POLITICS CORNER

[Tizer]

More fun if there was a whining sound and a blue police box appeared in the street! Obama could then be the first black Dr Who as well as first black US President. Hilary could be his accomplice.

[Tardis]

Anyone understand what Labour school policy now is?

Are Free Schools here to stay?

[Thomo]

I do not agree any shape or form, with the idea of arming the rebels in Syria, unless, the weapons would be returned when no longer required, this would not happen, or they could finish up back here, but in the wrong hands. If this country is so keen to provide military material, it should be for our own Service community. Talking with the Taliban will ultimately lead to the state of previous problems in Islamic countries returning to what they were before the costly interventions that have cost so many lives. Those people want absolute power in the medieval sense, the women of those countries would be returned to becoming mere chattels. What we did in Libya worked to a degree as most of the opposition were of the same mind, this state of mind does not exist in Syria or Afghanistan. If the government want to spend money, then spend it here , other countries have had ample time to put their own affairs in order.

[Stanley]

"Talking with the Taliban will ultimately lead to the state of previous problems in Islamic countries returning to what they were before the costly interventions that have cost so many lives"
Quite! Some of us have been saying this for over ten years. Look at Iraq and you'll see that they are gradually moving back to the boundaries and alignments pre 1920, exactly the same failed interference. Then look at Vietnam....
Interesting point raised in discussion of Afghanistan on the World Service. Politicians describe trouble makers in the country as 'Taliban' when actually they are predominantly local tribal groupings and drug barons fighting for precedence. Exactly what Russia realised and then pulled out to leave them to get on with it.

[Tizer]

The Saturday edition of The Times had an interview with an important suntanned man by the name of Tony Blair (who has a staff of 200) and some of it was about Syria of course. He wants intervention and was saying things like "We've got to get in there". It makes me think "Oh no, here we go again". Why do we in the West think we own the whole world? Blair seems to be stuck back in the days of the British Empire. We think that ours is the only way of life and that we have the right (a duty, even) to interfere in the affairs of other countries to make them like us. What if China saw riots on the streets of London and wanted to help the rioters? How would we react to that?

[Thomo]

Tizer, you are quite right. Any effort on our part or that of our allies would be best directed at containing these events within the boundaries of where they occur. The loss of life is appalling, yet these are people of the same race and culture, and it is not something new, it is centuries old. The big problem is that when the power mad war lords gain full control, they will wish to expand, the Russians know this to their cost, we do not, at least not yet, as this is an island and at one time was not easy to infiltrate. I believe that the bottom line is keep them where they are, and if they are found here, then deal with it to our own satisfaction, not theirs, we have enough problems of our own, without trying to deal with someone else's. Tizer also mentions China, last night we saw a young woman on TV who had come up with a good idea, this she had produced in China, and it has sold well, an attempt to get the same item made here at a reasonable cost met with a disappointing result, maybe she should think less of profit and more about the future, as there is absolutely no reason why at some future date the Chinese could if they wish drop the portcullis and say that this is now ours, this applies to many industries that have moved their manufacturing overseas.

[Tardis]

DPP publishes final guidelines for prosecutions involving social media communications:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/ ... nications/

1 Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or damage to property.

2 Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

3 Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order. This can include offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, breaches of a restraining order or breaches of bail. Cases where there has been an offence alleged to have been committed under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 should be referred to the Attorney General and via the Principal Legal Advisor's team where necessary.

4 Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above and fall to be considered separately (see below): i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false

from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/comm ... index.html

Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:

Offensive, shocking or disturbing;

or Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment;

or The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.

If so satisfied, prosecutors should go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

[Tripps]

I've just caught the end of Question Time, and heard Boris Johnson. I would love to see a verbatim transcript of his words. I don't think he spoke a single coherent sentence. How he can he be spoken of as a future Prime Minister?

[Stanley]

I agree with Tiz and Tripps. The basic problem is the flawed idea of 'exporting democracy'. Apart from the fact that it is debatable whether true democracy has ever been achieved in the West and whether it actually works, it is infantile to think that it can be imposed from outside on tribal and religious structures. As for Blair.... I remember him visiting an archaeological excavation during the making of Julian Richard's series Blood of the Vikings. It was in his constituency and some bright spark had decided it was an opportunity for a good TV bite. It was blindingly obvious that he knew nothing about the history of his local area. His world view is immediate, media driven and driven by short term advantage. Not the best qualifications for making decisions about going to war!
Someone at the CQC evidently took a reality check yesterday and we now know the names of the three women who deleted the adverse report. One is still with the CQC and of the other two, one was immediately sacked by her new employer. This is the sort of consequence which will eventually moderate the management styles of large organisations. Interesting that the head of the Data Commission said that in almost all cases where 'Data Protection' was cited as an excuse for not naming and shaming it was incorrect and simply a handy excuse, a Cunning Wheeze, to avoid uncomfortable actions. Are we seeing a glimmer of light?
EU news is thin on the ground as the movers and shakers try to address the deep problems. France is in deep economic trouble and the German 'miracle' is faltering. Bad news because they are propping France up to preserve unity. The Greek government is tottering. The markets have reacted badly to Ben Bernanski stating the obvious that QE cannot go on for ever. Globally there is no sign of any significant recovery and outside events loom larger. Some economists are forecasting at least ten years of stagnation. Not a pretty picture..... Tin Hats on Lads!

[Stanley]

I freely admit that I don't understand 'borrowing figures'. Are these new loans or borrowings to pay off the old ones? God knows how anyone will make this clear to the electorate in an election.
Only one sensible course, ignore it! I suspect I will not be alone.....

[Tizer]

Government ministers and the news media often don't know the difference between the Deficit and the National Debt, so you're in good company!

[Tardis]

All this chatter about departmental spending reductions, yet the Red Book still indicates that Govt spending increases year on year

[Bruff]

But Departmental spending and Government spending are not the same thing; the former is a contributor to the latter.

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

But Departmental spending and Government spending are not the same thing; the former is a contributor to the latter.

Richard Broughton

Are you indicating that some spending does not go through departments?

[Stanley]

I think we need to be more precise. 'Going through departments' is not the same as budgeted spending controlled by departments. Take the Iraq and Afghanistan expenditures for example, not MOD decisions but spending nevertheless.

[Bruff]

I was attempting to highlight why, when Departmental budgets may have been cut by a certain (perhaps large) percentage, it does not necessarily follow that Government spending falls. The Spending Review on Wednesday will set Departmental Expenditure Limits, budgets within which Departments have to manage spend on those areas easily and predictably within their control - so for example what the DfE will spend on schools (in England) and of course in all Departments staff (and the famed paperclips). This along with the last Spending Review are the 'headline' cuts to Departmental spending. But in addition to this, there is Annually Managed Expenditure on things such as pensions and housing benefit which are demand led and unpredictable or not easy for Departments to control. This is much larger than Departmental Expenditure. Add the two together and you have Total Managed Expenditure.

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

Whether discretionary or fixed, the department should still be accountable for that spending

Maybe the distinctions themselves are what is causing the confusion and fear.

If your deparment discretionary spending is being cut by 10%, but that part of your budget is only 5% of expenditure then it is the law of dimishing returns, on top of which your fixed costs are rising by 5% that would automatically wipe out any saving potential.

Transparency will tell the people the exact situation and remove political posturing

[Bruff]

Officially Departments are responsible for all spending and they do actually manage it.

The distinction between the two factors that make up Government spending is simply there to illustrate that some spending is predictable and some less so (which is the reality of Government spending), with the latter being the Annual Managed Expenditure (AME). This AME can only be forecast in its totality, yet the level of spend on aspects of it (for example, the value of the weekly state pension or level of unemployment benefit or child benefit) can be set. But it is simply a forecast - demographics or the state of the economy or both, or the level of say disability, dictate the actual spend. I should note that debt interest is also a part of AME.

This all seems pretty clear to me and quite transparent and on this basis one can argue over the level of spend on AME by deciding among its components the individual value spend. That is the weekly value of the state pension. The value of child benefit. The value of unemployment or incapacity benefit. But you can still only forecast actual spend as you have so to speak, to deal with what walks though the door.

AME will be tackled and that is when the real fun will start.

Richard Broughton

[David Whipp]

An issue to do with Annually Managed Expenditure which is affecting local councils and residents is the shift of Council Tax Benefit from AME to being a 'locally managed' Council Tax Discount.

Previously, it was demand led. If there were more people in need of it, the cost was met from central government.

Now, a fixed amount (previous cost, less 10%) is provided by central government to councils.

If demand increases, the funds have to be found from local sources.

Supposedly, more local 'freedom'.

[Stanley]

I'm afraid all this is beyond my pay grade. Thanks for the explanation Richard. I think I had better stick to things I fully understand, after all, nothing I say will alter anything.....
I look forward to the good news about where the £12 billion is coming from.....

[Bruff]

There has been a lot of chat on the airwaves this morning about the distinction between AME and Departmental Spending Limits. Expect some news today on the coalition's thinking behind how they might reduce the totality of AME (though it was flagged in the last Budget and the Leader of Opposition has been talking about it a lot).

David - that is a good example of the distinction, and a similarly good explanation of how one may look to reduce the totality and in doing so, what the consequences may be and with which one has to deal. The trade-offs if you like, which are the bread and butter of decision-making and spend. When Ministers etc talk about capping the welfare budget, they are also talking about controlling AME.

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

One such trade off appears to be LCC removing the subsidy for some of the bus services, which means that fares rise next week

[Tardis]

Revelations that one of the campaigner's for an inquiry into the Staffs NHS is being forced to leave the town where she leaves as she is continually being insulted. The last straw apparently was the desecration of her mother's grave.

I am having to leave my home, my livelihood and my friends because a few misinformed local political activists have fuelled a hate campaign based on proven lies. The final straw for me was the desecration of my mum’s grave. It is a sad day today, but I have no alternative than to move out of Stafford. The last few months have been a very distressing time for myself and Cure the NHS; our main aim has always been a safer NHS for all. Difficult as it is for people, everyone must finally realise that patient safety must be the priority. The main focus for every hospital must be the patient.”

One wonders what kind of mentality could do this

Meantime the debate surrounding the CQC appears to be distracting from any actual investigation into Morecambe and possible criminal charges.

[Tardis]

There has been a lot of chat on the airwaves this morning about the distinction between AME and Departmental Spending Limits. Expect some news today on the coalition's thinking behind how they might reduce the totality of AME (though it was flagged in the last Budget and the Leader of Opposition has been talking about it a lot).

Yes they were talking about a 'zero' increase overall

[Tardis]

It will be interesting to see in today's statement whether or not any predictions around bond interest rate increases will actually be factored in as the markets now believe that interest rates must rise