In an interview with the Times today, Dave said of Gordon Brown:
"That is my problem with our prime minister: he looks at every single issue from the point of view of what is the right dividing line that divides me from my opponent, not what is right for the country, and I think that is what he is doing here."
Apparently with no hint of irony intended.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
PRACTICAL POLITICS IN PALESTINE?
The Guardian has posted a fascinating story on its website this morning (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2245407,00.html) about how Palestinians in Gaza have blown up the wall between them and Egypt, allowing tens of thousands of people to flood into Egypt and to stock up on staples in nearby towns. Apparently the Egyptian border guards stood by to allow these people through while the Hamas regime in Gaza has set up a 'customs' service for those returning and has managed to confiscate some weapons.
This story throws up two fascinating points.
First it is a paean to the good old human spirit. This is not a terrorist incident or any kind of attack on Israel, it is simply people in Gaza seeking out the basics of life in the most obvious way.
The second point arises from Israel's refusal to intervene in the incident, instead calling on Egypt to stop the residents from entering their country. This throws all the cards up in the air since, if Egypt decided to adopt a practical policy of opening the border in a controlled way this could allow the Gazan economy to revive and it is this humble liberal blogger's view that good old fashioned capitalism and the pursuit of wealth for oneself and one's family would do infinitely more to reduce the terror threat to Israel than all the botched and clumsy incursions of the Israeli Defence Force ever will.
Perhaps it is a vain hope but it would be wonderful to see Israel and Egypt adopting a practical response to this incident. The Egyptians could introduce border controls and levy export taxes, thus benefiting them and their local economy. The Israelis could see their disastrous involvement with Gaza diminish over time, allowing them to really disengage with this territory which has been such a headache for successive Israeli governments since 1967.
It may even be possible to imagine a working statelet developing there.
Then again, the Egyptians may block the border at any time and the Israelis may decide that shooting and blowing up the Palesitinians once more will make everything better.
Sadly, I know which course of action I expect to happen...
This story throws up two fascinating points.
First it is a paean to the good old human spirit. This is not a terrorist incident or any kind of attack on Israel, it is simply people in Gaza seeking out the basics of life in the most obvious way.
The second point arises from Israel's refusal to intervene in the incident, instead calling on Egypt to stop the residents from entering their country. This throws all the cards up in the air since, if Egypt decided to adopt a practical policy of opening the border in a controlled way this could allow the Gazan economy to revive and it is this humble liberal blogger's view that good old fashioned capitalism and the pursuit of wealth for oneself and one's family would do infinitely more to reduce the terror threat to Israel than all the botched and clumsy incursions of the Israeli Defence Force ever will.
Perhaps it is a vain hope but it would be wonderful to see Israel and Egypt adopting a practical response to this incident. The Egyptians could introduce border controls and levy export taxes, thus benefiting them and their local economy. The Israelis could see their disastrous involvement with Gaza diminish over time, allowing them to really disengage with this territory which has been such a headache for successive Israeli governments since 1967.
It may even be possible to imagine a working statelet developing there.
Then again, the Egyptians may block the border at any time and the Israelis may decide that shooting and blowing up the Palesitinians once more will make everything better.
Sadly, I know which course of action I expect to happen...
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
DAVE DITHERS, NICK NOBBLES
Apparently:
'Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has written to David Cameron demanding clarification of the Conservative Party’s stance on the EU treaty. Mr Clegg said, “until David Cameron explains what the Conservatives would propose to do if this treaty were rejected his position makes no logical sense.”'
'Brilliant' and 'policy' are two words that nornmally don’t go together but our approach of showing that the Tories don’t have a clear idea what to do over the European treaty and Northern Rock is simple yet utterly flawless. I hope we continue to employ this attack for as long as possible as it’s damn near perfect.
Anyone out there still question the merits of Nick 'serious' Clegg
'Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has written to David Cameron demanding clarification of the Conservative Party’s stance on the EU treaty. Mr Clegg said, “until David Cameron explains what the Conservatives would propose to do if this treaty were rejected his position makes no logical sense.”'
'Brilliant' and 'policy' are two words that nornmally don’t go together but our approach of showing that the Tories don’t have a clear idea what to do over the European treaty and Northern Rock is simple yet utterly flawless. I hope we continue to employ this attack for as long as possible as it’s damn near perfect.
Anyone out there still question the merits of Nick 'serious' Clegg
WHY THE RECESSION CAN BE A GOOD THING IF WE ARE WISE…
So the Fed has cut interest rates by ¾ percent, the Dow Jones has slumped another 3%, the US sub-prime market has collapsed and British banks are among those most seriously exposed. Change the names and you’ve got a Lewis Carroll poem in the making.
The recession is going to hit us all and we need to be aware of the potential problems to jobs, inflation, investments etc etc. However, there is still a very bright spot in all the ensuing chaos which we would do well to take on board this time, as we seem not to have in past crises. It is a timeless truth which can enrich us all.
This latest crisis has demonstrated wonderfully, deliciously clearly that all the experts, financial advisers, bankers, stockbrokers and anyone involved in money and monetary policy anywhere who claim to know what’s going to happen don’t have a clue.
Some of them may have guessed correctly, many will even make a killing but if you held their head in a bucket of slurry for long enough (pleasant thought…) they would be forced to admit that they got lucky, pure and simple and that in the past they almost certainly made some big decisions which were just plain wrong.
It may seem alarming that all those who claim to have all the answers haven’t but I have always found it deeply reassuring. The fact is that human society is inherently chaotic and no one can tell us what to do, even with our money. The financial pundits in general say too much and think too little.
Applying this to politics, it seems to me that the best that politicians can hope to do is to guide the shoal of society in broadly the right direction and avoid the bigger nets but that’s it. And once again, that reassures me a whole lot more than a Tony Blair telling me with that just-this-side-of-an-evil-comic-book-villain that he understands what needs to be done and if we trust him he will make things better.
So here’s to uncertainty and to not trusting experts.
[Of course this grand theory of everything cannot explain the Mighty Vince, but then what can?!]
The recession is going to hit us all and we need to be aware of the potential problems to jobs, inflation, investments etc etc. However, there is still a very bright spot in all the ensuing chaos which we would do well to take on board this time, as we seem not to have in past crises. It is a timeless truth which can enrich us all.
This latest crisis has demonstrated wonderfully, deliciously clearly that all the experts, financial advisers, bankers, stockbrokers and anyone involved in money and monetary policy anywhere who claim to know what’s going to happen don’t have a clue.
Some of them may have guessed correctly, many will even make a killing but if you held their head in a bucket of slurry for long enough (pleasant thought…) they would be forced to admit that they got lucky, pure and simple and that in the past they almost certainly made some big decisions which were just plain wrong.
It may seem alarming that all those who claim to have all the answers haven’t but I have always found it deeply reassuring. The fact is that human society is inherently chaotic and no one can tell us what to do, even with our money. The financial pundits in general say too much and think too little.
Applying this to politics, it seems to me that the best that politicians can hope to do is to guide the shoal of society in broadly the right direction and avoid the bigger nets but that’s it. And once again, that reassures me a whole lot more than a Tony Blair telling me with that just-this-side-of-an-evil-comic-book-villain that he understands what needs to be done and if we trust him he will make things better.
So here’s to uncertainty and to not trusting experts.
[Of course this grand theory of everything cannot explain the Mighty Vince, but then what can?!]
Monday, 21 January 2008
ID CARDS SAVE THE WORLD
Chris Huhne responded to the conviction of the killers of Gary Newlove at the hands of drunk local youths by calling for more police on the beat, which is our party’s excellent policy. We could perhaps also ask on all such issues how ID cards would have helped. Would ID cards have stopped Mr Newlove’s death or would a greater uniformed presence to respond to situations where young people may be causing a nuisance offer a better response. Perhaps focusing on the practical, day to day side of ID cards and their utility would throw up some interesting examples, such as this tragic case.
Would ID cards have helped to prevent two recent incidents in Oxfordshire where flood defence equipment was damaged and stolen? Would ID cards stop muggings on the streets of our major cities? Would ID cards help to reduce so called ‘white collar’ crime such as tax evasion?
The answer is of course a resounding no, perhaps followed by a good old fashioned raspberry.
Would ID cards have helped to prevent two recent incidents in Oxfordshire where flood defence equipment was damaged and stolen? Would ID cards stop muggings on the streets of our major cities? Would ID cards help to reduce so called ‘white collar’ crime such as tax evasion?
The answer is of course a resounding no, perhaps followed by a good old fashioned raspberry.
GOVERNMENT IN ‘DISAPPEARING UP OWN FUNDAMENT’ SHOCKER
The Observer (I don't read it, honest) this weekend had the following article:
Tax rebates plan if councils fail to deliver
Residents could win a rebate on their council tax if their local authority repeatedly fails to collect rubbish or tackle yobbish behaviour, under an initiative to be announced this week. Communities Secretary Hazel Blears will launch plans on Tuesday for 'community contracts' that will give people the opportunity to negotiate written guarantees with their council on a wide range of services, from stamping out drug-dealing on estates to bin collection, clearing graffiti and street cleaning. She wants councils to look at forms of 'redress' where services fall badly short.
The deals, which are being piloted in 12 areas, allow residents to set minimum standards, bargain with councils for extra services and put quality checks in place. There could be council tax rebates if there are persistent failures to provide a decent standard of service.
One wonders if the same contracts will be extended to everyone paying Income Tax. Will we receive a refund if, say, the government loses our records in the post or if, say, the government enters into a costly and disastrous war which diminishes this country’s international reputation dramatically and leads to hundreds of British casualties. Might I expect a refund on my Income Tax as part recompense for my government having supported a failing bank with no clear idea how to get out of the mire now we’re in it up to our chequebooks? Perhaps they’ll agree to send me a few quid in compensation for the increasingly draconian police powers they have introduced, such as the huge restrictions on the right to demonstrate in our, er, democracy. At least then I could drown my sorrows in a drink, rather in the style of Winston Smith…
The quote from Hazel Blears is so ironic it is almost painful:
"People rightly expect a good standard of service and redress when things go wrong. When trains are delayed, they are entitled to refunds or compensation. Improving transparency for other public services on a similar scale will not only improve standards but it would also increase confidence in local democracy."
Quite.
Tax rebates plan if councils fail to deliver
Residents could win a rebate on their council tax if their local authority repeatedly fails to collect rubbish or tackle yobbish behaviour, under an initiative to be announced this week. Communities Secretary Hazel Blears will launch plans on Tuesday for 'community contracts' that will give people the opportunity to negotiate written guarantees with their council on a wide range of services, from stamping out drug-dealing on estates to bin collection, clearing graffiti and street cleaning. She wants councils to look at forms of 'redress' where services fall badly short.
The deals, which are being piloted in 12 areas, allow residents to set minimum standards, bargain with councils for extra services and put quality checks in place. There could be council tax rebates if there are persistent failures to provide a decent standard of service.
One wonders if the same contracts will be extended to everyone paying Income Tax. Will we receive a refund if, say, the government loses our records in the post or if, say, the government enters into a costly and disastrous war which diminishes this country’s international reputation dramatically and leads to hundreds of British casualties. Might I expect a refund on my Income Tax as part recompense for my government having supported a failing bank with no clear idea how to get out of the mire now we’re in it up to our chequebooks? Perhaps they’ll agree to send me a few quid in compensation for the increasingly draconian police powers they have introduced, such as the huge restrictions on the right to demonstrate in our, er, democracy. At least then I could drown my sorrows in a drink, rather in the style of Winston Smith…
The quote from Hazel Blears is so ironic it is almost painful:
"People rightly expect a good standard of service and redress when things go wrong. When trains are delayed, they are entitled to refunds or compensation. Improving transparency for other public services on a similar scale will not only improve standards but it would also increase confidence in local democracy."
Quite.
IMPROVED SECURITY THROUGH THE UN? IT’S A LONG SHOT BUT IT MIGHT JUST WORK.
Here’s a thing: we won the war (Hurrah!) in 1945 so we got a veto on the UN Security Council the following year. We then went into steady relative decline and other countries, including our pesky former foes Japan and Germany, have come to the fore in the world and quite reasonably seek a bigger voice on the world stage. Gordon Brown’s radical, forward thinking solution is therefore to, er, retrench the divide between the ‘have-vetos’ and the ‘have-not-vetos’ by doubling the number of countries with a veto to include those two as well as Brazil, India and South Africa.
It would be wonderful for someone in Whitehall to do a bit of strategic thinking and to recognise that the world has changed an awful lot and that the old fashioned system is more full of holes than a broken collander. The almost deified Robert Fisk has pointed out in his excellent but utterly depressing book, The Great War for Civilisation, that almost all of the world’s fissures, from Israel/Palestine to Yugoslavia to Northern Ireland emerged from the debris of the eponymous war and that people have spent the last 90 years trying to stick plasters on the top of the various problems while thousands were impoverished, tortured, raped, blown up, or otherwise killed as a result. A major contributor to that inertia over these intractable problems has been the UN, which was tied up from day one by the need to have the insular USA on board. Hence the focus on what scholars of international relations might term a ‘realist’ model which puts states at the heart of the organisation rather than seeing the organisation as somehow more than the sum of its parts.
I still curse when I think of the unbelievably ignorant former US Foreign Secretary, Madeleine Albright, referring to the UN as ‘international civil servants’ because they wouldn’t do what she wanted them to. Well, good for them and shame on her for not even attempting to understand the system she should have been working within.
But back to the point: giving other major countries more of a say in the UN is of course entirely appropriate and the fact that neither Brazil nor India have a full role there is a scandal. However, giving more vetos isn’t likely to improve the way the Securtity Council works, I would humbly suggest. In particular, that serial veto-er [Sorry, English language…], the USA, will not change its behaviour any time soon and the result will be that the other countries given vetos are likely to respond by obstructing various votes in their own way.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see someone recognise that we are part of the EU and that three of the proposed countries which would have vetos under the new system – Germany, France and us – could be accommodated by a single veto for the EU. I can almost hear the cries of alarm and protest ringing round the shires. However, this would be an eminently practical way to reduce the probable log jam that would arise from up to 10 countries trying to assert themselves with their little vetos and it would force the major countries in the EU to work much more closely together internationally.
One way of sweetening what would be a bitter pill both here among our career obstructers at the Foreign Office and among the even more venal ‘enarques’ at the Quai d'Orsay would be to agree such a policy and them to allow Britain and France to share the Security Council seat for, say, 20 years, with the President of the EU as a formal consultee on all decisions.
Sure its controversial but it would strengthen one of the key international institutions which have done so much for our modern world, in spite of the countless attempts by various states to try to kill them off at various times. I do hope some Tories read this post!
It would be wonderful for someone in Whitehall to do a bit of strategic thinking and to recognise that the world has changed an awful lot and that the old fashioned system is more full of holes than a broken collander. The almost deified Robert Fisk has pointed out in his excellent but utterly depressing book, The Great War for Civilisation, that almost all of the world’s fissures, from Israel/Palestine to Yugoslavia to Northern Ireland emerged from the debris of the eponymous war and that people have spent the last 90 years trying to stick plasters on the top of the various problems while thousands were impoverished, tortured, raped, blown up, or otherwise killed as a result. A major contributor to that inertia over these intractable problems has been the UN, which was tied up from day one by the need to have the insular USA on board. Hence the focus on what scholars of international relations might term a ‘realist’ model which puts states at the heart of the organisation rather than seeing the organisation as somehow more than the sum of its parts.
I still curse when I think of the unbelievably ignorant former US Foreign Secretary, Madeleine Albright, referring to the UN as ‘international civil servants’ because they wouldn’t do what she wanted them to. Well, good for them and shame on her for not even attempting to understand the system she should have been working within.
But back to the point: giving other major countries more of a say in the UN is of course entirely appropriate and the fact that neither Brazil nor India have a full role there is a scandal. However, giving more vetos isn’t likely to improve the way the Securtity Council works, I would humbly suggest. In particular, that serial veto-er [Sorry, English language…], the USA, will not change its behaviour any time soon and the result will be that the other countries given vetos are likely to respond by obstructing various votes in their own way.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see someone recognise that we are part of the EU and that three of the proposed countries which would have vetos under the new system – Germany, France and us – could be accommodated by a single veto for the EU. I can almost hear the cries of alarm and protest ringing round the shires. However, this would be an eminently practical way to reduce the probable log jam that would arise from up to 10 countries trying to assert themselves with their little vetos and it would force the major countries in the EU to work much more closely together internationally.
One way of sweetening what would be a bitter pill both here among our career obstructers at the Foreign Office and among the even more venal ‘enarques’ at the Quai d'Orsay would be to agree such a policy and them to allow Britain and France to share the Security Council seat for, say, 20 years, with the President of the EU as a formal consultee on all decisions.
Sure its controversial but it would strengthen one of the key international institutions which have done so much for our modern world, in spite of the countless attempts by various states to try to kill them off at various times. I do hope some Tories read this post!
Thursday, 17 January 2008
HAVING SET UP MY PETARD...
...I shall now be hoist by it. The gods, clearly angered by my complacency, have decided to open the sluices in the heavens and provide the downpour we have been waiting for.
Still, it shows the divine ones read my blog, which is nice.
Still, it shows the divine ones read my blog, which is nice.
NEWS FROM NOAH'S ARKBUILDERS, OXFORDSHIRE
The news here today has been dominated by the massive flooding in Oxfordshire, with reporters on BBC Radio Oxford falling over themselves to interview worried residents and ask the various agencies what they are doing, whether they learned any lessons from last July, whether they have enough sandbags, whether they are doing enough etc etc until radios across the county are thrown against whatever walls or hard surfaces are available nearby.
Now BBC Radio Oxford did a great job last July, keeping everyone locally up to date with all the major problems which affected the county. Back then we were virtually cut off and thousands of homes were affected - although it must be said that Gloucestershire and Hull were far worse affected than this county.
The difference this time is that, er, there is no flooding yet. Heavy rain was predicted for the whole week but this diligent blogger and house husband hung out his washing this morning and it remains on the line, drying nicely. Sure, the skies are grey and it looks like rain later but this is not July 2007, when unprecedented amounts of water fell on us from a great height. I mean stupid amounts. The only phrase appropriate is 'biblical deluge' Recent rain has been heavy but not catastrophic. The problem we have is that there is nowhere for it to soak away so it will find its way into the rivers but at the moment they seem to be coping.
The desperate truth for the media and for residents looking to shout at someone is that, beyond the fields full of water, i.e. acting as they should as natural flood plains, to the best of my knowledge and the despair of the screeching harpies and doomsayers on the radio, nothing has gone wrong.
This could change in a matter of hours and when it does I hope the radio station does its best to inform us all but for the moment I wish they'd can it and stick on some more Leo Sayer, or whatever BBC local radio has to entertain us with so we can ignore it as usual until the next crisis.
Now BBC Radio Oxford did a great job last July, keeping everyone locally up to date with all the major problems which affected the county. Back then we were virtually cut off and thousands of homes were affected - although it must be said that Gloucestershire and Hull were far worse affected than this county.
The difference this time is that, er, there is no flooding yet. Heavy rain was predicted for the whole week but this diligent blogger and house husband hung out his washing this morning and it remains on the line, drying nicely. Sure, the skies are grey and it looks like rain later but this is not July 2007, when unprecedented amounts of water fell on us from a great height. I mean stupid amounts. The only phrase appropriate is 'biblical deluge' Recent rain has been heavy but not catastrophic. The problem we have is that there is nowhere for it to soak away so it will find its way into the rivers but at the moment they seem to be coping.
The desperate truth for the media and for residents looking to shout at someone is that, beyond the fields full of water, i.e. acting as they should as natural flood plains, to the best of my knowledge and the despair of the screeching harpies and doomsayers on the radio, nothing has gone wrong.
This could change in a matter of hours and when it does I hope the radio station does its best to inform us all but for the moment I wish they'd can it and stick on some more Leo Sayer, or whatever BBC local radio has to entertain us with so we can ignore it as usual until the next crisis.
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
ANALYSIS: BROWN NORMALLY TAKES ONE BOTTLE INTO THE SHOWER BUT TODAY HE TOOK TWO. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR BRITISH POLITICS?
Much of the political news today has been dominated yet again by the Peter Hain funding affair.
Now this is significant and it has brought to light the issue of a senior Cabinet minister failing to disclose funding he received from undisclosed donors. This is important and needs further investigation but isn't that now being done by the appropriate authorities. It also seems to pall beside the continuing funding morass behind the Tories and George Osborne in particular. Sure, New Labour looks grubby but the Tories invented sleaze, serialised it on Radio 4, sold the rights to Hollywood and wrote the user's guide. For a master class on low politics, Smith Square's still the only place to go.
However, both these issues surely do not appear on the radar of anyone outside the cosy world of politics and it always seems that the near blanket coverage of such matters does more damage than good to the cause of making politics (i) accessible (ii) interesting.
The second point may be mildly controversial but politics does need to be interesting and endless spats between the parties over money here or there don't count other than to devalue the whole system.
A similar issue seems to have arisen with comments made by Gordon Brown last night on News at Ten regarding Peter Hain. Brown seems to me to have acknowledged an error was made and to have identified 'incompetence' in Hain's dealing with the issue. Okay so far but how many days will these few words be pored over by commentators eager to find some additional meaning.
Brown is likely to be thoroughly p*ssed off with Hain and he may not be willing to give him a ringing endorsement. He may even be considering sacking him but what good does it do anyone to analyse to death every utterance Brown makes.
I hope Nickers is successful in his bid to change politics and that good old stuff like education and nationalising failed banks that the government has pumped billions in taxpayers' money into in the vain hope of keeping their core constituency sweet come more into the media as stories worthy of coverage.
Now this is significant and it has brought to light the issue of a senior Cabinet minister failing to disclose funding he received from undisclosed donors. This is important and needs further investigation but isn't that now being done by the appropriate authorities. It also seems to pall beside the continuing funding morass behind the Tories and George Osborne in particular. Sure, New Labour looks grubby but the Tories invented sleaze, serialised it on Radio 4, sold the rights to Hollywood and wrote the user's guide. For a master class on low politics, Smith Square's still the only place to go.
However, both these issues surely do not appear on the radar of anyone outside the cosy world of politics and it always seems that the near blanket coverage of such matters does more damage than good to the cause of making politics (i) accessible (ii) interesting.
The second point may be mildly controversial but politics does need to be interesting and endless spats between the parties over money here or there don't count other than to devalue the whole system.
A similar issue seems to have arisen with comments made by Gordon Brown last night on News at Ten regarding Peter Hain. Brown seems to me to have acknowledged an error was made and to have identified 'incompetence' in Hain's dealing with the issue. Okay so far but how many days will these few words be pored over by commentators eager to find some additional meaning.
Brown is likely to be thoroughly p*ssed off with Hain and he may not be willing to give him a ringing endorsement. He may even be considering sacking him but what good does it do anyone to analyse to death every utterance Brown makes.
I hope Nickers is successful in his bid to change politics and that good old stuff like education and nationalising failed banks that the government has pumped billions in taxpayers' money into in the vain hope of keeping their core constituency sweet come more into the media as stories worthy of coverage.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
MPs' PENSIONS MIGHT BEAR REFORMING
It's always disconcerting to find oneself agreeing with the Tory leader but his call for MPs' pensions to be reformed is sensible and reasonable. I imagine we will be in agreement with this, though I'm not sure what our specific policy is.
I'm a council worker - honest - and I contribute to my pension scheme. Why shouldn't MPs do similar.
There, I've said it.
I'm a council worker - honest - and I contribute to my pension scheme. Why shouldn't MPs do similar.
There, I've said it.
EDUCATION, EDYOOCASHUN, EDYUCASIAN
There's a very interesting piece in the Independent today (http://tinyurl.com/2pvesv) from Dr Anthony Seldon calling for independent schools to engage fully with the state sector - and for government to return the compliment - by setting up academies to end the 'educational apartheid' which exists in this country.
This is a fascinating clarion call from the headmaster of an independent school and one of Tony Blair's hagiographers. While I don't disagree with his comments I can never quite accept the tone of such comments, coming as they do from what might be termed - to continue his 'apartheid' analogy - the minority priviledged few.
Academies are proving to have very mixed success rates and they seem to have a propensity to attract rich religious nutters into the education system to twist the minds of the new generation. Not exactly what the great educationalists would seek, I assume...
I have always had a profound hatred of independent schools since they divide society at the very root, setting different groups against each other from the word go, which is profoundly unhealthy. That said, I went to a lousy secondary school and I wouldn't wish the 'education' I received there on my worst enemy, so there is clearly an urgent need for change on both sides, to bring standards up in many state schools and to encourage the private sector to join in the fray.
It is therefore wonderful that our new leader, 'Nickers', has declared himself for greater investment in education and for funding to follow the child, with more money following those in greatest need. It seems to me that this is an excellent way of addressing Dr Seldon's concerns by (i) mixing children from different backgrounds (ii) encouraging independent schools to market themselves to encourage those children with more money behind them to attend.
We must, after all, spare a thought for the poor independent sector, whose schools, we hear from the good Dr, operate with tight margins and the parents of whose little nippers often struggle to meet the fees. (Sob!)
Or we could recognise that independent schools are businesses seeking to cream off the best in our society and the parents who put their children through the independent sector have eschewed the free education which has been available in this country for some decades now in favour of an elitist system which causes harm to the mainstream sector by channelling their money away from it.
We could also recognise the unpalatable (for Dr Seldon's 'elite') truth that the majority of schools in this country are almost certainly pefectly good and give their students a good education. Some are abysmal and need urgent attention and government should drop everything else in favour of this cause since education is so fundamental to every aspect of our society.
So yes, lets all engage with the independent sector and bring it into the mainstream. I'm all for that but let's not worry about this private sector business, let's just encourage it to compete on level terms and hope that the resulting competition produces excellent quality education for everyone, not just the little poppets being driven around in 4x4s by their wonderful parents making enormous sacrifices for them.
This is a fascinating clarion call from the headmaster of an independent school and one of Tony Blair's hagiographers. While I don't disagree with his comments I can never quite accept the tone of such comments, coming as they do from what might be termed - to continue his 'apartheid' analogy - the minority priviledged few.
Academies are proving to have very mixed success rates and they seem to have a propensity to attract rich religious nutters into the education system to twist the minds of the new generation. Not exactly what the great educationalists would seek, I assume...
I have always had a profound hatred of independent schools since they divide society at the very root, setting different groups against each other from the word go, which is profoundly unhealthy. That said, I went to a lousy secondary school and I wouldn't wish the 'education' I received there on my worst enemy, so there is clearly an urgent need for change on both sides, to bring standards up in many state schools and to encourage the private sector to join in the fray.
It is therefore wonderful that our new leader, 'Nickers', has declared himself for greater investment in education and for funding to follow the child, with more money following those in greatest need. It seems to me that this is an excellent way of addressing Dr Seldon's concerns by (i) mixing children from different backgrounds (ii) encouraging independent schools to market themselves to encourage those children with more money behind them to attend.
We must, after all, spare a thought for the poor independent sector, whose schools, we hear from the good Dr, operate with tight margins and the parents of whose little nippers often struggle to meet the fees. (Sob!)
Or we could recognise that independent schools are businesses seeking to cream off the best in our society and the parents who put their children through the independent sector have eschewed the free education which has been available in this country for some decades now in favour of an elitist system which causes harm to the mainstream sector by channelling their money away from it.
We could also recognise the unpalatable (for Dr Seldon's 'elite') truth that the majority of schools in this country are almost certainly pefectly good and give their students a good education. Some are abysmal and need urgent attention and government should drop everything else in favour of this cause since education is so fundamental to every aspect of our society.
So yes, lets all engage with the independent sector and bring it into the mainstream. I'm all for that but let's not worry about this private sector business, let's just encourage it to compete on level terms and hope that the resulting competition produces excellent quality education for everyone, not just the little poppets being driven around in 4x4s by their wonderful parents making enormous sacrifices for them.
Monday, 14 January 2008
COUNCIL STAFF DON’T DEMAND 6% PAY RISE SHOCKER
The BBC’s news ticker says that Council workers are submitting a pay claim for 6%, the article behind is headed ‘Council Staff demand 6% pay rise’.
Er, no. Council staff unions, which I believe represent significantly fewer than 50% of Council employees, are submitting this claim, not Council staff.
It might be argued that the unions are doing this with the best of intentions, to support the many lower paid Council staff who cover a wide range of workers from school assistants to refuse operatives (‘bin men’ in old money). The problem is that most Council staff will be sufficiently aware of the woeful financial situation in local government to realise that any such claim is a joke.
Sure, we’d all love a 6% pay rise but it just ain’t gonna happen while the government continues to deceive over local finances, demanding more services and more targets with less money. There is, for example, the small matter of the new national bus pass for pensioners which will be introduced in May. This is a very good idea in principle as it will take many people out of their cars and encourage greater bus use. Unfortunately, as anyone with half a brain would have realised had they thought about it for two minutes, it will come close to sending many local authorities to the wall.
There’s no spare money in local government. A 6% pay rise is a pipe dream, so well done the unions for another utterly pointless exercise in posturing for no sensible purpose.
Er, no. Council staff unions, which I believe represent significantly fewer than 50% of Council employees, are submitting this claim, not Council staff.
It might be argued that the unions are doing this with the best of intentions, to support the many lower paid Council staff who cover a wide range of workers from school assistants to refuse operatives (‘bin men’ in old money). The problem is that most Council staff will be sufficiently aware of the woeful financial situation in local government to realise that any such claim is a joke.
Sure, we’d all love a 6% pay rise but it just ain’t gonna happen while the government continues to deceive over local finances, demanding more services and more targets with less money. There is, for example, the small matter of the new national bus pass for pensioners which will be introduced in May. This is a very good idea in principle as it will take many people out of their cars and encourage greater bus use. Unfortunately, as anyone with half a brain would have realised had they thought about it for two minutes, it will come close to sending many local authorities to the wall.
There’s no spare money in local government. A 6% pay rise is a pipe dream, so well done the unions for another utterly pointless exercise in posturing for no sensible purpose.
Friday, 11 January 2008
Cllr Jim Moley
I have just been told of the death of one of my councillors. Jim Moley was a Wantage Councillor for countless years and he was active up to the moment of his death.
He absolutely thrived on the local politics of Wantage and he fought and won at the Town, District and County levels in every contest. He was always on the doorstep, always preparing and delivering new leaflets to residents and he drove me mad with his constant calls to discuss the latest issue to overtake his ward.
He was the essence of a good councillor and he will be greatly missed in Wantage and in Oxfordshire.
He absolutely thrived on the local politics of Wantage and he fought and won at the Town, District and County levels in every contest. He was always on the doorstep, always preparing and delivering new leaflets to residents and he drove me mad with his constant calls to discuss the latest issue to overtake his ward.
He was the essence of a good councillor and he will be greatly missed in Wantage and in Oxfordshire.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
WHY AREN'T MPs SELF EMPLOYED?
The House of Commons earlier this week corrected the annual figure for funding MPs' final salary pension schemes has increased from £7.8m to £20.5m. That's a big error to make.
In the face of Gordon Brown's attempts to shave costs wherever he can, including driving local government increasingly to the wall, there seems a 'quick win' which would net the government quite a major saving in the long term.
Why not bump MPs' incomes up to around £80,000 and then make them all self employed. This may seem an excessive rise but it would reflect professional pay for equivalent jobs and it would also reflect the work they do - in the main, that is.
Most MPs have outside interests, such as journalism or memberships of company or charity boards so, Peter Hain notwithstanding, they will be au fait with proper accounting. The increase in salaries would incur a higher cost but it would not carry any financial burden into the future as this would be borne by our honourable representatives.
Anyway, its just a thought
In the face of Gordon Brown's attempts to shave costs wherever he can, including driving local government increasingly to the wall, there seems a 'quick win' which would net the government quite a major saving in the long term.
Why not bump MPs' incomes up to around £80,000 and then make them all self employed. This may seem an excessive rise but it would reflect professional pay for equivalent jobs and it would also reflect the work they do - in the main, that is.
Most MPs have outside interests, such as journalism or memberships of company or charity boards so, Peter Hain notwithstanding, they will be au fait with proper accounting. The increase in salaries would incur a higher cost but it would not carry any financial burden into the future as this would be borne by our honourable representatives.
Anyway, its just a thought
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
QUICK, GEORGE! IT'S TUESDAY: LET'S ATTACK PEOPLE ON BENEFITS...
So Dave wants long term unemployed young people to be required to do community work if they have been on benefits for more than two years. Hey ho. I wholeheartedly agree, as I imagine most people will. No sensible person wants to encourage people to stay on benefits long term and those able to work should work. So far, no dispute with LD principles, IMHO.
I seem to recall Paddy Ashdown proposing just such a scheme many years ago and it receiving widespread support. Come to think of it, hasn't every Tory leader since Michael Howard proposed such a scheme? Well, people must have forgotten by now so why not rehash it once more and pretend its a shiny new idea from the Dave Cameron Recycling Centre?
The issue with the Tories is always in the detail of what they propose since they haven't had a joined up policy in over a decade. That's the problem with our blue foes: its just an idea here, an idea there but no clear outline for a fairer, better society.
The biggest hole in their policy is that they propose to dock one month's benefits from anyone unemployed who refused a sensible job offer, three months' benefits if they refused a second job offer and six months' benefits if they refused a third.
Two problems here:
(i) If you cut someone's benefits for any reason, isn't that more likely to cause them to have difficulties paying for food, rent and general family support? Would such a cut in benefits be more or less likely to push a vulnerable young person with no money, no food and mounting bills towards crime? Perhaps we should build more prisons now to cater for them. We could even call them - in context, you understand - 'workhouses', since they're meant to encourage people into, er, work.
(ii) The second problem is far more prosaic. As someone who spent several years, deskbound, in the purgatory that is the benefits system I can confirm to Mr Cameron that if you withdraw Jobseeker's Allowance from someone and they have nothing to live on, er, they will be eligible for Income Support. It's therefore not a radical policy at all but a paper chase, pure and simple.
Still, the right wing press will trumpet Dave's common sense and you can just bet that the Daily Himmler will track down some undesirable to rail on about being owed a living by the state.
The Tories just don't get it, do they? Unfortunately, they play to the crowd and a significant number in the crowd will bay for more, egged on by the media.
What about requiring people on Jobseeker's Allowance to do community work if they do not get a job within, say, 6 months but not demonising them for any possible reluctance? Instead we could engage with them to work through the various issues which affect them and seek solutions, i.e. paid employment, ultimately
We could also recognise that we will not get everyone into work, that a minority of people will refuse and that they will still claim benefits. They should perhaps be penalised with a lower rate of benefits but they should not just be abandoned.
Such a proposal would cost money as it would require a beefed-up benefits service to get personally involved in the lives of the people concerned to help them into work. There would be a long term benefit - say over 20 years - but it would take time and money. I wonder if the shiny new caring Conservatives would subscribe to such an investment in society which did not generate rabid headlines.
Three guesses...
I seem to recall Paddy Ashdown proposing just such a scheme many years ago and it receiving widespread support. Come to think of it, hasn't every Tory leader since Michael Howard proposed such a scheme? Well, people must have forgotten by now so why not rehash it once more and pretend its a shiny new idea from the Dave Cameron Recycling Centre?
The issue with the Tories is always in the detail of what they propose since they haven't had a joined up policy in over a decade. That's the problem with our blue foes: its just an idea here, an idea there but no clear outline for a fairer, better society.
The biggest hole in their policy is that they propose to dock one month's benefits from anyone unemployed who refused a sensible job offer, three months' benefits if they refused a second job offer and six months' benefits if they refused a third.
Two problems here:
(i) If you cut someone's benefits for any reason, isn't that more likely to cause them to have difficulties paying for food, rent and general family support? Would such a cut in benefits be more or less likely to push a vulnerable young person with no money, no food and mounting bills towards crime? Perhaps we should build more prisons now to cater for them. We could even call them - in context, you understand - 'workhouses', since they're meant to encourage people into, er, work.
(ii) The second problem is far more prosaic. As someone who spent several years, deskbound, in the purgatory that is the benefits system I can confirm to Mr Cameron that if you withdraw Jobseeker's Allowance from someone and they have nothing to live on, er, they will be eligible for Income Support. It's therefore not a radical policy at all but a paper chase, pure and simple.
Still, the right wing press will trumpet Dave's common sense and you can just bet that the Daily Himmler will track down some undesirable to rail on about being owed a living by the state.
The Tories just don't get it, do they? Unfortunately, they play to the crowd and a significant number in the crowd will bay for more, egged on by the media.
What about requiring people on Jobseeker's Allowance to do community work if they do not get a job within, say, 6 months but not demonising them for any possible reluctance? Instead we could engage with them to work through the various issues which affect them and seek solutions, i.e. paid employment, ultimately
We could also recognise that we will not get everyone into work, that a minority of people will refuse and that they will still claim benefits. They should perhaps be penalised with a lower rate of benefits but they should not just be abandoned.
Such a proposal would cost money as it would require a beefed-up benefits service to get personally involved in the lives of the people concerned to help them into work. There would be a long term benefit - say over 20 years - but it would take time and money. I wonder if the shiny new caring Conservatives would subscribe to such an investment in society which did not generate rabid headlines.
Three guesses...
Thursday, 3 January 2008
RAILING AGAINST RAIL PRIVATISATION
So, a government owned – and therefore publicly funded - company which runs our railway lines has failed to complete its engineering works on time, due to problems with contractors, causing the private companies which own the trains to complain about a breakdown in service and massive disruption. The private companies which run the trains will now complain to the rail regulator which will in turn fine the company which runs our railway lines. The company which runs our railway lines is owned by the government which means, er, that not only do rail passengers get stuffed with declining services, fewer trains, higher fares and service disruptions, they also have to pay the fine for the disruption which occurs. Brilliant!
Is it me or is this completely and utterly ludicrous and the kind of system which would drive a genuine private company which wasn’t shored up by billions in government subsidies (that’s you, Mr Branson) to the wall?
I would be fascinated to know how far the massive subsidies being paid to Virgin, First Group and the rest for their rail franchises equate to the subsidy paid to British Rail in the 1990s – a subsidy the Tory government reduced each year before it lurched towards rail privatisation in one of its final convulsions before it finally died. My guess is that British Rail provided a none-too-bad service for quite a reasonable price before it was hacked to pieces in a moment of ideological madness.
I used to live in Clapham Junction and I used public transport to go everywhere. It was simple, relatively cheap and relatively reliable. It’s now easier and probably cheaper to book a hotel in Cairns than it is to book a peak time train to Penzance.
Rail privatisation ranks up there with bus privatisation as one of the biggest fiascos ever inflicted on us by a government. Both the trains and buses are subsidised to the tune of billions each year, while travellers pay stupid fares which drive them (sickening chuckle) to their cars.
I would be very interested to find out why, when our national infrastructure continues to creak and groan like a metal bridge in the Poseidon Adventure, the LDs still don’t support nationalisation of the railways.
I’m no socialist centraliser but it seems pretty obvious to even the most rabid Tory imbecile that the train system in this country is crap and it became crap the moment some dunderhead in Whitehall decided to separate the track, the service provision and the trains into separate companies and tried to bring a market solution into what can only ever be a monopoly.
If you had a public system of transport provision you could still involve private companies. A service could be specified and companies could be invited to bid but public service provision could be made available in the event of no bidders coming forward or their bids offering a pisspoor service for a massive subsidy - just as happened with quite embarrassing success for the government on the Network South East franchise. The government naturally scuppered that excellent public service because it went against received 'wisdom' in Whitehall.
I do not claim to foretell the future but I’ve got a good idea what the outcome of such a proposal would be. The dead hand of Stagecoach and others could then be wrenched from the country’s throat and adequate public transport provision could be made.
Or am I just a woolly minded Liberal who believes that public services should, er, serve the public…?
Is it me or is this completely and utterly ludicrous and the kind of system which would drive a genuine private company which wasn’t shored up by billions in government subsidies (that’s you, Mr Branson) to the wall?
I would be fascinated to know how far the massive subsidies being paid to Virgin, First Group and the rest for their rail franchises equate to the subsidy paid to British Rail in the 1990s – a subsidy the Tory government reduced each year before it lurched towards rail privatisation in one of its final convulsions before it finally died. My guess is that British Rail provided a none-too-bad service for quite a reasonable price before it was hacked to pieces in a moment of ideological madness.
I used to live in Clapham Junction and I used public transport to go everywhere. It was simple, relatively cheap and relatively reliable. It’s now easier and probably cheaper to book a hotel in Cairns than it is to book a peak time train to Penzance.
Rail privatisation ranks up there with bus privatisation as one of the biggest fiascos ever inflicted on us by a government. Both the trains and buses are subsidised to the tune of billions each year, while travellers pay stupid fares which drive them (sickening chuckle) to their cars.
I would be very interested to find out why, when our national infrastructure continues to creak and groan like a metal bridge in the Poseidon Adventure, the LDs still don’t support nationalisation of the railways.
I’m no socialist centraliser but it seems pretty obvious to even the most rabid Tory imbecile that the train system in this country is crap and it became crap the moment some dunderhead in Whitehall decided to separate the track, the service provision and the trains into separate companies and tried to bring a market solution into what can only ever be a monopoly.
If you had a public system of transport provision you could still involve private companies. A service could be specified and companies could be invited to bid but public service provision could be made available in the event of no bidders coming forward or their bids offering a pisspoor service for a massive subsidy - just as happened with quite embarrassing success for the government on the Network South East franchise. The government naturally scuppered that excellent public service because it went against received 'wisdom' in Whitehall.
I do not claim to foretell the future but I’ve got a good idea what the outcome of such a proposal would be. The dead hand of Stagecoach and others could then be wrenched from the country’s throat and adequate public transport provision could be made.
Or am I just a woolly minded Liberal who believes that public services should, er, serve the public…?
RIP HARRY FLASHMAN
George Macdonald Fraser, the author of the unparalleled Flashman novels has died this week. I have read most of his books, including all the Flashman novels and I have probably learned more about 19th Century history from him than from any other source, all with a smile on my face and often a loud laugh.
His books were always entertaining and, despite being the ultimate cowardly bastard, you simply had to love Harry Flashman VC, which is a measure of how well the books were written. The BBC says that GMF's main character was racist and sexist but that completely misses the point. Flashman was a creature of his time: a selfish, arrogant member of the minor nobility who sought the easiest route to advancement he could. He did this all with a wit and brazenness which beggared belief - which is why he was so very funny.
GMF also wrote the screenplay to The Three Musketeers, the original 1970s one with Michael Yorke, Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain and the incomparable Roy Kinnear rather than the bad-beyond-belief 1994 version. The original was one of the funniest films ever and is always worth watching on the regular rainy afternoons it is revived on one channel or another.
I have just started to read GMF's last book, The Reavers, and it is as good as any of the others - absurd beyond all reason and delightfully funny.
I shall regret the lack of any new Flashman tales in the future. Our greatest war hero has finally hung up his spurs. Way to go, GMF!
His books were always entertaining and, despite being the ultimate cowardly bastard, you simply had to love Harry Flashman VC, which is a measure of how well the books were written. The BBC says that GMF's main character was racist and sexist but that completely misses the point. Flashman was a creature of his time: a selfish, arrogant member of the minor nobility who sought the easiest route to advancement he could. He did this all with a wit and brazenness which beggared belief - which is why he was so very funny.
GMF also wrote the screenplay to The Three Musketeers, the original 1970s one with Michael Yorke, Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain and the incomparable Roy Kinnear rather than the bad-beyond-belief 1994 version. The original was one of the funniest films ever and is always worth watching on the regular rainy afternoons it is revived on one channel or another.
I have just started to read GMF's last book, The Reavers, and it is as good as any of the others - absurd beyond all reason and delightfully funny.
I shall regret the lack of any new Flashman tales in the future. Our greatest war hero has finally hung up his spurs. Way to go, GMF!
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
GREAT LEADER, GREAT START BUT WHAT DO WE CALL HIM?
2008 begins with much promise for us Lib Dems, with Nick Clegg on the first proper Today of the year railing about all sorts, just like we want him to. He faces a series of key challenges this year to keep himself and the party in the limelight as he gradually stops being the new boy of politics and to develop our public persona further as the other two party leaders increasingly hit the buffers (can one increasingly hit buffers or is this a metaphor too far?) One of the challenges our esteemed leader faces stands looming above all the others like Beachy Head above the Seven Sisters.
The key issue for Clegg is the absolutely crucial need for a good nickname. Without this he is sunk and we as a party will fall into the morass of indifference which even today greets John 'John' Major, since no one knew what to call him, even if we did guffaw at his underpants, smile at his alleged pea obsession and go slightly green at the thought of him coupling over the Cabinet table with Edwina 'no salmonella in my eggs' Currie.
Forget policy, presentation or Parliamentary performace, a good nickname is the fulcrum on which successful leadership spins.
But where to begin? Ming Campbell came with a nickname ready made, in his eminently stylish and organised way. He no doubt had it hand-stitched by an Edinburgh nickname maker who had been in business since 1546. Chat Show Charlie achieved the impossible, with a frivolous yet reassuring name which to this day means that everyone loves him. Paddy 'Pantsdown' Ashdown did more for our party's poll rating with his bedroom antics than 1000 policy announcements...
Of course, the other side is far more worrying. David 'Call me Dave' chose blokey mateyness which in no way reflects his position as leader of the nasty toffs' party. As for Gordon Brown, well his name has strangely become his nickname as it is intoned as if in echo of a great funeral bell signalling the onrush of his demise as we all slide into the recession he created for us.
But back to Nick. 'Nick' is already a nickname of sorts but it is somewhat ordinary. Clegg calls to mind 'Last of the Summer Wine' but that's about it. Not a great breeding ground for humour in that tragic documentary about a small community of oddballs in terminal decline in Yorkshire. No, any variation on Nick Clegg's actual name brings forth such banality that it beggars belief: Nicko, Cleggster, Cleggy. It's all too ghastly to contemplate.
What is needed therefore is not a manifesto commission, nor an election planning committee but a group of party elders to consider the burning question for 2008. How can we refer to our new party leader in a non-derisory but familiar way which endears him to voters while still allowing him to maintain his developing persona as the most earnest politician in the western world.
It remains a key challenge and one I am sure 'the Nickster' will rise to.
The key issue for Clegg is the absolutely crucial need for a good nickname. Without this he is sunk and we as a party will fall into the morass of indifference which even today greets John 'John' Major, since no one knew what to call him, even if we did guffaw at his underpants, smile at his alleged pea obsession and go slightly green at the thought of him coupling over the Cabinet table with Edwina 'no salmonella in my eggs' Currie.
Forget policy, presentation or Parliamentary performace, a good nickname is the fulcrum on which successful leadership spins.
But where to begin? Ming Campbell came with a nickname ready made, in his eminently stylish and organised way. He no doubt had it hand-stitched by an Edinburgh nickname maker who had been in business since 1546. Chat Show Charlie achieved the impossible, with a frivolous yet reassuring name which to this day means that everyone loves him. Paddy 'Pantsdown' Ashdown did more for our party's poll rating with his bedroom antics than 1000 policy announcements...
Of course, the other side is far more worrying. David 'Call me Dave' chose blokey mateyness which in no way reflects his position as leader of the nasty toffs' party. As for Gordon Brown, well his name has strangely become his nickname as it is intoned as if in echo of a great funeral bell signalling the onrush of his demise as we all slide into the recession he created for us.
But back to Nick. 'Nick' is already a nickname of sorts but it is somewhat ordinary. Clegg calls to mind 'Last of the Summer Wine' but that's about it. Not a great breeding ground for humour in that tragic documentary about a small community of oddballs in terminal decline in Yorkshire. No, any variation on Nick Clegg's actual name brings forth such banality that it beggars belief: Nicko, Cleggster, Cleggy. It's all too ghastly to contemplate.
What is needed therefore is not a manifesto commission, nor an election planning committee but a group of party elders to consider the burning question for 2008. How can we refer to our new party leader in a non-derisory but familiar way which endears him to voters while still allowing him to maintain his developing persona as the most earnest politician in the western world.
It remains a key challenge and one I am sure 'the Nickster' will rise to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
