( or however many) economists (Keynesian devotees) wrote their famous letter, protesting at what the Thatcher government was doing. It was a hard time for many, but the Thatcher remedy worked, and for a few years we had one of the strongest growing economies in the world.
That might not be the best example, but there is also the Swedish example in the early 1990s, where cuts solved their problems very quickly, a process which Cameron and Osborne are known to have thought about.
Everyone quotes, as I have, the 1930s experience of the USA, but fail to mention the earlier depression of 1920. President Harding was pilloried for having a policy of cuts and balance, but Keynes had not yet written and the opposition had no theoretical underpinning. Harding cut taxes and cut expenditure. He paid off a third of the government debt. More importantly, by the late summer of 1921 the economy was visibly recovering.
The Keynesian "solution" is intuitively attractive, but it ignores the complexity of the economy, with its sundry imbalances and unpredictable expectations, reactions and outcomes. In 70 plus years the possibility of a depression may have been unrealised by the confidence it bred. Once we are in a recession, and Keynes policy was a failure in the 1930s, there is more rationality in allowing the complexity of the system to sort itself out, with government support of victims, rather than perpetuating imbalances and maladjustments and dragging out the process.
In our present situation, out-of-control government spending has deepened and prolonged our recession, and there seems little recommendation to continue it, except ideological and electoral considerations.Further government credit expansion could cause problems in financing and interest rates, and the famous "second dip".
At the same time G.Brown is proposing to spend even more, in some wild dash for growth or electoral salvation. He is invoking the name of Keynes, as are many others, who in the face of a credit-caused recession are recommending still more credit creation.
There is no time to explain the Theory evolved by Keynes, but merely its main thrust. When there is unemployment, he suggests, and therefore inadequate total spending, the government should spend to make up some or all of the shortfall. Few, I think, would doubt this in the case of a full-blown depression such as in the 1930s. (It should be remembered, however, that despite massive public works programmes and social benefits, in 1931 unemployment stood at 17.4% and the Dow Jones Index at 140 and by 1938 unemployment was still at 17.4% and the Dow had dropped to 121. If the Keynesian remedy was working, it was working rather slowly!
There is an alternative view - that unemployment is not merely from a lack of total demand, but also from a serious imbalance in the economy which requires serious correction. Keynes's prescription does not deal with this.
In the early 1980s 285 ( or however many) economists (Keynesian devotees) wrote their famous letter, protesting at what the Thatcher government was doing. It was a hard time for many, but the Thatcher remedy worked, and for a few years we had one of the strongest growing economies in the world.
That might not be the best example, but there is also the Swedish example in the early 1990s, where cuts solved their problems very quickly, a process which Cameron and Osborne are known to have thought about.
Everyone quotes, as I have, the 1930s experience of the USA, but fail to mention the earlier depression of 1920. President Harding was pilloried for having a policy of cuts and balance, but Keynes had not yet written and the opposition had no theoretical underpinning. Harding cut taxes and cut expenditure. He paid off a third of the government debt. More importantly, by the late summer of 1921 the economy was visibly recovering.
The Keynesian "solution" is intuitively attractive, but it ignores the complexity of the economy, with its sundry imbalances and unpredictable expectations, reactions and outcomes. In 70 plus years the possibility of a depression may have been unrealised by the confidence it bred. Once we are in a recession, and Keynes policy was a failure in the 1930s, there is more rationality in allowing the complexity of the system to sort itself out, with government support of victims, rather than perpetuating imbalances and maladjustments and dragging out the process.
In our present situation, out-of-control government spending has deepened and prolonged our recession, and there seems little recommendation to continue it, except ideological and electoral considerations.Further government credit expansion could cause problems in financing and interest rates, and the famous "second dip".
Bungling and inept
In 2004 Gordon Brown, as chancellor, vetoed the purchase of additional Chinook helicopters for Afghanistan. In 2013, if we are still involved there, we shall have the aircraft available. So 12 years after entering Afghanistan we shall have the helicopters for which the military have been calling for six or seven years already. (If I were a relative of a serving solider in Iraq or in Afghanistan, especially if he or she had been killed there, I would be very angry.)
We shall have them, but at a cost. The cost is reductions in military capability elsewhere. We have been trying to fight long and expensive wars from essentially a peace-time budget, and plundering other aspects of the MOD budget to pay the costs of war.
We shall have two new aircraft carriers in due course, with delay and postponement putting up the cost from ££4.09 billion to £5.13 billion. Whether we shall be able to afford aircraft for them is another matter - Harriers are being withdrawn and sold, in order to save money. Even the extra £150 million to protect our troops from IEDs will require penny inching elsewhere.
The MOD has a black hole of £36 billion in its equipment budget, partly from bungling and errors, and also from the aim to finance two wars from annual budgets and nothing extra.
Despite Brown's regular visits and prancing about, the military have never been a priority of Labour, except to save jobs. Blair used them for his own purposes, but never arranged sufficient preparation or finance.
We shall have them, but at a cost. The cost is reductions in military capability elsewhere. We have been trying to fight long and expensive wars from essentially a peace-time budget, and plundering other aspects of the MOD budget to pay the costs of war.
We shall have two new aircraft carriers in due course, with delay and postponement putting up the cost from ££4.09 billion to £5.13 billion. Whether we shall be able to afford aircraft for them is another matter - Harriers are being withdrawn and sold, in order to save money. Even the extra £150 million to protect our troops from IEDs will require penny inching elsewhere.
The MOD has a black hole of £36 billion in its equipment budget, partly from bungling and errors, and also from the aim to finance two wars from annual budgets and nothing extra.
Despite Brown's regular visits and prancing about, the military have never been a priority of Labour, except to save jobs. Blair used them for his own purposes, but never arranged sufficient preparation or finance.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Higher and higher?
Consumer price inflation in November rose at its highest rate since May.
The index (CPI) in 2009 was 1.9 % higher than in the same month in 2008. There had been an expectation of about 1.8%, so you could argue that the experts mostly got it right in advance. In 2008 there had been falls in the cost of transport, but this year a rise in November.
There will be a further spur to inflation in January when the rate of VAT is raised back to 17.5%. The Bank of England is prepared for a rate of 3.0 on the CPI, but feels that it could fall back because of the low level of economic activity and high unemployment.
(The more familiar and more inclusive RPI, - Retail Price Index, rose by 0.3% compared with a year earlier, also slightly more than expected.)
Is this of concern? The answer has to be be "No, not as things stand." There could however be other shocks. If sterling depreciates against other currencies, perhaps because of a loss of confidence in sterling by international creditors, then import prices would rise and add to any pressures. Alternatively, if growth is at the level the chancellor claims to expect, then bottle necks and resource shortages could drive up prices, and consumers willing to pay them because of the new-found confidence in the economy, Further tax rises, on income or purchases, could also feed through into higher wages and prices.
We would not want inflation to take off, because that could lead to a rise in interest rates, as the Bank of England tries to moderate the inflation. This could nip any further growth in the bud. This is a point that Osborne has been making recently.
The index (CPI) in 2009 was 1.9 % higher than in the same month in 2008. There had been an expectation of about 1.8%, so you could argue that the experts mostly got it right in advance. In 2008 there had been falls in the cost of transport, but this year a rise in November.
There will be a further spur to inflation in January when the rate of VAT is raised back to 17.5%. The Bank of England is prepared for a rate of 3.0 on the CPI, but feels that it could fall back because of the low level of economic activity and high unemployment.
(The more familiar and more inclusive RPI, - Retail Price Index, rose by 0.3% compared with a year earlier, also slightly more than expected.)
Is this of concern? The answer has to be be "No, not as things stand." There could however be other shocks. If sterling depreciates against other currencies, perhaps because of a loss of confidence in sterling by international creditors, then import prices would rise and add to any pressures. Alternatively, if growth is at the level the chancellor claims to expect, then bottle necks and resource shortages could drive up prices, and consumers willing to pay them because of the new-found confidence in the economy, Further tax rises, on income or purchases, could also feed through into higher wages and prices.
We would not want inflation to take off, because that could lead to a rise in interest rates, as the Bank of England tries to moderate the inflation. This could nip any further growth in the bud. This is a point that Osborne has been making recently.
Sorry they missed us...
People have complained that postmen sometimes leave a card saying that they could not contact us, or that the householders were out. (I have to say that this has happened a few times at our house, though not for a few months, when we were in and would have heard the bell if it had been rung.)
The postal watchdog has recently commissioned a survey to see how widespread the experience is. Amazingly, 55% of respondents said that it had happened to them, and 23% that it had happened on at least three occasions.
It was irritating, to say the least, last Christmas, when we were left a card, and after making our way to the soon-to-be-closed sorting office and parting with £1.18, we were handed a Christmas card with no stamp - either forgotten or had become detached. I could understand this in the old days, when we sometimes received our post at 7.30 am, and the postie perhaps did not want to disturb us, but we now receive our post any time between 9.30 and 2.30!
It seems, by way of explanation, that some posties resent having to take out small packets, or under-stamped letters, but to leave them in the sorting office and put a card, written before starting the round, saying that we were out, is nothing less than deception.
The postal watchdog has recently commissioned a survey to see how widespread the experience is. Amazingly, 55% of respondents said that it had happened to them, and 23% that it had happened on at least three occasions.
It was irritating, to say the least, last Christmas, when we were left a card, and after making our way to the soon-to-be-closed sorting office and parting with £1.18, we were handed a Christmas card with no stamp - either forgotten or had become detached. I could understand this in the old days, when we sometimes received our post at 7.30 am, and the postie perhaps did not want to disturb us, but we now receive our post any time between 9.30 and 2.30!
It seems, by way of explanation, that some posties resent having to take out small packets, or under-stamped letters, but to leave them in the sorting office and put a card, written before starting the round, saying that we were out, is nothing less than deception.
The Acadamies
The Academies, Blair's flagships, have been the subject of study by the think-tank Civitas.
The majority of academies do not publish their results, as they are independent state schools and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. They are, however , inspected by Ofsted, and almost half of those inspected recently were no better than adequate in standard.
The Civitas study found that the schools were very interested in achieving good grades, however, but disappointingly boosted the marks by encouraging students to study easier and vocational courses, rather than the more academic.We had been told that the academies had improved GCSE grades at twice the rate of "ordinary" secondary schools, although it was admitted that many had been reformed failing schools and so started from a lower base. (In 2008-09 the academies produced students of whom 36% gained five decent GCSE passes, including maths and English. Other schools nationally achieved 48%.)
The Tories have also made a policy emphasis on academies, so this must be a concern for them. The academies were supposed to be "models of excellence", and so must be thought to some extent failing this.
The challenge is how to achieve independence without dilution of standards. The answer might be to adopt the "Swedish" approach, as advocated by Michael Gove, with extremely local control and full publication or knowledge of what is going on.
The majority of academies do not publish their results, as they are independent state schools and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. They are, however , inspected by Ofsted, and almost half of those inspected recently were no better than adequate in standard.
The Civitas study found that the schools were very interested in achieving good grades, however, but disappointingly boosted the marks by encouraging students to study easier and vocational courses, rather than the more academic.We had been told that the academies had improved GCSE grades at twice the rate of "ordinary" secondary schools, although it was admitted that many had been reformed failing schools and so started from a lower base. (In 2008-09 the academies produced students of whom 36% gained five decent GCSE passes, including maths and English. Other schools nationally achieved 48%.)
The Tories have also made a policy emphasis on academies, so this must be a concern for them. The academies were supposed to be "models of excellence", and so must be thought to some extent failing this.
The challenge is how to achieve independence without dilution of standards. The answer might be to adopt the "Swedish" approach, as advocated by Michael Gove, with extremely local control and full publication or knowledge of what is going on.
Short-sightedness?
We listened with amazement at the decision of the Unite union to organise a strike to cause maximum damage to their company, British Airways, and maximum difficulty to hundreds of thousands of travellers over the Christmas period. As the last strike was in 2007 and cost £80 million, it seems that the union has something of a death wish for its members.
It is never easy for an outsider to know what is behind such disputes, (I am not sure that voting members fully understand either.)
It seems that the company, which in the last financial year lost £400 million, could lose as much as £600 million this year even before the strike, which itself could cost as much as £300 million, had attempted to cut the number of stewards and stewardesses. This was in an effort to compete with the low cost airlines. The company claimed, and the union has not challenged it, that their staff are better paid than those on Virgin Airways. It is clear that staff savings had to be made. Did the company impose the changes without full consultation? Is this what it is really about?
Whatever the facts, it remains that the company which has seen a near doubling of its pension fund black hole to £3.7 billion - the largest in the private sector, will lose customers not only at Christmas but permanently. There must be a real question about the ability to remain a large carrier.
The Communication Workers are also slowly committing suicide, but they have a government and public sector behind them. B.A. staff have no such protection, and are risking their jobs when there are many unemployed who could fill them, and many competitors who would be pleased to take their traffic!
A very short-sighted decision!
It is never easy for an outsider to know what is behind such disputes, (I am not sure that voting members fully understand either.)
It seems that the company, which in the last financial year lost £400 million, could lose as much as £600 million this year even before the strike, which itself could cost as much as £300 million, had attempted to cut the number of stewards and stewardesses. This was in an effort to compete with the low cost airlines. The company claimed, and the union has not challenged it, that their staff are better paid than those on Virgin Airways. It is clear that staff savings had to be made. Did the company impose the changes without full consultation? Is this what it is really about?
Whatever the facts, it remains that the company which has seen a near doubling of its pension fund black hole to £3.7 billion - the largest in the private sector, will lose customers not only at Christmas but permanently. There must be a real question about the ability to remain a large carrier.
The Communication Workers are also slowly committing suicide, but they have a government and public sector behind them. B.A. staff have no such protection, and are risking their jobs when there are many unemployed who could fill them, and many competitors who would be pleased to take their traffic!
A very short-sighted decision!
Monday, 14 December 2009
We must have something to fight!
In the 1950s, 1960s and into the 1970s, we were told that there was concern about an impending mini ice age. Strangely, that has been forgotten and temperature graphs now show no fall in temperature in that period, although they did at the time. I remember vividly the warnings about the imminent arrival of plunging temperatures.
In the late 1970s and in to the 1980s, the warning was about acid rain, and the UK was criticised for all the smoke blowing across the North Sea and killing the trees in Scandinavia. Continental Europeans were labeling us, and the Poles and Czechs, as the dirty men of Europe. I don't recall us doing anything, but the trees have stopped dying.
Now, of course, the problem is global warming, although some observers who haven't seen the supposedly more accurate adjusted figures are reporting no rise in temperatures for well over a decade.
What makes a self-righteous movement become shrill, on the basis of graphs produced from recorded data which we are not allowed to see?
Those of us who are not sceptical by nature, and merely wish to see data with an explanation of why it was adjusted, could be forgiven for being a little concerned at the impoverishment which we are about to heap on our children and grandchildren.
When I first studied statistics I was shown a graph of electricity consumption in the UK up to mid 1925s. It was possible to fit various trend lines, one of which, I remember, suggested that by the mid 1980s there would not be enough energy in the solar system to cater for the UK's energy demand. Which plotted trend line should have they adopted?
There is guilt,- the white man has ruined the environment and kept the underdeveloped countries in poverty. There is arrogance and pride - we understand the very complicated climate system so well that we can predict with exactness and confidence what will happen in the future. There is ambition, - we have the means and the calculations to control such a massive system to produce an outcome which is entirely predictable.
Which one explains the insistence of the AGW industry that anyone who dissents is either mad or bad, and should be denied air-time, publication facilities, data and debate?
In the late 1970s and in to the 1980s, the warning was about acid rain, and the UK was criticised for all the smoke blowing across the North Sea and killing the trees in Scandinavia. Continental Europeans were labeling us, and the Poles and Czechs, as the dirty men of Europe. I don't recall us doing anything, but the trees have stopped dying.
Now, of course, the problem is global warming, although some observers who haven't seen the supposedly more accurate adjusted figures are reporting no rise in temperatures for well over a decade.
What makes a self-righteous movement become shrill, on the basis of graphs produced from recorded data which we are not allowed to see?
Those of us who are not sceptical by nature, and merely wish to see data with an explanation of why it was adjusted, could be forgiven for being a little concerned at the impoverishment which we are about to heap on our children and grandchildren.
When I first studied statistics I was shown a graph of electricity consumption in the UK up to mid 1925s. It was possible to fit various trend lines, one of which, I remember, suggested that by the mid 1980s there would not be enough energy in the solar system to cater for the UK's energy demand. Which plotted trend line should have they adopted?
There is guilt,- the white man has ruined the environment and kept the underdeveloped countries in poverty. There is arrogance and pride - we understand the very complicated climate system so well that we can predict with exactness and confidence what will happen in the future. There is ambition, - we have the means and the calculations to control such a massive system to produce an outcome which is entirely predictable.
Which one explains the insistence of the AGW industry that anyone who dissents is either mad or bad, and should be denied air-time, publication facilities, data and debate?
The Spirit of the season?
Paul Waugh, in his blog for the Evening Standard today, reports the discovery made by a colleague from a written answer by Health Minister Phil Hope.
Just five days after the PBR statement, and when most people not in the Labour government were warning of the parlous state of the public finances and the need for cuts, the Department of Health has excelled itself.
It has erected a Christmas tree at Skipton House, not any old tree mind you, but a tree costing £2,485. It is dressed, however!
This tree is not on public view, but merely there to cheer the 905 DoH staff who work in the building.
Wouldn't they be cheered by a smaller one? Is it that they they accept that there will be savings, and this is a last splurge before belt tightening?
There is obviously a great deal of waste in government, if this is anything to go by.
Just five days after the PBR statement, and when most people not in the Labour government were warning of the parlous state of the public finances and the need for cuts, the Department of Health has excelled itself.
It has erected a Christmas tree at Skipton House, not any old tree mind you, but a tree costing £2,485. It is dressed, however!
This tree is not on public view, but merely there to cheer the 905 DoH staff who work in the building.
Wouldn't they be cheered by a smaller one? Is it that they they accept that there will be savings, and this is a last splurge before belt tightening?
There is obviously a great deal of waste in government, if this is anything to go by.
Saturday, 12 December 2009
Nothing changes
"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
"Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
In the light of the present revelations that many/most MPs still have their noses in the trough, despite all the agitation, these words as as relevant now as they were on 20th April 1653, when Oliver Cromwell used them in speaking to the House of Commons. Need I write any more?
If objectives are not expressed.....
A very recent Ofsted study of 26 state schools, 17 secondary and 9 primary, they report a very worrying weakness. (The sample had been chosen because they been told to improve provision for gifted pupils.)
The conclusion is that in the sample there was a failure to challenge the most able to produce their best. Some these students reported that they had to ask teachers for more or advanced work, and also complained that they had to spend some of their week in helping less able fellow pupils.
The explanation seems to be two-fold.
1) There is a reluctance on the part of individual teachers to do this, either for ideological reasons or because they thought that giving more attention to the very able might mean less time for the less able. In some cases they refused to give extra attention to the brightest because they feared they would promote elitism.
2) Head teachers excused themselves on the grounds that they had not received sufficient signals from Whitehall.
I am not sure which is the weaker of the two.
If it is the individual teacher disobeying the government, and by top-down decision the local educational authority and head teacher, then it is a serious matter. We cannot have anarchy, with the individual teacher deciding which pupils to encourage and which not, even if there are resource constraints. All pupils deserve to be helped to develop their potential to the full.
On the head teachers, it is frightening that they are apparently not aware of statements by the government.
If either is or both is the explanation of what has been picked up by Ofsted, then there needs to be immediate action. We not only have the less able barely literate or numerate, with the number of year 6 SATS satisfactory "passes" declining this year. We also have a deficit as far as the very able are concerned. These latter will later find jobs in situations where there is intense global competition and our nation depends on their contribution. We cannot afford to be second best.
The conclusion is that in the sample there was a failure to challenge the most able to produce their best. Some these students reported that they had to ask teachers for more or advanced work, and also complained that they had to spend some of their week in helping less able fellow pupils.
The explanation seems to be two-fold.
1) There is a reluctance on the part of individual teachers to do this, either for ideological reasons or because they thought that giving more attention to the very able might mean less time for the less able. In some cases they refused to give extra attention to the brightest because they feared they would promote elitism.
2) Head teachers excused themselves on the grounds that they had not received sufficient signals from Whitehall.
I am not sure which is the weaker of the two.
If it is the individual teacher disobeying the government, and by top-down decision the local educational authority and head teacher, then it is a serious matter. We cannot have anarchy, with the individual teacher deciding which pupils to encourage and which not, even if there are resource constraints. All pupils deserve to be helped to develop their potential to the full.
On the head teachers, it is frightening that they are apparently not aware of statements by the government.
If either is or both is the explanation of what has been picked up by Ofsted, then there needs to be immediate action. We not only have the less able barely literate or numerate, with the number of year 6 SATS satisfactory "passes" declining this year. We also have a deficit as far as the very able are concerned. These latter will later find jobs in situations where there is intense global competition and our nation depends on their contribution. We cannot afford to be second best.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Disappearing Posties?
We have just heard that Royal Mail is thinking of closing the sorting office in our small market town, and requiring a journey of perhaps 10 miles to the next sorting office. This will require special arrangements for undelivered parcels and mail, - you know, those for which they put a card through the door because they haven't time to ring the bell! We are fortunate still to have a post office, and we shall be able to collect our mail from there.
This is part of a rationalisation scheme, to cut costs, as Royal Mail desperately seeks to remain solvent in the face of Luddite postal staff who want more and more despite the losses occurring at Royal Mail. (They have made profits, but too small to undertake investment or to maintain the staff pension fund.)
The Daily Mail reported on Wednesday that although Royal Mail deliver most letters and parcels, it collects and sorts only two thirds, - 46 million units each day out of 72 million.
A growing list of companies are no longer using Royal Mail, - Barclays, Sainsbury's, Lloyds Group, RBS, Powergen and Aviva (as evidenced by the printed franking on the envelope or package.
The private and commercial firms which do the collection and sorting, such as TNT Post or UK Mail ,currently do not do delivery, but there must come a tipping point soon when it will be worthwhile. At that point the supposition is that Royal Mail will fade away. At the moment these companies do most of the bulk mail.
The change goes back to 2004, when competition was introduced. Since then with electronic communication the number of letters has dropped by more than 12 million daily In 2005 TNT handled 300 million letters a year, in 2007 1.7 billion and currently about 2.6 billion.
All this makes it very clear why Royal Mail must come to an efficient accommodation with its trade union. The union is regularly involved in aggressive campaigns, and you wouldn't want to bet on the future of Royal Mail. How different on the continent, where Dutch and German postal services adapted to the new situation!
This is part of a rationalisation scheme, to cut costs, as Royal Mail desperately seeks to remain solvent in the face of Luddite postal staff who want more and more despite the losses occurring at Royal Mail. (They have made profits, but too small to undertake investment or to maintain the staff pension fund.)
The Daily Mail reported on Wednesday that although Royal Mail deliver most letters and parcels, it collects and sorts only two thirds, - 46 million units each day out of 72 million.
A growing list of companies are no longer using Royal Mail, - Barclays, Sainsbury's, Lloyds Group, RBS, Powergen and Aviva (as evidenced by the printed franking on the envelope or package.
The private and commercial firms which do the collection and sorting, such as TNT Post or UK Mail ,currently do not do delivery, but there must come a tipping point soon when it will be worthwhile. At that point the supposition is that Royal Mail will fade away. At the moment these companies do most of the bulk mail.
The change goes back to 2004, when competition was introduced. Since then with electronic communication the number of letters has dropped by more than 12 million daily In 2005 TNT handled 300 million letters a year, in 2007 1.7 billion and currently about 2.6 billion.
All this makes it very clear why Royal Mail must come to an efficient accommodation with its trade union. The union is regularly involved in aggressive campaigns, and you wouldn't want to bet on the future of Royal Mail. How different on the continent, where Dutch and German postal services adapted to the new situation!
The fanfares were premature
The Daily Telegraph yesterday reported that the much vaunted government "Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme" which exists to help people struggling to stay in their homes in the present economic difficulties, has met with a little success.
The success is represented by the 15 families it has so far helped after almost a year.
This, despite repossessions increasing, to one per 1,000 households, and in September 270,00 owners fat least three months in arrears.
NuLabour are good at publicising what they are thinking of doing, but somehow it doesn't work out as promised.
The Chancellor didn't mention the scheme in his PBR this week Anyone know a good day to bury bad news?
The success is represented by the 15 families it has so far helped after almost a year.
This, despite repossessions increasing, to one per 1,000 households, and in September 270,00 owners fat least three months in arrears.
NuLabour are good at publicising what they are thinking of doing, but somehow it doesn't work out as promised.
The Chancellor didn't mention the scheme in his PBR this week Anyone know a good day to bury bad news?
The irresponsible police.
They may have the power to allow someone to die while the police conduct a safety assessment, but it seems that in some things the police are not to be trusted.
The Daily Mail today tells us that if a light bulb fails, they must not replace it but rather report it to a twenty-four hour helpline and fill in a list of required supplies (one bulb?). The helpline will then contact a designated supplier, having made a decision on the severity and priority of the need, and the supplier will have to comply within a certain time or face a fine. Finally, in a five point list of instructions, if the contractor doesn't turn up the police are empowered to replace the bulb themselves.
This apparently relates to police stations in the South East, and there are also instructions about ordering toilet paper, putting up crime prevention posters or re-positioning plants and litter bins.In these cases they must also contact a hotline.
We have been concerned about the time officers spend in police stations, and how little on the beat. It seems that they may sit in the dark, unable to finish their paperwork, because they are not permitted to replace a light bulb. (The NHS sometimes pays hundreds of pounds for a bulb replacement, so there must also be a charge when a contractor eventually comes to replace a bulb, presumably?)
The Daily Mail today tells us that if a light bulb fails, they must not replace it but rather report it to a twenty-four hour helpline and fill in a list of required supplies (one bulb?). The helpline will then contact a designated supplier, having made a decision on the severity and priority of the need, and the supplier will have to comply within a certain time or face a fine. Finally, in a five point list of instructions, if the contractor doesn't turn up the police are empowered to replace the bulb themselves.
This apparently relates to police stations in the South East, and there are also instructions about ordering toilet paper, putting up crime prevention posters or re-positioning plants and litter bins.In these cases they must also contact a hotline.
We have been concerned about the time officers spend in police stations, and how little on the beat. It seems that they may sit in the dark, unable to finish their paperwork, because they are not permitted to replace a light bulb. (The NHS sometimes pays hundreds of pounds for a bulb replacement, so there must also be a charge when a contractor eventually comes to replace a bulb, presumably?)
Reinventing the market?
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary has apparently said that he is determined to make the NHS patient focused, and to this end he will set up a system whereby increasingly and up to 10% of hospital funding will depend on declared patient satisfaction with the service offered.
(This is a reflection of the fact that hospital finance will be tight, if not cut, over the next few years. Hospitals will thus have a major incentive to satisfy patients.)
This is a revelation, perhaps late in the day, that a Health Secretary has recognised that the aim of the NHS is patient service. This is something,- so often the impression is that the service is run in a Sir Humphrey Appleby way with the main objective administrative efficiency.
How will he achieve this - questionnaires filled in by patients on discharge - if so what are the view of those who die from MRSA, or whatever, - are they recorded as "generally unsatisfied"? What of patients families, are they to have no input?
How will the hundreds of thousands of in- and out-patient's views be analysed? It sounds like more bureaucracy. What criteria will be employed to distinguish between very dissatisfied and very satisfied and all the fine differences on the range between? If someone is broadly happy but feels that some aspect is poor, - tea service, books, telephone, a particular member of staff, etc., how will these reservations be recorded, without making the questionnaire a massive booklet?
What he is attempting bureaucratically, and at great expense, could be solved much more easily if everything was done to allow patients to "vote with their feet". If they had choice, and consulted friends and neighbours about their experience, and even figures produced by the hospital, it would become clear which hospitals or departments were delivering good service and which not.
People choose their supermarkets and other shops. They are likely to be more careful and informed in choosing a hospital, so why not let them?
(This is a reflection of the fact that hospital finance will be tight, if not cut, over the next few years. Hospitals will thus have a major incentive to satisfy patients.)
This is a revelation, perhaps late in the day, that a Health Secretary has recognised that the aim of the NHS is patient service. This is something,- so often the impression is that the service is run in a Sir Humphrey Appleby way with the main objective administrative efficiency.
How will he achieve this - questionnaires filled in by patients on discharge - if so what are the view of those who die from MRSA, or whatever, - are they recorded as "generally unsatisfied"? What of patients families, are they to have no input?
How will the hundreds of thousands of in- and out-patient's views be analysed? It sounds like more bureaucracy. What criteria will be employed to distinguish between very dissatisfied and very satisfied and all the fine differences on the range between? If someone is broadly happy but feels that some aspect is poor, - tea service, books, telephone, a particular member of staff, etc., how will these reservations be recorded, without making the questionnaire a massive booklet?
What he is attempting bureaucratically, and at great expense, could be solved much more easily if everything was done to allow patients to "vote with their feet". If they had choice, and consulted friends and neighbours about their experience, and even figures produced by the hospital, it would become clear which hospitals or departments were delivering good service and which not.
People choose their supermarkets and other shops. They are likely to be more careful and informed in choosing a hospital, so why not let them?
Thursday, 10 December 2009
A verdict?
The reaction to the Darling show yesterday on the part of the newspapers was universal - they had all seen through it all, and there will doubtless be more scandal when the IFS delivers the results of its calculation later today.
Early to day there was a muted response by the stock markets. They had probably taken account of the PBR, which had been heavily leaked. (Will the government try to trace the leaker?)
The bond markets are different, where gilts are now taking something of a hammering. This was perhaps due to the information from the debt management office, something that the chancellor had neglected to mention. By the end of this financial year the DMO will have looked to borrow £243 billion, rather more than was suggested by the chancellor's expected deficit of £178 billion.
The result was that 10 year gilts fell 13 base points, the largest quick fall for some time, and they now stand at 63 bps above German bonds.
Credit Default Swaps also show the same picture. To insure $10 million of UK debt against default now costs $85,000, compared with $24,000 for German debt. This is a record high multiple, and may trigger reactions elsewhere in the financial system.
There is thus a warning, which the credit agencies will have noticed, that the UK may find it difficult to borrow the further money Darling was hoping to borrow over the next few years. The fear that ever higher debt might lead to higher rates is a real one, and could nip any recovery in the bud. It rather supports what Osborne has been saying.
Of course, although there was no other economic news which could have spooked the market, it is possible that rumours were circulating, and in time dealers may come sheepishly to their senses. This is a desperate hope!
Early to day there was a muted response by the stock markets. They had probably taken account of the PBR, which had been heavily leaked. (Will the government try to trace the leaker?)
The bond markets are different, where gilts are now taking something of a hammering. This was perhaps due to the information from the debt management office, something that the chancellor had neglected to mention. By the end of this financial year the DMO will have looked to borrow £243 billion, rather more than was suggested by the chancellor's expected deficit of £178 billion.
The result was that 10 year gilts fell 13 base points, the largest quick fall for some time, and they now stand at 63 bps above German bonds.
Credit Default Swaps also show the same picture. To insure $10 million of UK debt against default now costs $85,000, compared with $24,000 for German debt. This is a record high multiple, and may trigger reactions elsewhere in the financial system.
There is thus a warning, which the credit agencies will have noticed, that the UK may find it difficult to borrow the further money Darling was hoping to borrow over the next few years. The fear that ever higher debt might lead to higher rates is a real one, and could nip any recovery in the bud. It rather supports what Osborne has been saying.
Of course, although there was no other economic news which could have spooked the market, it is possible that rumours were circulating, and in time dealers may come sheepishly to their senses. This is a desperate hope!
“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest
Not a bad recommendation to G.Brown - massive debts must be reduced, not least to reduce future borrowing costs, the arrogance of state spenders who think that they know best how to spend money must be checked, (dead) money to the EU must be reduced or removed, people must be encouraged off benefits and into work. That would go a long way to tackling our problems.
The Brown legacy
(I am assuming that he will no longer be prime minister and chancellor after this coming Spring, a hope shared by virtually everyone I meet, even labour voters.)
The largest legacy will be the huge increase in both public sector and debt. Don't let him persuade you that the debt is due to the recession. It is in part, but he was overspending despite all the stealth taxes well bef0re the recession. It is difficult to envisage the size of the debt he has created, and wants to go on creating.
His debt will rob the next generation. If, as expected the national debt rises to something like £1.6 trillion (-£1,600 billion), then future taxpayers will have to find something like £64 billion annually to serve the accumulated debt (about two thirds accrued under Brown's stewardship.) If it is not reduced significantly that equates to something like a standard rate rate of tax 20 penceon its own, but then there all the other services t0o pay for.
Almost as serious are the cumulative failures to reform anything. Vast sums have been pumped into unreformed government departments, and some people like GPs have done very well out of the process, and into Quangos. So education, health, police and pensions are still produced in the same centralised way as in 1997, although they were sclerotic then!
In some ways this cash-consuming dinosaur is a bigger problem than the debt for anyone who seeks to drag this country into the 21st century and offer as much for each pound of tax as most other European countries do.
The largest legacy will be the huge increase in both public sector and debt. Don't let him persuade you that the debt is due to the recession. It is in part, but he was overspending despite all the stealth taxes well bef0re the recession. It is difficult to envisage the size of the debt he has created, and wants to go on creating.
His debt will rob the next generation. If, as expected the national debt rises to something like £1.6 trillion (-£1,600 billion), then future taxpayers will have to find something like £64 billion annually to serve the accumulated debt (about two thirds accrued under Brown's stewardship.) If it is not reduced significantly that equates to something like a standard rate rate of tax 20 penceon its own, but then there all the other services t0o pay for.
Almost as serious are the cumulative failures to reform anything. Vast sums have been pumped into unreformed government departments, and some people like GPs have done very well out of the process, and into Quangos. So education, health, police and pensions are still produced in the same centralised way as in 1997, although they were sclerotic then!
In some ways this cash-consuming dinosaur is a bigger problem than the debt for anyone who seeks to drag this country into the 21st century and offer as much for each pound of tax as most other European countries do.
What might have been
We might have had a real attack on the massive government-created debt problem. The serious attempt by the Irish government is an example - cuts in dole money, welfare, politicians pay, public sector pay, etc.
We might have had honesty and realism. There might have been an explanation of how the government would deal with the frightening size of the national debt, with no complacency and taking us into its confidence.
We might have had a serious and true statement of the current situation, with no empty gestures, slogans or political tricks.
Instead, what we got was more or less as expected, a complacency based on very optimistic assumptions as before, a tinkering to try to put the Tories on the spot. Even the attack on the rich was bungled, - the banks and bankers will find other ways of paying bonuses, challenge in the court or move elsewhere. The rich, who are to suffer, is everybody earning over £20,000 a year, and the beneficiaries of people leaving a house and property of more then £325,000 (- which must be a high proportion in London.)
Above all there was the usual smoke and mirrors, - giving increased benefits for one year and then removing them, maintaining the funds for the NHS but saddling it with an increased employer's NI bill of over £400 million, and a complete absence of how the massive deficits will be reduced, much less how the national debt will be reduced, beyond a doubtfully high assumed growth rate kicking in very quickly.
All very disappointing. I wonder what the credit agencies make of it? Are we going to have national shame and higher interest rates on top of everything else?
We might have had honesty and realism. There might have been an explanation of how the government would deal with the frightening size of the national debt, with no complacency and taking us into its confidence.
We might have had a serious and true statement of the current situation, with no empty gestures, slogans or political tricks.
Instead, what we got was more or less as expected, a complacency based on very optimistic assumptions as before, a tinkering to try to put the Tories on the spot. Even the attack on the rich was bungled, - the banks and bankers will find other ways of paying bonuses, challenge in the court or move elsewhere. The rich, who are to suffer, is everybody earning over £20,000 a year, and the beneficiaries of people leaving a house and property of more then £325,000 (- which must be a high proportion in London.)
Above all there was the usual smoke and mirrors, - giving increased benefits for one year and then removing them, maintaining the funds for the NHS but saddling it with an increased employer's NI bill of over £400 million, and a complete absence of how the massive deficits will be reduced, much less how the national debt will be reduced, beyond a doubtfully high assumed growth rate kicking in very quickly.
All very disappointing. I wonder what the credit agencies make of it? Are we going to have national shame and higher interest rates on top of everything else?
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
A complete failure
The PBR fails on virtually every aspect, except on its objective - to deceive most people and try to push the Tories into a corner.
In forecasting, - twelve months ago, Darling predicted that the UK economy would shrink by somewhere between o.75% and 1.25% . In fact it seems likely to shrink by about 4.5%. If they can get it so wrong, what faith can we have in his forecast growth rate, 3.5%, for the immediate future? More worryingly, what faith will our creditors and credit agencies have, as he continues to increase spending. On his optimistic forecast our deficit this year will be only £3 billion more than he forecast, and next year much the same.
On his forecasts he expects to have an accumulated budget deficit of £789 billion over the next six years, and it so doing double the national debt yet again. At the end of this period the interest due to be paid on this extra debt could be as much as £30 billion. Thus about £60 billion will probably have to be found, merely to service the total debt.
What happens if we lose our "triple A" credit status and start having to pay even higher interest, if we want to protect the currency exchange rate, or suffer massively higher import prices and inflation?
How does he expect to increase employment, to create economic growth, when he is taxing employment by higher N.I. contributions?
The biggest failure is that while there has been an increase in public sector employment approaching one million over the last year or two, unemployment in the private sector has gone down 300,000. There needs to be a re-balancing away from the public sector to the one which actually produces something marketable and exportable. Of course, reform may be in Brown's vocabulary, but it is not in his nature.
As a campaigning document, at least in shoring up his core vote by trying to pretend that things are not too bad and do not need immediate treatment, it may just pass. In the morning, when clever brains have considered all the small print and done their own calculations, it may appear a economic travesty.
In forecasting, - twelve months ago, Darling predicted that the UK economy would shrink by somewhere between o.75% and 1.25% . In fact it seems likely to shrink by about 4.5%. If they can get it so wrong, what faith can we have in his forecast growth rate, 3.5%, for the immediate future? More worryingly, what faith will our creditors and credit agencies have, as he continues to increase spending. On his optimistic forecast our deficit this year will be only £3 billion more than he forecast, and next year much the same.
On his forecasts he expects to have an accumulated budget deficit of £789 billion over the next six years, and it so doing double the national debt yet again. At the end of this period the interest due to be paid on this extra debt could be as much as £30 billion. Thus about £60 billion will probably have to be found, merely to service the total debt.
What happens if we lose our "triple A" credit status and start having to pay even higher interest, if we want to protect the currency exchange rate, or suffer massively higher import prices and inflation?
How does he expect to increase employment, to create economic growth, when he is taxing employment by higher N.I. contributions?
The biggest failure is that while there has been an increase in public sector employment approaching one million over the last year or two, unemployment in the private sector has gone down 300,000. There needs to be a re-balancing away from the public sector to the one which actually produces something marketable and exportable. Of course, reform may be in Brown's vocabulary, but it is not in his nature.
As a campaigning document, at least in shoring up his core vote by trying to pretend that things are not too bad and do not need immediate treatment, it may just pass. In the morning, when clever brains have considered all the small print and done their own calculations, it may appear a economic travesty.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Squeamish? Try a thousand cuts
The charity laws have been politically loaded. It is no longer sufficient for a private school in receipt of charity to be non-profit making or to confer benefit on the community near of far. It has to subscribe to the redistributive definition of poverty of the present government. In a word, they have to be inclusive.
Now comes death by bureaucracy, which is also going some way towards killing schools in the public sector. Here the application of health and safety legislation is punishing the schools by adding considerably to their costs and trying to destroy their very ethos. Compliance is necessary in every detail, in order to avoid being reported to the Star Camber (Department for Children, etc.,) which has the power to de-register the school, effectively closing it down.
They have to comply on the number of toilets, the wording of school policies, bullying policy (ordinary and sexual), height of door handles, height of school walls, etc, among many others.
They are inspected by the ISI (Independent Schools Inspectorate) for Ofsted and by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. There are cases where demands from one overseeing body conflict with those of another. Excessive time is required to comply with multiple pages of requirements, and with the regular visits.
It could be the end of some schools. The costs imposed may make the fees uneconomic, and uncompetitive if raised.
There is much that is ludicrous. These schools publish extensive brochures and conduct potential scholars and parents round the buildings. Parents who are going to have to pay as much as £30,000 a year will not put up with second rate, and are very careful in analysing the suitability of the school.
The impositions seem largely from antagonism and vindictiveness.
Now comes death by bureaucracy, which is also going some way towards killing schools in the public sector. Here the application of health and safety legislation is punishing the schools by adding considerably to their costs and trying to destroy their very ethos. Compliance is necessary in every detail, in order to avoid being reported to the Star Camber (Department for Children, etc.,) which has the power to de-register the school, effectively closing it down.
They have to comply on the number of toilets, the wording of school policies, bullying policy (ordinary and sexual), height of door handles, height of school walls, etc, among many others.
They are inspected by the ISI (Independent Schools Inspectorate) for Ofsted and by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. There are cases where demands from one overseeing body conflict with those of another. Excessive time is required to comply with multiple pages of requirements, and with the regular visits.
It could be the end of some schools. The costs imposed may make the fees uneconomic, and uncompetitive if raised.
There is much that is ludicrous. These schools publish extensive brochures and conduct potential scholars and parents round the buildings. Parents who are going to have to pay as much as £30,000 a year will not put up with second rate, and are very careful in analysing the suitability of the school.
The impositions seem largely from antagonism and vindictiveness.
Our father, or whatever you call him
The Sunday Telegraph published the result of a survey of non-faith schools.
Among the results was the revelation a large number of schools are breaking the law by failing to offer a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian character, and thousands of children were no longer exposed to the Lord's Prayer, possibly the best known passage in the English language.
There is no surprise at the reason, -"there are members of other faiths in the school and we do not wish to upset them." There is some element of political correctness here. They have not learned of the fatal consequences of the imposition of multiculturalism. If the parents of children of other faiths object, let them be excused. That always happened when I was at school - a few Jews "did their own thing" elsewhere, but some Jewish students sat through our nominal Christian assembly.
A young child to whom I spoke a few years ago, knew all about Hindu, Jewish and Muslim festivals - had joined in them at school. When I asked about Christian festivals, there was uncertainty - Easter and Christmas both fall in the school holidays, and the nativity play had been replaced by some concoction which had little or nothing to do with religion.
Among the results was the revelation a large number of schools are breaking the law by failing to offer a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian character, and thousands of children were no longer exposed to the Lord's Prayer, possibly the best known passage in the English language.
There is no surprise at the reason, -"there are members of other faiths in the school and we do not wish to upset them." There is some element of political correctness here. They have not learned of the fatal consequences of the imposition of multiculturalism. If the parents of children of other faiths object, let them be excused. That always happened when I was at school - a few Jews "did their own thing" elsewhere, but some Jewish students sat through our nominal Christian assembly.
A young child to whom I spoke a few years ago, knew all about Hindu, Jewish and Muslim festivals - had joined in them at school. When I asked about Christian festivals, there was uncertainty - Easter and Christmas both fall in the school holidays, and the nativity play had been replaced by some concoction which had little or nothing to do with religion.
Brave new world
Harriet Harman has given us a glimpse of her philosophy with some peculiar and worrying statements on marriage.
At the moment two parents with children are penalised in the taxation system, and would do better if they lived apart. (It is understandable that the Harman side should produce some single parents protesting about Cameron's proposals which would give a slight tax advantage to married couples, but in many ways this is merely removing the disincentive to marry and remain married.)
Should marriage be encouraged in this way?
It is obvious in Harman's brave new world there is an absence of commitment, and children may find themselves living with a succession of "parents", and Harman and parents are only concerned about parental rights. What about obligations?
Every study I have seen has come to the same conclusion, although starting from very different points. Children in families with two parents present do better in every measure of well being - social, health, intellectual, educational. A child's needs are for a mother and a father present, and their life chances are reduced with the absence of one, in general.
Of course death may rip a family apart, mother and father may find it impossible to live together and one or both may be more concerned about their own needs than those of their children. The fact remains, regrettably, that all statistical studies show that where both persons are present and caring for a child, the child will be better off for that.
In a situation where many of our problems in society can be traced back to dysfunctional families, I applaud Cameron for offering a small inducement to persuade parents to stay together for the good of the children. The present situation penalises married parents and sends out an unfortunate message.
At the moment two parents with children are penalised in the taxation system, and would do better if they lived apart. (It is understandable that the Harman side should produce some single parents protesting about Cameron's proposals which would give a slight tax advantage to married couples, but in many ways this is merely removing the disincentive to marry and remain married.)
Should marriage be encouraged in this way?
It is obvious in Harman's brave new world there is an absence of commitment, and children may find themselves living with a succession of "parents", and Harman and parents are only concerned about parental rights. What about obligations?
Every study I have seen has come to the same conclusion, although starting from very different points. Children in families with two parents present do better in every measure of well being - social, health, intellectual, educational. A child's needs are for a mother and a father present, and their life chances are reduced with the absence of one, in general.
Of course death may rip a family apart, mother and father may find it impossible to live together and one or both may be more concerned about their own needs than those of their children. The fact remains, regrettably, that all statistical studies show that where both persons are present and caring for a child, the child will be better off for that.
In a situation where many of our problems in society can be traced back to dysfunctional families, I applaud Cameron for offering a small inducement to persuade parents to stay together for the good of the children. The present situation penalises married parents and sends out an unfortunate message.
"You dirty young nan"
We are familiar with the idea of lecherous old men in dirty macs lusting after younger women, and even over children. The safeguarding legislation, which involves a check by the CRB on previous paedophile or other deviant sexual practices, is designed to protect the young from these people.
We learn now, however, that check s are being made on teenagers, even if they are merely helping younger children at school or with sporting events. Each year about 125,000 teenagers are now being CRB checked, even those who live with parents who are childminders. The number investigated is rising year by year.
In some ways I approve. At least the (useless?) law is applying equally to all, regardless of age.
The whole thing is actually tying us all up, treating us as potential criminals and discouraging us from volunteering. It is wasteful, likely to have errors and clearly fails from time to time. It is true that it is dangerous when an unhealthy contact takes place indoors and unseen, but surely as children have been told not to accept lifts or sweets from strangers, etc., the better approach would be to teach them not to go out of sight with strangers?
As it is, we have a hugely expensive bureaucratic and insensitive process. Would it not be more sensible to put the onus on the owner of the building - church, club, house, to be responsible, with a stiff penalty for failure to supervise? At least let the CRB issue a time-limited certificate, to be used on change of job or across several jobs, rather than requiring a new check for every change or addition.
We learn now, however, that check s are being made on teenagers, even if they are merely helping younger children at school or with sporting events. Each year about 125,000 teenagers are now being CRB checked, even those who live with parents who are childminders. The number investigated is rising year by year.
In some ways I approve. At least the (useless?) law is applying equally to all, regardless of age.
The whole thing is actually tying us all up, treating us as potential criminals and discouraging us from volunteering. It is wasteful, likely to have errors and clearly fails from time to time. It is true that it is dangerous when an unhealthy contact takes place indoors and unseen, but surely as children have been told not to accept lifts or sweets from strangers, etc., the better approach would be to teach them not to go out of sight with strangers?
As it is, we have a hugely expensive bureaucratic and insensitive process. Would it not be more sensible to put the onus on the owner of the building - church, club, house, to be responsible, with a stiff penalty for failure to supervise? At least let the CRB issue a time-limited certificate, to be used on change of job or across several jobs, rather than requiring a new check for every change or addition.
Monday, 7 December 2009
the standard contraceptive?
It was said fairly recently that abortion is becoming a new contraceptive.
From figures released by the Department of Health recently, it seems that with the number of "repeat" abortions it is becoming the standard contraceptive for some.
In 2008 there were 5,218 repeat abortions among girls under 20 in England and a further 15,029 among those aged 20 -24. In the teenage group about 12% were second or further abortions. The total number of abortions in the UK in 2007 was 220,000, which makes us the most abortion indulgent country in Europe, having overtaken France with 210,000.
Also in 2008 65,000 women who had already had an abortion went through a second, third or further abortion, which is more than one third of all women having an abortion in 2008. (In London there is one repeat abortion for every 11 conceptions.)
This despite available advice, a range of contraceptives and increased sex education in schools. (In 2008 there were 40,000 under-18 conceptions).
Apart from the long-term effects there may be from easy sex or from abortion, which can lead to mental problems, there are other concerns.
There is a very large drain on the resources of the NHS, which ought to be used elsewhere rather than on this "self-inflicted" problem.
There seems to be a perverse correlation - the more contraceptive availability, the greater the number of abortions.
Routine abortion on demand seems to make girls less careful. This may explain why AIDS seemed to be making something of a resurgence recently.
From figures released by the Department of Health recently, it seems that with the number of "repeat" abortions it is becoming the standard contraceptive for some.
In 2008 there were 5,218 repeat abortions among girls under 20 in England and a further 15,029 among those aged 20 -24. In the teenage group about 12% were second or further abortions. The total number of abortions in the UK in 2007 was 220,000, which makes us the most abortion indulgent country in Europe, having overtaken France with 210,000.
Also in 2008 65,000 women who had already had an abortion went through a second, third or further abortion, which is more than one third of all women having an abortion in 2008. (In London there is one repeat abortion for every 11 conceptions.)
This despite available advice, a range of contraceptives and increased sex education in schools. (In 2008 there were 40,000 under-18 conceptions).
Apart from the long-term effects there may be from easy sex or from abortion, which can lead to mental problems, there are other concerns.
There is a very large drain on the resources of the NHS, which ought to be used elsewhere rather than on this "self-inflicted" problem.
There seems to be a perverse correlation - the more contraceptive availability, the greater the number of abortions.
Routine abortion on demand seems to make girls less careful. This may explain why AIDS seemed to be making something of a resurgence recently.
There may be more agreement
There may be more agreement between Messrs. Darling and Osborne than we suspected, it seems.
Without making any suggestion as to who copied whom, I have noticed that recently both of them have said that the main way to reduce the deficit and promote recovery is by way of economic growth. They both insist on cuts in wasteful spending within the public sector, in addition.
There the similarity ends, I suspect, with Darling going for higher taxes especially and Osborne going for reduced government expenditure.
I think that they both agree that it will be impossible to cover the present level of budget deficits by either taxation alone (say 40 pence in the pound on standard rate) or by cutting government expenditure (say a 20% reduction - the entire defence and education budgets together, say.)
So if growth is the way, there will be higher employment ( - only slowly, as it is an lagging indicator, and increase much more slowly than output), higher incomes, profits and spending, and therefor higher taxes.
The question is how to boost the economy without putting still further cash into it by the government. (our creditors are becoming restless and bodies like the IMF and OECD concerned. Here the Tories are surely right, backed up by many in the city, the best way is to reduce company taxation (which may require higher taxes elsewhere initially), make investment borrowing for businesses easier, and rapidly reduce the throttling red tape.
Without making any suggestion as to who copied whom, I have noticed that recently both of them have said that the main way to reduce the deficit and promote recovery is by way of economic growth. They both insist on cuts in wasteful spending within the public sector, in addition.
There the similarity ends, I suspect, with Darling going for higher taxes especially and Osborne going for reduced government expenditure.
I think that they both agree that it will be impossible to cover the present level of budget deficits by either taxation alone (say 40 pence in the pound on standard rate) or by cutting government expenditure (say a 20% reduction - the entire defence and education budgets together, say.)
So if growth is the way, there will be higher employment ( - only slowly, as it is an lagging indicator, and increase much more slowly than output), higher incomes, profits and spending, and therefor higher taxes.
The question is how to boost the economy without putting still further cash into it by the government. (our creditors are becoming restless and bodies like the IMF and OECD concerned. Here the Tories are surely right, backed up by many in the city, the best way is to reduce company taxation (which may require higher taxes elsewhere initially), make investment borrowing for businesses easier, and rapidly reduce the throttling red tape.
Beware slogans
We shall have the pre-budget report election campaign this week. Does anyone doubt that, as G.Brown has virtually dictated it, it will have little realistically to solve our economic problems and everything to try to gain an electoral advantage over the Tories? I write this not as a protesting opponent, as all governments use their final months with promises to do better and certainly better than the other shower!
Instead I write about the slogans dressed up as policies which, it seems, we are to have. Saving painless millions, if not billions, with un-detailed worthwhile elimination of waste, taxing the few undeserving high paid, passing a law to achieve something, pretending that things are not so bad as all the experts say.
One of the worst things about NuLabour, or are we back to OldLabour now, is to pretend that merely talking about something achieves immediate and effortless success. Thus education was to be the objective and yet despite all the money lavished, results with dumbed-down exams are no better and in many cases are worse. Child poverty was to be eradicated by 2010, and yet even before the recession the numbers had fallen by only 10%.
Perhaps of all the slogans the one which seems the most cynical was the sentence in the Queen's Speech, when her majesty was required to read out, "The government are going to work to build trust in democratic institutions."
Parliament has been emasculated by the executive, the executive in turn by the prime minster and cronies. We were plunged into a new European"State" without a vote, and we are under the power of well over 1,000 unelected quangos who make decisions which are unchallengeable and on bases known only to the government its master.
The government clearly does not listen or understand, or it would realise that holding a few cabinet meetings at great expense in a few provincial centres does not "build trust in democratic institutions.
Instead I write about the slogans dressed up as policies which, it seems, we are to have. Saving painless millions, if not billions, with un-detailed worthwhile elimination of waste, taxing the few undeserving high paid, passing a law to achieve something, pretending that things are not so bad as all the experts say.
One of the worst things about NuLabour, or are we back to OldLabour now, is to pretend that merely talking about something achieves immediate and effortless success. Thus education was to be the objective and yet despite all the money lavished, results with dumbed-down exams are no better and in many cases are worse. Child poverty was to be eradicated by 2010, and yet even before the recession the numbers had fallen by only 10%.
Perhaps of all the slogans the one which seems the most cynical was the sentence in the Queen's Speech, when her majesty was required to read out, "The government are going to work to build trust in democratic institutions."
Parliament has been emasculated by the executive, the executive in turn by the prime minster and cronies. We were plunged into a new European"State" without a vote, and we are under the power of well over 1,000 unelected quangos who make decisions which are unchallengeable and on bases known only to the government its master.
The government clearly does not listen or understand, or it would realise that holding a few cabinet meetings at great expense in a few provincial centres does not "build trust in democratic institutions.
...all done by mirrors
The Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday on the work of Mr. Rodger Patrick, later Dr.Patrick? The retired West Midlands police chief inspector submitted his work towards a PhD.
The part reported by the paper concerns techniques used by the police, with tacit approval by senior officers, police watchdogs and the Home Office, which are designed to pretend that fewer crimes are being committed and that a higher proportion are being solved.
The whole broad area of deceits is called "gaming" and includes charging when there is insufficient evidence, knowing that the prosecutors will not proceed, although the crime seems to have been solved (-known as stitching), ending reports as being false or with downgraded level of seriousness (- cuffing), concentrating on easier to solve crimes to increase detection rates (-skewing), or persuading convicted criminals to admit to crimes they have not committed (-nodding).
Most of us have heard instances of these, or suggestions, and most of them are almost inevitable conclusions of the target driven culture in which the police operate. It seems that when police forces are attacked on one of these practices, there is a rapid rise in other categories, which suggests that the practices are widespread within and among forces.
So we have a government driving the police force by targets, and then wallowing proudly in the supposed crime reductions produced by such practices. (Did nobody dare to tell them what has been going on, or was it that they just did not want to know?)
The part reported by the paper concerns techniques used by the police, with tacit approval by senior officers, police watchdogs and the Home Office, which are designed to pretend that fewer crimes are being committed and that a higher proportion are being solved.
The whole broad area of deceits is called "gaming" and includes charging when there is insufficient evidence, knowing that the prosecutors will not proceed, although the crime seems to have been solved (-known as stitching), ending reports as being false or with downgraded level of seriousness (- cuffing), concentrating on easier to solve crimes to increase detection rates (-skewing), or persuading convicted criminals to admit to crimes they have not committed (-nodding).
Most of us have heard instances of these, or suggestions, and most of them are almost inevitable conclusions of the target driven culture in which the police operate. It seems that when police forces are attacked on one of these practices, there is a rapid rise in other categories, which suggests that the practices are widespread within and among forces.
So we have a government driving the police force by targets, and then wallowing proudly in the supposed crime reductions produced by such practices. (Did nobody dare to tell them what has been going on, or was it that they just did not want to know?)
Any colour as long as it's black
Henry Ford was said that people could buy his cars in any colour, so long as it was black.
I recently saw someone with a "repro" telephone, - a massive black ones, heavy and the same design over a period of years.
We tend to forget the "Post Office Telephone" years when it could take a year f0r the installation of a telephone, and while you were not restricted entirely over colour there was limitation in design for domestic phones. There were no answer-phones, although they had them in America for many years earlier.
Then came BT, etc, and many other companies, followed by a revolution, and so much choice!
This illustrates the difficulty of a one-size-fits-all nationalised supplier. In socialist countries it was true of virtually all goods and services. You could have any colour and design, so long as you had what the state had chosen.
Worse, when something is politically and bureaucratically supplied change and development is resisted as a threat. (In the end in Russia all technology except war technology lagged behind the west because change was resisted as unsettling to bureaucrats. Only in the special shops for party members could you have choice of modern {western} goods.)
There are some who criticise consumer choice, and feel that we should all wear Chairman Mao jackets, despite the fact that it puts power in the wrong place - the producer rather than the consumer. Choice is one element of democracy, even if buyers spend their money "unwisely" as judged by the superior.
I recently saw someone with a "repro" telephone, - a massive black ones, heavy and the same design over a period of years.
We tend to forget the "Post Office Telephone" years when it could take a year f0r the installation of a telephone, and while you were not restricted entirely over colour there was limitation in design for domestic phones. There were no answer-phones, although they had them in America for many years earlier.
Then came BT, etc, and many other companies, followed by a revolution, and so much choice!
This illustrates the difficulty of a one-size-fits-all nationalised supplier. In socialist countries it was true of virtually all goods and services. You could have any colour and design, so long as you had what the state had chosen.
Worse, when something is politically and bureaucratically supplied change and development is resisted as a threat. (In the end in Russia all technology except war technology lagged behind the west because change was resisted as unsettling to bureaucrats. Only in the special shops for party members could you have choice of modern {western} goods.)
There are some who criticise consumer choice, and feel that we should all wear Chairman Mao jackets, despite the fact that it puts power in the wrong place - the producer rather than the consumer. Choice is one element of democracy, even if buyers spend their money "unwisely" as judged by the superior.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
What else have we yet to learn?
The Wall Street Journal, and here Iain Martin (blog 4.12.09), noticed in a recent National Audit Office report on bank bail-out some very interesting words.
The report announced that "The authorities had been aware since 2005 that the existing legislative framework would not be sufficient in a crisis. Following further work in 2006 and 2007, and reflecting lessons from Northern Rock, they decided that a special resolution regime should be developed. The Banking (Special Provisions) Act become law in February 2008 and gave the Treasury power to take a bank or building Society into temporary public ownership, or transfer all, or part of its business to another owner."
So after 8 years the famous Brownian re-organisation of banking supervision of 1997 was known to be inadequate.
This was put right by a law of February 2008, just in time for the Treasury and FSA to give RBS a clean bill of health in the autumn of 2008, weeks before the true horrendous state of RBS became apparent.
So it's back to the drawing board yet again? With the EU, and French Commissioner, taking a hand as well?
The report announced that "The authorities had been aware since 2005 that the existing legislative framework would not be sufficient in a crisis. Following further work in 2006 and 2007, and reflecting lessons from Northern Rock, they decided that a special resolution regime should be developed. The Banking (Special Provisions) Act become law in February 2008 and gave the Treasury power to take a bank or building Society into temporary public ownership, or transfer all, or part of its business to another owner."
So after 8 years the famous Brownian re-organisation of banking supervision of 1997 was known to be inadequate.
This was put right by a law of February 2008, just in time for the Treasury and FSA to give RBS a clean bill of health in the autumn of 2008, weeks before the true horrendous state of RBS became apparent.
So it's back to the drawing board yet again? With the EU, and French Commissioner, taking a hand as well?
Saturday, 5 December 2009
What is the purpose of education?
I would have thought that the answer to my question is obvious. Education is to help prepare young people for adult life, intellectually, emotionally, socially and physically.
One of the problems faced by modern teachers is that our system has to provide for many of these without much help from families, or from the educational ideology of many in control.
So, for instance, competitive sport has been ruled out because the very word "competitive" indicates something that is unacceptable. It has not been helped by the sale of many playing fields, to subsidise education, a sale which continues despite government promises.
Family failure, whether from parents too busy or from family breakdown, means that in many cases there is little help or encouragement for personal development, - reading, writing or potty training. We are told that children arrive at school aged five still wearing nappies, with no knowledge of language/communication. Discipline within families has broken down, and parents have no control of their children, which leads to discipline problems at school. Families do not eat together, and children often eat in front of the TV. Families increasingly do very little together.
Children arrive at school with little expectation, and often because their parents and grandparents are without expectation. If middle class families succeed more often, it is not because they are better people but rather because they have a greater long-term vision of what is possible.
Recently it was announced that there are to be lessons in school to encourage children not to inflict violence on women and girls (are men not subject?). As someone suggested, "Why not add lessons on theft, terrorising the elderly or damaging other people's property"? All this on top of lessons on "use of money", citizenship, sex, personal hygiene, environment, etc. In fact, whenever there is a new social issue or problem the immediate reaction is to add it to the curriculum.
The simple emphasis on the "three Rs" is fighting against all sorts of societal problems which are the result of factors outside school, and in many cases are the consequences of ill thought-out policies.
One of the problems faced by modern teachers is that our system has to provide for many of these without much help from families, or from the educational ideology of many in control.
So, for instance, competitive sport has been ruled out because the very word "competitive" indicates something that is unacceptable. It has not been helped by the sale of many playing fields, to subsidise education, a sale which continues despite government promises.
Family failure, whether from parents too busy or from family breakdown, means that in many cases there is little help or encouragement for personal development, - reading, writing or potty training. We are told that children arrive at school aged five still wearing nappies, with no knowledge of language/communication. Discipline within families has broken down, and parents have no control of their children, which leads to discipline problems at school. Families do not eat together, and children often eat in front of the TV. Families increasingly do very little together.
Children arrive at school with little expectation, and often because their parents and grandparents are without expectation. If middle class families succeed more often, it is not because they are better people but rather because they have a greater long-term vision of what is possible.
Recently it was announced that there are to be lessons in school to encourage children not to inflict violence on women and girls (are men not subject?). As someone suggested, "Why not add lessons on theft, terrorising the elderly or damaging other people's property"? All this on top of lessons on "use of money", citizenship, sex, personal hygiene, environment, etc. In fact, whenever there is a new social issue or problem the immediate reaction is to add it to the curriculum.
The simple emphasis on the "three Rs" is fighting against all sorts of societal problems which are the result of factors outside school, and in many cases are the consequences of ill thought-out policies.
No, we want something less demanding.
Parkside Federation, a network of two state secondary schools in Cambridge, have been told by the Department for Children, etc, that their pupils must not be allowed to sit the International GCSE science exam. As the course was on a list of approved courses drawn up by Ofqual, the examinations regulator, the schools duly began classes on this basis in 2008. Everyone expected accreditation by the government. The IGCSE is modelled on the old GCE O-level and is approved by many of private schools, but is approved only for languages and history in state schools.
Now, well into the autumn term of the second and final year, the government has banned the course, effectively overruling its own regulator! It may not do too much harm to the students already preparing for the exam, as the domestic equivalent is generally regarded as a much less demanding course. In the long run the students may suffer, because they will have received an inferior preparation for A level science study and have a less acceptable qualification when they come to apply for university.
So why have Balls & Co taken this step?
1) Is it because there is no coursework assessment, unlike the domestic version, but merely a final exam? This is a recognition that some students find it more difficult to deal with a final exam, or alternatively that some receive outside help in coursework, or even that hard work should count in addition to final exam. The change might have penalised those with less understanding who would have succeeded by sheer hard work, but it would have given a greater chance of sorting out those with greater understanding from those with less. The IGCSE is more demanding and would reveal a greater range of ability.
2) Is it part of the equality ideology? This seeks to reduce the difference in attainment in order that all may pass. This ridiculous philosophy has already resulted in grade A and then A*, and who knows how soon it will need A**?
3) Is there a fear that the inadequacies of the domestic system will become further exposed?
What reason do Balls & Co give? They say that the IGCSE in compulsory subjects, English and Maths and Science, "does not meet the requirements of the curriculum." These requirements, I suspect, are ideological rather than educational.
Now, well into the autumn term of the second and final year, the government has banned the course, effectively overruling its own regulator! It may not do too much harm to the students already preparing for the exam, as the domestic equivalent is generally regarded as a much less demanding course. In the long run the students may suffer, because they will have received an inferior preparation for A level science study and have a less acceptable qualification when they come to apply for university.
So why have Balls & Co taken this step?
1) Is it because there is no coursework assessment, unlike the domestic version, but merely a final exam? This is a recognition that some students find it more difficult to deal with a final exam, or alternatively that some receive outside help in coursework, or even that hard work should count in addition to final exam. The change might have penalised those with less understanding who would have succeeded by sheer hard work, but it would have given a greater chance of sorting out those with greater understanding from those with less. The IGCSE is more demanding and would reveal a greater range of ability.
2) Is it part of the equality ideology? This seeks to reduce the difference in attainment in order that all may pass. This ridiculous philosophy has already resulted in grade A and then A*, and who knows how soon it will need A**?
3) Is there a fear that the inadequacies of the domestic system will become further exposed?
What reason do Balls & Co give? They say that the IGCSE in compulsory subjects, English and Maths and Science, "does not meet the requirements of the curriculum." These requirements, I suspect, are ideological rather than educational.
Friday, 4 December 2009
The elderly
The Care Quality Commission (another quango) estimates that about 4,000, or about one in six, care homes, are providing sub-standard care for elderly people. About 80,000 old folks are in these homes.
This becoming a political hot potato, especially as elderly people struggle to look after relatives in their own homes, because they cannot afford the fees charged by care homes.
The problem, which will not go away, is the result of at least three factors.
1) We are all living longer, but many are living longer with poor mobility and other health problems. The elderly are big consumers of health and care provision.
2) We contributed through our lifetime via our national insurance, in the belief that it would cover us "from cradle to grave". The problem is that national insurance contributions were not invested or funded, very often used to care for those who had worked before national insurance was started and thus had not contributed, and very often just lumped together with all other taxes for government purposes.
3) Residential care is expensive, and should be even more so if carers were paid a decent wage for all they do.
So we have a growing elderly population supported by those who work or pay tax.
The response of Mr. Brown is to say some may have free care, others will have to pay, and as it is very expensive he will offer the cheaper domiciliary provision, - something vastly inferior.
The Tories have suggested a lump sum payment by people on retirement of £8,000, which will ensure that they will not have to pay or lose their house when they eventually need care. If this is not funded, but is merely used for those already beyond 65, then the problem is not resolved.
Somehow, we have to get back to Beveridge, with a Beveridge mark two. Contributions over a lifetime should provide a fund for residential care when it arises. This does little to help the millions of people already near to or already in retirement.
This becoming a political hot potato, especially as elderly people struggle to look after relatives in their own homes, because they cannot afford the fees charged by care homes.
The problem, which will not go away, is the result of at least three factors.
1) We are all living longer, but many are living longer with poor mobility and other health problems. The elderly are big consumers of health and care provision.
2) We contributed through our lifetime via our national insurance, in the belief that it would cover us "from cradle to grave". The problem is that national insurance contributions were not invested or funded, very often used to care for those who had worked before national insurance was started and thus had not contributed, and very often just lumped together with all other taxes for government purposes.
3) Residential care is expensive, and should be even more so if carers were paid a decent wage for all they do.
So we have a growing elderly population supported by those who work or pay tax.
The response of Mr. Brown is to say some may have free care, others will have to pay, and as it is very expensive he will offer the cheaper domiciliary provision, - something vastly inferior.
The Tories have suggested a lump sum payment by people on retirement of £8,000, which will ensure that they will not have to pay or lose their house when they eventually need care. If this is not funded, but is merely used for those already beyond 65, then the problem is not resolved.
Somehow, we have to get back to Beveridge, with a Beveridge mark two. Contributions over a lifetime should provide a fund for residential care when it arises. This does little to help the millions of people already near to or already in retirement.
Buck-passing?
Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, has recently complained that many peoples lives are made miserable because the courts do not deal adequately with low-level offenders. Many of these offenders are serial offenders, and blighting local communities.
These offenders are not facing proper justice, he claims, a view held held by a large percentage of the population.
Could this be the police who do not turn out when such crimes are reported, and so people do not bother to report them and merely live in hell and frustration?
It may be that the courts have no sanctions. ASBOs have not worked, despite countless changes, and even community service has seen offenders fail to turn up for all stipulated sessions.
The Tory variation is to give instant punishment, such as grounding orders. They have little money, so fining offenders is pointless as they will merely turn to burglary or drug pushing to re-fill their coffers.
As I have blogged before, it is too late by the time the offenders reach 14. They have already run wild at school, where discipline is undermined by weak local government who merely send those excluded back to school, the same or another, with little other sanction. Even keeping them out of school is no punishment, since they are determined educational failures
The problem has to be tackled much earlier at primary level, where early failure receives remedial inputs, or even in the family!
These offenders are not facing proper justice, he claims, a view held held by a large percentage of the population.
Could this be the police who do not turn out when such crimes are reported, and so people do not bother to report them and merely live in hell and frustration?
It may be that the courts have no sanctions. ASBOs have not worked, despite countless changes, and even community service has seen offenders fail to turn up for all stipulated sessions.
The Tory variation is to give instant punishment, such as grounding orders. They have little money, so fining offenders is pointless as they will merely turn to burglary or drug pushing to re-fill their coffers.
As I have blogged before, it is too late by the time the offenders reach 14. They have already run wild at school, where discipline is undermined by weak local government who merely send those excluded back to school, the same or another, with little other sanction. Even keeping them out of school is no punishment, since they are determined educational failures
The problem has to be tackled much earlier at primary level, where early failure receives remedial inputs, or even in the family!
Is this really believable?
A recent National Audit Office report has uncovered hidden notes, minutes and reports which have lain undiscovered in the Treasury.
Among other things, two worries emerge:
1) We, the public have extended much more credit to the banking system than we had thought. The NAO estimates something like £850 billion. It is to be hoped that much of this will return when the banks are "back to normality", but some may well be lost. It emphasises why Brown was pushing hard for LloydsTSB to take over the failing HBOS. If there had not been a merger, the consequences could have been catastrophic, and not just for jobs in Scotland.
2) The FSA and the Treasury gave the Royal Bank of Scotland a clean bill of health in October, just days before it nearly went bust. This is amazing. It shows that the tri-partite system, which Brown wants to empower still more greatly, had broken down. In due course we may find out what the Bank of England knew and thought at the time.
As we may well survive the risk of point one, the real horror is in point two. BOS seemingly expanded loans to 50 times available bank deposits, and like Northern Rock the bank was relying on short term borrowing.
If the regulators, the Treasury and the FSA, did not know this, they were incompetent. If they did know it their inaction and good bill of health is bordering on the criminal.
Among other things, two worries emerge:
1) We, the public have extended much more credit to the banking system than we had thought. The NAO estimates something like £850 billion. It is to be hoped that much of this will return when the banks are "back to normality", but some may well be lost. It emphasises why Brown was pushing hard for LloydsTSB to take over the failing HBOS. If there had not been a merger, the consequences could have been catastrophic, and not just for jobs in Scotland.
2) The FSA and the Treasury gave the Royal Bank of Scotland a clean bill of health in October, just days before it nearly went bust. This is amazing. It shows that the tri-partite system, which Brown wants to empower still more greatly, had broken down. In due course we may find out what the Bank of England knew and thought at the time.
As we may well survive the risk of point one, the real horror is in point two. BOS seemingly expanded loans to 50 times available bank deposits, and like Northern Rock the bank was relying on short term borrowing.
If the regulators, the Treasury and the FSA, did not know this, they were incompetent. If they did know it their inaction and good bill of health is bordering on the criminal.
Could it be?
"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)
Von Mises seems to have a word for us. There is no way of avoiding some pain over the next few years, - it's a bit like indigestion after eating an over-large meal.
G.Brown has obviously not read von Mises, or feels that he knows better than him and a growing number of economists. They all fear what will happen if Brown tries to carry out his programme of spending in the present conditions. What is worse is that potential creditors are also looking on, and wondering whether to take out their money and whether to invest further in an over-expanded public sector commitment in the UK.
Brown cannot plunge us into further public debt, or von Mises will haunt us for years to come.At the moment, we wait to see if Darling has won any sort of victory over Brown, and offer plans to reduce the accumulated deficits reasonably quickly.
Of course, Brown's promises could be mere window dressing to catch a few votes. Does he ever do anything which does not have potential political advantage for him and his party?
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Come back PC Dixon, Dock Green needs you
The Times today comments on the judgement of Jan Berry, Labour's czar against red tape, on the failure of the police to be enticed out of the comforts of the police station.
It seems that, despite inducements and command, the Police are spending no more time on the beat than they were two years ago. We could have guessed this from the recent announcement of civilians actually employed as detectives!
One of them inducements was the supply of 27,000 portable hand-held computers, to enable officers to record details without having to return to base. (Some have also had helmet-mounted web cams.) It seems that there was a cock-up or mistake in the installation of the correct software. Shades of the supply of military equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan!
The latest decision from on high is to demand that the police patrol alone, instead of in pairs, and also to have centrally supplied uniforms - to save money. It seems that severe cuts are coming?
The central problem has not been removed, - health and safety application and, more especially, the top-down targets which require so many boxes to be ticked, so many forms to be filled in, so many targets to be considered. There has to be a major change in objectives and implementation, and this in turn will require fundamental reform.
It seems that, despite inducements and command, the Police are spending no more time on the beat than they were two years ago. We could have guessed this from the recent announcement of civilians actually employed as detectives!
One of them inducements was the supply of 27,000 portable hand-held computers, to enable officers to record details without having to return to base. (Some have also had helmet-mounted web cams.) It seems that there was a cock-up or mistake in the installation of the correct software. Shades of the supply of military equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan!
The latest decision from on high is to demand that the police patrol alone, instead of in pairs, and also to have centrally supplied uniforms - to save money. It seems that severe cuts are coming?
The central problem has not been removed, - health and safety application and, more especially, the top-down targets which require so many boxes to be ticked, so many forms to be filled in, so many targets to be considered. There has to be a major change in objectives and implementation, and this in turn will require fundamental reform.
the rich gets the gravy and the poor....
Today's Independent newspaper reports on a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the crusading anti-poverty think tank.
Perhaps the most salutary finding of the report is that 2004 was the year when poverty, unemployment and house repossession began to increase. This was obviously before the recession began.
The recession has made things worse. Poverty, at least as measured by one indicator, is at the same level as in 2000, with 2 million children in low-income households. Unemployment is at the highest levels since the middle 1990s, and re-possessions are at six times the level of 2004.
It is difficult to see what any government could do about these problems immediately, with the public finances in such a mess, but clearly some attempt must be made as soon as things are under control again.
Perhaps the most salutary finding of the report is that 2004 was the year when poverty, unemployment and house repossession began to increase. This was obviously before the recession began.
The recession has made things worse. Poverty, at least as measured by one indicator, is at the same level as in 2000, with 2 million children in low-income households. Unemployment is at the highest levels since the middle 1990s, and re-possessions are at six times the level of 2004.
It is difficult to see what any government could do about these problems immediately, with the public finances in such a mess, but clearly some attempt must be made as soon as things are under control again.
Re-balancing....
The Financial Times today has an article by their Economics Editor on the significance of manufacturing in the UK economy. This was based on data at the Office for National Statistics.
The main point is that during the 12 years of NuLabour the share of national output due to manufacturing has fallen from 20% to 12.4% (During the recent recession manufacturing has fallen still further , to 11%.) We may still be a major manufacturing country, but it is accounting for a smaller and smaller proportion of GDP.
There was a dip during the Thatcher years, from about 25%, which was derided as something very bad by the then Labour opposition.
There has been a decline in manufacturing in many other advanced economies, although Germany and the USA have not seen such a rapid fall. There is something almost "natural" about this. Developing countries, often with an exchange rate advantage, have lower (labour) costs and often poorer working conditions than would be tolerated here.
The result has been the loss of production overseas - either by close-down here or by using overseas production facilities.
If there is a balancing, as other international marketable goods or services are provided here in place of "metal bashing and assembly", this need not be a concern. Switzerland has been very successful without much heavy industry.
One cause for concern here is that the expanding sectors here are local banking, health and education. There is a limited potential for exporting these.
Does the economy need need re-balancing then? Yes, but it will not happen in the present regime of company taxation and regulation. Setting up new manufacturing capacity is expensive, and needs to have the government on side.
The main point is that during the 12 years of NuLabour the share of national output due to manufacturing has fallen from 20% to 12.4% (During the recent recession manufacturing has fallen still further , to 11%.) We may still be a major manufacturing country, but it is accounting for a smaller and smaller proportion of GDP.
There was a dip during the Thatcher years, from about 25%, which was derided as something very bad by the then Labour opposition.
There has been a decline in manufacturing in many other advanced economies, although Germany and the USA have not seen such a rapid fall. There is something almost "natural" about this. Developing countries, often with an exchange rate advantage, have lower (labour) costs and often poorer working conditions than would be tolerated here.
The result has been the loss of production overseas - either by close-down here or by using overseas production facilities.
If there is a balancing, as other international marketable goods or services are provided here in place of "metal bashing and assembly", this need not be a concern. Switzerland has been very successful without much heavy industry.
One cause for concern here is that the expanding sectors here are local banking, health and education. There is a limited potential for exporting these.
Does the economy need need re-balancing then? Yes, but it will not happen in the present regime of company taxation and regulation. Setting up new manufacturing capacity is expensive, and needs to have the government on side.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Education spending and progress
The spending is clear - it has risen from £35.3 billion to £63.9 billion under Labour, - a near doubling in 12 years.
Has there been progress? Yes, in terms of buildings. Many fine buildings have been erected.
Has there been an improvement otherwise? Doubtful.
The office for National Statistics has concluded that that is inputs per output, between 2000 and 2008 productivity,has actually declined by 7.5%. (A similar result has been noticed in health spending.) Productivity now is about what it was in 1996.)
The suspicion is that productivity has not risen because there has been no real reform.
What of results, this should really be the yardstick?
In achievement, there has been an increase of one extra GCSE subject grade C pass per pupil every five years. This has to be admitted.(There are questions among many people as to whether standards have been reduced.)
Against this it must be recorded that for many students the situation has worsened. Standards in English and Maths are falling in more than half of primary schools. Forty per cent will leave primary school with inadequate grounding in the three Rs. The number achieving the the government declared level of competence has actually fallen by a fifth. To judge by comments made by employers the situation does not improve by when students leave school.
Clearly education is failing, and merely pumping money in is not sufficient in itself!
The question is whether the opposite is true, that reduced spending could drive up standards? To judge by the political parties recent statements, education will not be spared from cuts in public spending.
One significant development could be the adoption of the educational reforms advocated by Michael Gove. Could new schools set up and run outside local council control either drive up standards or reduce costs, or both?
The answer is "yes" to both questions.
I included a message earlier that education spending per student is roughly the same in public and private sectors, but the amount actually spent on each student is higher in the private sector, who do not have the massive bureaucracy locally and nationally which has to be funded.
In outcomes the private sector are generally better, with more passes and better grades. This is not unconnected with the last paragraph.
Has there been progress? Yes, in terms of buildings. Many fine buildings have been erected.
Has there been an improvement otherwise? Doubtful.
The office for National Statistics has concluded that that is inputs per output, between 2000 and 2008 productivity,has actually declined by 7.5%. (A similar result has been noticed in health spending.) Productivity now is about what it was in 1996.)
The suspicion is that productivity has not risen because there has been no real reform.
What of results, this should really be the yardstick?
In achievement, there has been an increase of one extra GCSE subject grade C pass per pupil every five years. This has to be admitted.(There are questions among many people as to whether standards have been reduced.)
Against this it must be recorded that for many students the situation has worsened. Standards in English and Maths are falling in more than half of primary schools. Forty per cent will leave primary school with inadequate grounding in the three Rs. The number achieving the the government declared level of competence has actually fallen by a fifth. To judge by comments made by employers the situation does not improve by when students leave school.
Clearly education is failing, and merely pumping money in is not sufficient in itself!
The question is whether the opposite is true, that reduced spending could drive up standards? To judge by the political parties recent statements, education will not be spared from cuts in public spending.
One significant development could be the adoption of the educational reforms advocated by Michael Gove. Could new schools set up and run outside local council control either drive up standards or reduce costs, or both?
The answer is "yes" to both questions.
I included a message earlier that education spending per student is roughly the same in public and private sectors, but the amount actually spent on each student is higher in the private sector, who do not have the massive bureaucracy locally and nationally which has to be funded.
In outcomes the private sector are generally better, with more passes and better grades. This is not unconnected with the last paragraph.
The forbidden and dnagerous subject.
Migration Watch is a self-funded organisation which seeks to provide figures on immigration which the government cannot or will not provide.
What is emerging is that in 2008 there was a net immigration into the UK in excess of 150,000. This figure is a net one, that is new immigration less outward migration, or emigration. There were probably half a million immigrants, and about 350,000 people leaving, leaving to new countries or returning to old ones.
Many of those leaving were doing so because of lack of jobs and opportunities here, that is people of working age with drive and ambition. The economic status of those arriving we do not know.
Conclusions:
At a rate of 150,000 we shall reach the figure of 70 million inhabitants in about 20 years, including the natural growth by procreation while they are here. The 70 million is arguably too high, given the natural resources of the country and the pressures imposed by attempts to reduce global warming.
If the government is unable to limit the level of immigration, as appears the case, then if outward migration diminishes with economic recovery we could reach the 70 million even sooner. Global warming is a problem we are permitted to mention, a rapidly rising population and demand on resources is something dangerous to mention without inviting accusations of racism, but whatever gags there are the problem will not go away.
What is emerging is that in 2008 there was a net immigration into the UK in excess of 150,000. This figure is a net one, that is new immigration less outward migration, or emigration. There were probably half a million immigrants, and about 350,000 people leaving, leaving to new countries or returning to old ones.
Many of those leaving were doing so because of lack of jobs and opportunities here, that is people of working age with drive and ambition. The economic status of those arriving we do not know.
Conclusions:
At a rate of 150,000 we shall reach the figure of 70 million inhabitants in about 20 years, including the natural growth by procreation while they are here. The 70 million is arguably too high, given the natural resources of the country and the pressures imposed by attempts to reduce global warming.
If the government is unable to limit the level of immigration, as appears the case, then if outward migration diminishes with economic recovery we could reach the 70 million even sooner. Global warming is a problem we are permitted to mention, a rapidly rising population and demand on resources is something dangerous to mention without inviting accusations of racism, but whatever gags there are the problem will not go away.
Why do they do it?
Why do lefties like to downplay or rewrite history?
Christopher Booker, in his weekly article in the Sunday Telegraph ten days ago , pointed out that Ed Balls, Secretary for Children etc. has a plan to subsume the teaching of history and geography into the study of social themes. The subjects will thus lose much of their integrity in these "general studies" bundles.
In doing this he is following the trend among "progressives"for half a century.
Why do they do this?
1) They can eliminate anything which does not suit their cause, and provide opposition to the promulgation of progressive views. Failures in socialism or progressivism may be avoided.
2) They control the agenda, not the passing of the centuries. (I remember speaking to a history teacher, who admitted that what he was teaching was really "sociology, illustrated by history".) The problem , of course, is that we shall have adults in the future who do not really know who they are, historically speaking. They will have been indoctrinated in the class struggle, environment, the evil of capitalism, collective action and modern government.
They can even re-write history, as Russia is doing in restoring Stalin to favour, or as the EU is doing to the glorious history of the Union. If there are fewer people and writings to challenge the official line, the establishment is more comfortable.
Christopher Booker, in his weekly article in the Sunday Telegraph ten days ago , pointed out that Ed Balls, Secretary for Children etc. has a plan to subsume the teaching of history and geography into the study of social themes. The subjects will thus lose much of their integrity in these "general studies" bundles.
In doing this he is following the trend among "progressives"for half a century.
Why do they do this?
1) They can eliminate anything which does not suit their cause, and provide opposition to the promulgation of progressive views. Failures in socialism or progressivism may be avoided.
2) They control the agenda, not the passing of the centuries. (I remember speaking to a history teacher, who admitted that what he was teaching was really "sociology, illustrated by history".) The problem , of course, is that we shall have adults in the future who do not really know who they are, historically speaking. They will have been indoctrinated in the class struggle, environment, the evil of capitalism, collective action and modern government.
They can even re-write history, as Russia is doing in restoring Stalin to favour, or as the EU is doing to the glorious history of the Union. If there are fewer people and writings to challenge the official line, the establishment is more comfortable.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Boys = education failures?
A report by the think tank "Centre for Policy Studies" has recently suggested that the educational system is consigning boys from the poorest white British and black Caribbean backgrounds to a "lifetime of crime, drugs and prison". Among poor white boys, as shown by the take-up of free-school meals - a usual indicator of deprivation, less than half started secondary school with an adequate foundation in English and Maths. (This compares with 72% for all students).
We had accepted that boys are less committed to study than girls, that they prefer sport and computer games, and so on.
The Report suggests other reasons:
1) Some schools continued with a stubborn refusal to adopt teaching with synthetic phonics. (This despite earlier findings that pupils who had been taught by synthetic phonics were likely to be three years ahead in reading and writing!)
2) Many teachers showed an ideological refusal to enforce discipline, and students ran wild. This should not be downplayed. The categories of boys under discussion often suffer from a lack of discipline at home, so the relaxed attitude at school is not the best thing for them.
3) There was a lack of competitive sport, perhaps from a shortage of male teachers to organise it.
OFSTED do not escape criticism, with what the author sees as a preoccupation with healthy eating and citizenship.
We had accepted that boys are less committed to study than girls, that they prefer sport and computer games, and so on.
The Report suggests other reasons:
1) Some schools continued with a stubborn refusal to adopt teaching with synthetic phonics. (This despite earlier findings that pupils who had been taught by synthetic phonics were likely to be three years ahead in reading and writing!)
2) Many teachers showed an ideological refusal to enforce discipline, and students ran wild. This should not be downplayed. The categories of boys under discussion often suffer from a lack of discipline at home, so the relaxed attitude at school is not the best thing for them.
3) There was a lack of competitive sport, perhaps from a shortage of male teachers to organise it.
OFSTED do not escape criticism, with what the author sees as a preoccupation with healthy eating and citizenship.
Sorry, same message as before
Today we are to have the primery school rankings for the SATS tests last summer.
They will show that about 161,500 pupils out of 577,000, or nearly 28%, have failed to reach the standard expected of 11 year-olds in the "three Rs", that is failed to reach level four in both English and Maths. This represents a decline as compared with the previous year of almost one percentage point.
The government's target for 2011 is a failure rate of 22%, so they look very unlikely to achieve this.
Two comments have to be made:
1) The failure is despite the complaint that teachers are spending too much time preparing pupils for the tests., that is giving them the greatest chance of passing.
2) The government is proposing to abolish the tests at age 11, and rely on teacher's evaluation of children's abilities.
I suspect that this will increase the number of children with satisfactory results, for either or both of the above reasons.
We shall then be back in the situation of the 1970s observed by prime minister Callaghan, - satisfactory marks but declining literacy and numeracy.
Whatever happens in the future, this autumn approaching one third of all children beginning secondary education have an inadequate competence in at least one of the main two subjects, Mathematics or English. It doesn't suggest that they will make good progress in secondary education!
They will show that about 161,500 pupils out of 577,000, or nearly 28%, have failed to reach the standard expected of 11 year-olds in the "three Rs", that is failed to reach level four in both English and Maths. This represents a decline as compared with the previous year of almost one percentage point.
The government's target for 2011 is a failure rate of 22%, so they look very unlikely to achieve this.
Two comments have to be made:
1) The failure is despite the complaint that teachers are spending too much time preparing pupils for the tests., that is giving them the greatest chance of passing.
2) The government is proposing to abolish the tests at age 11, and rely on teacher's evaluation of children's abilities.
I suspect that this will increase the number of children with satisfactory results, for either or both of the above reasons.
We shall then be back in the situation of the 1970s observed by prime minister Callaghan, - satisfactory marks but declining literacy and numeracy.
Whatever happens in the future, this autumn approaching one third of all children beginning secondary education have an inadequate competence in at least one of the main two subjects, Mathematics or English. It doesn't suggest that they will make good progress in secondary education!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
