Dolphin apologises to witches

Tom Dolphin, a member of the BMA's junior doctors' committee, ... said he had previously described homeopathy as witchcraft, but now wanted to apologise to witches for making that link.

From The Guardian, reporting on the BMA Conference.

(He was more moderate alsewhere in his speech, referring to homeopathy as "pernicious", "nonsense on stilts", "irrationality", "made up science", "insidious" and "something ...[that] does not work".)

Physician, heal thyself

I have an undistinguished B Sc degree. I am a very minor politician and I work in marketing and it is for the last of these that I apologise.

Last night I was fortunate enough to be invited to attend the annual lecture of Sense about Science. The key speaker was Dr Fiona Godlee, the editor of the British Medical Journal, who combined being interesting, thoughtful, thought-provoking and witty.

The essence of her presentation involved failures in science, particularly medicine. In many cases the culprit was business. For example, she showed how business-sponsored scientific reviews of medical products were almost always positive, while independent reviews were far more mixed. Is it likely that these sponsored reviews are unbiased? Statistically the answer is no: the probability is so remote that it cannot be taken seriously. Over fiften or twenty minutes she presented her case cogently and with eloquence.

I started to disagree with her when she looked at some ways to address the problem. I must say I did so with trepidation. As I have already said, I have an undistinguished BSc while she has a strong scientific resume. But since my view is based on the philosophy of science (if that is not too grand a term), I'm going to put it forward anyway.

In the Olden Days, when I was at school, there was a fairly simple approach to science. It went roughly as follows:

1. A scientist would think of an idea - the hypothesis.
   
2. She would devise an experiment to test it.
   
3. She would run the experiment and collect the necessary and relevant data.
   
4. If the data supported the idea, it would become a new theory.
   
5. Other scientists could repeat the process and get the same results, so independently validating the theory.
   

Intellectually this works. Practically, in the real world, it sometimes breaks down. For example, developing new drugs is extraordinarily expensive. Pharmaceutical companies invest huge amounts of money in each new drug and their scientists invest years of their lives. The must be a great temptation, even in the most scrupulous scientist, to look for the good effects and play down the bad. Possibly that may be succumbed to unconsciously: perhaps dismissing a strange result as an outlier. The commercial pressures will be there too.

At present, science does too little to eliminate opportunities for these errors or for fraud. I suspect outright fraud is fairly rare, although cases such as

• Disgraced cloning scientist Hwang Woo-suk, whose stem cell research was found to have been faked
  
• Andrew Wakefield's MMR scare
  
• and in physics, the cold fusion controversy
  

show that they happen often enough to reach the mainstream media.

If I understood her correctly, the core of Dr Godlee's proposals to address these problems was to reduce commercial involvement in science, especially medicine. I think that would be wrong.

Science needs to look more to itself. Some of the finest brains in the past few centuries have been involved in science: why then is the very core of science, the scientific method, so subject to abuse?

I suggest that a fundamental issue is that scientific research is not sufficiently open to a basic commercial technique: audit. If at key stages research was subject to audit, the results would be more credible. This does not mean making the data or area of research prematurely public but it would mean that when it came to submit a paper for publication or to launch a new product there would be confidence that the research had been adequately conducted.

Who could do this auditing? I think that is less important than defining how it is done. For example, in the UK perhaps the Russell Group of universities could define: what independent checks should be made in each key area of science as that research progressed; what records must be verifiably submitted at each stage; what are acceptable ways of discounting results ("the subject died in a car accident") and unacceptable ("this outlier was so different that I suspect a measurement error was made").

This would not replace peer review. It would give reviewers greater confidence in the underlying methods and might well give them access to the underlying data.

It would benefit science. It would also benefit commerce: whether in medical, physical, chemical or any other area of scientific endeavour, the results of audited research would rightly be more trusted.

This, I think comes back to Dr Godlee's fundamental point: unreliable research undermines good science. If we can improve standards in research it will be of benefit not just to the scientific community but also to the public at large. Trustworthy results will lead to better decision-making, whether it means buying a new pill or investing in technology.

And should that day happen, I won't have to apologise for being in marketing.

How Often is Enough?

I believe it costs about £50,000 to run an election in Hart, the small district in NE Hampshire where I live. That's about a pound per registered voter, which I think is not bad.

The way we run elections here is that in three out of four years we elect one third of our district councillors (for a four year term) and in the fourth year we elect county councillors.

So, for example,

• 2009: elected county councillors
  
• 2010: elected 1/3 of district councillors
  
• 2011: elect 1/3 district councillors
  
• 2012: elect 1/3 of district councillors
  

However, there is the option of having all-in elections instead where we would elect district councillors all at once for a four year term, as we do with county councillors. In these straitened times, that would save us two elections every four years, or about £100,000. In a small district like Hart, that's a useful amount of money.

There is a contrary view that having elections more often gives voters a chance to register their approval or disagreement with the council more often. While that is true, it is costly. It also means that councillors spend more time electioneering and less doing the work you voted them in to do.

As you can tell, I don't favour the annual voting system. That's less important than what you think: would you, as a voter, prefer to vote more often at a higher cost, or would you prefer to save money but have fewer opportunities to register your views?

Please do let me know, either directly or via the comments section below.

Update: For what it's worth, based on a quick scan of their websites our neighbouring councils appear to vote as follows:

Basingstoke: Annually (like Hart)
Bracknell: All in every four years
East Hampshire: All in every four years
Surrey Heath: All in every four years
Wokingham: Annually (like Hart)

UNITEd We Fall

Ten days ago, Laura Solon scythed through the bs to the basic truth of the ongoing industrial dispute between British Airways and its cabin crew. Speaking on Have I Got News For You, she said that the biggest fringe benefit the cabin crew have is an airline to work for.

Now, on one hand I can understand the shock and anger you feel when your employer cuts payments or benefits. I've experienced this myself on a number of occasions, such as when my pension changed from being a final salary pension (good) to a defined benefits one (poor). That one change on its own cost me a few hundred thousand pounds. It cost most of my fellow workers much the same. But it had one huge fringe benefit: we still had a company to work for.

Right now, UNITE seems to be spoiling for a fight, not just at BA. It could scarcely choose a worse time: worldwide the combination of recession and fierce international competition mean that when I (or anyone else) is looking for a job, we are competing against not only the other people shortlisted for this vacancy but also anyone else, anywhere in the world, who can do the same work for a competitor.

Can a lower-paid worker in Ireland or India or the Far East do the same job, just as well? Then why should the company employ you?

This is where UNITE's confrontational approach is self-destructive for its members: the most likely result is the jobs will move elsewhere - whether to Emirates, Ryanair or Virgin. It's not clear how this will help BA cabin crew.

It used to be "United we stand". Today it looks more like UNITE's last stand.

Running for Rob

What, I wonder, is the defining characteristic of the British?

Just as the British have generalisations about other nations, I am sure that other nations generalise about the UK. I arrived in this country with my family in 1994, "on my way to America" and we are still here 16 years later. One of the things that has kept us here has been the extraordinary generosity of spirit of British people. This is at its best when you consider the extent to which people voluntarily support others who are less fortunate: visiting the infirm, shopping for the elderly, collecting for charity, running parish councils, tending to graves and thousands of other small ways of making this a better place to live. Perhaps it comes down to Thriving in Adversity.

On Sunday I saw a good example of this. There was a 10km (6.25 miles in old currency) Fun Run in Newbury and of the several hundred runners, about 50 were Running for Rob. So who is Rob? I don't know him (other than knowing he is a teenager with cancer) but I have a friend who does, so I will quote her words here

Rob is simply the loveliest 17 year old lad - through all of what he has gone through, he never complains and just gets on with all of this treatment. He was at the race and we had a lovely hug when I made just over the hour :-) ... because he knew I wasn't a runner and I would never have attempted a 10k without there being a very good reason to.

He is still studying for his 'A' Levels, plans to take them shortly, goes into school whenever possible, plans on studying Politics and plans to do the Edinburgh Festival again this year as he loves acting and directing and is planning on going on holiday to Greece with his pals and, of course, the pop festivals around such as Reading. I truly believe he is an inspiration to both young and old ... I absolutely adore him and feel we can learn so much from someone so young and I just want him to be back to full fitness again.

I feel he found the pomp and ceremony around the run quite embarrassing - his father wanted to do something positive and, as he is a runner, belongs to Newbury Athletic Club who organise the Bayer 10k, he felt having a team do the run would be that positive. That said, we all raised a lot of money for charity and, back at the BBQ in the garden, I sat with Tracey from Teenage Cancer Trust. They provide facilities and an environment for teenagers who have Cancer as the NHS provide only for children or adults ... and teenagers are caught in the middle. They do truly amazing work and we don't realise it. Rob has one more chemo treatment, scheduled for next week - I think it is Cycle 9. Because I look to the positive, I believe the outcome will be a positive and the tumour has, so far, become smaller and with Rob's stoic, mature and brave attitude, I know he will be clear when they do the final tests. He is just the best (and I only get my running kit on for the best :-)

To support Rob fifty people - many of whom hadn't run 10km in their life before - went through a great deal of pain and raised over £12,000 for two charities: Clic Sargent, which cares for young people with cancer and their families and the Teenage Cancer Trust.

(Click on the photo to see all the runners.)

For those who today are still feeling pain, remember you are part of a great tradition: serving the less fortunate in a typical, understated British way.

How to save £160,000,000,000

At present, the Government spends £160,000,000,000 more than it gets from tax. That's about £2,500 for every man, woman and child in the UK.

In economists' language, This Is Not Good.

Earlier this week, the Government announced plans to save £6bn: that's about 1% of the total govenment expenditure. Clearly we need to do more.

Yesterday I suggested how the government might avoid wasting several million pounds in the NHS. Today, in the Telegraph, there is an article by Chris Mullin who was a Labour minister ten years ago. At the time he suggested how to save money by reducing the cost of the wasteful Government Car Service. (Why oh why didn't we have more Labour ministers like this?)

Almost certainly anyone reading this blog will know of some area of waste in government money where savings could be made.

So, if you were the Chancellor, what would you cut?

By all means put your suggestions as comments on this blog. But also write to your local MP. You can find his or her contact details here.

We might well find that we can save that £160,000,000,000 (golly, my hand gets tired typing it) a few pounds at a time.

Good front-line surgery

There's a lot of talk about "cutting front line services" as the government tries to reduce the terrifying deficit.

This assumes that (a) the savings can't be made anywhere else but front line services and (b) all front line services give value.

Most people focus on (a). I'd like to focus on (b) and point out an example of front line services that are wasteful and potentially actually harmful.

In February this year, Parliament's Science and Technology Committee published a report which urged the government to withdraw funding and licensing of homeopathy.

Homeopathy is a front-line service. However, the parliamentary enquiry found that it had no better effect than placebos. Indeed, the British Medical Association has declared that homeopathy is witchcraft. Despite this the NHS funds four homeopthic hospitals and spend many millions on homeopathic treatment.

Here's a front-line service we should be happy to cut.

Trussssst in me ...

I was at a meeting last week. In an open question session the issue of trust was raised. The person answering the question was very clear: "Lack of trust comes from either a failure to communicate or a failure to deliver", he said.

Those words stuck with me. They really get to the crux of the matter. In light of the events of the last few days, can the Tories - or the electorate - trust the LibDems?

On May 7th, Nick Clegg said the Conservatives, as the biggest party, had the right to form a government first. Following that, negotiations were opened between the two parties. Yesterday it appeared that secret negotiations had been going on at the same time between Labour and the LibDems as well.

It's clear that the Conservatives have made significant concessions to the LibDems. It's far from clear what the LibDems have brought to the discussions. It's hard to view their actions as anything other than seeking party political advantage, despite their claims to be putting national interest first.

There may still be a Tory-LibDem pact of some kind. But if there is, it is difficult to imagine how well it will work when there is likely to be constant suspicion that at any time it suits them the LibDems may jump ship.

This is no way to run a country and, judging from LibDem blogs, there are many party members who realise the electorate may not forgive Nick Clegg, even if David Cameron does.

DIY Tips: How to Build a Cabinet

The first time I built a bedroom cupboard it ended up with all the drawers the right way up and the frame and doors upside down. However, today's challenge is a mental one, rather than needing any physical dexterity, so perhaps I may do better (and perhaps not!).

Let's assume for a moment that the Tories and LibDems do form a coalition. Who would you appoint to the various roles? To make it more fun (a) you don't have to fill all the offices and (b) you can have a serious list or a fun or even mischievous list. Here is mine.

Prime Minister: David Cameron
Chancellor: Ken Clarke, because he's done it before and would reassure the City.
Foreign Secretary: William Hague
Home Secretary: Nick Clegg
Olympics: Sir Menzies Campbell
Business, Innovation and Skills: Vince Cable

with the rest being the Tory shadow cabinet. This gives one of the great offices of state to the LibDems, puts a past captain of the Great Britain Olympics team in charge of the Olympics and gives Vince Cable the challenge of making his ideas work.

For the Tories, Ken Clarke would bring immense successful experience to the position, and it's hard to realistically imagine Hague or Cameron in other roles. Not in the above list but worthy of mention is Michael Gove, who would have the opportunity to make his radical and attractive ideas on education work. The more I see and hear of Gove, the more I like him: he could be a real star of the next government.

What of George Osborne? Make him chairman of the Conservative Party. There are persistent stories that "the City doesn't like him" and we really need the next government and the City to work together to rebuild the economy. And who knows? He may be like a vintage wine that matures well.

---

For reference, the last government cabinet posts were

Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, First Secretary and Lord President of the Council
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Secretary of State for International Development
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families,
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,
Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
Minister for the Cabinet Office, and for the Olympics and Paymaster General,
Secretary of State for Scotland,
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,
Chief Secretary to the Treasury,
Secretary of State for Wales,
Secretary of State for Defence,
Secretary of State for Transport,
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Bite the bullet

If there's one thing the electorate expects of politicians it's that they run the country.

At 11am today, this seems like a challenge. With 30 or so seats still to declare, no party can get a majority. The way the rest are likely to go:

• A coalition of Labour and LibDems would not have a majority
  
• A working arrangement between Tories and Irish Unionists would similarly fail
  

The markets hate this. The FTSE is down 10% since the likelihood of a hung parliament became clear. The pound has slipped on forex markets. The reason is simple: without a strong government, it's likely that the hard choices urgently needed to fix the economy won't be made.

As a Tory, I wish we had a majority. The reality is that we don't. That leaves two choices: either a minority Conservative government or an agreement or coalition government with the LibDems.

For many Conservatives, working with the LibDems is anathema. There are many LibDems who feel the same way about Tories. There is a simple message for these hardcore party members: stick to your position and voters will reject you at the next election. You have to put the interests of the nation first, and the nation needs a strong government now.

It's time to face reality. Things didn't go as well as the LibDems or Tories had hoped.

Deal with it.

Precisely Wrong

As I write, Sky News are reporting various polls with Tory support between 33% and 37% and LibDem support between 23% and 28%. The parties and commentators hang on every percent with elation or despair.

But they are wrong to do so.

These polls are spuriously precise (which we don't really care about), but not necessarily accurate (which we desperately do). If, for example, a pollster says Tory support is 35%, what they mean is something like this:

"I am highly confident that Tory support is 35%, give or take 3%. When I did the sample. And that is if people are telling the truth."

See those bits in bold text. What they mean is that if you take those numbers as being accurate, more fool you. It's a statistical game and you need to remember that. Don't be in raptures when your party goes up a percent or two on in despair when it's down a percent or two: that may well just be "sampling error".

All you can really conclude from today's polls is that the Conservatives are a bit ahead and LibDems and Labour are neck-and-neck.

Probably.

So get back to your campaigning, before the Fat Lady sings.

La Cage Aux Folles

No, you're wrong.

This is not about politics.

I had the pleasure on Saturday evening of going to an intimate theatre in the south of Hampshire and watching perhaps the best amateur production I have ever seen. Actually, there is no "perhaps" about it. It was delightful.

The theatre is a converted small barn on the edge of Fareham: it holds just 80 people. It may astonish you to hear that they don't have a revolving stage, or room for acrobats or tigers. They have to rely on pure talent, and they have it by the bucketload. Their production of "La Cage Aux Folles" was spectacular, despite a host of challenges, which started with having to translate it from the French.

There was one problem: the audience was laughing so much in the second act it was often difficult to hear the words. No matter: the acting was all that mattered.

The play was put on by The Titchfield Festival Theatre and, although its run has ended, they have a full programme of forthcoming events, which I thoroughly recommend.

They even let you take photographs (no flash). Take that, West End.

Three of the Best

As a Tory, I hope the Conservatives win a majority.

As a realist, I accept this might not happen. I think a hung parliament would be bad for the UK, but perhaps it's time to think the unthinkable: what if we get one?

The most likely coalition, I hope, would be Tory/LibDem. So here's a challenge: if that came about, which three policies would you like to see the new government implement? The rules are simple: you must choose one Tory policy, one LibDem and the third can be from either party, or perhaps one of your own. Here are mine.

Education

The Tory policy here looks excellent, as I've written earlier. It's a real incentive for improvement and in a globally competitive world, nothing is more important than a good education.

Tax

I am sorry, but I love the LibDem proposal to raise the threshold at which you pay tax to £10,000. It's almost a Tory policy, it simplifies tax and it's a vote-winner.

Tax again

A policy of my own: eliminate 95% of tax law, and make the UK a better place to do business. Sustained recovery will depend on people wanting to do business in this country, yet our tax code is incredibly complicated.

So that's my three. What would you choose?

For your information you can get the Conservative manifesto here and the LibDem one here.

Please, David Cameron

Is Cameron good enough?

A mutual acquaintance put me on to David Cameron six years ago. I must say he impressed, with fresh views and the intention and ability to bring 21st century ideas into the heart of the Conservative Party. Looking back at his record, he has delivered on a lot of that and made the Tory Party electable again.

And yet, I can't help but feel disappointed.

I've been wondering about this over the past couple of weeks.

Is it because too many of his inner circle are an elite? No, that's an irritant, but he has done so much to open the party to people of merit.

What about his ideas? Many of them are very good. The schools policy, for example, should see the biggest improvement in education for a generation or two. Inheritance tax will help hundreds of thousands if not millions of Britons. And despite what Gordon may say, there is ample room for cutting waste in government without cutting front line services.

No, it's not these or a dozen other reasons.

The problem is that I want a leader to inspire me, and I don't yet see that in Cameron. What I do see is earnestness and sometimes grim determination. What I want to see is less someone who talks about Big Society and more someone who says "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I know that Cameron can do it. His early speeches sparkled with enthusiasm.

If he wants to lead the country, he needs to find that inspirational touch again.

No thank you, Gordon

From the man who "abolished boom and bust" comes the request to let him "finish the job". No matter which party you support, the reply must be "No, thank you." Here's why.

In 1997, the new Labour government inherited a thriving economy. By many measures, it was the strongest in Western world, with inflation low, debt low and unemployment dropping.

By April 2010, the UK economy was arguably the second worst after Greece's. National debt is higher than any time in living memory, excluding post-WW2. There is a good summary of the debt here, together with several clear charts. Debt is also forecast to increase for the next few years by well over £160 billion each year.

Let's put that in perspective: that's more than we spend on education, police and defence put together. If we shut down all our schools, closed all the police stations and disbanded our army, navy and air force we'd still be running up debt under Labour's economic policies.

So, no thank you Gordon Brown. You're a spendthrift. We don't want you to finish the job because we know in reality you would finish the country.

Thank you, Nick Clegg

It's been 10 days since Nick Clegg upset British politics with a strong performance in the first of the leaders' debates. At this moment, he appears to have lifted the Liberal Democrats from their traditional poor third place in British politics to a close second. In addition, he's changed the nature of the debate: young people, normally the least likely to vote, are chatting eagerly about politics at work, in universities and online. A lot more of the discussion is positive.

Most importantly, from my point of view, Clegg appears to have done what no other politician has managed in recent years: he's finished off Gordon Brown as a political force.

And you can't deny he has sex appeal. I was speaking to a young lady (remember I am over 50, so anyone under 30 is young) the other day and she was singing Clegg's praises. She'd never talked about politics before. I don't recall her exact words but in essence she said that previously she hadn't intended voting but now she was going to vote LibDem. Clegg, she felt, would make a great prime minister: well-spoken, clear ideas, representing real change, fresh, and so on. "What do you think of LibDem policies?" I asked. With a slightly embarrassed smile she admitted she didn't know much about the policies.

Actually, at this stage, that's OK. The important thing is getting young people interested and involved. Over the next ten days they will learn a lot about politics. Some will stay LibDem; others will find that once that first glow of romance dies out then they'll choose another party and I expect they will see a lot to encourage them in the Tory Party: sound finance, green policies and genuine caring about the individual. No party gets everything right but the Tories do more than most.

Democracy is at its best when it's vibrant and ideas and ideals are debated with good-natured passion. There are many young people who will become Young Conservatives who might never have shown any interest without the debates and the change they have brought to British politics.

So, indeed, I would like to thank Nick Clegg today for the change he's made in politics.

Vince Cable - Economic Expert

Andrew Neil (who chairs the BBC's parliamentary programme) interviews Vince Cable.



Thank you, Guido.

Who will you choose?

Thank you, Ian Dale, for creating this.

And for all my friends and acquaintances who are not sure whether they should vote this time ... well have a look!

Quote of the Day

"If we want to bring down unemployment in a sustainable way, neither rescuing [car manufacturers] nor funding more road construction will do it. We need to create a big bushel of new companies — fast. … Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from startups. And where do startups come from? They come from smart, creative, inspired risk-takers. How do we get more of those? There are only two ways: Grow more by improving our schools or import more by recruiting talented immigrants. Surely, we need to do both ... so we can develop a much more strategic approach to attracting more of the world’s creative risk-takers"

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman

Thomas Friedman was talking about the US economy, but it applies equally well here.

It's the Economy

I once saw a Chinook fly like the one in the picture. It had done a rolling landing, with its nose in the air, paused, reversed and then taken off backwards and gradually raised its tail until this 20 tonne monster was hanging in the sky, nose down and facing me. I remember clearly this sense of utter disbelief that such a thing was possible.

I feel the same way when I listen to our leading politicians discuss the economy.

We have so much government debt in the UK that the interest bill alone is almost £30 billion pounds a year. This will continue to increase until we stop spending more than the government gets in income.

So we need to do two things: reduce spending and increase income. The only challenge is how to do these without harming the economy further.

On reduced spending, it's time for the Tories to back off their pledge not to cut the NHS. It's the fourth largest organisation (by employees) in the world. There has to be significant inefficiency in there and turning a blind eye to it does no-one any good. The only budget that should be sacrosanct is Defence, and that should last only as long as we have a major commitment in Afghanistan.

It's also time to change the terms on which people get unemployment benefit. Those claiming this benefit should earn it, literally. They could work two days a week for the government, using whatever skills they have. That way, at no incremental cost, the government gets a great deal more done, whether surgery or street sweeping. It would improve the quality of life of everyone in the UK. In times of hardship, this is an obvious win.

Many people in private enterprise go without pay increases in tough years. I know in the 1990s I had no salary increase for three years, as did most of my colleagues. It's time to impose the same stringency on the public sector and, while we are about it, to get rid of unaffordable final salary pensions. They have been unaffordable in the private sector for years and there is no magic which makes them affordable for civil servants.

Raising more tax is a challenge. In the short term you can aggressively tax the highly-paid and profitable companies but if you do, in the long term they will leave. In other words, it's self defeating.

The alternative is not difficult: make it attractive for businesses and high-earning people to stay in the UK and, indeed, attract other businesses here as well. We have the most complicated tax laws in the Western world. That raises the costs of doing business here. We need to do away with 90% of this and make the UK a place where it is easier to do business. Bring tax down and attract business to the UK.

Two weeks ago Matthew Parris wrote that the first thing a new Tory government should do is pass a "Blanket Repeal of Legislation (Failure of New Labour, 1997-2010) Bill". As he explains "The effect of the Act will be to repeal en masse and at a stroke all new legislation brought in since the fall of the Conservative government in 1997. The only exceptions will be those measures which, by affirmative resolution of both Houses, Parliament votes to rescue."

Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes!

While we are about it, can we get rid of an enormous amount of duplicated effort countrywide? We do not need each of 389 local councils to create a policy on racial equality. It's the law. Get on with it. The same goes for the many of policies and practices in local government. We really don't need every council to have its own system of voter registration, email, benefits management or a dozen other matters. For heaven's sake, stop wasting time and let's get those bins collected and schools run well.

In short, and I am aware this is a long blog entry, if we want to cut the cost of government we need to stop waste - huge amounts of waste.

I remember clearly standing by and doing nothing other than goggle in disbelief while the Chinook flew at an impossible angle. It was being run by professionals who knew what they were doing. But I won't stand by and gape in disbelief at politicians, who appear astonishingly inept, doing little to fix the economy.

In 1992, Bill Clinton devastatingly used the line "It's the economy, stupid" in his election campaign. It's time UK politicians listened.