As predicted on 9th August (HAIL THE PREDICTABLE TORIES, below) the Tories have started to ‘get tough’ on law and order. I said Europe or immigration would be the subject but you get the idea. This approach has naturally been welcomed by the rabid press and can be seen as the final throw of the die for David Cameron as he seeks to save his leadership.
Minimum sentences without parole, clamping down on video games, more powers for police to stop and search – the whole range ot right wing policies are here. They’ve also disinterred prison ships and army camps for prisoners. Prisoners could also mbe asked to ‘double up’, sharing cells, which will do so much to reduce tensions in prisons.
The problem is that, though several of these ideas may be sensible and appropriate to current difficulties, they do not represent a comprehensive plan for reducing crime among young people. There’s the rub, to misquote Shakespeare. The Tories still lack any kind of clear programme for addressing genuine social problems. The fundamental difficulty they face in this area is that they still can’t recognise a need for ‘society’, for the support which many vulnerable people need, for the various instruments of state which support the police and prisons, such as probation officers and youth workers.
These things don’t generate headlines so they are not focused on but the problem is wider than simply locking up a few offenders. What is needed is to engage young people, to give them a purpose. For many that will require some intervention but for the vast majority it simply means not criminalising them and encouraging them into work.
Let’s rehash the old mantra, as it bears repeating time and again: prison doesn’t work. Prison will never work. Prison is a sticking plaster which hides a problem but which doesn’t resolve a problem. Prison is appropriate for a small number of dangerous offenders but for the rest, what’s the point?
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
ON EUROPE THE TORIES REALLY SHOULD SHUT UP
David Cameron accuses Gordon Brown of ‘shameful arrogance’ for not calling for a referendum on the new European treaty (after all, let’s call a spade a spade).
Is this the same type of ‘shameful arrogance’ which Edward Heath displayed when he signed the original accession treaties to the European Communities, as they were then, way back in 1972? Whatever the Tories’ weasel words on this matter, the accession of the UK to Europe in 1973 was the biggest change to our constitution in our history as it was the first time that the British government accepted a higher authority. That is after all the fundamental basis for the EU to this day – by taking away control of coal and steel production - the physical means to wage war - from nation states they simply can’t build the tanks and guns they would need. Result: peace for over fifty years, a price worth paying in the minds of most people.
Is this the same kind of ‘shameful arrogance’ displayed by Margaret ‘consult the people’ Thatcher when she signed the Single European Act in 1985. This treaty effectively finished what was started in the original treaties as the European project had ground to a halt up to that point. The Single European Act also committed this country to joining a single European currency – but the Tories don’t mention that much, do they?
Is this the same kind of ‘shameful arrogance’ displayed by John Major when he signed the Treaty on European Union – the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union and which signed over significant powers to Europe on areas including foreign policy.
The bottom line is that, as an avowedly pro-European who wears the European flag to work every day, I would welcome a referendum and I believe that people in this country would recognise that they’re getting a pretty good deal from Europe – corrupt, dominated by the French and creaking though it may be. I firmly believe that a referendum would be won comfortably but I am also democratic enough to recognise that if a majority of people in this country voted against, so be it.
Shame the two old parties still have to lie and weasel their way through this issue.
Is this the same type of ‘shameful arrogance’ which Edward Heath displayed when he signed the original accession treaties to the European Communities, as they were then, way back in 1972? Whatever the Tories’ weasel words on this matter, the accession of the UK to Europe in 1973 was the biggest change to our constitution in our history as it was the first time that the British government accepted a higher authority. That is after all the fundamental basis for the EU to this day – by taking away control of coal and steel production - the physical means to wage war - from nation states they simply can’t build the tanks and guns they would need. Result: peace for over fifty years, a price worth paying in the minds of most people.
Is this the same kind of ‘shameful arrogance’ displayed by Margaret ‘consult the people’ Thatcher when she signed the Single European Act in 1985. This treaty effectively finished what was started in the original treaties as the European project had ground to a halt up to that point. The Single European Act also committed this country to joining a single European currency – but the Tories don’t mention that much, do they?
Is this the same kind of ‘shameful arrogance’ displayed by John Major when he signed the Treaty on European Union – the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union and which signed over significant powers to Europe on areas including foreign policy.
The bottom line is that, as an avowedly pro-European who wears the European flag to work every day, I would welcome a referendum and I believe that people in this country would recognise that they’re getting a pretty good deal from Europe – corrupt, dominated by the French and creaking though it may be. I firmly believe that a referendum would be won comfortably but I am also democratic enough to recognise that if a majority of people in this country voted against, so be it.
Shame the two old parties still have to lie and weasel their way through this issue.
COMMON SENSE ON IMMIGRATION AS WELL? IT MIST BE SILLY SEASON!
The latest LD announcement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6965250.stm) of an amnesty for illegal immigrants who can demonstrate a commitment to the country is so utterly sensible that it will inevitably be damned by the Tories and decried as unworkable by Whitehall. What a great country we live in!
How dare we allow people to remain in this country who do many of the jobs British citizens would rather not do, who often pay higher taxes and whose children are more often than not higher achievers at school because their parents want them to work hard to succeed?! Terrible idea, isn't it?
Still it’s the kind of sensible yet radical policy which makes me genuinely proud of this party. Setting out ways of solving problems is surely better than simply screeching about immigrants and pleading impotence when any entirely reasonable solutions are suggested. No names, no pack drill but those responsible for such an approach are an anagram of ‘onservativesc’.
And how unremittingly sad that the government - by this read 'Whitehall' - innovates only when held down with a boot on its neck. Otherwise it's no, no, no all the way.
How dare we allow people to remain in this country who do many of the jobs British citizens would rather not do, who often pay higher taxes and whose children are more often than not higher achievers at school because their parents want them to work hard to succeed?! Terrible idea, isn't it?
Still it’s the kind of sensible yet radical policy which makes me genuinely proud of this party. Setting out ways of solving problems is surely better than simply screeching about immigrants and pleading impotence when any entirely reasonable solutions are suggested. No names, no pack drill but those responsible for such an approach are an anagram of ‘onservativesc’.
And how unremittingly sad that the government - by this read 'Whitehall' - innovates only when held down with a boot on its neck. Otherwise it's no, no, no all the way.
COMMON SENSE ON YOUTH CRIME - SURELY NOT!
The current media focus on youth crime and shootings was put starkly into focus in Saturday’s Independent in a well written front page piece by Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of Kids Company, an organisation which helps young people in London with various problems. She set out to demolish the spurious claims of almost every commentator that the answers to youth crime are simple, i.e. the lack of family support (no, Dave, it's not that simple), the music young people listen to, the fact that they don’t eat enough greens etc etc.
What she argued instead was that there can be a very deep sense of isolation among young people who have not experienced a stable family upbringing and who thus look to gangs for support and seek to be self sufficient in their emotions. This is of course a very crude summary but what was refreshing was that the article was so considered and didn’t simply seek to condemn or label anyone.
The big problem is that Ms Batmanghelidjh made it clear that the solution to the current problems affecting so many communities is a long term commitment to these young people which will cost money. A lot of money.
I hope that someone influential undertakes a cost benefit analysis of such spending set against the ludicrous and utterly futile cost of prisons, the cost of additional security across the country, including policing to clear up problems which could be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction years before, the surveillance systems put in place everywhere and, of course, the astronomical cost of ID cards which will do nothing to reduce crime but which will make us all criminals if we refuse to carry around our papers.
Any such work will do nothing to reduce the terrible consequences of crime now, including the recent murders of children such as Rhys Jones but it might help someone in the future to avoid the same despair. That has to be worth considering, surely.
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that we have one newspaper which doesn’t track the herd but which does campaign actively for sensible causes, even if it is a little self-righteous on occasions. It’s adoration of campaigning tax exile millionaire Bono is perhaps the only blot on the Independent’s excellent record. Well, nobody's perfect...
What she argued instead was that there can be a very deep sense of isolation among young people who have not experienced a stable family upbringing and who thus look to gangs for support and seek to be self sufficient in their emotions. This is of course a very crude summary but what was refreshing was that the article was so considered and didn’t simply seek to condemn or label anyone.
The big problem is that Ms Batmanghelidjh made it clear that the solution to the current problems affecting so many communities is a long term commitment to these young people which will cost money. A lot of money.
I hope that someone influential undertakes a cost benefit analysis of such spending set against the ludicrous and utterly futile cost of prisons, the cost of additional security across the country, including policing to clear up problems which could be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction years before, the surveillance systems put in place everywhere and, of course, the astronomical cost of ID cards which will do nothing to reduce crime but which will make us all criminals if we refuse to carry around our papers.
Any such work will do nothing to reduce the terrible consequences of crime now, including the recent murders of children such as Rhys Jones but it might help someone in the future to avoid the same despair. That has to be worth considering, surely.
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that we have one newspaper which doesn’t track the herd but which does campaign actively for sensible causes, even if it is a little self-righteous on occasions. It’s adoration of campaigning tax exile millionaire Bono is perhaps the only blot on the Independent’s excellent record. Well, nobody's perfect...
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
WAS DAVE OUT OF THE COUNTRY AGAIN WHEN THE NHS REPORT WAS WRITTEN?
A report on the Today programme this morning carried further news of the Tories’ ‘saving the NHS’ debacle. It highlighted the supposed plight of a local hospital, the Horton in Banbury, Oxfordshire which, far from having maternity and A&E services reduced, is seeing A&E increased in size. This is one of the more impressive cock-ups since the Horton covers part of David Cameron’s Witney constituency.
Is he aware of nothing his party is doing?
There is no question that NHS services are under pressure in Oxfordshire, which is one of the lowest funded areas in the country per head but the Tories’ claims of closures are simply wrong.
If they can’t get the facts right in their own leader’s constituency, people really have to start questioning the Tories' claim to want to run the country.
Is he aware of nothing his party is doing?
There is no question that NHS services are under pressure in Oxfordshire, which is one of the lowest funded areas in the country per head but the Tories’ claims of closures are simply wrong.
If they can’t get the facts right in their own leader’s constituency, people really have to start questioning the Tories' claim to want to run the country.
Monday, 20 August 2007
How many Conservative MPs does it take to change a lightbulb?
The Tories never change anything so they would just elect a new leader and stick a photo of a new lightbulb on top of the old one.
REFEREE!
The decision to drop referee Rob Styles for his errors in the Liverpool vs. Chelsea game this weekend is clearly appropriate since he did make some mistakes. However, this misses the fundamental problem, which is that footballers are overpaid and unbelievably childish and generally make the referee’s job impossible.
The sight of a team of footballers surrounding the referee, pushing and shouting at him to try to get a decision changed is just miserable and does nothing for the game. The classic retort would be that the players are just so passionate about the game that they cannot control their emotions. The response to that is once again the prized part of the defeated bull in a bullfight.
So, echoing the last posting talking about individual responsibility, here’s a suggestion: why not allow referees to sanction any players who dissent, shout at them or push them around. The only two players who should be allowed to speak to the referee are the two team captains and the same rules should apply to them.
Why shouldn’t footballers act on the pitch as one might expect them to act off the pitch? Is it too much to suggest that their behaviour might have more to do with violent crimes and assaults on our streets than any number of government initiatives, when they are so often role models for young men in particular?
Give me £40,000 a week and I promise I’ll be on my best behaviour.
The sight of a team of footballers surrounding the referee, pushing and shouting at him to try to get a decision changed is just miserable and does nothing for the game. The classic retort would be that the players are just so passionate about the game that they cannot control their emotions. The response to that is once again the prized part of the defeated bull in a bullfight.
So, echoing the last posting talking about individual responsibility, here’s a suggestion: why not allow referees to sanction any players who dissent, shout at them or push them around. The only two players who should be allowed to speak to the referee are the two team captains and the same rules should apply to them.
Why shouldn’t footballers act on the pitch as one might expect them to act off the pitch? Is it too much to suggest that their behaviour might have more to do with violent crimes and assaults on our streets than any number of government initiatives, when they are so often role models for young men in particular?
Give me £40,000 a week and I promise I’ll be on my best behaviour.
HONEST GUV, WE’RE ALL RESPONSIBLE
With on average 175 knife crimes a day in this country, David Davis has said the government "owes it to the public to take a grip of drink, drugs, and the broken homes that have spawned this plague on modern Britain". In a similarly febrile attack on PCSOs, the Daily Mail has ‘revealed’ that they can each be expected to solve only one crime every six years.
It may seem a bizarre leap but this echoes the debate on fly-tipping and waste disposal. In both these cases, commentators berate local authorities for the cost and problems of both fly-tipping and the increasing problems of hiding the megatons of rubbish produced each day. Unfortunately, the simple, terrible truth for these wiseacres is that someone, somewhere produced that rubbish in the first place and local councils are left to clear it up.
Coming back to knife crime, it seems a bit rich to blame the government for such crimes. It clearly has a responsibility for improving our society and addressing problem areas but surely it must be recognised, even by whining Conservatives that the individuals carrying knives – and their families – bear a hefty share of the responsibility. Or doesn’t the new Conservative Party recognise individual responsibility any more?
Similarly with PCSOs, yep, they probably will only solve one crime in six years but their role is not meant to be crime solving but increasing confidence. They are a uniformed presence which seeks to reassure people. They can also identify problems and seek support where it is needed.
I may be a woolly minded liberal - indeed I am and proudly so - but I prefer the idea of police support officers on our streets defusing tensions and making people feel more secure to groups of possibly armed officers ‘patrolling’ our streets in cars ignorant of what is going on around them. Our country is policed by consent – not naked aggression as in some others – and long may it remain the case.
We live in a very safe country - with clear areas where problems exist, we have a very good police force - again with issues which clearly need to be addressed, and part of the future effectiveness of our police will come from the increased use of PCSOs.
On this as on so many other issues, the party which did so much to destroy communities in the 1980s needs a profound rethink.
It may seem a bizarre leap but this echoes the debate on fly-tipping and waste disposal. In both these cases, commentators berate local authorities for the cost and problems of both fly-tipping and the increasing problems of hiding the megatons of rubbish produced each day. Unfortunately, the simple, terrible truth for these wiseacres is that someone, somewhere produced that rubbish in the first place and local councils are left to clear it up.
Coming back to knife crime, it seems a bit rich to blame the government for such crimes. It clearly has a responsibility for improving our society and addressing problem areas but surely it must be recognised, even by whining Conservatives that the individuals carrying knives – and their families – bear a hefty share of the responsibility. Or doesn’t the new Conservative Party recognise individual responsibility any more?
Similarly with PCSOs, yep, they probably will only solve one crime in six years but their role is not meant to be crime solving but increasing confidence. They are a uniformed presence which seeks to reassure people. They can also identify problems and seek support where it is needed.
I may be a woolly minded liberal - indeed I am and proudly so - but I prefer the idea of police support officers on our streets defusing tensions and making people feel more secure to groups of possibly armed officers ‘patrolling’ our streets in cars ignorant of what is going on around them. Our country is policed by consent – not naked aggression as in some others – and long may it remain the case.
We live in a very safe country - with clear areas where problems exist, we have a very good police force - again with issues which clearly need to be addressed, and part of the future effectiveness of our police will come from the increased use of PCSOs.
On this as on so many other issues, the party which did so much to destroy communities in the 1980s needs a profound rethink.
GOOD NEWS: GOVERNMENT OFFICIALLY DECLARES NUCLEAR POWER TO BE A NON-STARTER
The Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks MP has stated that the private sector will pay all future decommissioning and waste disposal costs for new nuclear power stations. As the costs of decommissioning existing nuclear power stations continue to spiral exponentially, it seems a leap of faith even Tony ‘God Told Me To Do It’ Blair would find difficult to make. No private sector company is going to sign up to building a new nuclear power station unless the government promises to dig deep in future.
So the nuclear story ends here. Right?
So the nuclear story ends here. Right?
TONY BLAIR – AS GUILTY AS A NEW LABOUR PEER IN A HOTEL BED WITH HIS MISTRESS SNORTING COKE OFF HER NETHER REGIONS
So here’s a new twist on Blair’s Iraq Disaster. Iraqi Shia cleric and general pain in the b**, Muqtada al Sadr, has claimed (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2878776.ece) that the British are retreating from Basra. This constructive comment from a man unlikely to be on many Christmas card lists over here comes in the wake of a rising number of casualties among British troops in the south of the country.
So, having based the invasion of Iraq on falsehoods, having devastated the country through the absence of any kind of plan for the post invasion peace, having divided the communities there irreversibly, having denied British forces adequate support to carry out their almost impossible job effectively, Blair’s latest legacy is to have brought upon the widely respected British Army the worst defeat since Suez in 1956. Brilliant.
But it’s okay, because Blair still believes he did the right thing and would have gone further. Does he have no sense of responsibility for the hundreds of British lives – and thousands of Iraqi lives – he has devastated?
So, having based the invasion of Iraq on falsehoods, having devastated the country through the absence of any kind of plan for the post invasion peace, having divided the communities there irreversibly, having denied British forces adequate support to carry out their almost impossible job effectively, Blair’s latest legacy is to have brought upon the widely respected British Army the worst defeat since Suez in 1956. Brilliant.
But it’s okay, because Blair still believes he did the right thing and would have gone further. Does he have no sense of responsibility for the hundreds of British lives – and thousands of Iraqi lives – he has devastated?
‘TORY FIGHTBACK’ – NO, REALLY…
So David Cameron is promising a ‘bare knuckle fight' against Gordon Brown. AND tax cuts. AND he'll save the NHS. Oh, and he’s going to stop knife crime.
Now, ambition is always to be welcomed and all these issues are important to most voters but what is so clearly lacking from the Conservatives is any kind of clear vision. They simply don’t look like they know what they are doing.
This is worth reflecting on as such a question has dogged the Lib Dems for some years. It goes something like this: ‘you’re all very nice but what do you stand for’.
Well, I reckon that has been addressed in recent times by our clear focus on civil liberties – opposing ID cards and Blair's disaster in Iraq - green taxation, fair local taxes, sensible ideas on railways and saving the Royal Mail and a steadily growing portfolio of sound policies based on what have always been our basic principles, which a recent manifesto summarised as ‘freedom, fairness, trust’.
That seems like a very good ‘philosophy’ to me and I don’t suppose that many people would object to any of the ideas. What we need to do is to persuade people that we can deliver these ideas – which is where our successes in local government across the country come in. The fact that we run councils such as Liverpool, Newcastle and Islington well – and have done for some years now – is a clear exemplar of our abilities as a political party.
By contrast, the Conservatives still seem to be reeling from the breakdown of their party in the wake of the Thatcher years. Margaret Thatcher may be viewed as a great Prime Minister – it would be churlish to say otherwise given her record – but if I were a senior Conservative looking for the moment when the rot set in within my party I would have to go back to her era.
They simply have not regained the initiative since she was deposed and they are showing no signs of doing so under their latest leader. Without a core philosophy they will continue to drift, David Cameron will continue to thrash around looking for ideas and headlines and their decline will continue.
And who’s complaining?!
Now, ambition is always to be welcomed and all these issues are important to most voters but what is so clearly lacking from the Conservatives is any kind of clear vision. They simply don’t look like they know what they are doing.
This is worth reflecting on as such a question has dogged the Lib Dems for some years. It goes something like this: ‘you’re all very nice but what do you stand for’.
Well, I reckon that has been addressed in recent times by our clear focus on civil liberties – opposing ID cards and Blair's disaster in Iraq - green taxation, fair local taxes, sensible ideas on railways and saving the Royal Mail and a steadily growing portfolio of sound policies based on what have always been our basic principles, which a recent manifesto summarised as ‘freedom, fairness, trust’.
That seems like a very good ‘philosophy’ to me and I don’t suppose that many people would object to any of the ideas. What we need to do is to persuade people that we can deliver these ideas – which is where our successes in local government across the country come in. The fact that we run councils such as Liverpool, Newcastle and Islington well – and have done for some years now – is a clear exemplar of our abilities as a political party.
By contrast, the Conservatives still seem to be reeling from the breakdown of their party in the wake of the Thatcher years. Margaret Thatcher may be viewed as a great Prime Minister – it would be churlish to say otherwise given her record – but if I were a senior Conservative looking for the moment when the rot set in within my party I would have to go back to her era.
They simply have not regained the initiative since she was deposed and they are showing no signs of doing so under their latest leader. Without a core philosophy they will continue to drift, David Cameron will continue to thrash around looking for ideas and headlines and their decline will continue.
And who’s complaining?!
Monday, 13 August 2007
MY GOD, LOOK! TREES EVERYWHERE.
Having said that the detail of the latest bit of blather to emerge from the Tories doesn’t count, I now see that it is in fact of key importance. I tend not to read anything with the words John and Redwood attached but in fact he has signalled the start of the next phase in the Cameron project.
The Tory leadership follows recognisable phases and it seems that we have now entered the third one. The first phase is to be welcomed with open arms by all and sundry, desperate as they are to win something – anything. The second phase is the ‘battle’ with the right wing and for the centre ground. This phase having failed, as it always must, the next one is to retrench to the right wing, promising all sorts of tax cuts and, of course, ‘market solutions’. The final stage is of course to replace the leader…
So phase two is spluttering to a halt, to be overtaken by phase 3 once David Cameron gauges the mood of his colleagues at meetings behind closed doors at their conference.
But back to John Redwood’s paean to a bygone era of a country humming with capitalist zeal and with workers cheerily marching off to work in their blue overalls, in the certain knowledge that everyone knew their place.
According to Mr Redwood, the market can provide more, better roads, more, better trains, more reservoir capacity, better flood defences and more airport space. A wonderful ambition to which there are two possible responses from anyone in ‘the real world’: the one word response is the prized part of the defeated bull in Spain…
A more detailed response would involve asking Mr Redwood some general questions, such as:
· Mr Redwood, didn’t your government privatise the trains already – and in the process massively increase the subsidy taxpayers give to private operators? Are those private railways successful or a dismal failure? Discuss.
· Mr Redwood – John – didn’t your government privatise the airports and in the process leave the management of capacity in, er, private hands. It worked well, didn’t it? Er…
· John, didn’t your government build new roads every year between 1979 and 1997? Did it work to reduce congestion or did the number of cars on our roads rise exponentially?
· J, didn’t your government privatise water resources, thus leaving the ability to build more reservoirs essentially in the hands of private companies (subject to approval from the government, it’s true but the decision on whether to apply for approval rests with the wonderful private companies)
Now, I cannot claim to an encyclopaedic knowledge of Conservative governments between 1979 and 1997 but it strikes me that they all gave a lot of leeway to the ‘benign forces of competition and private capital’. It didn’t quite work, did it?
As a footnote, I write as an ‘Orange Book’ Lib Dem, i.e. one more to the right of our party, who firmly believes in the importance of capitalism and private enterprise. The joy of Liberal Democracy for me is that we seem to know how far to push that particular envelope. By all means let the markets work but for God’s sake ensure there are structures in place when we realise that in some parts of our economy a properly functioning market simply cannot emerge. Recognise this fact and work with it, not against it in an ideological funk that demands that everything must go at knock down prices.
So it’s back to the drawing board once again for the poor, benighted Conservatives.
The Tory leadership follows recognisable phases and it seems that we have now entered the third one. The first phase is to be welcomed with open arms by all and sundry, desperate as they are to win something – anything. The second phase is the ‘battle’ with the right wing and for the centre ground. This phase having failed, as it always must, the next one is to retrench to the right wing, promising all sorts of tax cuts and, of course, ‘market solutions’. The final stage is of course to replace the leader…
So phase two is spluttering to a halt, to be overtaken by phase 3 once David Cameron gauges the mood of his colleagues at meetings behind closed doors at their conference.
But back to John Redwood’s paean to a bygone era of a country humming with capitalist zeal and with workers cheerily marching off to work in their blue overalls, in the certain knowledge that everyone knew their place.
According to Mr Redwood, the market can provide more, better roads, more, better trains, more reservoir capacity, better flood defences and more airport space. A wonderful ambition to which there are two possible responses from anyone in ‘the real world’: the one word response is the prized part of the defeated bull in Spain…
A more detailed response would involve asking Mr Redwood some general questions, such as:
· Mr Redwood, didn’t your government privatise the trains already – and in the process massively increase the subsidy taxpayers give to private operators? Are those private railways successful or a dismal failure? Discuss.
· Mr Redwood – John – didn’t your government privatise the airports and in the process leave the management of capacity in, er, private hands. It worked well, didn’t it? Er…
· John, didn’t your government build new roads every year between 1979 and 1997? Did it work to reduce congestion or did the number of cars on our roads rise exponentially?
· J, didn’t your government privatise water resources, thus leaving the ability to build more reservoirs essentially in the hands of private companies (subject to approval from the government, it’s true but the decision on whether to apply for approval rests with the wonderful private companies)
Now, I cannot claim to an encyclopaedic knowledge of Conservative governments between 1979 and 1997 but it strikes me that they all gave a lot of leeway to the ‘benign forces of competition and private capital’. It didn’t quite work, did it?
As a footnote, I write as an ‘Orange Book’ Lib Dem, i.e. one more to the right of our party, who firmly believes in the importance of capitalism and private enterprise. The joy of Liberal Democracy for me is that we seem to know how far to push that particular envelope. By all means let the markets work but for God’s sake ensure there are structures in place when we realise that in some parts of our economy a properly functioning market simply cannot emerge. Recognise this fact and work with it, not against it in an ideological funk that demands that everything must go at knock down prices.
So it’s back to the drawing board once again for the poor, benighted Conservatives.
'CAN YOU SEE THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE YET, JOHN?'
In a useful article (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2859093.ece) on Tory plans to cut taxes, feed the cat while voters are on holiday, wash their cars and take the children to school to win any extra votes thy can, several points were made. The detail really doesn’t matter because (i) right wing Tories will oppose it (ii) they have no chance of winning a General Election whenever it is called.
Perhaps the most telling issue for those at Tory Towers is the fact that the article only mentions their proposals halfway in, after setting out just what a mire they are in. A Tory spokesman said that after the summer break, “David will hit the ground running”. I suppose the pertinent question there is ’in which direction’?
And the proposed saviour of the Tories, the man who drafted the ‘new’ proposals? Step forward John Redwood, about whom nothing more needs to be said.
Except ‘nanu nanu’…
As for Labour, if Gordon Brown doesn’t call an election this year with a 10 point lead in the polls he’s a fool…And one thing Gordon Brown isn’t is a fool.
Perhaps the most telling issue for those at Tory Towers is the fact that the article only mentions their proposals halfway in, after setting out just what a mire they are in. A Tory spokesman said that after the summer break, “David will hit the ground running”. I suppose the pertinent question there is ’in which direction’?
And the proposed saviour of the Tories, the man who drafted the ‘new’ proposals? Step forward John Redwood, about whom nothing more needs to be said.
Except ‘nanu nanu’…
As for Labour, if Gordon Brown doesn’t call an election this year with a 10 point lead in the polls he’s a fool…And one thing Gordon Brown isn’t is a fool.
Friday, 10 August 2007
HARRY POTTER IS A TRIUMPH
There are no plot spoilers below, I promise!
I finished the last instalment of Harry Potter last night and it was sensational. I am pleased that I managed to work out the secret towards the end, but JK kept me guessing right up to about page 500. The book was well written, entertaining and all round throughly enjoyable. The characters were credible and sympathetic and the baddies were properly bad!
The only author who comes close for detail, characters and sheer, simple entertainment is George Macdonald Fraser, creator of the legendary Flashman.
JK Rowling deserves every plaudit and all the credit being heaped upon her for having written a first rate series of books. Harry Potter is sure to stand the test of time as a great work of literature for all ages and a rattling good read.
I finished the last instalment of Harry Potter last night and it was sensational. I am pleased that I managed to work out the secret towards the end, but JK kept me guessing right up to about page 500. The book was well written, entertaining and all round throughly enjoyable. The characters were credible and sympathetic and the baddies were properly bad!
The only author who comes close for detail, characters and sheer, simple entertainment is George Macdonald Fraser, creator of the legendary Flashman.
JK Rowling deserves every plaudit and all the credit being heaped upon her for having written a first rate series of books. Harry Potter is sure to stand the test of time as a great work of literature for all ages and a rattling good read.
GOOD NEWS: ROAD DEATHS DOWN 8%!
According to the Department for Transport, the number of children killed on British roads between January and March was 730, a rise of 14% apparently. The good news is that deaths among car users fell by 8% in the same period. (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article2851424.ece)
In the same three month period, there were 59,177 casualties, again a drop from the previous year’s figures of 59,358.
I struggle to see these figures in purely statistical terms. If the same number of people were seriously injured on our rail network it would be shut down overnight. Similarly, if 730 children had died on British buses in the first three months of the year the Daily Mail would explode with outrage and every bus in the land would be up on blocks.
I can’t be holier than thou as I drive around 50 miles a day to and from work and, like everyone else behind a wheel, I don’t necessarily follow the Highway Code to the letter. However, it seems clear that improving public transport – and cycle safety - in this country would not only reduce health-harming pollution, reduce the emission of harmful chemicals into the atmosphere and make it easier for those people who still want or need to use their cars to do so, it would also be highly likely to reduce the daily slaughter on our roads.
Lib Dems should not be anti-car as it is a vital aspect of our economy and society but we need to shout more about our proposals on improving public transport. Recent announcements on increased funding for railways were very welcome but why don’t we just cut the c**p and announce that the rail network needs to be renationalised, with significant investment in integrated tram schemes in all our major cities. It would be no more expensive than the current subsidies paid to private operators and it might just deliver the kind of services other countries take for granted.
Until something changes the death toll on the roads continues to rise. I assume that another 700 – or so - children will have died between April and June. May I suggest a moment’s reflection on that fact?
In the same three month period, there were 59,177 casualties, again a drop from the previous year’s figures of 59,358.
I struggle to see these figures in purely statistical terms. If the same number of people were seriously injured on our rail network it would be shut down overnight. Similarly, if 730 children had died on British buses in the first three months of the year the Daily Mail would explode with outrage and every bus in the land would be up on blocks.
I can’t be holier than thou as I drive around 50 miles a day to and from work and, like everyone else behind a wheel, I don’t necessarily follow the Highway Code to the letter. However, it seems clear that improving public transport – and cycle safety - in this country would not only reduce health-harming pollution, reduce the emission of harmful chemicals into the atmosphere and make it easier for those people who still want or need to use their cars to do so, it would also be highly likely to reduce the daily slaughter on our roads.
Lib Dems should not be anti-car as it is a vital aspect of our economy and society but we need to shout more about our proposals on improving public transport. Recent announcements on increased funding for railways were very welcome but why don’t we just cut the c**p and announce that the rail network needs to be renationalised, with significant investment in integrated tram schemes in all our major cities. It would be no more expensive than the current subsidies paid to private operators and it might just deliver the kind of services other countries take for granted.
Until something changes the death toll on the roads continues to rise. I assume that another 700 – or so - children will have died between April and June. May I suggest a moment’s reflection on that fact?
Thursday, 9 August 2007
MOVING HOUSE IS A JOKE
I have just moved house, having spent nearly three years in the process of doing so. The entire moving process has been marred by problems inherent in the conveyancing system in this country: lawyers not talking to each other or to their clients, buyers and sellers pulling out or changing terms with very short notice before exchange of contracts, estate agents…being estate agents and general idiocy on all fronts.
The fundamental conclusion which arises out of this whole sorry experience is a simple one: if you started with a blank sheet of paper and you had to design a system for buying and selling properties you would not come with anything like the ludicrous mess of interested parties, miscommunication and opportunities to backslide which exist within our legal system.
You would probably adopt a system along the lines of buying any other major item. You would perhaps agree to buy the item/house and pay a small deposit on the day to reserve it, you would then arrange finance and get whatever legal ‘paperwork’ was needed in order, probably online and probably in a matter of days. You would then, er, pay over the money and take possession of the house. Such a process could take a few weeks and involve minimal administrative costs: online purchasing of searches, a standard survey of the property to back up the one carried out for the Home Information Pack (HIP) and the completion of a standard guarantee signed by the sellers confirming that the property is actually habitable and not likely to fall down. This needn’t be draconian, just a small guarantee that the fabric of the house and the utilities within are basically sound – not necessarily modern, just sound.
But this could never be so, for in walk the ‘experts’! It would be wonderful if representatives of the house moving industry could address these points (a few among so many…), perhaps without recourse to lengthy justifications about why their particular services are so vital:
· why is an agreement to buy a house not a binding contract at the point of agreement, with a small initial deposit of something like £500 being paid on the day a purchase is agreed, which would only be returned to the buyer if significant structural or environmental problems arise which were not included in the home information pack?
· why does the purchase of a house involve a ludicrous paper chase, with various documents having to be collated by ‘legal professionals’ when so much of modern life can be transacted electronically in seconds?
· why does a buyer have absolutely no guarantee that the house they are buying is in any fit state. They simply agree on a purchase and if the house falls down ten minutes after completion, the purchaser has no comeback whatsoever. Instead they must rely on the heavily caveated and almost worthless comments of surveyors who invariably form judgements based on looking at a house. Thank God doctors don’t work on the same basis…’Mrs Bloggs, you look like you’ve got a diseased leg so we’ll just saw it of to be on the safe side. However, this may be incorrect and you have no comeback if it is. Sign here, please.’
· Why do I have to badger, beg and plead with people I am paying significant amounts of money to simply to get them to talk to me. Is being an uncommunicative arse part of a legal degree? Why can’t the legal ‘profession’ adopt the same standards as other customer facing organsiations and communicate more often to keep the poor saps they are supposed to be working for better informed. The firm I used was not bad, as such but they would not talk to me about my spending several hundred thousand pounds on a property. Would this be normal or acceptable in any other area of commercial life?
It is never healthy to make absolute commitments in one’s life but one I will make is that I will never again, ever pay a convenyancing company or lawyer for their ‘assistance’ in the purchase or sale of a property. I must also commit to working for the demolition (the term seems oddly appropriate) of the current conveyancing system.
One final rider: while they have been introduced sloppily by the government, the new HIPs should actually address many of the problems which exist with the current system. Buyers will no longer have to commit ‘blind’ to buying potentially inadequate properties, while sellers, if they are serious about selling, will have to pay for the packs as part of transation price. As the packs are only valid for around 6 months, it is also possible that sellers will be encouraged to price theior properties at a sensible level in order to avoid the added expense of having to update the HIPs.
The fundamental conclusion which arises out of this whole sorry experience is a simple one: if you started with a blank sheet of paper and you had to design a system for buying and selling properties you would not come with anything like the ludicrous mess of interested parties, miscommunication and opportunities to backslide which exist within our legal system.
You would probably adopt a system along the lines of buying any other major item. You would perhaps agree to buy the item/house and pay a small deposit on the day to reserve it, you would then arrange finance and get whatever legal ‘paperwork’ was needed in order, probably online and probably in a matter of days. You would then, er, pay over the money and take possession of the house. Such a process could take a few weeks and involve minimal administrative costs: online purchasing of searches, a standard survey of the property to back up the one carried out for the Home Information Pack (HIP) and the completion of a standard guarantee signed by the sellers confirming that the property is actually habitable and not likely to fall down. This needn’t be draconian, just a small guarantee that the fabric of the house and the utilities within are basically sound – not necessarily modern, just sound.
But this could never be so, for in walk the ‘experts’! It would be wonderful if representatives of the house moving industry could address these points (a few among so many…), perhaps without recourse to lengthy justifications about why their particular services are so vital:
· why is an agreement to buy a house not a binding contract at the point of agreement, with a small initial deposit of something like £500 being paid on the day a purchase is agreed, which would only be returned to the buyer if significant structural or environmental problems arise which were not included in the home information pack?
· why does the purchase of a house involve a ludicrous paper chase, with various documents having to be collated by ‘legal professionals’ when so much of modern life can be transacted electronically in seconds?
· why does a buyer have absolutely no guarantee that the house they are buying is in any fit state. They simply agree on a purchase and if the house falls down ten minutes after completion, the purchaser has no comeback whatsoever. Instead they must rely on the heavily caveated and almost worthless comments of surveyors who invariably form judgements based on looking at a house. Thank God doctors don’t work on the same basis…’Mrs Bloggs, you look like you’ve got a diseased leg so we’ll just saw it of to be on the safe side. However, this may be incorrect and you have no comeback if it is. Sign here, please.’
· Why do I have to badger, beg and plead with people I am paying significant amounts of money to simply to get them to talk to me. Is being an uncommunicative arse part of a legal degree? Why can’t the legal ‘profession’ adopt the same standards as other customer facing organsiations and communicate more often to keep the poor saps they are supposed to be working for better informed. The firm I used was not bad, as such but they would not talk to me about my spending several hundred thousand pounds on a property. Would this be normal or acceptable in any other area of commercial life?
It is never healthy to make absolute commitments in one’s life but one I will make is that I will never again, ever pay a convenyancing company or lawyer for their ‘assistance’ in the purchase or sale of a property. I must also commit to working for the demolition (the term seems oddly appropriate) of the current conveyancing system.
One final rider: while they have been introduced sloppily by the government, the new HIPs should actually address many of the problems which exist with the current system. Buyers will no longer have to commit ‘blind’ to buying potentially inadequate properties, while sellers, if they are serious about selling, will have to pay for the packs as part of transation price. As the packs are only valid for around 6 months, it is also possible that sellers will be encouraged to price theior properties at a sensible level in order to avoid the added expense of having to update the HIPs.
HAIL THE PREDICTABLE TORIES
So here we go again. The Tories start to lose faith with their new, new leader as confidence in his attempts to ‘rebrand’ the party falter, as the government steals the initiative in a range of areas and experiences positive coverage and internal party critics and donors line up to criticise the current leadership style. Then the symbol of the party is changed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6936763.stm), apparently for no other reason than that this was always intended.
We are surely only days away from a statement on immigration/Europe and weeks away from the latest decapitation in a long and very worrying series to afflict the waning Conservative Party.
If I owned a business selling a product and I had employed five different CEOs over ten years to sort out the problem with my business, I reckon that after those five attempts at a makeover with no noticeable success – including one punt at going back to fundamentals (no, we’re not thinking what you’re thinking…) I’d be inclined to look at the product rather than the message.
Happily, no one in the Conservative Party seems to have the nous to face up to this fundamental issue – and long may this remain the case.
We are surely only days away from a statement on immigration/Europe and weeks away from the latest decapitation in a long and very worrying series to afflict the waning Conservative Party.
If I owned a business selling a product and I had employed five different CEOs over ten years to sort out the problem with my business, I reckon that after those five attempts at a makeover with no noticeable success – including one punt at going back to fundamentals (no, we’re not thinking what you’re thinking…) I’d be inclined to look at the product rather than the message.
Happily, no one in the Conservative Party seems to have the nous to face up to this fundamental issue – and long may this remain the case.
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
PRISON DOESN'T WORK
Here’s an interesting phenomenon: finding oneself agreeing with Mark Oaten! In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6935370.stm) he has made the case for prisons to be abolished, to be replaced by secure ‘rehabilitation centres’ to deal with the root causes of offending, which he suggests include mental health problems and drug addiction. This is a very strong case and one which the usual arguments of the right wingers can’t really challenge.
To ape Michael Howard, let’s make one thing clear: prison doesn’t work. Locking people away for hours every day with a few hundred other bored and potentially aggressive individuals and expecting them to achieve a Damascene conversion to the path of honesty while twiddling their thumbs in a tiny room without even a toilet is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Sure, they are hidden away from right thinking Daily Mail readers – but not forever, since that would be utterly illiberal and very expensive. Those individuals will eventually be released and no doubt many will harbour a large dose of resentment at their wasted time in prison.
I would not agree with Mark Oaten’s proposed alternative to prison completely but I applaud his raising of the subject. I would suggest that, instead of rehabilitation centres, what is needed is far simpler: if prisoners were given the chance to work, to learn a skill and to earn money, that would be a far greater incentive for them to change their behaviour than would any number of courses.
Such courses are of course instigated with the best of intentions, which will no doubt benefit many of the individuals involved. However, what 99.9% of the world’s population wants is security, which means a decent income to provide for all one’s basic needs – and a little more on top for enjoyment of life. Giving prisoners the means to look after themselves legitimately seems a far more preferable option than simply forgetting about them until some of them add to future crime statistics.
Stretching the argument to its logical extreme, it might even be possible to recoup some of the cost of prison from former prisoners through their future earnings – subject to their achieving a certain level of income, rather like the student loans system.
That would provide an incentive for the prisons service to offer high quality training and work to prisoners, since it would maximise income for the service. It would also demonstrate to those desperate for as much ‘punishment’ as possible that prison would indeed be working – delivering an economic benefit to society and a social benefit to the prisoners who would formerly have simply been ejected at the end of their sentence, possibly to return to criminal activity.
I can only hope that Mr Oaten’s comments cause a sufficient stir to cause this subject to be discussed more widely.
To ape Michael Howard, let’s make one thing clear: prison doesn’t work. Locking people away for hours every day with a few hundred other bored and potentially aggressive individuals and expecting them to achieve a Damascene conversion to the path of honesty while twiddling their thumbs in a tiny room without even a toilet is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Sure, they are hidden away from right thinking Daily Mail readers – but not forever, since that would be utterly illiberal and very expensive. Those individuals will eventually be released and no doubt many will harbour a large dose of resentment at their wasted time in prison.
I would not agree with Mark Oaten’s proposed alternative to prison completely but I applaud his raising of the subject. I would suggest that, instead of rehabilitation centres, what is needed is far simpler: if prisoners were given the chance to work, to learn a skill and to earn money, that would be a far greater incentive for them to change their behaviour than would any number of courses.
Such courses are of course instigated with the best of intentions, which will no doubt benefit many of the individuals involved. However, what 99.9% of the world’s population wants is security, which means a decent income to provide for all one’s basic needs – and a little more on top for enjoyment of life. Giving prisoners the means to look after themselves legitimately seems a far more preferable option than simply forgetting about them until some of them add to future crime statistics.
Stretching the argument to its logical extreme, it might even be possible to recoup some of the cost of prison from former prisoners through their future earnings – subject to their achieving a certain level of income, rather like the student loans system.
That would provide an incentive for the prisons service to offer high quality training and work to prisoners, since it would maximise income for the service. It would also demonstrate to those desperate for as much ‘punishment’ as possible that prison would indeed be working – delivering an economic benefit to society and a social benefit to the prisoners who would formerly have simply been ejected at the end of their sentence, possibly to return to criminal activity.
I can only hope that Mr Oaten’s comments cause a sufficient stir to cause this subject to be discussed more widely.
PLANNING NOW FOR THE POST CAMERON PERIOD
The spectacular fall of David Cameron continues apace and his future as Tory party leader surely rests on his ability to ‘deliver’ the results of the various policy reviews which are due to report in the autumn. If the Tories decide to commit collective Hara Kiri at their conference - which, let’s face it, they have a healthy and welcome tradition of - it seems a reasonable assumption that David Davis will step in to pick up the pieces in a Michael Howard-type coronation.
Davis is likely to offer a stiffer challenge than Cameron for several reasons:
He does not share Cameron’s privileged background, which has been Cameron’s great ‘Achille’s heel’ and something he could do nothing about.
Davis seems to present a more coherent set of beliefs, which come from the more traditional Tory stable. This is likely to deliver greater unity among Tory activists than the ‘modernising’ Cameron managed.
Davis speaks more frankly that Cameron. Put plainly, he sounds more convincing and he has acquitted himself well on the Tory front bench.
He has a military background which can only help the fight to control the dangerously riven Tory Party. There’s a precedent for this…
Whether Davis is the man to lead the Tories to an election victory is another question altogether. He will remain at the head of a still divided party which continues to represent the views of a minority of voters. Cameron’s quest for the centre ground has patently failed since his own membership does not want to occupy that space.
However, what does seem likely to happen is that politics will take on a more serious aspect, with Brown in Number 10. This presents challenges but also opportunities for our party. The main challenge is that, once again, the Tories will have a new leader. Davis seems to have the nous to hit the ground running, which is bound to put us – and Labour - on the defensive unless we are well prepared.
The main opportunities we have are Ming’s abilities and our new policy announcements.
In Parliamentary debates, Ming would no longer have to focus on presentation, instead being able to focus his considerable abilities on substance after the ‘flim flam’ of the Blair/Cameron days. The prospects for a quantum leap in the quality of debate among the three leaders are good if Davis takes over and Ming is clearly a match for both the other leaders. Recent history has not benefited Ming’s rather austere style but that could change with David Davis as Tory leader.
Secondly, recent Lib Dem policy announcements have been well-timed and well received and they reflect the fundamental principles most of our members hold. For this reason they are less likely to cause a major stir among party members – although I trust that the front bench team is not complacent in advance of conference…
I am sure this type of conversation is being conducted at various levels within our party but it would be good for all Lib Dems to start the process of considering how to challenge the ‘new’ threat from the Tories. It is a near certainty that Cameron’s days are numbered unless he can pull off a spectacular reverse in the autumn or unless Gordon Brown falters badly for some reason. In Tory history, David Cameron’s leadership may come to be viewed as a damp squib which has not helped his party but complacency over current Tory travails would be a dangerous position to adopt.
Davis is likely to offer a stiffer challenge than Cameron for several reasons:
He does not share Cameron’s privileged background, which has been Cameron’s great ‘Achille’s heel’ and something he could do nothing about.
Davis seems to present a more coherent set of beliefs, which come from the more traditional Tory stable. This is likely to deliver greater unity among Tory activists than the ‘modernising’ Cameron managed.
Davis speaks more frankly that Cameron. Put plainly, he sounds more convincing and he has acquitted himself well on the Tory front bench.
He has a military background which can only help the fight to control the dangerously riven Tory Party. There’s a precedent for this…
Whether Davis is the man to lead the Tories to an election victory is another question altogether. He will remain at the head of a still divided party which continues to represent the views of a minority of voters. Cameron’s quest for the centre ground has patently failed since his own membership does not want to occupy that space.
However, what does seem likely to happen is that politics will take on a more serious aspect, with Brown in Number 10. This presents challenges but also opportunities for our party. The main challenge is that, once again, the Tories will have a new leader. Davis seems to have the nous to hit the ground running, which is bound to put us – and Labour - on the defensive unless we are well prepared.
The main opportunities we have are Ming’s abilities and our new policy announcements.
In Parliamentary debates, Ming would no longer have to focus on presentation, instead being able to focus his considerable abilities on substance after the ‘flim flam’ of the Blair/Cameron days. The prospects for a quantum leap in the quality of debate among the three leaders are good if Davis takes over and Ming is clearly a match for both the other leaders. Recent history has not benefited Ming’s rather austere style but that could change with David Davis as Tory leader.
Secondly, recent Lib Dem policy announcements have been well-timed and well received and they reflect the fundamental principles most of our members hold. For this reason they are less likely to cause a major stir among party members – although I trust that the front bench team is not complacent in advance of conference…
I am sure this type of conversation is being conducted at various levels within our party but it would be good for all Lib Dems to start the process of considering how to challenge the ‘new’ threat from the Tories. It is a near certainty that Cameron’s days are numbered unless he can pull off a spectacular reverse in the autumn or unless Gordon Brown falters badly for some reason. In Tory history, David Cameron’s leadership may come to be viewed as a damp squib which has not helped his party but complacency over current Tory travails would be a dangerous position to adopt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
