Friday, November 27, 2009

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:


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.

Friday, November 20, 2009

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).

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

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.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

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.

Monday, November 02, 2009

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.