Are politicians really as stupid as they sometimes seem?
Take three silly examples from the last ten days:
Cameron, in his weekly attempt to put the world to rights from the podium, announces that there will be no free lunches for MP's. Saving the tax payer millions! At a time when UK national debt is heading to 1 Trillion (and beyond) this must be a piece of political satire, surely?
In the midst of attempts to grab the headlines Clegg had the opportunity to be seen to be rising above it. To show himself as a level headed leader prepared to put well thought policy before publicity. But no, the cameras were there and the chance to get the main headline spot on the News at 10 was too much: "Savage Cuts" was the soundbite, and the response was as expected.
Ed Balls then decides to play his trump card: 2 Billion of savings from the top of the teaching profession. It appears that the teaching unions were not consulted on this knee jerk policy announcement - the Tories didn't need to criticise, the NUS would do it for them.
Where have the great statesmen and women gone? Why have policy announcements from Sunday morning TV sofas replaced announcements from the dispatch box? Why do the best and the brightest of all parties get sidelined for cheap hacks that are prepared to tow an ill-thought party line?
Monday 21 September 2009
Friday 18 September 2009
CUTS FOR ALL - the popular choice
The focus has changed from who can cut the least, to who can cut most effectively. And, don't the people love it.
Today Brown, Darling and the rest of Labours increasingly lowly high command are in meetings to find areas of the public sector that can be cut. Presumably (hopefully) they will be looking for areas where the cuts will have little affect and might go "unnoticed" (if this is possible). Realistically however any cuts to public services are going to be felt somewhere by someone to some extent. The politicians know that they just have to bite the bullet - there is no option.
What seems odd to me is the pleasure that the press and the majority of the public are taking in the prospect of these cuts. People and journalists, who haven't fully grasped the basics of Macro-economics, have failed to understand or forgotten that the UK government has been living in debt for as long as we can remember. A small amount of debt can be beneficial to a country. A country is not like an individual where a large amount of savings is required for prosperity.
Few would argue against the statement that the public sector investment over the last 10 years has been largely positive for this country. Classrooms are no longer closed due to leaking ceilings and waiting lists for critical treatments are now almost non-existent. And, it is of no surprise that the conservatives are in raptures over having legitimate grounds to reduce public spending. But the public, who has benefited so much from spending, should not be so eager to see cuts. So eager that most politicians now think that this will be the battle lines of the next election.
Cuts need to happen. Debt must be reduced towards 40% GDP. Cuts are going to happen. Most likely they will happen before a full recovery has occurred, even though basic economic thought suggests this is counter productive and will end up costing the economy more in the long run. Cuts are going to hurt people. Most likely it will be the people at the bottom, in most need, that will suffer the most. However, cuts should not be celebrated. Rather they should be accepted, minimised where ever possible and stopped as soon as financial possible.
The Conservatives have fooled the press and the press have talked the country into a "cut for your life" mentality. Hopefully this mentality will not be in the top level meetings today.
Today Brown, Darling and the rest of Labours increasingly lowly high command are in meetings to find areas of the public sector that can be cut. Presumably (hopefully) they will be looking for areas where the cuts will have little affect and might go "unnoticed" (if this is possible). Realistically however any cuts to public services are going to be felt somewhere by someone to some extent. The politicians know that they just have to bite the bullet - there is no option.
What seems odd to me is the pleasure that the press and the majority of the public are taking in the prospect of these cuts. People and journalists, who haven't fully grasped the basics of Macro-economics, have failed to understand or forgotten that the UK government has been living in debt for as long as we can remember. A small amount of debt can be beneficial to a country. A country is not like an individual where a large amount of savings is required for prosperity.
Few would argue against the statement that the public sector investment over the last 10 years has been largely positive for this country. Classrooms are no longer closed due to leaking ceilings and waiting lists for critical treatments are now almost non-existent. And, it is of no surprise that the conservatives are in raptures over having legitimate grounds to reduce public spending. But the public, who has benefited so much from spending, should not be so eager to see cuts. So eager that most politicians now think that this will be the battle lines of the next election.Cuts need to happen. Debt must be reduced towards 40% GDP. Cuts are going to happen. Most likely they will happen before a full recovery has occurred, even though basic economic thought suggests this is counter productive and will end up costing the economy more in the long run. Cuts are going to hurt people. Most likely it will be the people at the bottom, in most need, that will suffer the most. However, cuts should not be celebrated. Rather they should be accepted, minimised where ever possible and stopped as soon as financial possible.
The Conservatives have fooled the press and the press have talked the country into a "cut for your life" mentality. Hopefully this mentality will not be in the top level meetings today.
Wednesday 9 September 2009
The Recession is Over
It has gone unnoticed my many parts of the British press, but the recession has come to an end.
Manufacturing is rapidly reviving, with mothballed factories springing back to life as companies cracked up production for the second month in a row. The FTSE 100 of blue chip companies is closing close to the 5000 mark. Large scales mergers and take overs are happening again.
This is not to say that it is business as usual. It will take many more months, if not years for the economy to return to 2007 levels. But, make no mistake the recovery has started and the third quarter of this year will show positive economic growth.
So maybe it is time for the Daily Telegraph and the BBC to stop covering Cameron's laughable House of Commons "savings" and stop to look at the events that have contributed to this recovery. The bail out of the banks, the VAT cut, the quantitative easing and numerous other schemes that this embattled government bravely stuck to. And, it might also be worth examining the alternative path that would have been taken had a Tory government been in Number 10 and the awful repercussions that would have had.
It might never be known how close this country came to going to the wall in the winter of 08/09, but I am betting it wasn't far off.
Manufacturing is rapidly reviving, with mothballed factories springing back to life as companies cracked up production for the second month in a row. The FTSE 100 of blue chip companies is closing close to the 5000 mark. Large scales mergers and take overs are happening again.
This is not to say that it is business as usual. It will take many more months, if not years for the economy to return to 2007 levels. But, make no mistake the recovery has started and the third quarter of this year will show positive economic growth.
So maybe it is time for the Daily Telegraph and the BBC to stop covering Cameron's laughable House of Commons "savings" and stop to look at the events that have contributed to this recovery. The bail out of the banks, the VAT cut, the quantitative easing and numerous other schemes that this embattled government bravely stuck to. And, it might also be worth examining the alternative path that would have been taken had a Tory government been in Number 10 and the awful repercussions that would have had.
It might never be known how close this country came to going to the wall in the winter of 08/09, but I am betting it wasn't far off.
Thursday 3 September 2009
Afghanistan - a just and popular war?
70 years ago today Britain declared war on Germany. Young men flocked to enlist into the armed forces. My grandfather described a sense of anticipation bordering on excitement. The Hun were approaching across Europe and the start of the Second World War was an event that galvanised a nation. Even in the darkest days of 1941 and 1942, when many thought that a full invasion was only weeks away, the war effort was widely supported.
British historians and the British public look back on this war with a sense of pride. As a young boy I used to love listening to the stories my Grandfather told. A war in which thousands of British men, women and children died is widely (and rightly) considered this nation’s finest hour.
It is interesting to compare this with the wars we have fought recently and are fighting currently. Today the sense of national pride described above is absent. While there has been an increase in Army recruitment this is due mainly to the economic situation. Many see the wars in the Middle East as a scar on the British reputation and politicians freely criticise many aspects of the war effort, while troops are in the field.
So why is the war in Afghanistan losing support, and rapidly?
Is it because the public find it hard to separate it from the Iraq war, which many say was a massive misadventure? Is it because of the images from the front line that shows terrifying scenes of close quarter combat with bayonets fixed (images never seen during WWII)? Is it the heart wrenching scenes from Wootton Bassett? Or, is it the sense that we no longer fighting for our own self-interest, with the more real threat now coming from the border regions of Pakistan?
Furthermore, at a time when many nations around the world (Iran, N Korea, Russia…) could be considered a threat to British interests is this aversion to conflict a good or bad thing? Will it increase the possibility of diplomacy or leave Britain open to these threats? What would the situation be now if Britain were attacked? Would a government be able (if necessary) to take this country to war? And, if not what are the ramifications of that?
The morale, emotions and feelings of a nation often dictates domestic policy, this may be the first time in a long time it influences foreign policy.
British historians and the British public look back on this war with a sense of pride. As a young boy I used to love listening to the stories my Grandfather told. A war in which thousands of British men, women and children died is widely (and rightly) considered this nation’s finest hour.
It is interesting to compare this with the wars we have fought recently and are fighting currently. Today the sense of national pride described above is absent. While there has been an increase in Army recruitment this is due mainly to the economic situation. Many see the wars in the Middle East as a scar on the British reputation and politicians freely criticise many aspects of the war effort, while troops are in the field.
So why is the war in Afghanistan losing support, and rapidly?
Is it because the public find it hard to separate it from the Iraq war, which many say was a massive misadventure? Is it because of the images from the front line that shows terrifying scenes of close quarter combat with bayonets fixed (images never seen during WWII)? Is it the heart wrenching scenes from Wootton Bassett? Or, is it the sense that we no longer fighting for our own self-interest, with the more real threat now coming from the border regions of Pakistan?
Furthermore, at a time when many nations around the world (Iran, N Korea, Russia…) could be considered a threat to British interests is this aversion to conflict a good or bad thing? Will it increase the possibility of diplomacy or leave Britain open to these threats? What would the situation be now if Britain were attacked? Would a government be able (if necessary) to take this country to war? And, if not what are the ramifications of that?
The morale, emotions and feelings of a nation often dictates domestic policy, this may be the first time in a long time it influences foreign policy.
Monday 31 August 2009
Why the release of the Lockerbie bomber was the right decision
The release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, is now a decision surrounded in controversy. The scenes upon his return home were disappointing as they were unsurprising. The political wranglings that led up to this decision are not yet fully known. These issues threaten to taint what was a brave and righteous decision.
al-Megrahi was and is an evil man who now represents no threat to anybody. He has returned home to die, and while these things can never be predicted exactly it is likely that this will happen in the next month. Many justice systems around the world don't have the ability to make mercy decisions, the Scottish system does however. And, the decision taken by the Justice Secretary, backed by Nelson Mandela, to free this man on compasionate grounds was the right one.
Common humanity dictates that a dying man should be allowed to die with his family. This is not a curtosy that al-Megrahi showed to his victims, but why should this be a reason for us to lower our standards? The western world should seek where possible to be just, forgiving and not vengeful. We should seek to set the moral compass.
Those who say that he should have been released only in a coffin, are most likely the same people who support the death penalty. Those who say that this will give comfort to terrorists, are the same as those that believe the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.
This man was given a fair trial, served a just sentence for an awful crime and now has been shown great compassion by the Scottish justice system. Let this be an example to the vengeful world.
al-Megrahi was and is an evil man who now represents no threat to anybody. He has returned home to die, and while these things can never be predicted exactly it is likely that this will happen in the next month. Many justice systems around the world don't have the ability to make mercy decisions, the Scottish system does however. And, the decision taken by the Justice Secretary, backed by Nelson Mandela, to free this man on compasionate grounds was the right one.
Common humanity dictates that a dying man should be allowed to die with his family. This is not a curtosy that al-Megrahi showed to his victims, but why should this be a reason for us to lower our standards? The western world should seek where possible to be just, forgiving and not vengeful. We should seek to set the moral compass.
Those who say that he should have been released only in a coffin, are most likely the same people who support the death penalty. Those who say that this will give comfort to terrorists, are the same as those that believe the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.
This man was given a fair trial, served a just sentence for an awful crime and now has been shown great compassion by the Scottish justice system. Let this be an example to the vengeful world.
Friday 28 August 2009
Drugs, money, deception and gambling ..... and this time not in the banks!
Sport is in trouble. We've known it for a long time. As with many such things we have chosen to ignore it. If action isn't taken soon on, many fronts, we risk losing the true sporting contest for good.
The list of sporting controversies in recent times is long and undistinguished. Ranging from drug cheats to match fixing; from feigning injuries to possible gender deception. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption and cheating is rife in almost every sport across the globe, and at every level. When sitting down to watch a sports event these days we get the sense that we are watching a piece of theatre, rather than a competition. The acts have been decided well in advance, and the actors on the pitch run through the script.
And, why is this allowed to happen? Why does what often amounts to criminal behaviour go unpunished? Simply: because there's a good buck to be made and interests won't let go of a profitable situation.
However, there are things that can be done to tackle this problem: 1) Wage caps, 2) a two-strike policy on drug use and doping, 3) routine involvement of the police in acts that might be deemed criminal behaviour, 4) the use of protectionism control foreign ownership of domestic teams and 5) most importantly a well structured youth education systems within academies.
These proposals aren't new, many have said, and wrote, and thought the same things before. I say it now because for the first time in a long time the interested parties may benefit from supporting these ideas. Sponsorship money is drying up. Viewing figures are down, as the reality TV generation can get their entertainment elsewhere. Many sports are looking at reducing their financial load. Sport is on the front page rather than the back. If governing organisations can act to morally renew their sport, they may also financially renew there bank balances.
The list of sporting controversies in recent times is long and undistinguished. Ranging from drug cheats to match fixing; from feigning injuries to possible gender deception. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Corruption and cheating is rife in almost every sport across the globe, and at every level. When sitting down to watch a sports event these days we get the sense that we are watching a piece of theatre, rather than a competition. The acts have been decided well in advance, and the actors on the pitch run through the script.
And, why is this allowed to happen? Why does what often amounts to criminal behaviour go unpunished? Simply: because there's a good buck to be made and interests won't let go of a profitable situation.
However, there are things that can be done to tackle this problem: 1) Wage caps, 2) a two-strike policy on drug use and doping, 3) routine involvement of the police in acts that might be deemed criminal behaviour, 4) the use of protectionism control foreign ownership of domestic teams and 5) most importantly a well structured youth education systems within academies.
These proposals aren't new, many have said, and wrote, and thought the same things before. I say it now because for the first time in a long time the interested parties may benefit from supporting these ideas. Sponsorship money is drying up. Viewing figures are down, as the reality TV generation can get their entertainment elsewhere. Many sports are looking at reducing their financial load. Sport is on the front page rather than the back. If governing organisations can act to morally renew their sport, they may also financially renew there bank balances.
Tuesday 18 August 2009
The NHS
"I wouldn't wish it on anyone", "death panels", "6 month waiting lists", " denied the test that would have saved her life" are just some of the choice phrases used to describe the NHS in a week when U.S. politics overflowed into British domestic issues. Unsurprisingly the left has leapt enthusiastically to the defence of the NHS and used it as an opportunity to bash any Tory who was unwise enough to comment on the issue. However, in the middle of this (largely online) hysteria it is worth looking at truth behind the sound bites.
Firstly, as a percentage of GDP us Brits spend roughly half as much as our American counterparts on Health Care and we are expected, at birth, to live for a year longer. GREAT, role out the red carpet and step forward the National Heal......No, not quite. The percentage of GDP statistic in the US is pushed up for two reasons: yes, private health care with for profit organisations in the driving seat is more expense, but Americans, as a population, live unhealthier lives and therefore need more health care. Similarly the life expectancy is pushed down in America due to poor lifestyle choices, a higher murder rate and differential life expectancies in their large Hispanic and Black populations.
The idea that "death panels" exist in the NHS is obviously ridiculous. What was being alluded to here was the role of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence that decides what treatments are available on the Health Service. NICE makes judgements about the capacity of a treatment to lengthen the life of a sick person and the quality of life they will experience during that time. And, yes they do have to set a maximal limit per six months of life per person that can be spent on any treatment. This is in part the reason why the very expensive breast cancer drug Anastrozole wasn't for a long period of time available to British sufferers, while being available to many Americans. Similarly, PAP tests or cervical smears are offered when a woman turns 21 to many Americans, while oddly for a Cancer that often strikes in the late teens and early 20's no until a British woman is 25. However, in any public sector organisation distribution of limited resources is vital and in the large part NICE to a very good job.
6 month waiting lists are a thing of the distant and wasteful past for the NHS. In the new era of choice and efficiency patients are seen much quicker and in the main by more specialised doctors. The newly competitive trust status that is offered to well performing health care regions is greatly speeding up and improving the quality of service, with patients increasingly being seen as stake-holders rather than statistics. For example, a person diagnosed with Cancer will see a specialist consultant within 14 days - no fail.
While there have been huge improvements, a huge amount of time and money is still wasted. Ask any NHS doctor, manager or consultant and they will all tell you that the NHS could and should do better. The junior doctors scandal 12 months ago is a prime example of a monolithic organisation trying poorly to adapt to changing times.
This blog is not arguing against the NHS. My professional and personal experience has allowed me to see that while there are limitations, these are small compared to many of the huge and life threatening issues experienced by users of many private health care systems. This coupled with my belief that the health of an individual should not be used for profit, leads me comfortably into the warm embrace of the NHS. But, outlined above are just some brief and limited issues that come hand in hand with a country using public health service. Issues that need to be discussed by all, including the British left who at the moment only seem willing to discuss how many different ways the NHS could walk on water.
Firstly, as a percentage of GDP us Brits spend roughly half as much as our American counterparts on Health Care and we are expected, at birth, to live for a year longer. GREAT, role out the red carpet and step forward the National Heal......No, not quite. The percentage of GDP statistic in the US is pushed up for two reasons: yes, private health care with for profit organisations in the driving seat is more expense, but Americans, as a population, live unhealthier lives and therefore need more health care. Similarly the life expectancy is pushed down in America due to poor lifestyle choices, a higher murder rate and differential life expectancies in their large Hispanic and Black populations.
The idea that "death panels" exist in the NHS is obviously ridiculous. What was being alluded to here was the role of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence that decides what treatments are available on the Health Service. NICE makes judgements about the capacity of a treatment to lengthen the life of a sick person and the quality of life they will experience during that time. And, yes they do have to set a maximal limit per six months of life per person that can be spent on any treatment. This is in part the reason why the very expensive breast cancer drug Anastrozole wasn't for a long period of time available to British sufferers, while being available to many Americans. Similarly, PAP tests or cervical smears are offered when a woman turns 21 to many Americans, while oddly for a Cancer that often strikes in the late teens and early 20's no until a British woman is 25. However, in any public sector organisation distribution of limited resources is vital and in the large part NICE to a very good job.
6 month waiting lists are a thing of the distant and wasteful past for the NHS. In the new era of choice and efficiency patients are seen much quicker and in the main by more specialised doctors. The newly competitive trust status that is offered to well performing health care regions is greatly speeding up and improving the quality of service, with patients increasingly being seen as stake-holders rather than statistics. For example, a person diagnosed with Cancer will see a specialist consultant within 14 days - no fail.
While there have been huge improvements, a huge amount of time and money is still wasted. Ask any NHS doctor, manager or consultant and they will all tell you that the NHS could and should do better. The junior doctors scandal 12 months ago is a prime example of a monolithic organisation trying poorly to adapt to changing times.
This blog is not arguing against the NHS. My professional and personal experience has allowed me to see that while there are limitations, these are small compared to many of the huge and life threatening issues experienced by users of many private health care systems. This coupled with my belief that the health of an individual should not be used for profit, leads me comfortably into the warm embrace of the NHS. But, outlined above are just some brief and limited issues that come hand in hand with a country using public health service. Issues that need to be discussed by all, including the British left who at the moment only seem willing to discuss how many different ways the NHS could walk on water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
