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.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
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.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Swine Flu: Needless Panic
Between them the BBC and the WHO have constructed a mountain out of the molehill of “swine flu”. Both bodies, who would claim to have the interests of the public at heart, have colluded to cause worry and panic in order to heighten their profile.
The WHO’s director general’s statement of “it really is the whole of humanity that is under threat” shows a massive overreaction to this illness and an appalling attempt to grab some much needed headlines for her organisation. This is the flu. A bad strain of it, but the flu all the same. Some people have and will unfortunately die from it, much the same as every bout of winter flu in the UK. But for most people who get it they will get ill and then get better.
Deaths have been largely confined to Mexico where high quality treatment isn’t readily available. Even here death rates are broadly similar to rates seen with other yearly flu viruses. Deaths in countries with comprehensive health coverage are, to date, almost non-existent, with treatment standing a very high chance of success. This coupled with the seemingly slow spread and declining virulence of this virus suggests this shouldn’t be high on our list of worries.
However, the BBC still see the need cover this with “Armageddon headlines” while more worthy news stories fall by the wayside. Coverage of diseases such as MRSA, HIV/Aids and Diabetes that are almost guaranteed to claim more lives in the coming year than Swine Flu are judged not as news worthy.
So just like with Sars, Bird Flu and CJD experts will give worst case scenarios, the media will cover as if it is a certainty and needless panic will ensue.
The WHO’s director general’s statement of “it really is the whole of humanity that is under threat” shows a massive overreaction to this illness and an appalling attempt to grab some much needed headlines for her organisation. This is the flu. A bad strain of it, but the flu all the same. Some people have and will unfortunately die from it, much the same as every bout of winter flu in the UK. But for most people who get it they will get ill and then get better.
Deaths have been largely confined to Mexico where high quality treatment isn’t readily available. Even here death rates are broadly similar to rates seen with other yearly flu viruses. Deaths in countries with comprehensive health coverage are, to date, almost non-existent, with treatment standing a very high chance of success. This coupled with the seemingly slow spread and declining virulence of this virus suggests this shouldn’t be high on our list of worries.
However, the BBC still see the need cover this with “Armageddon headlines” while more worthy news stories fall by the wayside. Coverage of diseases such as MRSA, HIV/Aids and Diabetes that are almost guaranteed to claim more lives in the coming year than Swine Flu are judged not as news worthy.
So just like with Sars, Bird Flu and CJD experts will give worst case scenarios, the media will cover as if it is a certainty and needless panic will ensue.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly and The Sad End of Mr Brown
So it is over. At the end of a 14 day period, where we have seen the best and worst of Mr Brown, the house has finally fallen. We will now have a year more of polling and campaigning, but the McBride scandal will come to be seen as the moment that this Prime Minister was finished.
At the start of the month it all looked so good; Gordon was doing what he does best. His political brilliance was on show for all to see as he mixed it on the world stage. The polls responded as world leader after world leader heaped worthy praise upon their host. People were reminded that behind the Tory spin there was a leader of the highest calibre who, if he was not the Prime Minister of Britain, would most likely have been the leader of the IMF, the World Bank or some other such institution.
Top line politics doesn't however allow ones strengths to show for too long without ones weaknesses casting a shadow. So as the McBride scandal broke the attack dog, brief/counter brief machine that Brown set up to oust Blair, which he didn't dismantle when he came to power, was coming back to haunt him. And, it is important to realise here that this is Brown's machine. He can try as might to disown this incident, but this is a beast that he has built. Brown believes that if you don't agree with him you are his enemy and as an enemy you must be destroyed. This in the past has been his way of doing just that.
Even by modern political standards this was gutter-ball stuff. Inexcusable and tasteless. Any half decent PR adviser would have insisted on Brown spending 5 humiliating minutes in front of the Cameras: "I have fired McBride (not let him resign), I knew nothing of these e-mails, but the buck stops with me" and most importantly "I am very sorry". Not doing this will be his downfall. By not killing the story at its source Brown has let it run and run. The conservatives are now going to spend the next month on Question Time questioning not just the moral integrity of Brown, but Labour as a whole.
Labour MPs with a majority of less that 6000 most probably have only 12 more months on the green benches. 8000 is a dead heat. Parliamentary Candidate's who are fighting marginals should save the money and effort for a brighter day. But high calibre Candidates, with a chance of winning, should be given the donations and publicity they require to do just that. For the election is gone and Labour will need the best and the brightest to rebuild in opposition.
And, as for Brown the manner in which he leaves Number 10 will determine his legacy. 'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal'.
At the start of the month it all looked so good; Gordon was doing what he does best. His political brilliance was on show for all to see as he mixed it on the world stage. The polls responded as world leader after world leader heaped worthy praise upon their host. People were reminded that behind the Tory spin there was a leader of the highest calibre who, if he was not the Prime Minister of Britain, would most likely have been the leader of the IMF, the World Bank or some other such institution.
Top line politics doesn't however allow ones strengths to show for too long without ones weaknesses casting a shadow. So as the McBride scandal broke the attack dog, brief/counter brief machine that Brown set up to oust Blair, which he didn't dismantle when he came to power, was coming back to haunt him. And, it is important to realise here that this is Brown's machine. He can try as might to disown this incident, but this is a beast that he has built. Brown believes that if you don't agree with him you are his enemy and as an enemy you must be destroyed. This in the past has been his way of doing just that.
Even by modern political standards this was gutter-ball stuff. Inexcusable and tasteless. Any half decent PR adviser would have insisted on Brown spending 5 humiliating minutes in front of the Cameras: "I have fired McBride (not let him resign), I knew nothing of these e-mails, but the buck stops with me" and most importantly "I am very sorry". Not doing this will be his downfall. By not killing the story at its source Brown has let it run and run. The conservatives are now going to spend the next month on Question Time questioning not just the moral integrity of Brown, but Labour as a whole.
Labour MPs with a majority of less that 6000 most probably have only 12 more months on the green benches. 8000 is a dead heat. Parliamentary Candidate's who are fighting marginals should save the money and effort for a brighter day. But high calibre Candidates, with a chance of winning, should be given the donations and publicity they require to do just that. For the election is gone and Labour will need the best and the brightest to rebuild in opposition.
And, as for Brown the manner in which he leaves Number 10 will determine his legacy. 'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
