POLITICS CORNER

[plaques]

Tardis you are absolutely right. The energy companies are a law unto themselves maximising profits for the shareholders. Ever since Mrs Thatcher sold them to the money market and Mr Blair compounded the problem by letting them run virtually unregulated we have now got ourselves into a virtual monopoly situation. As far as committing the consumer to higher energy prices I thought that Mr Osborne had already done that under the last nuclear deal with the French & Chinese. Remember all these price rises are happening at a time when most of the western world is barely ticking over. Should we ever get out of this recession I shudder to think what will happen to the world energy prices.

[Stanley]

I think that the government's 'energy policy' may have been rumbled. The enquiry that is proposed kicks the can down the road for at least six months. There's a bit too much of this going on at the moment. Everything from continuing PFI to building a new nuclear power station simply moves problems into the future.

[Tardis]

DCLG announces the right to record and report council meetings by citizen journalists will become law, as many local authorities still place restrictions on filming and blogging at council meetings

[Stanley]

Fascinating to watch the relationships and linkages being revealed in the 'hacking trial'. Funny how close Mr Cameron is to some of the protagonists. I remember how surprised I was as a naïve young historian when I read Harold Nicholson's diaries and found that more high policy was agreed in the social sets like that of Lady Astor at Cliveden than in Parliament. Perhaps very little has changed? The Chipping Norton Set?
Have a look at this LINK for news of a sensible newspaper vendor who asked the right question at the right time. Good Man!

[Whyperion]

PE does remarkably well at printing a picture , and a caption , which is not necessarily related other than maybe in the mind of the reader / viewer. The 'mainstream' press are quite capable of doing the same. My only criticism , following the link was . Mr Justice Saunders, the judge in the phone hacking case, on Tuesday showed the jury the issue and told them to ignore the cover, which he said was “a joke in especially bad taste". I think that summary of the cover was leading the jury as to the non-guilt of the accused , before both advocates could put their arguments. The judge should have just said , the cover was typical of a satirical publication , intended as a joke without casting any prejudice on the facts that would be laid before the jury.

[Stanley]

The judge should have ignored it. Political satire and cartoons were far more cutting and direct in Cruikshank's time... (LINK) Look up James Gillray as well....

[Stanley]

I listened to three MPs from the main parties discussing the economy last night and once again I was not surprised to hear the Tory mantra about how well things were going and the number of people in work. It looks as though this is going to be the official election line from the Conservatives, ignoring the plight of the lower paid workers, giving lip-service to the 'living wage' debate but countering it with examples of how they have improved things by lowering income tax, making it easier to buy a house etc. This all ignores the fact that none of these measures has any effect on the lowest paid and due to the larger proportion of their household spend on essentials like energy, transport and food they are worse off because the inflation rate for these is far higher than the general rate. The Tory MP made another crass statement, he said that the highest paid were losing more than the lowest. Of course they are! They have larger incomes! What counts is what proportion of their disposable income is being eroded by the present economic policies. I suspect they are still far better off than the poor. But then we are still assured that we are all in this together. Even the MPs getting their second home energy costs paid as part of their expenses. Perhaps the most reliable measure of poverty at the moment is how warm your house is and what proportion of disposable income is spent on energy.
Yes, I am becoming increasingly angry!
Report this morning that the cost of the two new aircraft carriers has risen again. No doubt in future this whole process will be cited as how not to run defence procurement. Funny that the contract shares any cost under-run between the contractor and the government but any overspend is carried by the government alone. Even stranger that Gordon Brown supervised this contract and it just happens to benefit his constituency....

[plaques]

It is my firm belief that “management” or in this case the “government” who place these contracts have no idea what they are asking for. The contractors, especially IT providers, just sit there nodding their heads knowing full well that the majority of the detail is totally wrong leading to massive amendments later on. Later down the line, bit by bit, these errors require correction at equally massive costs. HS2 will be another example of the tail wagging the dog. If we can get all this wax out of our ears more of us might be able to do a Cassandra.

[Tizer]

The Government say the aircraft carrier contract was set up wrongly by the previous government and that they are going to `renegotiate' it to prevent any further increase. In that case why didn't they renegotiate it when they came to power years ago instead of leaving it until it had increased from 3.5 to 6.2 billion?

[Thomo]

The Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive at is now known, deals with everything that the Military needs, from bog rolls to Aircraft Carriers and all else in between. Since its beginning there has always been corruption at all levels, with those involved lining their own pockets, or assisting others to do the same. Technically it is a non political and non profit making setup. I have had many dealing with "Proc Exec" as it is commonly known in the Forces, and at no time was it ever easy and straightforward. Before Nelsons times unscrupulous people working for this system would buy good quality items from honest traders, and then substitute them with goods of a poor and cheaper quality, meat and cheese being two prime examples, its small wonder that sickness in the ranks was a major problem. It is in my opinion a hornets nest that need a good old fashioned poking.

[Stanley]

I fear that P is right. The bottom line is that negotiating complicated contracts like these is a minefield and requires specialised knowledge. It does not seem to exist inside the MOD. Compare and contrast with commercial contracts in the aerospace industry.... One of my daughters has extensive experience with the highest level of IT contracts and she is scathing about the standards in the government contracts.

[Tizer]

Evan Davis' recent Bottom Line programme on `upside down businesses was fascinating, not just because of hearing John Timson talk about his 800 key-cutting businesses that use this system but also for some of the off facts mentioned. For example, I didn't know (and it seemed that the other business people didn't know either) that any company which employs even a single ex-convict will not be allowed to apply for government contracts. Timson does employ ex-convicts and another interesting fact was that the proportion of them who were found to `raid the till' is not higher than the proportion of non-convict staff found to do the same (3% in each case).

[Stanley]

Are the revelations about Colchester a sign that the NHS culture is gradually opening up and becoming more transparent? Notable that the chairman was new. Will anything happen to the old management? Like the financial services, sanctions against wrong-doers will do more to deter than quiet putting aside with a pension.
'Britain is Booming' says the Daily Telegraph. (LINK).
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest 5 million workers are earning less than the 'living wage', in itself a very poor rate. (LINK). Take your pick of the point of view.

[plaques]

BAE are cutting 1000 ship building jobs. I suppose that means 1000 more pizza delivery and shelf filling jobs. Things are certainly looking up. UK will back on its feet again in no time. Oh yes, I forgot, the Co-op bank may be releasing a few staff to help with this surge in employment.

[Tardis]

Police being called into investigate a health trust hospital for something that they knew about back when the initial CQC investigations took place, and their own inquiries are now considered "inadequate" is an example of greater transparency?

Ed appears to be in trouble from his own side:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/11/05/th ... k-inquiry/

and someone I know who is a member of the Falkirk CLP would like much greater openness so that they can move on with their selection process

[Stanley]

P, they have upped it to 1800 jobs now.
Universal Credit is having a rough ride. (LINK)

[plaques]

I wonder what would happen if you made ministers financially responsible, ie: a personal liability, on all projects that they guaranteed would not overrun. I doubt if they could get any insurance to cover the possible debt. This would have to apply for a period after they had left office. IDS appears a genuine man but the department he runs is straight out of "yes minister".

[Tardis]

Lancashire County Council Reveals Initial Savings Proposals

http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate ... =PR13/0538

[Tizer]

BAE are cutting 1000 ship building jobs. I suppose that means 1000 more pizza delivery and shelf filling jobs.

Oh dear, you've let the cat out of the bag, you've given away Britain's self-fulfilling economic secret. The more industries it shuts down the more people find jobs promoting and selling food and drink (which brings on obesity) and providing cars, films, TVs, computers, DVDs etc (which prevents us getting enough exercise). The obesity and lack of exercise lead to ill health but that provides a boom in jobs with the NHS and the pharmaceutical companies and a wonderful market for alternative medicines and treatments. A nice merry-go-round, with the financial sector taking the money at the gate.

[Stanley]

Tiz, unfortunately you are closer to the truth than anyone could possibly believe fifty years ago. Thatcher-nomics has reduced us to something close to Napoleon’s description, 'A nation of shop-keepers'. At the time it was an accurate description of a laudable enterprise but today the 'SME' has replaced the large, dirty and untidy heavy industry. God knows where we will end up....

[Tizer]

Two weeks ago Tardis reported news that suggested that the NHS sets aside 22% of it's budget for negligence law suits. I checked further and found some confusion over what might be the real figures - there were contradictory stories with very different implications and it looked like a journalist had misinterpreted data and then been quoted throughout the media.
http://www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/view ... ion#p45299

Today we have reports that the NHS spends over 20% of its maternity services budget on clinical negligence, e.g. the BBC web site:
"The NHS spends nearly £700 on clinical negligence cover for every live birth in England, a report says. The review by the National Audit Office said last year this cost nearly £500m - almost a fifth of all spending on maternity."

I have no argument with the amount quoted for the spend on clinical negligence, what concerns me is whether or not the quoted `one-fifth'/`20%' is valid (as was my concern about the earlier figure of 20% for total negligence claims). It would mean that the NHS budget for maternity services is about £2.5 billion but I can't find any confirmation of this figure. My worry is that, as with the total negligence issue, the 20% is not the proportion of the maternity budget but of the `provision for unresolved clinical compensation claims against the NHS for negligence in maternity services'. As the total NHS budget is over £90 billion a figure of £2.5 billion would mean the NHS spends less than 3% of its budget on maternity services. I find that hard to believe.

[Stanley]

It's damned statistics again Tiz. Once again I urge members to find Charlie Webster's article 'Healthy or Hungry Thirties' on the site and take the trouble to read it. It's his analysis of how the statistics were misused in the inter-war years to 'prove' that things were getting better. The reason he agreed to let me publish the paper for the first time was because he could see the same thing happening now. If a politician wants to massage a point of view the easy answer is to throw a 'confusion' of statistics at it. This particular example shows how hard it is to prove or disprove a statement. The only sensible thing to do is assume worst case and disbelieve all statistics advanced to 'prove' a political point.
Definition of terms is another fertile field for obfuscation. What exactly does unemployed mean? What is 'the average wage'? 20% of what exactly? 'The economy is improving', for whom?
Jeremy Hunt is now reckoned to be the richest member of the Cabinet. (LINK) How does this affect his perception of what exactly is a fair wage for nurses in the NHS?

[Stanley]

I was thinking as I walked round the town.... I'm sure many of you are as bemused as I am by the modern predilection of MPs to avoid answering straight questions and resorting to dodgy statistics and reasoning to bolster the Party Line. There was a good example of it this morning when Nigel Lawson attempted to confute the proposition that any assessment of 'economic recovery' should take account of the condition of the poorest in the population. He relied on the old dogma of trickle down economics, sooner or later the benefits being seen by the top 50% of the economy would permeate down to the under-classes. This of course leaves aside the question of what government is for. Is it simply to survive and support the class they see as the most important or is it to strive to get the best deal for the whole of the population, in other words making sure that 'We are all in it'.
The problem as I see it is that individual politicians are more likely to be driven by loyalty to the Party line (in the hope of advancement), than identify a p-rinciple and fight for it. I'm reading Georgina Battiscombe's biography of Ashley-Cooper ( Lord Shaftesbury) at the moment. Shaftesbury is best remembered for his constant advocacy in favour of better treatment of lunatics, shorter working hours for children and support generally for the hardest trades. He was driven by a strong evangelical faith and refused cabinet office time and time again because he was fighting his own Tory Party most of the time and office would have inhibited his efforts. The key is that the motivating force in his political career was principle, clearly stated and unswervingly pursued.
So, ask yourself the question, every time you hear a political argument, is this driven by sound principle or blind adherence to the party line? Are you listening to a career politician with eyes set on promotion or someone who cares, has identified a cause and is pursuing it. I wish you good luck in your search....

[plaques]

The real wealth of a country is in its population not in material assets. The black plague demonstrated this to some effect. You can easily win a war by dropping a few H bombs on it. But what's the point. Nothing left to make a profit from. Ie no population.
The trickle down effect only works if it trickles UP in the first place. Why leave the vagaries of money flow to the already rich and wealthy. Just leave it where it was made in the first place , with the workers.

[PanBiker]

"There Is No Weal Save Common Weal"