Golfing for Cats

The late humorist Alan Coren had a deft way of dissecting his victims. In one particular article he depicted the Inland Revenue (the tax man for those not in the UK) as Nazi storm troopers, inflicting terror on small businesses. The reality behind the wit is that indeed the Inland Revenue has truly frightening powers under the law, but rarely uses them.

One has to wonder whether Alan Coren was prescient.

Since the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 (and 7th July 2005 bombings in London), Western governments have acted to preserve our liberty. Often it appears that they preserve our liberty by removing it:

• A woman was arrested under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act and was convicted. Her crime was to read out a list of those soldiers killed in Iraq, while standing at the Cenotaph, which is itself a monument to those killed in the two World Wars.
  
• Harrassment of photographers has become routine, often as suspected terrorists. There are too many cases to mention here but one I read about yesterday shows hows the laws are being abused. His crime? Apparently at 5'11" and 168lbs weight, his size was threatening.
  
• The Regulation of Inspectory Powers Act (RIPA), designed to track criminals and terrorists, has been used frequently by local councils to track residents who are littering and commiting other minor offences.
  

Earlier this month, the government proposed to give power to a wide range of civil servants and council officials to spy on UK citizens by giving access to every phone call, email, text message and other electronic communication.

It's time to stop this assault on our liberty.

Hart District Council is one of the smallest councils in the country. Last night we discussed the extent to which existing powers have been abused and the extent to which proposed power might be. We voted overwhelmingly to direct our council officers not to use these powers except where they are obliged by law to do so.

It's a small step, but it represents an important change in direction in winning back our freedom, not from terrorists but from Government interference.

I hope Alan Coren would have approved (although he may well have poked fun at us while doing so).

Footnote: Why "Golfing for Cats"? Alan Coren explained simply he was choosing a book title to appeal to the widest possible audience. He is missed.

Who?

I am sure that across Europe today, people reading or hearing the news about the new European President and Foreign Affairs minister are wondering who on earth they are. I certainly am.

Now I am not someone who is violently anti-Europe. However, the way in which these posts were decided is exactly what makes Eurosceptics froth at the mouth. The selection of these people was patently undemocratic and chaotic, to the extent that Baroness Catherine Ashton did not even have an acceptance speech prepared.

This is bizarre. How can people chosen in such a way have any claim to legitimately represent Europe?

(The usual defence of the establishment in such cases is to pompously criticise anyone who asks such questions and point out how the winning candidates are utterly suitable for their new posts. If that's the case it begs the question: then why weren't they democratically elected?)

I feel like I have gone back to the Feudal Ages and just been presented with my new Lord and Master (and his Lady).

24 hours to save the NHS

In 1997, Labour famously campaigned that voters had "24 hours to save the National Health Service" (who knew Google would give so many hits when searching on this phrase?)

Today it has been revealed that

• up to a quarter of all patients in hospitals suffer from dementia
  
• half of these patients leave hospital ina worse state than they arrive
  
• in many cases nursing staff feel that don't have adequate training to deal with people with dementia
  

This is despite the NHS budget rising from £65bn in 2002-3 to 110bn in 2010-11, an increase about the same as the total budget for defence. The talk this year in the NHS has been about "cuts" and "shortfalls".

A simple calculation shows that NHS spending is approximately £1,800 for every man, woman and child. How can there be so many ongoing problems after so much has been spent? I hope that voters will remember Labour's 1997 slogan come the next election.

Make Pontificating History

Am I the only one to be annoyed by pointless and deceitful campaign slogans? Let's take just a few:

• Make Poverty History.
  
• Every Child Matters.
  
• Millenium Development Goals.
  
• Abolish Youth Unemployment.
  

All of these have good intentions, but all seem disconnected from reality.

Make Poverty History

Jesus himself said "The poor will always be with us". Now I am not making a case for abandoning the poor, but in reality throwing money at countries or organisations which have shown themselves quite incapable of handling it isn't going to help anyone, least of all the poor. The home page of MPH is full of loaded political terms and devoid of ideas that will solve poverty long term. In fact, some of the actions suggested are little more than a left-wing rant ("vulture funds" "climate debt"). The only way to have any chance of making poverty history is to build democratic and commercial systems where the rule of law drives government. Throwing funds at dysfunctional states will only serve to impoverish ourselves and encourage and enrich the corrupt.

Every Child Matters.
Of course every child matters. This programme seems to be mainly to do with "joined up government". Whenever I hear the words "joined up government" I know what it means: people doing only what's in the official procedure instead of using their God-given brains. Every Child Matters so children can't paddle in water. Every Child Matters so teachers can't put sunscreen on children in their care. Every Child Matters so don't let them learn about losing; rather let them learn that if they lose, then it must be somebody's fault.

If every child does matter, why don't we do more to teach children about the world as it is, full of opportunity but also subject to disappointment? If every child matters, why don't we do a better job of educating our children so they are better able to cope with life and succeed?

Millenium Development Goals

Among these are the goal to reduce maternal deaths by 75% by 2015. This is surely a worthy goal. But we need to understand that many or most of those deaths come about because of society and culture in poor countries. These issues include women having more children (and each pregnancy is a health risk), poor care before during and after birth, sexual violence and poor condom use. All of these will take a considerable time to fix: setting a goal of 2015 is unrealistic.

Abolish Youth Unemployment

The obvious question is: How? I don't know any country in the world where there is zero unemployment. Now of course, we could abolish youth unemployment by introducing some kind of national service but I suspect not too many people would find that acceptable (but who knows)?

...

The common problem with all of these is that they set out an aspiration that is unrealistic. When the goal is missed, as was bound to happen, this is often followed by a tirade against right wing politicians or capitalism or both which almost by definition are uncaring and therefore must be to blame.

And this is the biggest pity of all, because these aspirations are often worthy goals. If we could reject the rhetoric and set realistic goals we would achieve a great deal more for those who desperately need our help.

These matters are too important to fall prey to petty politics.

Education, education, uh ... and lying

A major item in the news today has been about parents who lie to get their children into popular schools. The essence of the news is whether it's "right" to do so.

It seems to me we are missing the point. Twelve years ago, Tony Blair said his three main priorities for government were "education, education, education".

The real reason parents lie to get their children into schools is that, after twelve years of Labour rule, they realise that some schools do a much better job of educating their children. Labour has spent huge sums on education and delivered some improvements but too many schools fall short and parents aren't prepared to wait: their childrens' education is too precious.

The debate shouldn't be about how to punish parents who lie, but how to fix the problem: too many schools just don't measure up.

WMMMs are a mass distraction

So it's easy to get selected as a Tory WMMM (White, Middle-aged, Middle-class Male) candidate for parliament then, is it?

I wonder. Here's a little tale.

1 May 2008: I win re-election for the second time in Hart, with the biggest majority in the district. Hubris whispers slyly in my ear that this is because of how wonderful I am: Truth forces me to admit I have two excellent fellow councillors in the ward and possibly the best constituency MP in the land.

3 May 2008: Still feeling good about myself, I email my local constituency chairman, asking how to apply to become a Conservative parliamentary candidate (PPC).

7 June 2008: Not having heard, I email again. Again I get no reply.

14 May 2009: It's 11 months later and we have a new constituency chairman. So I email him to ask how to become a PPC.

19 May 2009: The chairman replies apologetically that he has made enquiries and CCO (Conservative Central Office) has recently closed the lists and is not accepting any more applications.

19 May 2009: I write back, pointing out that I'd twice enquired in mid 2008, almost a year before lists closed.

19 May 2009: A somewhat dismissive email comes back from CCO, saying they have no record of me applying. Well, that's right, they don't because my email got either lost or ignored in the local office.

21 May 2009: Having slept on it for 2 nights because it is not necessarily wise to send an email while exasperated, I write to CCO politely pointing out (with attached evidence) that I had twice previously asked to be considered but that the request had somehow fallen through the cracks and would they kindly reconsider having closed their lists?

24 May 2009: David Cameron announces he is re-opening candidates lists.

26 May 2009: I write in and ask for an application form.

29 May 2009: I get a reply from Eric Pickles which says, among other things, "It is clear that our political system needs radical change if we are to restore public trust – and that change involves new people putting themselves forward as MPs." An application form is attached.

Early June 2009: I fill in the forms, get referees, submit the forms.

25 June 2009: I get a reply from CCO, part of which says "... because of the large number of applications, it will not be possible for us to enter into individual correspondence with you about your application, but you will hear from us, probably by the end of July."

15 Aug 2009: I am feeling a touch neurotic now but I don't want to appear too neurotic so I wait a couple of weeks after the end of July deadline before sending CCO an email asking "Have I missed your reply, or are things running slowly over the holiday period?"

20 Aug 2009: A reply arrives. The essence is "We will contact you should you be progressed to the next stage. You will, however, be advised either way."

13 Sep 2009: The Sunday Times runs a story on "A-List" outsiders who've applied when I did and now have completed the whole process. I wonder. I am just a local Tory councillor. Where in the alphabet does that put me? I hope it's not the Z-List.

Early October 2009: I am sadly getting used to being ignored by my party. I see that in Bracknell (where I work), the Tory party has interviewed a lot of candidates and drawn up a short list. I realise I might not have made the short list but it would have been nice to been given the opportunity.

Part of me hopes I make the list before I retire.

Part of me thinks that Bracknell is a pretty good constituency where I have worked for most of the last decade and where I have a large collection of friends.

Part of me wonders whether it wouldn't be easier to run as an independent candidate.

Many people believe that as a white middle-aged middle class man I will have received preferential treatment. I am still waiting for CCO to get back to me. If it's true that men get preference, I wonder how much longer I would have to wait if I were a woman.

Update:
My older son, who is flu'-ridden but whose judgement I respect unquestioningly, told me that what I have written above sounds bitter. I am sorry about this: I didn't intend to sound that way but I must admit to feeling let-down. What I had intended to write was more about getting more women Tory MPs until I got distracted into looking up dates. So, dear reader, having read this far please stay with me!

I have a very good friend who until recently was the UK CFO of one of the best known retailers in the world. She left them when they moved their offices to continental Europe, as she has children who are happily settled in schools and whom she did not want to move. I've tried to persuade her to become a Tory candidate on several occasions but she's been adamant that she feels Tories don't want people like her.

I've attempted to explain this isn't true, but I may be labouring in vain in this case. If we want to attract more high quality women candidates we need to make women feel that they will be welcome. I think all-women candidate lists do the opposite and are patronising. And if we get high quality women candidates to come forward, we'd better be prepared for them and not give them the run-around.

Little Miss Perfect

More than 25 years ago, a customer of mine and his wife were expecting their first child. This man was inherently cheerful: the kind of person you look forward to meeting in a business day. When I heard that the Big Day had come and the child been born, I popped into his office with happy congratulations which had left my lips as I entered. It was too late to register the grey and shocked expression which he could not hide. The child had been born healthy, but with Downs Syndrome. I have always been poor with words in such circumstances and all I could say was how sorry I was, and inwardly berate myself for not having checked if all had gone well before bursting in with a happy smile on my face.

It's something all expectant parents must worry about at least a little: what if Baby isn't perfect? For the vast majority, a counting of fingers and toes and a verbal thumbs up from the medical staff is a happy start to parenthood. The shock can therefore hit perhaps even harder when you learn later in life that Something is Wrong.

For Colleen and I, this happened with our second child Anthony. A bouncing baby and sturdy toddler (I nicknamed him Barrel, which given his adult wiry frame is ironic) he was a happy child who developed normally up to and including starting to talk. Then he went backwards and said less and less. Family and friends reassured us of famous people they knew who were late starters, but the worry started to grow. Cutting short a very long story of two years' worth of visits to specialists and speech therapists, at the age of four we were told he was autistic and enrolled him in the Key, the Johannesburg school for autistic children. His vocabulary at that age was less than a dozen words.

And then the miracle occurred. Autism is not curable (as far as today's science knows) and yet within weeks Anthony's vocabulary came on at staggering speed. After a year's intense speech, occupational and music therapy his development had pretty much caught up with other children his age. Within the next year he was ready to attend mainstream school. Please forgive a brief boast that he graduated with an excellent degree from Bristol this summer and, equally important, he has a large group of friends. He clearly couldn't have been autistic, but the important point I'd like to make is that somehow the teaching and support he received in those two years at the Key changed his life unimaginably for the better.

These memories came back yesterday when I received a press release from Parliament. The Science and Technology committee is investigating two pretty fundamental elements of government policy (1) What actually is the policy? (2) On what evidence is the policy based? This may sound simple: actually it's radical, making the assumption that government policy should be based on things that have been shown to work, rather than (perhaps) political expedience.

The first investigation will look at reading difficulties and dyslexia and how these are addressed today by government policy. The committee is looking for evidence as to how well this works. I include the full press release below: if you feel you can contribute, please do so now: the closing date for submissions is 26th October, just nine days away as I write this.

Basing government policy on evidence seems obvious. Please help make it happen so that even when a child isn't born Little Miss Perfect (or Master Perfect) they still have a good chance in life.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Select Committee Announcement

Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA
Tel. No. 020 7219 2794 Fax. No. 020 7219 0896 Email: scitechcom@parliament.uk


No. 04 (08-09): 16 October 2009

NEW INQUIRY

EVIDENCE CHECK: LITERACY INTERVENTIONS

In preparation for the establishment of the Science and Technology Committee on 1 October, the former IUSS Committee commissioning work to assess the Government’s use of evidence in policy-making. The Committee wrote to the Government on a number of topics and asked two questions: (1) What is the policy? (2) On what evidence is the policy based? The Government has now replied and having considered the responses the Committee has selected Literacy Interventions for its first Evidence Check.

The first Evidence Check will consist of two sessions on 4th and 9th of November. The Committee invites short submissions by 26 October on the issues that the Committee will be exploring:
— the Government’s policy on literacy interventions for school children with reading difficulties
— the evidence base for the Every Child a Reader and Making Good Progress programmes
— the definition of dyslexia
— the evidence base for diagnosing dyslexia and teaching dyslexic children to read.

Each submission should:
a) be no more than 1,000 words in length
b) be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c) have numbered paragraphs
d) include a declaration of interests.

A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Evidence Check 1”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA

It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.

A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm

Please also note that:
— Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
— Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
— Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
— Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.