Dr Rachel Joyce's BlogSpot

Say NO to 70 Million UK Population - Sign the Petition

2011-11-04T09:10:00.007Z

The UK population is now expected to hit 70 million in only 16 years. Two thirds of the increase will be due to immigration - that is 5 million or five times the present population of Birmingham.

The impact on our public services, our environment and our society will be huge.

Now at last - your chance to speak.

Sign Migration Watch's petition to the Prime Minister at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19658

Send it viral - send this information to your contacts.

For more info, contact

Migrationwatch UK, P.O. Box 765, Guildford, GU2 4XN e-mail:info@migrationwatchuk.org

Lib Dems breaking their Manifesto commitment - and this Time they can't Blame the Tories

2011-10-21T10:51:00.004+01:00

The Lib Dems said IN THEIR MANIFESTO that they would, if in government, arrange an in-out EU referendum.

It appears they are the ones blocking the vote (or even a compromise) in the Commons on this very matter.

The hypocrisy is a sad reflection of a party that has been exposed by being in government as having no core values at all.

Shame on Hamas - Gilad Shalit looks like a Ghost

2011-10-18T19:26:00.006+01:00

Gilad Shalit (released today after five years in captivity - for 1000 prisoners) looks like a ghost. I know a sick person when I see one - I'm a doctor. I can spot them on the other side of the room usually quite easily. He was also like a rabbit in the headlights. What he has been through is something I can't bear to think about. Denied Red Cross visits, denied any human rights.

Contrast that to the suicide bombers who were released today - looking pretty healthy, and having had all the human rights the rule of a democratic state has given them.

I'm sorry - whatever your views on Israel and Palestine - this is unforgivable barbarity. Please can we hear the voice of the ordinary Palestinian people saying "not in my name, there is no excuse for doing this to an innocent boy of 19" (he was only 19 when captured five years ago.

And don't come back with relativist arguments - just because the other side might not be perfect is not a reason to do this to an innocent young boy. Full stop.

PS - quote from Wiki says it all:

At the start of the Gaza War, Hamas claimed that Shalit had been wounded by Israeli fire.On 11 January 2009, Abu Marzuk, Deputy Chief of the Hamas Political Ministry, told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat that:

"Shalit may have been wounded, and he may not have been. The subject no longer interests us. We are not interested in his well-being at all, and we are not giving him any special guard since he is as good as a cat or less."

Says it all, doesn't it?

Red Ed's Really Red

2011-09-29T11:44:00.003+01:00

Ed Miliband's speech to the Labour party conference was naive and uninspiring.

One thing I think it did confirm to all of us however, is that he harks back to a time before 1979 - when the country was the sick man of Europe, when the unions led to the winter of discontent, when the Great really had been taken out of Britain.

When I come across neo-communists like him (and let's face it, he learnt from his immensely rich Marxist father), I cannot ever understand whether they are aware that the poor are poorer in real terms in countries that redistribute so much that the rich's pips are squeezed so that they explode or leave. Is he just stupid and believe that this won't happen, or does he think poverty for all is a price worth paying for pay equality?

As Winston Churchill said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries".

Complain to Sky News Now

2011-08-12T19:50:00.004+01:00

The "inside story" from rioters running on Sky News betrays the socialist views of the reporter. I can just about cope with that, but stark misinformation is not acceptable.

I just heard the reporter say (at the end of the 7:30 news round) that they were upset about the rise in tuition fees. He implied these kids being interviewed (one a 16 year old father and some saying their mums are on benefits) would be put off of considering university because of tuition fees.

LET'S GET THIS VERY CLEAR - THESE KIDS WOULD GET FREE TUITION AND EVEN A GRANT. Also no-one has to pay back a loan/ tuition fees if they don't reach £21,000 earnings (rising with inflation). It is the kids of the middle class that will have to pay.

Get your facts right, Mr Biased Sky News Reporter.

You can complain here - http://news.sky.com/home/static-pages/feedback

Ed Miliband is a Cracked Record

2011-07-05T21:04:00.001+01:00

I heard that he did this "loopgate" interview, but I didn't realise quite how bad it was until I just watched it. Strange how the BBC haven't played it.

Shocking stuff from someone who actually thinks he is fit to be Prime Minister.

Judge for yourself here.

Grumpy Old Rantings and the Priorities of a Modern State?

2011-06-02T19:17:00.004+01:00

I got sent the following on email. It is a bit too true, so instead of deleting it I thought I'd publish:

Pensioners and Prisoners

Let's put the pensioners in jail and the criminals in a nursing home. This way the pensioners would have access to showers, hobbies and walks. They'd receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs etc and they'd receive money instead of paying it out.

They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped instantly, if they fell, or needed assistance. Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell. They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose. They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counselling, pool and education. Simple clothing, shoes, slippers, PJ's and legal aid would be free, on request. Private, secure rooms for all, with an exercise outdoor yard, with gardens.

Each senior could have a PC a TV radio and daily phone calls. There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.

The criminals would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised. Lights off at 8pm, and showers once a week. Live in a tiny room and pay £600.00 per week and have no hope of ever getting out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cows

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Appleby almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the county of Cumbria? And, they even tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 125,000 illegal immigrants wandering around our country. Maybe we
should give each of them a cow.

Rational Politics please, not 'Extreme' or 'Moderate'

2011-05-31T20:44:00.004+01:00

Over on ConHome today there is a blog predicting that David Cameron is trying to emasculate the Right of the Conservative Party. The comment stream seems to be a load of people who are jumping up and down in fury at their party being taken over by lefties. So much of what goes on within the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Lib Dems seems to be internal warfare about gut politics (how your gut makes you feel about something) rather than rational discussions.

There are open spats within the party and with the Lib Dems (who are clearly having spats themselves about it) over the NHS. What has particularly disappointed me is the number of people who have strong opinions about the subject, but with such poor understanding of the detail that they don't understand that their arguments don't stack up.

I see socialist types who are genuinely horrified at the prospect of a private provider providing health services - even if it is free at the point of delivery and chosen by the patient. I don't think ownership matters - but delivery and value for money does. On the other side I see reform junkies who are so obsessed with the idea of public sector reform and privatisation that they don't listen to the detail that has to be addressed of cherry picking (as Norman Tebbit understands, as he has looked into the detail). We have people so obsessed with choice, that they totally ignore the fact that they are only being offered choice of hospital and not real choice of what services will be available to them.

In other words, we have the "against it in principle" lot, and the "for it in principle" lot, and very few people in between. The health professionals and others who are trying to get the best out of the reforms and ensure they deliver what they should - with an eye for detail - are portrayed as regressive forces speaking only throught conflicts of interest (and they are ignored, even when they are acting in good faith.

This has got to stop. When I set up this blog, my very first post was a call for evidence in politics. I am calling for this again. Why on earth can't people look at facts dispassionately and reach their conclusions on what the facts tell them? Why can't they understand that if someone is raising objections to something, it is worth looking at the grounds they state before dismissing them? Often even difficult people can have a very valuable point to make.

I still haven't decided if I am a right or left wing Conservative. On crime, immigration, taxation, the economy, welfare reform and education I am probably quite right wing. Moderately right wing on Europe (but with a pragmatic edge). Probably more moderate on the NHS and social care. I (like many on ConHome today) am frustrated by the soft on crime/ justice stance at the moment. I am also frustrated by a lack of progress on immigration, fairness, taxation and the EU. But I'm pleased with our plans on welfare reform, education, and deficit reduction. I think we haven't done enough on regulation of business (far to restrictive), and we need to do more to open up trade to the Commonwealth. I share some of the right wingers' pain on this. But the thing that defines my politics is at least an attempt to look at policies from a rational perspective - in terms of what has been shown to work, what might work, and why - and an eye for the devil in the detail that thwarts the noble plans of mice and men. And I also believe very strongly that you work within the party to and the country to win your argument based not on emotion and dogma, but on demonstrating the truth of your vision in terms of evidence, common sense and rationality, and always with compassion for the vulnerable.

Obama and Britain

2011-05-25T19:13:00.004+01:00

I suspect that if I had been an MP (which of course the Labour party like to remind me I'm not) I would have had the same huge, cheesy grin that all the MPs and Lords seemed to have today listening to Barack Obama.

He's a great orator - but more so when he has a speech written already, than off the cuff. He is the first black President - which is awe inspiring - and I believe he is genuinely trying to find a solution to the Middle East (whether he is right in the way he is going about it is to be seen). He also appears to have recently worked out that actually Britain IS America's main and most reliable ally, and he also seems to have realised that you can't continually borrow as a country. He also seems to have realised he might need a little bit of royal stardust too.

But before everyone gets too carried away, we should do what I suspect David Cameron is doing - see the relationship and himself as a business relationship/ partner, to treat with the same degree of sense and suspicion as any other business relationship - however close. Because Barack has not been very nice to Britain when it has suited him not to be nice to us. For the full details, read this blog about it. It is pretty poor show really.

Live Webcast on NHS reforms

2011-05-25T18:07:00.001+01:00

A BrightTALK Channel

NHS reform mythbusters - The King's Fund

2011-05-25T12:10:00.000+01:00

NHS reform mythbusters - The King's Fund

The above article is the most sensible analysis I have seen on the proposed NHS reforms. I just wish that politicians, NHS critics/ enthusiasts etc would stick to the facts. If this were the case I think most people would conclude the same as the King's Fund have in regard to the 5 myths (you have to read the summary to see what they conclude about them):

NHS reform mythbusters

There has been much controversy and debate in recent weeks about the proposed NHS reforms, and the current state of the NHS.

With the ‘listening exercise’ on the Health and Social Care Bill currently in full swing, we thought it would be useful to pick up – and debunk – some of the myths that have been generated in the debate so far.

Myth one: The NHS is performing poorly compared to other countries’ health systems >

Myth two: The reforms will lead to privatisation of the health service >

Myth three: The reforms are evolutionary not revolutionary

Myth four: The NHS has too many managers >

Myth five: GP commissioning will damage the doctor-

The Reason the NHS is a Political Football

2011-05-13T18:28:00.003+01:00

The NHS reforms are contraversial. But they are also immotive, and both sides can sound like they are spouting pure dogma. The graph below [click on it for a better view] tells us why it will always be immotive and a political football. Hat tip Dizzy.

I couldn't have said it better myself

2011-04-27T21:13:00.003+01:00

Despite writing articles on ConservativeHome on public health, I don't think I could have phrased the issues regarding public health and the NHS reorganisation much better than in this blog on the Faculty's website.

Here it is repeated in full. Credit to John Middleton, the author.

On first reading, the health bill seems silent on public health roles in the health service. More than 300 public health specialists and consultants who work in health service public health are justifiably nervous about what the future public health system holds for them. In a set of reforms establishing Public Health England and local-authority-based public health directors, they could have expected some acknowledgement. There is what we expected about the other two domains of public health: health protection and health improvement.

Fortunately the subtext of the bill holds much more hope for public health in health services. It confers duties of engagement, partnership, quality and reducing inequalities on the NHS Commissioning Board and GP commissioners. Even Monitor needs public health – if it is to create national tariffs that genuinely reflect the most effective interventions delivered most efficiently rather than reward incompetence, gaming and worsening of inequalities in health services.

Health-services-related public health is arguably the most technically exacting facet of public health and certainly the most contentious. It requires rigorous knowledge of healthcare interventions and epidemiological and interpretative skills are needed to show what works and what does harm. As the margins of benefit from new drugs and treatments get smaller, careful analysis becomes ever more necessary. Assessing complex healthcare data is crucial activity – truly a matter of life and death – not an exercise of faceless bureaucracy or unnecessary management cost. Some patients will die when we do decide to fund their high cost – and high risk – drug.

These funding decisions cannot be left to the newly emasculated NICE – implementation is local. The best national policies flounder if they are not locally understood and implemented.

Health services public health is not always popular – rationing decisions invariably get unravelled in appeals, press examination, in legal dispute and judicial review. There may be political expectation that big healthcare private organisations will bring the skills to evaluate healthcare for GP commissioners in the future. This has hardly been borne out by the hospital deaths misinformation, or the quasi-scientific risk-stratification products on offer.

The return of public health to local authorities holds the welcome recognition of where the major influences on health still are. Many of us cite McKeown’s decline of mortality since 1840 due to clean water, sanitation, better housing and working conditions, better nutrition and smaller family size. The big environmental challenges, work with social care on reablement and personalisation, and the need to reduce health inequalities are live issues for public health in local authorities. Twenty-first century diseases such as obesity, relationship and behavioural problems and addictions also lend themselves to big public health responses from a local-authority base. But equally relevant in the 21^st century is the health service contribution to life expectancy gain – Bunker, Frasier and Mostellar’s Millbank review concluded that about 30% of the life-expectancy improvement since the NHS came along was due to healthcare factors. The capacity for health services to do harm as well as good is immense, and the need to get better value for money in healthcare is ever more relevant.

There is growing recognition of the need for health promotion or ‘lifestyle’ interventions in healthcare. Acute services are seeing it as part of QUIPP and many are instigating ‘stop before the op’ smoking cessation programmes. GPs also increasingly have opportunities to refer to food and fitness services, psychological therapies and addiction-brief interventions. It is easy to see how GP commissioning should be involved in commissioning alcohol services – jointly with the local authority DsPH – to cover all preventive and therapeutic interventions. Less easy, but just as relevant in reducing hospital dependency, would be joint commissions on fit-for-work programmes, welfare rights and housing improvement.

With hospitals being more dangerous places than roads these days, health systems need public health skills more than ever. More than 30 consultants and specialists in public health work in acute hospital trusts. Hospitals, and health centres, are outlets for health information, signposts and venues for health promoting activity and potential exemplars of health improvement for staff, patients and visitors. Business choices for hospital and community trusts should be informed by good health-needs analysis, assessment of best evidence of effectiveness and evaluation. Care pathways should all include ‘lifestyle’ programmes as a key choice in the pathway– for example, before bariatric or vascular surgery. This is equally relevant in GP commissioning. For the first time we are beginning to have good data about morbidity and about quality of care in general practice. These data have to inform the joint strategic needs assessments. But they also have to be interpreted and used in primary care.

Public health specialists need to be embedded in organisations because that is the only way their advice will be taken on – consultancies we all take or leave. There should be consultant level public health expertise in all arms of the new health system – including the NHS Commissioning Board and Monitor. But we need also a coherent base on which all the public health training and development is founded – only Public Health England appears capable of that. There are encouraging signs that GPs and others in the new NHS are recognising the need for healthcare public health – you won’t find it in the health bill.

What is YOUR definition of NHS privatisation

2011-04-15T17:45:00.005+01:00

You have to first follow the Tweet exchange on this issue between me and Martin McKee, who generally is a good public health academic. I don't think he works in the NHS directly in terms of provision of care or commissioning, but correct me if I'm wrong.

In response to my earlier blog he claimed that concerns about NHS privatisation were not unfounded. I think Cameron and Lansley have been clear they want charities, private sector, social enterprise and existing providers in the fray for NHS contracts, but so was Labour. At the moment the private sector does actually take NHS work - including a fair bit of the routine stuff. It isn't in that respect much change from NuLabour.

My view is that the public would see privatisation as taking away the tax payer funded guarantee of NHS treatment "from the cradle to the grave", which I don't believe will be on the cards in my lifetime at least. Martin McKee seems to differ, but he doesn't seem to quite admit that if the NHS using private providers is privatisation in his definition, then it is already privatised (under Labour).

So what is your definition:
1. Not privatised whoever provides care as long as paid for by taxation not the patient? (ie would only be called privatised if we take away the taxpayer funded service).
2. Currently already privatised because there are already (and have been for years) private providers providing tax payer funded care for NHS patients?
3. Would be privatised if 100% of care was provided by private providers, even if tax payer funded, free to the patient?

I think Martin must agree with point 2. I'm somewhere between 1 and 3. What are your views?

By the way - I think the important thing is that the commissioners need the freedom to make the right choices for their population. This can even involve overpaying to protect some services, and protection from cherry picking and fragmentation. That doesn't mean the private sector should be excluded, however.

One in Eight Born Abroad

2011-04-15T11:42:00.002+01:00

The news that one in eight people born in Britain were born abroad reinforces Cameron's point that Labour allowed MASS immigration.

That is too much too fast for social cohesion. Cameron is right and Cable is wrong, wrong and wrong. It is allowing immigration to go on unchecked and without the suppport of the British people that panders to extremists. Cable does seem to live in a very protected world where the realities of everyday life don't seem to enter into his consciousness.

NHS Reforms - Legitimate and Illegitimate Concerns

2011-04-15T11:05:00.007+01:00

I left this comment on a Conservativehome article yesterday about Andrew Lansley. They are essentially my views on which concerns about the NHS reforms are legitimate and need to be addressed in the listening exercise, and which aren't:

Being immersed in the NHS I can say that there are a range of views/ groups on this issue in the NHS community:

1. Totally against it without looking at it or have political motivations not to engage. There will always be people like this, and we have to just accept that and carry on.

2. Are worried about "privatisation". This is unfounded.

3. Agree in principle with clinician led commissioning, but believe it should not just be GPs. This is a legitimate point of view (and in Health Select Committee recommendations). The best commissioning to date is in clinical networks and they have multi-professional clinical engagement and also public health.

4. Agree in principle with competition and some private sector involvement but concerned about cherry picking by private sector and training. These points were made by Norman Tebbitt and this is a very legitimate point.

5. Agree in principle with more responsibility for GPs in commissioning but concerned about issues of accountability and conflicts of interest. The plans produced out so far have not really reassured this group who again have a legitimate point. This is a large amount of public money and how it is spent is subject to scrutiny, transparency and have accountabilities appropriate to the clinical and financial risk involved. There must be clear rules here.

6. There are also those who work in the NHS who feel that they are under attack for no good reason. There are some good hard working managers who are regularly insulted in the House of Commons, as "pen pushers, bureaucrats", and accused of awarding themselves all sorts of things (which they can't). This does not exactly inspire them with gratitude. There are hard working clinicians who have produced the rapidest falliing heart attack rate in the western world only to be told their heart attack outcomes are shocking and that they haven't done well enough. This has upset a lot of doctors and nurses.

The point is that reform is needed, and there are different groups out there who aren't completely happy with the plans - some just need to feel valued, listened to, and engaged with. Some are just trying to improve on the detail of the plans. Some (but only a minority) are out to cause trouble.

What DC and AL need to do is engage with those who want these reforms to work well. That includes dealing with the details in points 3, 4, 5 and 6. That has been the main problem, and it is that that needs to be addressed, by AL, DC, the DoH and others.

AV - Alan Bastard's Dream - No Manifesto Accountability

2011-04-15T10:48:00.003+01:00

As per video.

PS Great to see Alan B'Stard again - but only in fiction. Don't make him a reality.

Moshi Monsters need to get their Act Together

2011-04-15T10:13:00.005+01:00

My daughter is a regular on "Moshi Monsters" - designed for young kids. They have a reporting system for inappropriate behaviour etc, which is good. The front page says "Privacy and Safety Assured". She has lots of innocent fun, and I'm usually very happy with it.

However, since yesterday a few people (one in particular) have been regularly putting up pretty offensive stuff (bad swear words but with ** in, and saying they will be coming around to others' houses). They need to increase their vigilance as it appears to be quite a while before the stuff is being taken down, even when they are reported by lots of kids. A member of staff needs to be on there 24/7 at the moment as it seems to be quite bad presently. Some responsible kids have set up a group on the forum to try to get the worst offender banned.

Kids shouldn't see this stuff on their favourite website.

AV - The Death of the Conviction Voter

2011-04-15T09:52:00.003+01:00

This Research from the Bow Group shows:

The particular type of AV being proposed in next month's referendum is not the type used in national elections elsewhere in the world (in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and Australia) but is in fact employed only in local elections in two Australian states. Far from increasing fairness in voting outcomes, the introduction of such a system in the UK would:

i) result in conviction voters who mark down their preferences in good faith exerting significantly less influence on the result than tactical voters; and

ii) lead to a huge increase in political parties directing tactical voting for their own ends.The alternative vote system proposed in the May referendum is better known as "Optional Preference Voting" (OPV) and is only used in the Australian states of Queensland and New South Wales. It gives voters a choice of how many preferences to put down on the ballot paper.

This produces an institutionalised inequality where some voters have one vote and some have four. The Bow Group paper examines the sorts of outcomes this inequality produces and finds that the outcomes do not show greater proportionality of real voter preferences (what we want) to voter outcomes (what we get). Based on research into the Australian experience of OPV the report finds:

Up to 65% of voters might only cast one preference in a future general election.
What has been proposed by proponents of AV as the certainty of the winning candidate receiving at least 50% plus one of voter preferences is not true for the form of AV being offered in the referendum.
Voters who mark their preferences with conviction will be disadvantaged in the electoral process.
The form of AV on offer allows for a far wider range of tactics to voters and political parties than those available under both First Past The Post (FPTP) and even other forms of AV.
This form of AV will not increase fairness in voter outcomes.

Bernard Jenkin MP, leading voice in the Conservative campaign against AV, said:

"I welcome this report, which reveals that the alternative voting system on offer at the referendum does not offer an improvement on First Past The Post. The debate is all about fairness in voting outcomes, and this system has been seen to be less fair. Voters deserve the facts about which AV system is on offer and the implications it could have for their vote in future elections. The truth is that this system could mean that our vote counts less, not more."

Joan Ryan, Director of Labour No2AV said:

"Even if you are the most staunch supporter of electoral reform, moving to such an unfair and less proportional system cannot possibly achieve an improvement on what we currently have."

What is wrong with the British Worker?

2011-04-14T16:14:00.005+01:00

Is it Labour's education? Is it a lack of a work ethic? Is it the the fault of the welfare state meaning that people want higher wages than employers are prepared to pay, or aren't prepared to do unglamorous work? Why do employers appear to choose to employ foreign born people over the British?

Whatever the reason is - and all of the above have to be addressed, the graphic here clearly makes the point that all the extra jobs created in the last 10-15 years were accounted for by immigrants - ie for each extra job, there was one extra immigrant employed, and no extra British. Whilst we have mass youth unemployment that is nothing short of negligent.

Your Chance to get rid of the Red Tape that bogs your Business or Life Down

2011-04-08T10:05:00.003+01:00

David Cameron has launched the Red Tape Challenge, an initiative in which the public are being invited to make the Government aware of the regulations which burden them and/or their businesses and should be abolished.

A website has been launched, which over the coming months will be publishing all the laws and regulations affecting specific sectors every few weeks to aid readers in identifying those which are unnecessary. The first sector to get the Red Tape Challenge treatment is the Retail Sector.

Go on all you frustrated libertarians that want to get rid of excessive regulation - tell them your views!! (Not that EU Law won't be the reason for a lot of it, but still worth a try....).

The Attack on Fortnum & Mason was Ignorant Prejudice

2011-03-27T11:52:00.003+01:00

The demonstrators deliberately chose to attack a company with a female MD that has just funded one of Britain’s top libraries, that donated £37.6m to good causes in 2009 alone, and is building up reserves to help charities hit by the spending cuts.

Fortnum is owned by Wittington Investments Limited, which in turn is is 79.2% owned by the Garfield Weston Foundation, and 20.8% owned by members of the Weston family.

And what of the Garfield Weston Foundation? Well, it’s actually one of the UK’s largest grant-making trusts.

For the full story see here.

Nasty visceral hatred fired by prejudice. Once again. How can Milliband have associated himself with this?

Is Party Tribalism a form of Bigotry akin to Racism?

2011-03-22T10:21:00.004Z

I make no bones about the fact that I came to the Conservative party after a long period of reflection on politics, and a scientific approach to the facts.

I've had extensive undergraduate and postgraduate training on evidence based policy and decision making, and in the end it led me to the Conservatives. Before that, I was a Liberal Democrat, who became disillusioned in the first instance because of their excessive political correctness.

Both my parents were at one point quite high up in the old Liberal party. We've never had a cross word about party politics - but we do disagree on many national policies.

Something suddenly struck me yesterday when speaking to my mother (who is currently gathering some old Liberal literature to send to some library/ museum somewhere) when she referred to "the Party" quite happily, meaning the Lib Dems. We were having an intelligent conversation which involved party loyalty - even though we were from other parties. That was born out of mutual respect for each other's opinions.

How different to some political hate bloggers (you know who you are) with their personalised nasty rantings, or the nasty man I met from the "Left List" in Harrow town centre who said "My grandfather taught me that all you Tories are scum".

What struck me is that this nasty party tribalism that blinds people to looking at other party's policies objectively, that makes people vote for parties whose policies they don't agree with, that make people behave in a vile way to another human being just because of the party they belong to is outright prejudice combined with a visceral hatred.

Isn't that just another form of bigotry akin to racism?

Twitterings

2011-03-17T15:54:00.002Z

I seem to be twittering more than blogging at the moment.

You can follow me on @racheljoyce

A Plea for Rational Debate and Respect

2011-03-17T15:34:00.004Z

Some of the stuff being said in Parliament by some MPs is regrettable. Tribalism in politics is not very nice, but tribalism and attacking groups of people out there in the wider world, just because they don't fit in your mindset or your political gang is ungentlemanly and unladylike, to say the least.

I saw an insult by one MP recorded in Hansard. It was referring to one group of public sector workers (a group who have never got involved in politics and who try to engage with government whoever they are) and was really quite rude, and reflected the MP's ignorance. It is the sort of thing you might say behind someone's back when you are having a bad day, not something that should be a matter of public record. I saw this insult because it was being circulated by email by people who felt insulted by it. The people I know who are in this group (by the way, it was not doctors) were quite rightly very put out. Most who saw that insult will probably not vote for that party again.

Politics should not be about attacking people. It should be about trying to bring people together. We are living in difficult times, thanks to Gordon's massive debt. We do all have to pull together. To do that, we need to all feel that our views are valued, that all political parties value us as human beings and value the efforts of public sector workers and their brothers and sisters in the private sector. We all need to feel that politicians are on our side.

I'm seeing too often in the House, on the TV and in the blogosphere a mindless mentality. For instance, look at the comments to this blog on the NHS here. Two people (TomTom and Andy Leeds) who have opposing views don't listen to each other, and don't want to hear each other's arguments, or even find out if the other one has any experience or knowledge. The lack of respect for other's views is appalling.

Obama Needs to Find his Moral Courage

2011-03-14T21:16:00.003Z

As David Cameron said today,"Do we want a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe's southern borders?".

No, we clearly don't. Gaddafi is clearly violating human rights (in the real, not the PC, sense of the word) on a grand scale. The Arab League has asked for a no-fly-zone.

Come on Obama, find your moral courage!

President Nick?

2011-03-02T15:55:00.002Z

"Ed Miliband’s ideological lodestar is a professor funded by Gaddafi’s bloody money who says he is friends with Saif. Great judgement…"

2011-02-25T12:41:00.002Z

"The links between the Gaddafi family, Blair, Mandelson and Brown’s government are well documented. Does Ed Milband’s “new generation” also have links to the Libyan dictatorship? Has Ed Miliband himself got personal links to the “mad dog of the Middle East”?"

For the full details see Guido Fawkes's blog.

AV - Losing the Argument

2011-02-22T09:31:00.005Z

You know when someone has lost the argument - it is when they start being insulting. I'm not that excited about the AV referendum and don't see it generally as a major issue I want to blog about. Don't get me wrong - it would be a major catastrophe in my opinion for the country and our stable and reasonably accountable democracy. However, I am more interested in social issues, generally.

However, the rudeness of the response to my last blog post from people I wouldn't otherwise hear from "don't preach about democracy" (when I wasn't), and "you have been misinformed" (when I'm not, I can assure you - I just have a different opinion to them) has made we want to put up another post. Clearly they are worried as the level of the debate from their side is to insult rather than debate the points in terms of accountability of government. We've all seen how the manifestos of both Conservatives and Lib Dems have been disregarded in many ways because of the coalition and the behind the scenes deals that they lead to. Do we really want permanent coalition? Clearly the Lib Dems do. But even they should be careful what they wish for. Under AV I think their vote will disperse and it will be the BNP and the Greens who will be the potential winners at their expense. After all, most people don't know what the Lib Dems stand for - they are usually just a protest vote, or a proxy for the Greens or other party.

I've attached this map which shows who has AV. Whereas First Past the Post is the most widely used system in the world, only 3 countries actually use AV - Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. In Fiji they want to get rid of it, and in Australia six out of ten people want to scrap it.

NO TO AV

2011-02-19T13:41:00.003Z

Here's the No To AV video. I'm not sure that focusing on the cost (although important) is the main issue to be discussed, however.

The main issue is that we will almost permanently be in coalition or with weak governments, and that manifestos will mean nothing as everything will be a stitch up between the coalition parties, or too difficult to enact with weak government. There has to be a good reason why the only country in the world who wants it is Papua New Guinea? (The other two countries that have it want to get rid of it)

What is Wrong with Britain at Work

2011-02-14T15:21:00.005Z

I went to a lunch the other day, and the speaker was a well known "Captain of Industry". He told an interesting joke/ anecdote. I have to admit I would have thought it would only apply to the public sector, but apparently this applies to British industry and the service sector in this country just as much. I think it must be part of the "All must have prizes" attitude we now all have, where everyone wants to be a white collar, not a blue collar worker. Anyway this is a version of the same joke/ anecdote I found on the internet:

A Chinese company and a British company decided to have a rowing race on the Thames. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Chinese won by a mile. The British, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.

A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the dastardly Chinese had 8 people rowing and 1 person coxing (!), while the British team had 8 people steering and 1 person coxing. So, British management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised that too many people were coxing the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

To prevent another loss to the Chinese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder.

It was called the “Rowing Team Quality First Program”, with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, boats and other equipment, extra holiday days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Chinese won by two miles. Humiliated, the British management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new boat and all R&D, sold the paddles, and cancelled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year’s racing team was outsourced to India.

The message our speaker gave was that until we tackle regulation and deal with issues like this, we will continue to lag behind in the growth stakes to countries like China, Japan and India.

Forests and Trust

2011-01-28T14:11:00.003Z

Caroline Spelman has made it pretty clear that she has no intention of letting the sell off of state-owned forests result in any reduction in the regulation that protects them as forests. One little-known fact (that I read in the Evening Standard last night) is that 2/3 of our forests and woodlands are actually already privately owned (charities, often). That should be quite a lot of reassurance.

The word Conservative derives from the word Conserve, after all. Conservative supporters hate the concreting over of our beautiful country even more than most.

I think the issue is however a matter of trust. The people most vociferously against it are the lefties, and that is going to be partly to cause trouble, and partly because they don't trust right of centre people - just as we don't trust them to do the right thing.

I do worry about this sort of thing - the sell off of school playing fields was wrong. The Woodland Trust - one of my favourite charities (see here, here and here) has said about the forest sell off plans "While we fully support the concept of community ownership, we don’t believe that the charitable sector can be the solution to future care of all of the publicly owned heritage woodlands, as it will not have the resources to manage these for decades into the future without substantial and sustained government funding."

The problem is that there isn't any money left - admitted by the departing Labour Chief Secretary of the Treasury. My children and their children will still be paying off the debt accumulated by Gordon Brown on his wasteful attempts to buy votes. It is a very tricky situation.

I trust that this government has very good intentions in terms of protecting woodland. I trust them to get the legislation right more than Labour would have done. However, once again, the problem has arisen because Labour were let into power. But if you want to help the woodlands, don't just complain - do something. Donate to the Woodland Trust so they can buy and improve our wonderful Woodlands - link is here. And while you are at it - plant a few more native trees in your garden, and dig a pond.

Detention , Liberalism and the European Union

2011-01-28T12:03:00.004Z

Those who know me well know I was once a Lib Dem in the dim and distant past. I blame it on Churchill - "If you aren't a Liberal when you are young, you haven't got a heart, if you aren't a Conservative when you are old, you haven't got a head" (or something like that - not verbatim).

But speaking of the great man (number one heroes - Churchill and Elizabeth I), I don't think he would be very impressed with the European arrest warrant or control orders. He would stand up for what is right and not be afraid to point out the madness of the current situation.

As someone who would generally be labelled a libertarian, my authoritarian streak comes out when it comes to the idea of letting people set on suicide terrorism out to roam the streets unchecked. After all, the first responsibility of the state is to protect those who have given up some freedoms voluntarily in order to be protected. The number one reason why I don't object to paying my taxes is to feel safe and to be able to go about my business and raise my family without feeling threatened. I think most people feel the same.

The answer mostly lies in prevention- we clearly need to do more about social cohesion. We have reached a point where a large section of society feels no real obligation to their neighbours (the small society, so to speak), where mutual respect has gone, and a sense of responsibility is non existant. We have reached a point where understanding of each other seem to be at a real low. When I went to university, there was a Joint Indian Society. I was a member because I had a number of Asian friends. It was then difficult to tell who was Muslim, Sikh or Hindu - the shared culture being celebrated was the same. Not now - the distance between these British Asians has probably never been further. We clearly need to do more to get society pulling together. But we also have to protect our citizens.

There clearly are good and bad ways of going about things. Labour's control orders were illiberal, and I think Theresa May has done her best under the circumstances with them. But why is it that our coalition partners, the Lib Dems, are so worried about the illiberality of the control orders, but not about the European Arrest warrant??

As Dan Hannan points out (via Norman Tebbit), instead of vitiating Magna Carta through Control Orders why not simply ask another EU Government to issue European Arrest Warrants for anyone deemed to be a threat? The suspect would then spend years awaiting trial abroad, unable to pose a menace to anyone. As he says, why do we get so exercised about civil liberties in the United Kingdom while subjecting our citizens to far more illiberal rules at EU level? The double standard of some Euro-enthusiasts over the European Arrest Warrant – and over this case in particular – is nauseating.

That's why I could never, ever be a Lib Dem again (beside the fact that I believe in tough love and other sensible Conservative values). Their position on these issues related to civil liberties defies common sense and the British sense of liberal fair play.

Guinea Pigs to the Nail Parlour

2011-01-23T12:36:00.005Z

Life's really busy, hence the lack of blogging. I wrote an article for Conservative Home on the NHS (in fact I wrote two recently - see here and here). I'm frantically busy at work - I seem to be working on every priority at the moment in the organisation (at least it feels like it!!). Working on a number of NHS issues with BMA and other colleagues, local politics where I've moved to getting quite busy, and personal life very busy. This weekend I have performed my duties as a permanent personal taxi service for the kids. One more run to do at least today... Also the guinea pigs have been taken to the nail parlour (nail clipping)!!

Tax Avoidance is Legal for a Reason and British Politicians are the Best The World has Known

2011-01-04T09:26:00.008Z

There's a fascinating post over on ConservativeHome's Comment section from Andrew Lilico. He makes a number of very legitimate points about tax avoidance (legal, as opposed to tax evasion which is not). Anyone who has rushed to the sales in the last few days to avoid the VAT rise is in the game of tax avoidance. Anyone who has an ISA is in the game of tax avoidance. Contrast this to the builder who takes cash - who is in the game of tax evasion (where both VAT and income tax will be avoided).

One thing he puts into the argument is that "taxes are very often imposed precisely so that people will attempt to avoid paying them", such as the leaded vs unleaded petrol tax differences - loopholes are often created to encourage certain behaviours.

The current need to vilify people who are behaving in the same way as everyone else would in their situation is perhaps a reminder of the current difficult economic times. In the past we had the Spanish Inquisition, the scapegoating of the Jews in various bad times, culminating in the Holocaust, and now the (much milder) vilification of the country's wealth makers and rulers (the later are probably some of the least corrupt rulers any land in any time to date in human history has known). It is a symptom of our times. My Labour name sake, Eric Joyce MP said "I was struck by how many people there are around of unimpeachable personal integrity, their lives un-marred by a single personal error of any significance". "What," he asked, "if it were true that many people were living lies and using politicians as a means of exorcising their own demons of guilt and frustration; politicians the vessel for their own imperfections?" The piece ended as follows: "...Politicians know the lies a lot of people live and they pitch to you accordingly. There’s a lot of lying going on, for sure. The letters-page paragons are right in that respect. But they might want to reflect on who is really doing the lying." As Paul Goodman points out, this is as near as a politician can come to saying the unsayable, let alone thinking the unthinkable. It is a bit of an angry rant from Eric Joyce, but considering my point about modern day politicians being at least as good as in any other country and in any other age so far, I can understand it.

My point is that we as a people need to look at what we want for our nation - peace, happiness, security, wealth are what I think most people would say - and consider how best to get there. Vilification of success and scapegoating of the people who contribute to the wealth making or benefit the country in other ways might satisfy some kind of primitive urge for blame and sacrifice of other people (as expressed so eloquently in the Thought for the Day today), but it will be counter productive to those aims we have for our country - shooting ourselves in our collective feet.

NB the Thought for Today was a really good one on scapegoating and human sacrifice. When it is available on podcast or to read here I recommend it.

Schools Shouldn't Answer to Parents - Teaching Union

2011-01-03T10:01:00.005Z

It is clear from the news this morning of the NUT's so called "survey" of parents about Free Schools that there is a very sinister agenda.

There are two reasons for opinion polls - one legitimate, one not. The first is to find out what people really think. The second is to imply that something is what other people think (to create publicity, uncertainty and to give a momentum to an inssue). The worst of the second kind is when deliberately misleading statements are used to get answers that people wouldn't have given if they had been asked the question in a balanced way.

This "survey" was not a survey, it was a catalogue of misleading statements and distorted questions, as pointed out by a commentator on the news earlier today. My father was a market researcher, and I used to hear about the dodgy companies that colluded with this as a young child. Having studied survey techniques myself since, I am well aware of how they do this.

So let's look at their motivation. Why would a very left wing union such as the NUT want to rubbish a programme that will enable there to be more schools in an area, able to be more flexible on how they teach, and providing more choice for parents? After all, more choice for parents will mean that schools will be chosen for all the right reasons - results, teaching ethos, discipline, holistic teaching, pastoral care etc. That is how I and my children have so far been lucky enough to be able to chose. I want this same right for all parents.

The answer has to be that the NUT don't want a free range of choice for parents, where schools who don't provide the service parents don't want won't be chosen, and as a consequence all will have to raise their standards. Could it possibly be that the NUT don't want schools and teachers to actually be accountable to parents???

Perhaps it is time for a Royal College of Teaching. It is nonsense that a union should try to talk about professional standards. A union is there to represent its members (and it should be - it is what I expect of the BMA on my behalf). TUC affiliated unions are also there to support the Labour party. On this basis, it is clear where their agenda lies.

Happy New Year

2011-01-02T11:23:00.003Z

My son tells me we shouldn't make New Year resolutions, as most people don't keep to them. He can't understand why people do, unless they really are going to keep to them.

My explanation to him is that people do this because the message of hope is so strong, and that without hope, what are we? We need to back up good intentions with actions, as well though...

I've downloaded a calorie counting app for my I-phone (which I love), and it's really good. My resolution is therefore to get my BMI back on track - no more than that. I will have to do it, or my son will tease me endlessly!!

I also can't resist leaving you with a video from Ed Miliband wishing you well too - Dizzy isn't very complimentary about his acting skills. I hope he didn't use the same director as Gordon did!! (To be fair, however, the Obama's Christmas message seemed really insincere to me - it's hard to be sincere to a TV camera!!).

All the best.

Another Reason Why the BBC Should Lose its Licence Fee

2010-12-19T11:14:00.007Z

The disgraceful slander of a decent man and a respectable organisation by the BBC is just another reason why the BBC, with its metropolitan politically correct leftish bias should not receive the licence [tax] fee payers' money any more. They do not represent the views of the British people, and most people are fed up of being force fed political correctness for breakfast, lunch and supper.

The other reason is that they are a monopoly that is worse than Tesco at pricing out the opposition (that is they are better at doing it). The reason why Sky is the only other real opposition to the BBC news-wise is because they are the only organisation who can afford to compete against them.

You only need to go to abroad to see how diverse and more interesting the radio programmes are. Every state in America has a plethora of talk radio stations along with some very diverse music stations. Like Tesco, which can afford to pay farmers rock bottom prices (sending so many into bankruptcy), that can afford to push out the small shops, that can afford to run loss leaders to do so, the BBC stops any real form of competition, and makes our broadcast media all the poorer, and in particular makes political comment homogenous, politically correct and full of leftish "perceived wisdom" that faces no real challenge.

By stopping competition and challenge to the BBC's idea of perceived wisdom, we stop proper political debate, to the detriment of politics and this country.

Brilliant!

2010-12-11T19:21:00.006Z

I'm delighted. PCS Will has handed over his blog to someone called "Harrow Harry".

Harrow Harry is, it appears, one of those relativist socialists that swears a lot and insults everyone who doesn't agree with him. I didn 't agree with PCS Will on most things - but I think he is a decent enough person who looks at what people's motivations are when he judges them. Harrow Harry in contrast appears to be a bit like the Left List person I met in Harrow Town centre during the GLA elections who told me that his grandfather always taught him that all Tories were scum (a. what a nasty person, and b. why didn't he challenge what his grandfather said). Absolutely charming man.

I strongly believe that you have to look at people's motivations, particularly politicians. I didn't like Gordon Brown as I thought he was a bully and a tribal politician, who put politics above his country. I do however like Frank Field and even real lefties like Diane Abbott as I think they stand up for what they believe in, and the outcomes they want are not much different to what most decent people want.

Every party has people who are in politics for the wrong reasons - for self engrandisement or selfish reasons. Most parties also are full of people that want a fairer, more peaceful and happier society.

We just don't agree on the policies to achieve it. I have reached my conclusions based on long thought, consideration of the evidence and study of the theories of human behaviour. I am convinced therefore that our policies are generally the best - but I'm not slavish.

The real difference in politics is between good people and bad people. Reading Wild Swans recently, I was struck by how the author said that there were good communists and bad communists at the time of Mao, and good and bad non-communists. It wasn't about party - it was about humanity. Her father was a communist, but a good man. Other communists used it as an excuse for organised violence and tormenting their neighbours. Some were prepared to risk their own lives for their neighbours. It wasn't about political philosophy at all.

Those people who hate so venomously and wear it on their sleeve do themselves and their parties no good.

That is why it will be fun watching Harrow Harry. Because he will bring the Labour Party into disrepute unless he becomes nicer and more reasonable. I suggest Harrow Labour keep an eye on him for their own sake.

PS the picture above is what Harrow Harry has on his blog. Says it all - eh?
PPS Harrow Harry seems to think I live in Bedfordshire. As I have never lived there, his lack of knowledge is very interesting.....

It's Awful that Security is Needed for Children Going to School

2010-12-09T13:00:00.005Z

I welcome the fact that Michael Gove stated that security for Jewish schools will receive some state funding.

I am simply horrified by the fact that it is actually needed - how is it that our multi-cultural society is so divided, leading to so many anti-Semitic attacks? It is a disgrace that we have allowed divisions to reach such a peak in this country.

As the All-Party Parliamentary Group said: "Until recently, the prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond was that antisemitism had receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society. However, the evidence we received indicates that there has been a reversal of this progress since the year 2000, which has created anxiety and concern within the Jewish community."

Tuition Fees - The Investment Algorithym

2010-12-09T10:18:00.004Z

In my view it is quite simple - tuition fees should be paid by the party that will benefit.

The country will benefit from more engineers, more bio-scientists, more high quality teachers, more computer scientists. We have a shortage in these areas, and they are areas that would benefit our economy - high tech economies are the way forward for densely populated first world countries like ourselves. We don't however need 50% of people to go to university - and we do need more people going to technical colleges after or even instead of GCSE level - as they do in Germany.

The individual would benefit from taking and passing a degree that will make them more employable, and earn them a higher salary than if they hadn't taken the degree.

It's called calculating the value of things, to determine if the time, money and effort is actually worth it.

So responsibility for funding should be:
a. the government should pay for degrees when it is in a subject that will confer a net benefit to the country - as long as the individual then stays in the country for a certain amount of time to work in their chosen area.
b. the individual should pay for all other degrees. It is down to them to calculate if it will end up being a net benefit for them to take this degree or not. Mickey Mouse degrees wouldn't be so popular then, would they? I do however agree with the concept of a loan so they don't have to pay up front if they don't want to.

Also, many degrees are not really degrees. One lecture a week with a few hours of home study for three years is not in my mind a degree. It is a "course", something that could be called a Higher Diploma, or a Certificate or some sort. It is also something that can be done whilst holding down a job, or alternatively compacted into a 6 month or 9 month course. Full stop.

When money is short, we have to understand the value of things - and the party that benefits should pay. The old expression "He knows the cost of everything but the value of none" would be true of Labour (having encouraged all of these Mickey Mouse degrees that will not benefit the individual, society or the economy) - except they didn't even seem to understand the cost of things either!!

HMG Guide to the National Debt

2010-12-08T14:52:00.001Z

Hat-tip to Man in a Shed.

Prison Works. Specialist facilities for drug and mental health prisoner patients, perhaps - but they still need incarceration.

2010-12-08T10:12:00.004Z

Prison works. There is masses of research in the UK and internationally to support this. American research for a start shows a stark relative reduction in crime rates in states with tougher prison policies. Further stats are shown here and here.

People keep talking about re-offending rates, but as this article makes very clear, it is also about incarceration and deterrent. Anyone who has a basic understanding of maths, probabilities and statistics (who understands the difference between relative risk and population attributable risk for example) would understand that in fact incarceration and deterrent are actually MORE important than re offending rates (particularly as you can't re offend if you haven't been let out.....).

Sure, there are mentally ill people and drug addicted people in prisons. Sure, many of them are victims in some shape or form. But so are lots of people who are not in prison. Knowing what I know about the NHS, they won't be denied mental health services. Many would probably be better off under specialist prisons - jointly run by the NHS the prison service (an extension of the existing NHS secure units).

I have some knowledge of prison health care, and I know that many patients/ prisoners that are drug addicted are just "managed" by just giving them methadone. There is a very good argument that there should be better resources in specialist prisons for drug addicts, with better rehabilitation programmes and better drug security (most prisons are like sieves leaking drugs in). Same could be true of mental health. These patients/ prisoners still need to serve their sentences, and the public still need to be protected.

The rights of the law abiding public need to be at least as protected as the rights of prisoners.

The Definitive Reason why the NHS has to be a Universal Service, Paid for Centrally

2010-12-03T13:25:00.011Z

"...if you start a revolution the public think isn't necessary - and mess it up - they are likely to be pretty angry with you"

That comment and these graphs represent why, no matter what, the NHS will always be at the centre of the hearts of the British public. See here - "The UK public think their health care system needs changing less than any of the other countries surveyed" and here. Luckily, Andrew Lansley agrees. That does not, however, mean that we shouldn't try to improve the NHS. It isn't actually the best system in the world in terms of getting good health outcomes, but it is the solution (free at the point of delivery, for all, paid for by taxation) that the public wants to see.

Rajapakse Should not be in the UK

2010-12-03T12:31:00.007Z

Sri Lanka may be strategically important in the Indian Ocean, but while the President who was also President during the civil war is still in power, and whilst the government refuses to allow an independent war crimes investigation, he should not be allowed the courtesy of entering this country. Full stop. At least Oxford have seen sense.

New stories and images have again emerged of war crimes. The video below is one of the latest, of naked Tamil women being murdered in cold blood by Sri Lankan soldiers. Channel 4 News said: "....... the video is too gruesome to broadcast: women bound, shot dead, undressed; callous comments from onlookers laden with sexual innuendo. Since Channel 4 News received and broadcast the executions video over a year ago we have received hundreds of photographs and many more shocking videos depicting summary executions and rape.

Watch live streaming video from valarylive at livestream.com

There will be no peace without a separate state in my view. Even devolution won't work. It causes jealously and upset in this country (tuition fees, Barnett formula etc), so you can just imagine what it would be like in Sri Lanka, with their history and mutual hatred - it just won't work.

Time the leaders of democratic countries stood up for true autonomy for oppressed racial groups. We can't trust the UN. You think FIFA is corrupt - it is just a microcosm of the way business is performed all around the world - the UN being full of similar countries and practices.

Ode to the Weekend Brief

2010-11-26T10:59:00.003Z

One of the burdens, but also one of the great things you get when you are a parliamentary candidate is the 30+ page Weekend Brief from the party that MPs get every week. It contains the latest policy updates and points about the issues in the news.

As a scientist/ academic, and "evidenced based" blogger, in particular I really appreciated the fact that there were reems of statistics and evidence to back up/ give background to every issue.

Between ConservativeHome and a good read of the Weekend Brief, I was pretty informed.

It's much harder to be so well informed now - sure I read the newspapers, the blogs, the commentaries, and I make an effort. But you never know if you have missed something - and when you work and have kids, there's that small issue of - time.

I can't see why all party activists can't get access to at least a cut down version of this document. I was constantly pulled over by local activists to the doorstep when canvassing to answer policy questions - and the only reason I knew any more than the others was because I had access to the weekend brief. It is not good if the representatives of the party knocking on peoples' doors aren't as fully informed as possible.

Innocent Evil loses the Argument

2010-11-12T13:03:00.006Z

Students are young, they are naive. But they are old enough to know the consequences of their actions.

One side of me (the soft, mother side) says these student protesters are just foolish. After all, they aren't exactly a shining example of the future of Britain, are they? Hopefully, the students who don't have lots of free time like these thugs clearly have are beavering away in their lecture theatres and laboratories actually securing a future for this country.

The other side, the sensible side of me, says that these guys are reckless potential killers. Who throws a full fire extinguisher into a crowd, possibly aimed at the police? Only someone who cares nothing for their fellow human beings.

Those involved in wrecking property and throwing dangerous missiles are innocent in only one way - the naive way. This, however is the selfish behaviour of the type of people who don't care that a person in uniform or the innocent bystander, or someone with different views to them is someone else's loved one, and a human being - they don't care about the consequences of their actions.

People who put the dogma of politics above the sanctity of human lives should have no place in mainstream politics. Many student union officials become "proper" politicians later on. These fire hydrant hurling thugs have no place in a modern democracy, and unless they apologise publically and take whatever criminal justice consequences there are to their actions, they should not be allowed to join any mainstream political party.

The NUS should hand over these thugs before their own name gets totally tarnished. Why did they advertise their march as a "Demo-lition" anyway? Let's hope someone responds to the reward. One thing is for sure - they have lost the argument with the public and the British taxpayer by behaving like this.

House Move

2010-11-01T17:25:00.003Z

Just so you know, I recently moved house. BT are doing their usual trick of taking 6 hours to deal with your enquiry on the phone and then not resolving the issue - so another 6 hour conversation, and so on. Clearly their monopoly on supply of the infrastructure is not leading to good customer service.

Hence, no broadband, and I'm pretty busy, knee deep in boxes and 1970's decor. For those of you who are frustrated by my lack of internet activity, I apologise, and hope normal services will resume soon!!

Dave's Dilemma

2010-09-26T14:35:00.005+01:00

Mili D had a bit of a dilemma when Labour was being ruled by the man we are now so much in debt too - Gordon Brown, mortgage man. He and a few others with the ability to deal with it knew that Gordon was a great threat to the country. At least Darling did his patriotic best to stop the absolute worst from happening.

Dave M, on the other hand, banana'd it and the rest is history. Dan Hannan's Shakespearian take on it is here - but the best is from Iain Martin who points out that it was in fact his brother who said that his older sibling would be a shoe in if he just held on! Mili D followed Mili E's advice, and now we have ...... Mili E, with continued deficit denial, and only a union mandate, to boot.

The moral of the tale - moral cowardice never does you, or your country any good (remember Mr Blair, anyone?).

Extraordinary Luck or Frighteningly Bad Luck

2010-09-26T10:39:00.008+01:00

The election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader is something that would have left me speechless a couple of years ago. I first noticed him as being somewhat, shall we say... stupid. See my blog entry in 2007 about this here. I don't often talk about politicians that aren't party leaders - but I was taken aback by the way he spoke.

I now understand why he struck me as lacking in common sense brain cells- I'm afraid it's because he's to the left of even Gordon Brown, and was raised in a Marxist household. Anything to do with real life or rooted in the concerns of the good old middle Englander? - I don't think so.

This either bodes extra-ordinary luck for the Conservatives, assuring a second term, or frightenly bad luck for the country. The second option would be if he actually won the general election -when the last talented person to leave the country won't have to turn off the lights, because they will already have gone out.

PS - Even the Balls supporters think hes bad - Paul Waugh tweeted right after the result: “Lab MP (Ed Balls supporter) verdict re EdMil: “He’s pretty rubbish..But at least we got one over those Blairite b*******”.

£500 million A DAY, doubling of debt, more than the schools and defence budget....

2010-09-21T19:06:00.004+01:00

Yes - those figures are true £500 million a day in debt repayment represents how bad our debt is, and a doubling to £1.4 trillion of national debt by 2015 is how much it will be. We might be reducing the deficit (the difference between what comes in through taxes and other revenues and what goes out on public services etc every year), but the levels of debt keep going up, and the interest payments are taking more money than schools or defence budgets.

The chickens always come home to roost, and Gordon's borrowing binge is stinging us all, and will do for years.

More detail her e.

When Was the Last Time a Man was Stoned to Death For Adultery?

2010-09-09T19:24:00.010+01:00

Adultery is a serious thing and should not happen. However, the world, as usual seems to be topsy turvy over this issue.

Wayne Rooney shouldn't have done it. But the issue was a private matter, and I really hope that his marriage stays together, with his wife forgiving him. All too often we see the breakup of celebrity marriages because of an affair. It is awful, but marriage is meant to be for life, and we are meant to work at our marriages. What kind of message and role model are they giving to society to give up so easily?

In other parts of the world, society is upside down in a much more serious and sinister way. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43 year old mother of two, could be put to death by stoning at any moment by the Iranian government. Sakineh was convicted in May 2006 of having an “illicit relationship” with two men and received 99 lashes as her sentence. Despite already having been punished, she has now been further convicted of “adultery” andsentenced to death by stoning. It isn't even clear that she actually committed adultery - but even if she did, what business is it of any kind of state, what does it say about the barbarity of that state, and as for women's rights....... well, when was the last time a man was stoned to death in Iran (or anywhere else for that matter) for adultery????

This is all the more appalling considering men are more likely to commit adultery in the first place. Sick, sick.

Please sign this petition that calls on Iranian authorities to clarify her current legal status, demands that the authorities enact legislation that bans stoning as a legal punishment, and eliminates other forms of the death penalty for “adultery” and flogging or imprisonment.

The petition currently has 319,354 signatories from around the world.

The link below will take you to the petition.

http://freesakineh.org/

PS All muslims and all Iranians should sign this petition - "not in my name" should be resounding around the world.

PPS The picture above is of a woman being prepared for stoning. This is not a 21st Century action.

Gordon's Massive NHS Mortgage with High Interest Payments

2010-09-09T19:07:00.003+01:00

As I've said before - we're all in deep debt (literally) to Gordon.

Now, the PFI I've been banging on about is really starting to hit the NHS hard (as all buy now, pay later schemes they developed are). From the Health Service Journal:

NHS facing £65bn PFI bill

13 August, 2010

The NHS in England faces a total bill of £65bn for new hospitals built under the private finance initiative (PFI), it has been reported.

Figures obtained by the BBC show that some NHS trusts were left with annual “mortgage” repayments accounting for more than 10% of their turnover.

Under PFI, private companies win contracts to build and maintain new hospitals and mental health units and the NHS pays off the “mortgage” over around 30 years.

The 103 schemes were valued at a total of £11.3bn when they were built.

But when rising fees and additional costs such as maintenance, cleaning and catering are taken into account, the NHS will have to pay back £65.1bn over the lifetime of the schemes.

According to the data, the NHS currently pays back a total of £1.25bn each year but this figure is expected to increase until 2030 when it will hit £2.3bn, the BBC reported.

The final payment will not be made until 2048.

Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King’s Fund health think tank, said: “It is a bit like taking out a pretty big mortgage in the expectation your income is going to rise, but the NHS is facing a period where that is not going to happen.”

Dr Mark Porter, of the British Medical Association, added: “Locking the NHS into long-term contracts with the private sector has made entire local health economies more vulnerable to changing conditions.

“Now the financial crisis has changed conditions beyond recognition, so trusts tied into PFI deals have even less freedom to make business decisions that protect services, making cuts and closures more likely.”

Nigel Edwards, director of policy at the NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, told the BBC: “They were planned for a different world. I’m sure that in some cases people feel their hands are tied.”

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: “PFI is about providing new and improved facilities for the long term benefit of patients.

“The department scrutinises all PFI schemes to make sure they are value for money when compared to an equivalent publicly funded scheme.

“In many cases, repayments include not only the initial capital cost and financing charges, but also all ancillary services like cleaning, portering and building maintenance costs over the life of the contract.”

And to add to that, such uncompetitive contracts were signed that we don't even get to take advantage of low interest rates. Just another example of debt fuelled bingeing and incompetence from Labour.

Douglas Carswell lunch

2010-09-07T16:17:00.001+01:00

I would recommend attending the Adam Smith power lunches. I went for the first time in ages today because Douglas Carswell was speaking. He is an amazing guy - he's a visionary, and a truly ethical politician, who stands up for what he believes in come rain or shine. If you haven't already, read his book, "The Plan". I hot the chance to ask him today about his ideas on localism and fierce democracy. There will always be perfections with any system, but as Churchill said, doctacy I'd the least worst form of goverent. I am sold on the idea that Direct Democracy is the best system we can have.

Gutless

2010-09-01T19:00:00.007+01:00

Iain Dale has it right - Tony Blair will never feature as a great Prime Minister, because he lacked what Mrs Thatcher had in abundance - guts. He couldn't stand up to Gordon Brown, he didn't seem to stand up for the few principles he did have. As Douglas Carswell says - "What great reforms for the better were embarked upon? What great trends were reversed, or false orthodoxies challenged? Which over arching philosophy and principles guided the ship of state? No. Mainly just a fall out with the neighbours. How apt."

The bizarre thing is that he had worked out that public services needed reform. He had worked out that Brown was not fit to be Prime Minister, and had no emotional intelligence. He had worked out that the deficit needed to be dealt with, that government shouldn't be too big, that aspirational people needed to be supported (see here and here).

Having read something about him before, I'm convinced that he was pretty light on principles and balls, but has some common sense. However, he met Cherie, who has always been on the loony left side of the Labour party. It was through her that he joined the party. He may well have been a Lib Dem or even a Conservative if it wasn't for her. He was easily led by her (because he had no guts or real conviction) and that is why he has always been a mis match for the Labour party. Sad really - and such a waste.

Btw - I put David Milliband in the picture too - he has also failed the guts test a few times (aborted leadership contests etc), but he's also pretty left wing compared to Blair....

The pointlessness of unforgiving hatred

2010-08-28T22:10:00.001+01:00

Today apparently is the 5th anniversary of the abduction of Gilad Shalit.
It is also his 24th birthday. How awful for him, his loved ones and anyone of compassion. Hamas has no excuse. All we ever hear from the Middle East is hatred and recrimination. It gets us nowhere. Holding Shalit is not helping anyone's cause - it detracts from it, as do all other acts based on unforgiving hatred

"A Minor International Incident"

2010-08-22T13:33:00.006+01:00

What kind of country are we living in now - where a pretty harmless Irish joke becomes a racist incident and a "minor international incident"??

Read this article. It really is sad.

Anyone who knows me or follows my blog knows I am an anti-racist and anti-BNP campaigner. But this type of ready accusation of racism just devalues real racism, and makes the public fed up and cynical. Most people are not racist, and are horrified by stories of true racism. But the drip drip of stories like this and of others such as enforced "Wintervals" replacing the non politically correct festival of Christmas just feeds the BNP with people who feel disenfranchised.

When will the socialists learn that this type of behaviour actually causes racism?

PS I am from part Irish stock myself (Joyce being an Irish name from County Galway)

David Miliband is definately a Socialist

2010-08-21T15:14:00.006+01:00

If you ever had any doubt that Miliband was a full on socialist, who believes people are not intelligent enough to know how to run their own lives, and need an authoritarian leader - then go no further than this video.

Labour micromanaged everything in a top down, authoritarian way, that stopped common sense prevailing. That is why £hundreds of millions were spent on management consultants in the NHS, and why - as Iain Dale explains to clearly in this next video on the issue of the £multi million bus land fiasco - ringfenced budgeting based on authoritarian micromanagement leads to bad decisions and a waste of money.

None of the Labour leadership candidates are much cop. See what I said about Ed Miliband (here and here) when most people had never heard of him. My view hasn't changed.

Please Vote for My Blog - Deadline is Midnight Tonight!!

2010-07-31T17:05:00.008+01:00

I've resisted it every year, but having just been on Facebook, I see everyone is doing it..... time to vote for your favourite blog.

Now being a scientist, I think this is actually a pretty poor way of determining which are the best blogs. It should be based on web traffic. But I don't make the rules.

It's a bit like open primaries (not the all postal vote one in Totnes, which I do approve of), where everyone votes for their family and friends and distorts the figures.

Therefore I'm asking you to vote for me. Time is running out, so email them at: toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com

Rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

Doctor's Surgery Blog

2010-07-31T13:09:00.002+01:00

I've started a new blog - Tales from the Doctor's Surgery. It will only be uploaded to intermittently, but I'm sure it will be of interest to some of you - especially those interested in people and society.

First post here.

We can’t pass the Elimination of Obesity Act 2010

2010-07-08T17:59:00.002+01:00

Further to my previous blog, in this address to the Faculty of Public Health, Andrew Lansley got the tone right. He talked about the evidence - which is so important, and the need for behavioural economics approaches to be used to tackle the issue of poor health.

But I do think simple food labelling with an understanding of what it means (eg traffic lights) is absolutely key. We cannot make healthy choices if we don't know what they are.

Here's the speech in full. He's clearly very enthusiastic about this area:

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you again.

Thank you Alun [Maryon-Davis], on the last day that you are president for the work you have done to put the case for public health forward.

Lindsey [Davies] led on protection against pandemic flu.

We should never underestimate the threat of novel infections.

As lectures were given about the eradication of infectious diseases such as polio, HIV was just emerging. It is a constant threat we must guard against.

The experience of H1N1 has given the public the feeling, ‘they said it would be bad and it wasn’t’. When a leading expert described H5N1, he said he’d never seen one so dangerous.

We should not let our guard down. We, in this country, can lead international preparedness.

After some six and a half years as Shadow Secretary of State it’s clear to me that we have much to be proud of in how we provide healthcare in this country. But it’s also clear to me that for too long our approach has been seriously out of balance. The emphasis we put on protecting from risk and treating illness, is not matched by the emphasis we put on preventing illness in the first place.

So often the treatment that is delivered in the NHS is compromised by patients’ poor diet, lack of exercise, and alcohol or drug abuse or use of tobacco.

Britain now has the highest obesity rates in Europe, we have among the worst rates of sexually transmitted infection, and we are seeing rising rates of alcohol and drug problems.

Even smoking, which has declined for decades, remains stubbornly high and still claims over 80,000 lives a year. Nearly a quarter of the deaths in this country each year result, at least in part, from the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles.

Recognising the additional demands facing the NHS in the coming decades – an increasing and ageing population, costly advances in treatments and rising expectations – we simply can’t go on like this.

To have a fighting chance of meeting new demand in the years ahead, we have to get to grips with the real drivers of demand on our NHS now.

Improving public health is something that need to take seriously at all levels – nationally, locally, and as individuals.

But in recent years – and despite your best efforts in the Faculty and elsewhere – political leadership has been nowhere to be found. And we’ve seen the impact. Public health staffing has been cut, short term initiatives have come and gone with little evaluation of what works, and public health budgets have been raided to offset short-term financial pressures. This is not something that happens every year. It happened in 2005/6 and it was the wrong decision.

Meanwhile, many of our greatest public health problems have escalated.

In place of leadership, we’ve had initiatives.

Initiatives without evidence, without evaluation, without coordination and, most of all, without awareness of the cultural need to change behaviour.

Behaviour change is the great challenge for public health – but too often it has been ignored.

Take alcohol – where the lack of national leadership can be seen in the sharply rising effects of alcohol consumption, and the pattern of alcohol consumption. Alcohol strategies have failed to go much beyond the public order issue. The approach has been confined to supply, with little impact on demand.

Public health efforts, which only try to control supply, will fail. We have to impact on demand. That means we have to change behaviour, and change people’s relationships with each other and with drugs, alcohol, tobacco and food.

And where behaviour change has been the aim of recent initiatives, the outcomes have been patchy at best.

It seems to me that awareness campaigns have too often sent the wrong messages – when they’re screaming at you to drink less, many people are just having their behaviour reinforced – the message doesn’t come out as ‘drink less’ but as ‘everyone drinks, so don’t worry about it’. It tells people that the norm in society is misuse of alcohol.

How often have all of us been frustrated by a system which ‘does’ alcohol, drugs, smoking cessation, STIs, and obesity, but doesn’t seem to get it that there may be an underlying reason, or a set of factors, why our young people develop a dependent or distorted relationship with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, food or sexual relationships in the first place.

Common factors like dysfunctional families, poverty, worklessness, weak family and community structures, lack of good parenting, or mental illness are all identifiable causes. But, most of all, I would argue that the reason underlying all of this, especially amongst young people, is a lack of self-esteem.

Just as leadership drives organisational success, so self-esteem drives personal fulfilment.

That is why, contrary to the media reporting, I applauded Jamie Oliver’s initiative on school dinners and when he went to Rotherham – because Jamie ‘got it’.

He got that it’s not just about a witch hunt against saturated fats, salt and sugars. It’s about creating a better understanding of, and relationship with, good food and diet. And even more, it’s about self-confidence – it’s about building self-esteem.

When you watch the programmes – and I did watch them - they were about building self-esteem, not just about what went into the food and how you cook it.

The problem was the government’s response. Instead of working with families to engage them with the idea of building a good diet together, with food they enjoy, the bureaucracy took it over and they came up with a series of rules for what was permissible in school meals.

The fact is, you can’t legislate for self-esteem from Westminster. We can’t pass the Elimination of Obesity Act 2010. Turning Jamie’s campaign into a list of how often you can offer chips – whilst not rationing roast potatoes cooked in oil – doesn’t do the job.

In complex policy areas like this it has become clear that government cannot simply ‘deliver’ key policy outcomes to a disengaged and passive public. We cannot solve complex problems on our own – everyone has a role to play.

So how do we do that?

I freely admit that none of us have all the answers.

But, it’s clear that we have to find a new approach – to think new thoughts. We need a paradigm shift.

The reforms we are bringing in will empower you – the professionals – to commission services that work – to apply the best technology and the best new insights of social psychology and behavioural economics to achieve real improvements in public health.

The latest academic research in these fields is suggesting new ways of helping people to change their behaviour, and achieve what we all want to achieve.

Studies has shown that social norms are much more important than policymakers have traditionally assumed. People are deeply influenced by the behaviour of those around them – and public policy should reflect that.

Nicholas Christakis, who is a Professor of Medical Sociology at Harvard, puts it like this – ‘There is a kind of social contagion [with obesity], a kind of social domino effect. Suzy makes Betty eat poorly. And then Betty makes Jane eat poorly. And Jane makes Ann eat poorly. Suzy does not know Jane or Ann, but Suzy’s behavior and actions are influencing the interaction between Jane and Ann.’ You will be tested on this as you leave!

He found that if a friend becomes obese your chances of becoming obese increase by more than half – and with close, mutual friends, if one becomes obese the chances of the other following suit are even higher.

That’s pretty striking. If we can find a way to harness the intensive influence that people have on each other through social networks or social media, then we’d really be on to something.

We should be learning the lessons of what’s worked in this country and around the world.

There are numerous examples of how technology can be used as a cheap, effective tool for promoting public health. Research from the US has found that pedometer users increased their physical activity by over 25%.

Smarter incentives have also been shown to be an effective way of encouraging people to adopt healthier lifestyles, particularly fordisadvantaged groups.

And we need to be smarter about how information is presented to ensure that messages really hit home.

Researchers at UCL have found that telling smokers their ‘lung age’ makes them more likely to quit smoking.

And advertising social norms can snap people out of the fantasy that their drinking, smoking or eating habits are the same as everyone else’s.

Of course this is just scratching the surface – there is a proliferation of innovative ideas out there for you to draw on. We need to find out what those ideas are and how we can define the evidence base for what will work as part of a broader strategy.

And I talk about strategy for a reason.

For too long our approach to public health has been fragmented and complex but not effective.

So we want to free the system up – to work with you as the champions of public health, to create a framework which empowers people to make the changes that will really make a difference in their lives.

Working with communities and schools to develop young people’s confidence and self-esteem. Empowering them to take better decisions when young, so that they enjoy greater health and well-being though life.

So that we reduce alcohol and drug abuse, not because we tell people to do it, but because people are in control and less dependent.

So that young people see drug use and binge drinking not as a sign of being adult but as evidence of their immaturity.

So that peer pressure and expectations drive greater responsibility.

And the majority of young people who don’t take illegal drugs and do not get blind drunk on a Friday night are celebrated.

This, more than anything, is why we need to empower all of you.

This is why we need genuinely local strategies, based in neighbourhoods, schools and families.

This is why we need to throw off the old ways and start seeing people and families as a whole, using local voluntary and charitable organisations much more, cutting across boundaries, encouraging innovation, using the power of new technologies and new media, joining up professions and budgets and putting the people – not the system – at the heart of the strategy. Making us all accountable for results, not just processes.

And this cannot happen through top-down national schemes. We – that is the government – can supply resources, ideas, evidence, we can create identity for the public health strategy, but we cannot expect a national strategy to deliver everything.

We need to build responsibility and innovation in local communities if we are to deliver.

So my vision is for a new Public Health Service which rebalances our approach to health, ensuring we continue to respond effectively to public health emergencies and carry out the vital role of protecting the nation’s health – while also drawing together all the elements we need for preventative action for health improvement – national leadership and strategy, local leadership and delivery and, above-all, a new sense of community and social responsibility.

Now, to prepare the ground for this new Public Health Service, first we must establish a national strategy to secure a professional, unified and efficient approach to achieve measurable improvements in public health and effective protection from public health threats. A strategy that delivers the focus, resources and infrastructure that we need.

From my personal point of view, I am already the Secretary of State for Public Health. And we are very clear that, as a Department, we are more focussed on public health and that will be my personal ambition.

And because the determinants of health extend far and wide, we will lead a cross-government strategy to tackle the drivers of demand on the NHS and to make Britain a healthier nation – breaking down the longstanding barriers that have prevented progress in the past.

That’s why the Prime Minister has approved the establishment of a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Public Health, which I shall chair. In this way we will develop a strategy which not only recognises the wider determinants of health, but is equipped within government to tackle them in order to improve our health outcomes – bringing the range of potential benefits that I’ve been describing.

We will set clear outcomes and measures to judge progress alongside NHS and social care outcomes for which my Department is responsible.

We will strengthen the role of local government in improving public health, improving local accountability and rewarding the progress that communities make.

And we will create a new ring-fenced public health budget – giving confidence that in the teeth of the debt crisis we inherited, we nonetheless achieve the improvement of health outcomes, that we seek and that we also reduce the dreadful scale of health inequality we inherited.

It’s no secret that the causes of ill health are rooted in local issues such as poor housing, poor quality education, worklessness and family breakdown.

So, alongside a new national strategy, the second thing we need is renewed local leadership. We need to empower local communities to identify their own needs and provide rigorous solutions that work for their specific circumstances.

The Public Health Service will provide strong local leadership, supported by resources devoted to tackling those cross-cutting causes of ill-health. And through public health budgets, we will create local public health budgets to support local strategies and leadership.

Leadership, from local authorities working together with their public health partners, through the critical role of Directors of Public Health, will have the resources and the authority to make preventative interventions to improve the health of their communities.

They will develop strong local strategies to deliver health and well-being in individuals, families and communities.

And just as the national strategy must extend across and beyond government, so local government must do exactly the same thing including all local partners.

We will not be dictating the ‘how’ when it comes to achieving better public health outcomes. But we will be very clear about the ‘what’ – what we want to measure and achieve.

This could include: increases in life expectancy, reduction of inequality in life expectancy, decreases in infant mortality, improved immunisation rates, reduced childhood obesity, fewer alcohol-related admissions to hospital, and improvement in take-up of physical activity. One of the critical measures of success must be a demonstrable reduction in health inequalities in local areas.

These are the kind of measures on which we will consult. And we will promote the use and collection of evidence so we build a stronger picture of what works.

We will be clear about what we want to achieve but not tell people how to do it.

The funding and the freedoms that I’ve talked about will only be sustainable if they are followed by greater evidence of success – through payments to match results. We can have a health service that reduces inequalities in public health.

This is how the Public Health Service will work to improve the health of the poorest fastest.

We know that deprived communities have some of the worst and most entrenched public health problems.

So I do want to build on the findings of Sir Michael Marmot’s review, and the six policy objectives he proposes. In the ways I’ve described today, we’re giving you new tools to tackle the problems he identified – to form new partnerships across different disciplines, and to target those determinants of poor health in ways that fit local circumstances.

Central to this is the new ‘Health Premium’ which will support local strategies which deliver measurable results – and on which we’ll consult this year.

In the past the system has rewarded poor outcomes. We will start with a system that recognises deprivation and then rewards improvement.

The third and, most important, factor for the Public Health Service is individual engagement and responsibility.

By many measures, Britain has become one of the least cohesive and most socially divided countries in Europe.

Failings in civic, community and family life have gone hand in hand with a decline in social and individual responsibility. The negative impact on our health and wellbeing is serious.

For public health reform any success will have to begin to reverse this decline in responsibility.

The temptation in the past has been to intervene – but no government campaign or programme can force people to make healthy choices.

I looked at yesterday’s Daily Mail and while there were nine pages on politics, there were thirteen pages on health.

There is no lack of desire for people to be healthy, our job should be to provide the right information, to create the right environment, to incentivise healthy options and build social momentum behind behaviour change in the ways I have already described.

Nudging individuals in the right direction. Encouraging positive choices. Not lecturing or nannying. But making people feel empowered.

Part of this is bringing government and business together to promote innovation in thinking and practice. So we will build on the ideas and expertise from our Public Health Commission, and the Coalition for Better Health, to create a new ‘responsibility deal’, built on social responsibility, not state regulation.

And this is everyone’s business – there is a distinctive role for all of us to achieve the positive change we need.

Change4Life is an example of this. I have been impressed how much it has achieved to date – I’ve talked to many of you about my support for it, particularly the way it has brought som many people together - healthcare professionals, teachers, charities, businesses, and the thousands of volunteers who have added their support.

But, again, we need a new approach. We have to make Change4life less a government campaign, more a social movement. Less paid for by government, more backed by business. Less about costly advertising, more about supporting family and individual responses.

There has been a change of Government and there will now be a change of approach. We will be progressively scaling back the amount of taxpayers’ money spent on Change4Life and asking others, including the charities ,the commercial sector and local authorities, to fill the gap.

While government pump-primed the brand, we will now withdraw the primer and engage others to share in making Change4Life really work – and we will focus on extending its reach and effectiveness, especially in social media.

There is no point backing local strategies if the government is prescriptive. Change4Life can be used by everybody to deliver their public health campaigns.

To date, industry has made ‘in kind’ contributions. I will now be pressing them to provide actual funding behind the campaign. And they need to do more. If we are to reverse the trends in obesity, the commercial sector needs to change their business practices, including how they promote their brands and product reformulation.

That is why I see our new approach as a partnership – access to the Change4life brand, alongside the Responsibility Deal; with an expectation of non-regulatory approaches. We will work with partners in Change4life to give people better information in less prescriptive ways.

I will also consider extending the Change4Life partnership to the drinks industry, who also have a major further role to play in promoting healthier lifestyles. Change4life is not just about obesity and physical activity but other ways to be healthy.

We also need to be smarter about how we engage with people. Over the next year, we will test new and innovative ways to incentivise healthier lifestyles, created with local communities and evaluated using a mix of academic and commercial sector techniques.

Our new approach across public health services, must meet tougher tests of evidence and evaluation – demonstrating delivery of results.

We will not retreat from our determination to prevent rising ill-health in the future – equally, we must not waste a penny of desperately scarce public money today.

The Coalition Government’s commitment to our health services is in the circumstances remarkable – we are not going to make the nation’s health the price of paying down the nation’s debt.

Alcohol misuse costs society over £17 billion each year and obesity much the same figure. If we ignore these issues, not only will we have to carry on paying for that failure, but we will also have to live with the consequences in worse educational outcomes, higher crime, poorer quality of life for everyone – and we will put the economic recovery at risk.

Healthy individuals are more productive and more able to contribute to long-term growth. As the Royal Sanitary Commission noted in 1871: ‘public health is public wealth’.

We can make a very strong case for the cost-effectiveness of investment in health, in health promotion and the prevention of illness.

But in the past these investments have rarely – too rarely – been accompanied by a rigorous evaluation of what works. The idea that spending on prevention is more cost-effective than spending on treatment is not a hard and fast rule. We have to show where it is true, how it is true and why it is true.

In the current fiscal climate we have to see a new standard of evidence.

We must only support effective interventions that deliver proven benefits. We must be certain that every penny invested will achieve better health outcomes.

To conclude, later this year, we will publish a White Paper on public health setting out exactly how the Public Health Service will work – and I want to invite all of you to participate in its development.

I want to consult with you about how we will develop this policy.

Notwithstanding financial difficulties, we can create something better.

My vision is of public health as a movement, owned by everyone, for everyone’s benefit. A movement which unites those who have been trying to prevent ill health with those responsible for treating it. A movement which not only transforms the way we deliver public health, but also revolutionises the way we think about it.

So I want to enlist your help: to work hand-in-hand with colleagues across local government and the NHS; to inspire, challenge and lead others; to deliver better health for the nation; to ensure that progress on local health outcomes is maintained; to support communities and empower individuals; to change the way people think about public health.

And as we collectively rise to this challenge you’ll have our support – I’ve set out today how we’re supporting you with ring-fenced funding, incentives and greater control.

I’ve set out my approach structurally, financially, philosophically.

We have the chance for the first time in this country, to create a unified, coherent and effective public health strategy – with the Public Health Service at its heart – guided by a national vision, lead by local expertise, driven by evidence – and founded on social responsibility.

With your help, we can make that vision a reality.

Thank you.

Overpopulation, Food and Energy Security - it's getting Worse

2010-07-04T16:08:00.005+01:00

There are a few things I feel passionately about, in terms of principles and policies.
My politics is shaped by common sense principles and evidenced-based policy making. I don't like political correctness. I don't like it when there are certain subjects that aren't fashionable to talk about. I don't like the idea of burying the elephant in the room because that is the consensus. I don't like people who think they are the bastions of knowledge about everything - I prefer a bit of humility and an admission from people that they aren't always right.

In terms of policy, I don't believe we should spend beyond our means and that the credit crisis was caused by the loss of common sense in this area. I believe in respect for the skills and individuality of every individual. I believe in education suited and tailored to the individual and also the state, and the balancing of the rights of the individual with the needs of the state. I believe trade is the best way to relieve global poverty, alongside women's education and rights.

In terms of issues - the most important issue the world is facing has got to be overpopulation and the threat that poses to world food, water and energy security. We have got to start talking about it. It isn't just food and water and energy, either. History tells us that when populations get larger than technology can cope with, wars and strife break out.

This article here is worth a read. "Earth’s population is approaching seven billion at the same time that resource limits and environmental degradation are becoming more apparent every day. Rich nations have long assured poor nations that they, too, would one day be rich and that their rates of population growth would decline, but it is no longer clear that this will occur for most of today’s poor nations.

Resource scarcities, especially oil, are likely to limit future economic growth; the demographic transition that has accompanied economic growth in the past may not be possible for many nations today. Nearly 220,000 people are added to the planet every day, further compounding most resource and environmental problems. The United States adds another person every eleven seconds. We can no longer wait for increasing wealth to bring down fertility in remaining high fertility nations; we need policies and incentives to stop growth now."

The Right complain that we allow political correctness to stop us talking about legitimate issues (such as immigration). They are right. But those who somehow feel talking about overpopulation is in some way offensive (to poorer nations, to people with lots of kids, or to libertarians) are plain wrong. Why are we sending a huge amount of aid to support 10+ children per family with no other support in some countries when there isn't enough food to go around and won't be in their life time? Why aren't we properly investing in educating the girls, microfinancing (both of which are proven to reduce birth rates) and family planning? The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. Food, water and energy security are issues we need governments to deal with effectively. If we don't get this issue on the global stage and if we don't start planning G8, G20, aid and trade policy around it, we are heading for some pretty bad times.

Is Lansley Lecturing about not Lecturing?

2010-07-04T11:23:00.006+01:00

Andrew Lansley (who I rate very highly) came over to the medical profession as lecturing when he told a BMA conference that health professionals should not lecture...

He was talking about healthy choices and responsibility, and he quoted the example that when Jamie Oliver ran the healthy schools meal campaign, the numbers taking up school meals fell.

He's right in some ways - the answer to health inequalities lies in personal responsibility. I've actually written a few medical journal research papers on health inequalities, and have a degree of expertise in the area. Most people don't realise that the gap between rich and poor health outcomes in this country is mostly due to lifestyle. People from deprived communities are more likely to drink heavily, eat less healthy food, smoke and do less exercise. Most of this is down to choice. Time is not really a factor (especially in terms of exercise and shopping in the markets for cheap fruit and vegetables), as it is worst amongst the unemployed. It is a side effect, in my view, of a dependency culture that has grown up in deprived communities - a feeling that things are done to and for the individual (usually by the state), rather than the person feeling their life chances are in any way within their own gift.

I have spoken twice at party conference about this. The Dahlgren & Whitehead model of wider determinants of health (see diagram above) demonstrates that social and cultural issues influence the health of populations more than almost anything else. New Labour understood this, but they did not understand that the way to address this was to engender a greater sense of personal responsiblity into those in deprived communities (btw I talk about deprivation as it is not the same as poverty -but the circles do overlap). That is why health inequalities rose under Labour despite £ billions being poured into trying to tackle it.

That is why I believe that welfare reform and the school choice programme will do more to tackle health inequalities than any health initiative. They will have more effect on deprived communities and a sense of responsiblity than any other progamme -and Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove's reforms have wider [health] benefits than first meets the eye.

However, health programmes, health information and interventions from doctors and other health professionals do work. As does fiscal and regulatory policy. Heart attack rates have dropped dramatically since the smoking ban. Higher taxes on cigarettes is the second most effective measure to reduce the prevalence of smoking. Brief advice from GPs to stop smoking used in the right setting and at the right time works in 5% of cases, and is the single most cost effective health promotion measure we know of. Also, you can't expect people to make the right choice if they don't know what the benefits/ harms of choices are. Did you know that 6g of salt per day is the absolute healthy maximum, and 3g would be much better? Do you know about trans fats? Most people don't, and we either need a much better labelling policy with better public information, or better regulation - but taking no action either on labelling with information or regulation isn't fair on the average consumer.

Nobody understands the models of and evidence of health behaviour change better than doctors and health professionals. I don't think a polician lecturing experts on their own subject is likely to go down very well. I have a number of professional colleagues already rubbed up the wrong way. Politicians have got to work in partnership with the experts, and respect each other's expertise in their field. (What is a politician's expertise, I hear you ask? - to understand the public mood, what is acceptable, and to hold a wider view of how one policy area fits in with the wider policy direction). Lecturing about not lecturing (which is not what doctors do anyway - they are highly skilled professionals) is not a good idea..

By the way - my kids eat school meals. I expect them to get a healthy option. I don't want them being fed turkey twizzlers. The effectiveness of the programme should not be judged by how many kids eat school meals - but by how many kids (rich and poor) eat a healthy lunch,whether a pack lunch or a school dinner. If we are going to start measuring outcomes, that is the measure that is important.

The Right is USUALLY Right

2010-07-04T11:05:00.008+01:00

Maybe that's why it's called the right wing!

This article here, summarised as well here shows the Right wing have been right about most things:

“We pointed out that Robert Mugabe would be a Marxist tyrant even before he reached office. It took about 20 years of murder and destruction before this truth was universally acknowledged.”
“We warned that mass immigration put the worst strain on the poorest people. At the time, this was "racist"; today, it is common ground between the parties.”
“We said that Gordon Brown's public finances would eventually produce disaster, while sunnier politicians gabbled about "sharing the proceeds of growth".

Tim Montgomerie also says:

"In the years to come...

We’ll be proven right about the value of school choice;
The superiority of trade over aid as a cure for global poverty (in fact this may already be won intellectually);
The danger of trying to ‘green’ our economies with immature and expensive technologies; and
The fact that individual nation states choosing to work together in successions of one-off partnerships are our only hope of tackling rogue states (and other great global challenges), rather than do-nothing, talk-a-lot multinational organisations."

I agree with all of these points except the green one. I am on the fence in regard to global warming (as a cynic with tendencies towards the precautionary principle), but I do think we need to address the issue of energy security - one of our most pressing challenges. I believe strongly that shortage of energy and water, and the concentration of the former resource in the hands of some of the most dangerous states in the world is one of the most pressing problems Western democracies- and the rest of the world - face.

I think somehow that most right wing commentators are so wound up in their well-placed cynicism towards global warming that they forget the issue of energy security. We need to investigate and use a wide range of other sources of energy, including nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, rivers, algae, fusion......

PS I would also like to add to Tim's list - welfare reform. If we implement the policy well, we will change the face of welfare and work in this country by changing the consensus.

Prison DOES work - three evidence based reasons

2010-07-04T10:34:00.007+01:00

Sorry, Ken - prison does work.

I'm mostly in agreement with the coalition, but there are a few things that are against sense. Ken Clarke's policy to reduce the use of prison for criminals is one of them.

The fact is prison works for three reasons:

1. It keeps the hard core criminals off the streets. There are about 100,000 hard core criminals (and I think every country has a similar proportion at it's core, and you can't get much below this). They are responsible for half of all crime. This article shows hat if each community sentence was replaced by a month in custody, there would be 60,000 fewer offences a year. This blog post also summarises the evidence. I haven't seen any evidence anywhere that this hard core group of criminals can be rehabilitated, and he shows also that it is expensive to lock them up - but more expensive to have them out on the streets.

2. It is a deterrent to other potential criminals (those who might be on the cusp of criminality. There is a large amount of evidence from the US that there are lower crime rates in the states that have higher prison sentences. This was clearly spelled out in the Plan. Some of this is displacement, but most (when you take out the effect of getting the hard core off the streets) is deterrent. By the way - it must actually be a punishment to be a deterrent. Why they have Sky in their cells is beyond understanding. If they can't control them without offering such luxuries, they need to set the bar at a different notch.

3. Effective rehabilitation and drug treatment could and should be offered in prisons. As a doctor I know that rehabilitation often is most successful if it involves a break away from the vicious cycles that the person is stuck in. This is also true for criminals as well as those who have other social problems. The fact that the prison system is not dealing with the drug addiction problem is not that it can't, but that is hasn't. A tougher regime with testing of prisoners and privileges relating to being clean would be a start. Tough punishments for corrupt prison officers would also be needed. A graded exit from a tough regime to partial work placements for those who will be released in the next 2-3 years should and could be effective in those people on the cusp of criminality, adn those who have got off drugs, or have their mental health under control. Mental health, drug addiction and learning disability charities should be involved on a rewards basis for successful rehabilitation and work placement.

I also believe that methadone is a joke, and is worse than using herion for withdrawal. We need an evidence review of this policy area and we need to start using effective withdrawal programmes - the one most likely to get the offender completely clean of drugs.

Always Remember the Holocaust

2010-07-02T15:12:00.002+01:00

I was sent this by email. I thought it should be advertised, so here it is:

When I was a kid, I couldn't understand why Eisenhower was so popular. Maybe this will explain why.

General Eisenhower Warned Us

It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

The UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' certain faiths who claim it never occurred. It is not removed as yet.. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This email is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the,6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million

Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests Who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beat, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

Further Update on Taxidermy Petition

2010-06-28T19:31:00.005+01:00

For those who are interested - my letter on the issue (see here and here) to the Headteacher has spurred them into action:

1. My daughter got a chocolate bar and head teachers offician "well done".
2. I got a letter acknowledging action was needed.
3. It was discussed at school council who decided each class should hold a debate on it.
4. Her class debate was 90% in favour of getting rid of the taxidermy.

I'm awaiting any further action, but will keep my eye on it.

Police State

2010-06-28T19:22:00.005+01:00

Some of you will remember I was stopped by the police for taking an innocent photograph - twice! See here here and here.

Looks like it is still happening. See here.

Diane Abbott Totally Represents the Difference between Labour and Conservative

2010-06-28T18:55:00.004+01:00

We (mainstream politicians) all believe in fairness. We all believe in social mobility, compasssion, safety nets for the vulnerable.

But the difference in socialism and conservatism lies in whether you see the less advantaged as the oppressed victims who need to be taken care off in a paternalistic "we know what is best for you and will set up lots of state systems to give you a hand out" fashion or whether you see them as people to be respected, who need a hand up to help them to help themselves and then fly on their own if they can. Diane Abbott is very very clearly in the former camp - as demonstrated below. The problem is that a hand up is much more powerful than a hand out in the long term - but that is what socialists just don't get.

The Diane Abbott example is from this post which I have recounted in full:

Diane Abbott thinks it is cruel to encourage people to find work

Diane Abbott offers some characteristically impassioned (and characteristically blinkered) thoughts on Iain Duncan Smith’s proposal that unemployed council tenants be helped to re-locate to areas where there are jobs.

The policy is “cruel” she says. Mr Duncan Smith is suggesting nothing less than that “people should chase around the country looking for jobs. And, more than likely,” she goes on, “these will be jobs that offer no long-term security.” Long-term security?! How many jobs does Ms Abbott believe offer long-term security these days? Is such a guarantee of indefinite tenure a basic requirement for any job that is to tempt an unemployed person off of his present benefits? (I daresay Ms Abbott’s model for long-term security of employment is the public sector which is why she regards the Coalition government’s plan to cut it back as so wicked. Of course, what makes the public sector so desirable as an employer – that it offers unmatchable job security – is precisely what has made it so damaging to the economy.)

Having presented a view of employment as an unattainable job-for-life idyll, Ms Abbott then has the cheek to claim that the IDS proposal “refers to a world of work that has gone.” Male jobseekers no longer have compliant wives sitting at home, ready to accompany them to wherever the jobs may be. The women in the house are as likely to be working themselves as not. But these households – in which the woman is employed – are not the problem that is being addressed by the IDS policy: it is the workless families where no one is (or is likely ever to be if they stay where they are) in work. For them , the only hope of escape from the deprivation and despair of life-long unemployment is to move out of the area. And all that IDS wants to do is make it easier for them to do that.

But Ms Abbott sees this offer of help as a form of vindictiveness. “The unspoken threat”, she says, “is coercion.” Well, “unspoken” is the operative word. No one is suggesting that the massed armies of the unemployed be frog-marched from the Northeast to the Southeast, or even from Tower Hamlets to Slough. All that is being offered is a route out of a dead-end neighbourhood. If the jobless in Britain are as resistant to this as Ms Abbott suggests they should be, then we are truly put to shame by all those East Europeans who have been prepared to migrate across a continent to improve their lives.

Harnessing the Spirit of British Innovation and Entrepreneuralism

2010-06-18T17:59:00.004+01:00

I was disappointed that the cuts include the grant to the visitor centre at Stonehenge. Being a bit of a fan of pre-History the immediate gut reaction is - oh no! But then it's Labour's fault anyway. But actually, John Redwood has it right - if it really will (which I think it would if properly done) bring more visitors - then why not finance it privately?

The point is that these cuts will be less harmful to our economy than tax rises - as shown by the analysis by Oxford Economics. As Allister Heath says " The report compared the impact of a £10bn cut in government current spending with a £10bn increase in government revenues, achieved through an increase in the standard rate of VAT, currently at 17.5 per cent. A cut in public spending would obviously reduce employment in public services; but any effect on output could be mitigated by eliminating waste. However, reduced government borrowing as a result of the cuts would bring lower interest rates and a drop in sterling. The benefits would be enjoyed by the most internationally-exposed (and thus pressurized) parts of the private sector: manufacturing, business services and retail, distribution and hotels. In contrast, a VAT increase would impact almost exclusively on the long-suffering private sector. The biggest losers would be retailers, hotels and restaurants, but other sectors would also suffer from weaker intermediate and final demand."

Allister Heath also makes it clear that we need more creative destruction to boost the entrepreneural opportunities in this country - read the post about it here.

All in - I think the geniuses (or genii) that created Stonehenge were clearly entrepreneurs and innovators and would be proud of Britain and if they lived in modern Britian, would agree with Allister.

Good Old Ed

2010-06-11T20:20:00.003+01:00

Did you know he's white, middle aged, an ex political adviser and he went to Oxbridge? But then they all did, except for Diane Abbott - who did also go to Oxbridge however!!!!

Labour Leadership Contenders will have to ask themselves - Do they want Power or a Decent Country to Live In?

2010-06-11T19:28:00.007+01:00

The Labour leadership contenders are talking about immigration - most using it as a way of getting votes. Ed Balls said they made a mistake with their encouragement of mass immigration from the EU. He hasn't however mentioned non-EU immigration. David Miliband says the open door policy should continue.

David Miliband is also today criticising Frank Field for his work on poverty. It was bound to happen.

But these guys have got to ask themselves - do they want to win the Labour leadership and then get Labour votes on the back of scare stories and fear, or do they want a decent country for their children and grandchildren to live in? Power or decency?

They can win the leadership by being populist with Labour members - ie anti-immigration words for the working classes (but with no intention of implementing it). Lots of talk about benefits and tax credits and investment vs cuts will win elections in good years for them , as long as the immigration doors stay wide open too, as recent immigrants are more likely to vote for them (by the way, the word investment is nonsense - just read about the waste here - Labour ministers didn't understand the real meaning of the word).

But if they want a decent country for their descendents, they need to tackle the issues of welfarism and mass immigration. So many Asians raised immigration on the doorstep during my campaign - levels are so high that settled minorities are alarmed by it as well as others. Welfarism has left people with no hope, with health outcomes that are appalling, and with long term social and mental health problems in communities. It is blighting the country economically, socially and morally. Appalling.

So these guys have a moral choice - power or a decent country to live in. Unfortunately they will more than likely go down the same path that Tony Blair did when he first sacked Frank Field from his welfare reform role - Blair gave it all up for power.

[Perhaps however the public will get wise to them and the Lib Dems will end up being the second party with Labour in a poor third or worse. One can only hope.]

Actually, it's Time to Stand up to Europe

2010-06-11T14:56:00.006+01:00

To be quite frank, I'm fed up with Europe. Every sensible suggestion anyone has about getting out of the mess we are in socially, morally or economically is "not workable" because of some sort of European Law or Treaty.

No, I'm not (quite) in the Better of Out camp (not quite - mainly because I am not 100% persuaded and I believe in caution). But I am sick and tired of our great country being run from an unelected bureaucracy that that is based on countries that have a different history of Law development to us, a much less distinguished civil liberties record, and countries that don't have the long history of stable democracy that we do - many of which have been run by dictatorships only in the last century.

Cameron is being critised for not standing up to Obama over BP. Much worse is our history of not standing up for our own country within Europe.

The hypocrisy of the Left and the weak willed on Europe is shocking. As Dan Hannan points out today, when discussing the seemingly bottomless pit that is the Euro bailout: "Ponder this. There has been an anguished national debate about the £6.2 billion which the Coalition proposes to find next year from across the whole of government spending. Yet, in his outgoing act as Chancellor, Alistair Darling commited £8 billion to the last bail-out with barely a whimper of protest. These figures now seem certain to rise. And to think that there are still half-clever pundits claiming that we must “move on” from talking about the EU!"

Media Freedom in Sri Lanka?

2010-06-11T13:32:00.002+01:00

Media Freedom? - watch here.

I've had 2 seriously threatening emails recently just because I have posted stuff on Sri Lanka before. I've had some quite nasty ones in the past.

Update on the Taxidermy/ Dead Animals in School Petition

2010-06-10T13:18:00.004+01:00

If you remember, I was really proud that my 10 year old daughter developed a petition at school and handed it in - over an issue she felt strongly about. Despite being quite shy, she handed it in directly to the headteacher whilst her two friends were hiding behind her. It took nerve and it shows conviction in her beliefs and a feeling of social responsibility.

She still hasn't had a reply from the headteacher however.

Today I wrote this letter and will be handing it into the school -

Dear Mrs xxxx,

Re: Petition by Children against the Taxidermy in the School

I am writing to you as my daughter, xxx, was one of the leaders of the above. She and her friends started this on their own volition without any adults encouraging them.

I for one am immensely proud that my daughter knew what a petition is and had the will and determination to try to act on something she feels strongly about (as an animal lover she finds the display of dead animals unpleasant). I am therefore very surprised that weeks later she has not had a formal or even informal reply. She and her friends worked very hard over a number of days, and got very good support. I believe there were about 50 signatures on there – including a teacher’s!

I am not saying that I think you have to remove the taxidermy (I do however also personally find the figures rather distasteful), but I do believe the school should be encouraging leadership and empowerment of the children, and she deserves a response.

The new government has said any petition bearing the signatures of 100,000 people (ie one in 600 of the public) would be eligible for debate in Parliament, and any petition with 1 million signatures (ie one in 60 of the public) would result in a bill being tabled in Parliament. The taxidermy petition achieved the signatures of approximately one in 10 of the school population.

I would suggest that a written response would be appropriate and that the following could be considered:

1. A discussion at school council on the taxidermy figures;

2. A vote of the school population on them.

You would not just have to discuss the option of removing the figures, but could also consider a harm minimisation strategy such as putting them in glass cases or out of reach of the children (I have seen one child stroking the badger, for instance).

If you will not consider any of the above I do think the children should have a response detailing the reasons why you do not feel this is necessary.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Rachel Joyce

Mother of xxxx

Any ideas on what I should do if I don't get a satisfactory response?

The Confusion of the Left over Obama and BP

2010-06-10T09:47:00.010+01:00

Hats off to Iain Dale who was the first to point out the shameless populism that Obama is indulging in regarding BP - and a complete lack of action or help from Obama or his administration. I was thinking of blogging on it myself at the time, but Iain beat me to it and said it better than I could have done anyway. Hat's off to Boris to for calling Obama's anti-British rhetoric what it is, and the effect on British pensioners and the BP share price.

I have however just heard a preview of uber-lefty James O'Brien on LBC (who I have given up listening to as he is so vacuous and completely unable to support his views). He mentioned BP and the poor pensioners affected by the share price plunge, but then talked about the nasty shareholders. He made it clear that he has great sympathy for the former but not the latter (forgive me, but aren't they the same people?). He was also completely unclear what he, as an unquestioning lefty, was meant to think about the great Obama in this situation.

All his lefty mantras were contradicting each other (nasty shareholders - aka oppressors, poor pensioners - aka victims, Obama - darling of the left, but still representing the evil America). He was clearly completely confused as to the point that a large proportion of shareholders in this country are actually pension funds. How can that be - he wants to hate shareholders, but he can't hate pensioners.....

Poor, confused lefties. But then if they started thinking objectively, they'd have to become Conservatives, and that wouldn't suit their trendy image, would it?

PS there is also more to the story than meets the eye - it appears some crazy American law and prejudice is actually stopping the clean up and damaging wildlife. No-one is mentioning this.

My Idea on How to Manage the Public Sector Redundancy Problem

2010-06-08T20:22:00.007+01:00

Benedict Brogan wrote an interesting piece here asking how all the public sector redundancies will be paid for. He says "The Canadians shed 55,000 state sector jobs. Not a lot you say? That represented nearly a quarter of all public employees in the country. Recent figures show we have 6.098m public employees in Britain, 532,000 in the Civil Service. Imagine if Dave has in mind cuts on a Canadian scale: 1.5m public jobs lost overall, 130,000 civil servants. He doesn’t, of course, and the Canadian figure overlooks local and provincial jobs. But if he is serious about a similar type of programme review then jobs will have to go, and here he comes up against a problem: the cost of redundancy. Senior officials in Whitehall will tell you that they are hamstrung by the lack of funding available to get rid of people. Generous redundancy terms make it hugely costly to shed staff."

Having worked in the NHS for 21 years now (in hospitals, community clinics, GP surgeries, Health Authorities, Regional Offices and PCTs....- I think I've got a pretty good perspective by now on the way the NHS works. I also have a fair idea about other public services.

The problem is that although there is a large amount of natural wastage when you implement recruitment freezes (and trust me, I've seen loads as I've worked in many organisations that were in deficit), you often end up with lots of people still in post who are doing unnessary jobs. As they cost too much to make redundant, they keep them on and then have to start recruiting essential and frontline services again. Re-organisations are a useless way of getting rid of people, as generally they only have to apply for similar jobs to the one they are working on.

Well, how about this for radical - suggest within a re-organisation that they have to apply for any job that they could conceivably do (with perhaps a bit of training) before they can even be considered for redundancy payment. This could also include having to apply for jobs in other public sector organisations within, say, a 40 mile radius - ie skills pooling for reorganisations, with corresponding transfer arrangements. I am no HR expert, I confess, and I realise there are TUPE arrangements etc, but these need to be re-written and the unions should be agreeing to this to avoid all the redundancies that will otherwise follow.

There are lots of ex-teachers flying around as well as other people trained in all sorts A very very significant proportion of managers in the NHS are ex-nurses, ex-dieticians, ex-physiotherapists etc (and we have a real shortage of therapists). A short refresher course and they could do some kind of frontline clinical work.

There are also lots of ex-teachers and similar floating around. Add to that that most people can use a computer these days and type a few letters. People have degrees and training in all sorts of things that mean they can do other jobs within the public sector even if it is not that similar to the one they are currently doing. If we want to avoid unwanted redundancies and actually get our public services more effective then this is something that could be considered.

He Was a Suicide Risk

2010-06-04T18:19:00.005+01:00

As I said in my previous post, I don't think banning more guns would save any lives. However, a review of the involvement of doctors and the processes they undergo might be helpful.

For instance, if someone hasn't visited their doctor in years, there won't be any mental illness to report. We don't know if the Cumbria rampager had or had not visited the doctor or not - and if so, did the doctor remember that he had signed a gun licence application a few years back? Perhaps wider and more regular checks of mental health might be helpful for those who apply for gun licences- it is certainly worth looking into.

He was however a relative suicide risk. As I said in this post, men are more likely to commit suicide - and much more likely to use a firearm to do so (women tend to overdose). Those that are divorced, separated or single are more likely, as are those with financial problems, and men in their 40s and 50s are a particular risk (as are certain jobs). He therefore ticked all of those boxes. If he was depressed over a particular issue (which it seems he may have been), and if he had visited a doctor to discuss this in the last year, he would have been a particular high risk.

Suicide audits have suggested that all males who visit their doctor with depression should be quizzed for suicidal ideation - particularly if they live alone or have financial concerns. I don't believe this has been universally adopted, but should be.

We don't know what happened here, but it appears the gun rampage was part of a suicide plan and it re-iterates my point that we need a Minister for men pushing some of these issues up the agenda.

Your Risk of Dying in Gun Rampage is Very Low compared to Risk of Staying at Home

2010-06-03T10:33:00.008+01:00

With the awful news of the gun rampage in Cumbria, my thoughts and those of the public are with the bereaved. It is an awful tragedy for them and for the people of the area.

But we should not lose sight of the issue of risk. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in 2008 there were 18,000 deaths caused by "external causes of injury and poisoning". Over 12,000 of these were accidents, 2500 due to traffic accidents, over 3000 due to falls, 200 due to drowning, 600 due to accidents affecting ability to breath, almost 300 due to fires, 1400 due to accidental poisoning, and 5 deaths due to firearms (some of which would have been accidental). In fact, your risk of dying by just staying at home is many many times higher than your risk of being killed by a firearm.

As we learnt from Freakonomics, even in America, where a large proportion of households keep a gun, a child is more than 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than playing with a gun.

So before we allow a bandwagon effect calling for further banning of firearms - which would affect the quality of life of many people who live in the countryside, the public needs to understand that the risk of being killed by a gunman on a rampage is exceedingly low.

How Portion Sizes have Changed - 1950s to 2010

2010-06-01T17:41:00.003+01:00

Puritans weren't very Popular - We should be Careful what we wish for

2010-05-30T09:02:00.013+01:00

As Paul Goodman points out, the last time we had a bunch of "saints" governing us, the country became a frightening and humourless place to live - under Cromwell's puritans. The public were so fed up with it, that when Charles II brought the Royalty back (with all its flaws), it was warmly welcomed, and he was forgiven many personal transgressions.

It wasn't too much fun under Bloody Mary either - who thought she had some kind of monopoly on what was right - so much so that it justified torture and murder in its name. Officially 284 people were murdered - most burned alive - and who knows how many tortured.

There are still lots of morally intolerant people out there - who wish to impose their values on the rest of us. Those who believe they are "flawless" or have led unchallenging lives themselves can be much less tolerant of other people's life choices.

Today I am pleased to say we have become a more tolerant society - most of us, and society as a whole, understand that people have flaws. But for some reason there is much less understanding of politicians - and it has got worse (Churchill didn't suffer this kind of witch hunt - thank goodness). David Laws should be considered innocent until proven guilty - and on the face of it, he made no money (in fact he was worse off than if he had told the "full truth"), and he clearly made a misjudgement - trying to protect his Catholic parents from shock and horror and trying to keep his private life. He was however irreplacable in his position (the position has to be filled by a LibDem and they don't have much else to chose from, to be honest). Our finances are in such a desperate position, that one has to ask - can the country afford the luxury of this witch hunt against this very able and much needed man?

He didn't do anything that any morally normal member of the public couldn't have done (people make misjudgements that don't harm anyone all the time)- but he was hounded out, nevertheless. The same is not true of the boss of the Audit Commission who has knowingly wasted £millions of public money (as per the Times today - not online) , or the BBC journalists and celebrities whose taxpayer funded expenses and salaries are out of control - they can carry on regardless.

I feel desperately sorry for the man, but even more importantly for all of us. We have allowed the man most suited to do one of the most important jobs in the country to leave at a time when we most need his abilities.

The man who phoned into LBC yesterday saying he wants his politicians to be "whiter than white" should consider what he wishes for. Before people say they want ruled by puritans and holier than thou people, they would be sensible to consider that normally flawed people tend to be more tolerant of others, and "saints" much less tolerant of the rest of us.

PS - have a read of Iain Dale's article describing how difficult it can be to come out as gay to parents who just won't understand - and this article which makes it clear that David Laws made no money out of this error (he would have made more if he had been open about his relationship).

Silly Boy - but not in the Public Interest for him to Resign.

2010-05-29T09:52:00.005+01:00

David Laws has been a very silly boy.

I don't expect politicians to be whiter than white - no sensible person does, because barring Jesus there is no such person. Churchill for instance wasn't perfect - but where would we be now without him?

Why has David Laws been a silly boy?

1. He should be intelligent enough to know that the public would find out. I've always myself worked on the premise that if you don't want the public to know about it - don't do it. Simple. That is his crime as far as I can see - because I don't think he or his partner (from what I can see) have particularly benefited financially more than other MPs from outside London.

2. He wanted to hide his sexuality. Why? I object more than most to the monitoring of ethnicity and sexuality that the public sector do. I tore up the questionnaire when asked this at work a while back. It isn't any of their business. But that is in my private, NHS world - and a point of principle. If you are in public life, you don't have that privilege - maybe you should, but it is impossible to hold back the tide of journalist hunger for scandal. The most strange thing is the fact that he was possibly embarrassed about being gay - that is something I just don't understand - and in modern Britain too. Bizarre.

But do I think he should resign? No, no and no. Because our finances are in desperate straits - and he seems to be pretty good at his job. It wouldn't be in the public interest for him to resign - and that should be the over-riding factor.

Who Represents Me?

2010-05-28T18:22:00.004+01:00

Interesting point from Tim Montgomerie - that no-one on Any Questions tonight seems to represent us Conservatives (he said "Tonight's Any Questions Panel: Vince Cable, Lord Adonis, Polly Toynbee, Toby Young. Who represents me?"- we have to make do with Vince (!!).

However, at the moment I think more Conservatives think David Laws (Lib Dem) probably represents them than many others in the Conservative front bench - see here and here.

As the saying goes, we live in interesting times.

UPDATE: David Laws has been a silly boy. See my views in the next post.

Where is the Minister for Men?

2010-05-28T10:20:00.017+01:00

Going through the list of cabinet and junior ministers, I was struck that there is a Minister for Women, but no Minister for Men. This strikes me as just a roll over from the Labour years rather than a rethink of whether this is fair.

I know men aren't a politically correct group, but I didn't think we Conservatives were overly influenced by political correctness - I thought we did what the majority of the population think is fair and right. Perhaps it is the coalition with the uber-politically correct Lib Dems that has done it...

Let's take this in two parts - first- what we appear to have in the new Government, and second - what we should have, if we are going to be fair.

According to the ministerial list, Theresa May is Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Minister for Women and Equalities. Some say that this is a watering down of the women's agenda and the equalities agenda as the Home Office is big enough to keep her pretty busy anyway. The other ministers in the department are -

Minister of State (Minister for Immigration) – Damian Green MP
Minister of State (Minister for Police) – Nick Herbert MP (jointly with the Ministry of Justice)
Minister of State (Minister for Security) – Baroness Neville-Jones
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State – James Brokenshire MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities) – Lynne Featherstone MP (a Lib Dem).

There is mention of Women in Theresa May's title, but no mention of men. You could argue that Lynne Featherstone is only called Minister for Equalities, so therefore she will cover the men's and women's agendas. I do hope so. But I'm not sure. She has made a fuss about the "male and pale" people at the top of the parties. Rightly so, in my book. She has called for the abolition of the Sun's page 3 topless photoshoots (I partially agree with her - I will blog on this another time). Nothing winds me up more than sexism against women in this country and the appalling treatment of women in other countries - particularly in the third world. I was even a fan of the concept of the A list as a temporary measure to change party attitudes (which I think has largely succeeded) - see here and here. But where is the corresponding fuss about men's rights?

Which brings me on to the second point - why do we need a minister for men?

Because, just on a basic point of fairness, if we have a minister for women, we should have one for men. If we abolish the title of a minister for women, and cover all the points under the "equality" agenda, the Minister will have to show that she is working equally on all issues of equality and fairness.

But most importantly, men are, contrary to politically correct mantra, also having a hard time:

Yesterday's Coffee House post by Fraser Nelson described the "death of the male working class"(as shown in the picture). Frank Field has also campaigned on this. Traditional jobs for young working class men, and for those who prefer manual or technical work rather than academic or office based work have been in rapid decline - leading to significant proportions of young men out of work with poor prospects, no ambition and poor self esteem. No civilised society should on principle ignore the needs of a significant proportion of its people - A. because it is wrong and B. so because doing so causes division, reduces their stake in society and can lead to social unrest. Those who feel they have no stake in society and that the establishment doesn't care are more likely to get involved in crime and antisocial behaviour - so it affects us all. The plans for a more balanced economy should help - but these young working class men and boys need an advocate in parliament, and I'm not sure Lynne Featherstone sees this as her role.
Girls are getting better exam results than boys.
Men are much more likely to commit suicide (which is just the tip of a serious mental health iceberg).
Many men are unfairly not seeing their children (on the other hand, many men are not paying their child support, and the whole issue of men's responsiblity in single parent situations should be addressed).

My view is that there are two ways of dealing with this issue:
1. Just have a minister for equalities - and the public, media and pressure groups monitor whether they are giving proportionately the right amount of policy time to each area of inequality (gender, race etc); - my preferred option.
2. Have a minister for women and also a minister for men.

The Queen's Speech promised freedom, fairness and responsiblity. This is an aspect of fairness I would like to see in government policy.

Emily Maitlis believed Labour's Lies

2010-05-26T20:28:00.004+01:00

I think Emily Maitlis is okay - she's better than the currently really over-rated Paxman. But I have long argued that the quality of journalism in this country is poor - very little investigative journalism, and far to much copying of others' reports, with no questioning of the validity of them. Add to this the blind acceptance through the Blair years of Alistair Campbell's version of the news, and it is hardly surprising that right of centre thinkers are frustrated - particularly with the BBC.

You would have thought that a Newsnight presenter, however, would be au fait with the various party manifestos, and would be aware of the spin and lies that Labour were putting out. Not so, it seems.

Last night on Newsnight she expressed genuine surprise that the Conservatives weren't cutting Sure Start as part of the £6 billion cuts programme announced yesterday. As Francis Maude had to exasperatingly explain, that was a lie put out by Labour during the election campaign - something we regularly tried to refute, and which David Cameron raised in the debates.

It is pretty frightening that a "top" BBC journalist/ presenter on the BBC's flagship news review programme had been taken in by Labour's lie - hook, line and sinker. With the BBC's so-called unbiased reporting, who needs enemies?

What is a Right Winger? How different to a Liberal Conservative?

2010-05-24T18:32:00.006+01:00

The political term right-wing originates from the French Revolution when liberal deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair.

I suppose I'm a liberal Conservative*. It's difficult to categorise anyone accurately, really, as every political compass will tell you differently. According to some I should be in UKIP, in others I should be in the Lib Dems (heaven forbid!!). I definately feel most comfortable in the Conservatives, and find my views fit pretty well in the party. The fact is that I believe in community and responsibility and I strongly believe that the state is not very good at doing things - people, business, charities and communities are better. But I also believe the vulnerable should be protected, that children should have fair opportunities.

In terms of the Conservative party itself, what is a right winger? It's an interesting point at the moment, with this coalition business. Many of the blogs say that either the right wing of the Conservative party, or the left wing of the Lib Dems, will get fed up and that is when the coalition will break up. I don't know much about the left wing Lib Dems (it was a long time since I had anything to do with them). I do know more about so-called "Right Wing Conservatives" - such as Dan Hannan, Douglas Carswell, Iain Duncan Smith, John Redwood.

I would say they are generally Eurosceptic. So am I. They are very free market and in favour of very low regulation. I'm probably a bit less far on the spectrum than they are, but getting there. They are generally very much in favour of a small state and social responsibility. This is where the socialists don't understand the argument.

These so called "right wingers" are in favour of alternatives to the welfare state. They are actually people who are more committed to helping the poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable than the average man in the street. The socialist will assume that they want to dismantle the welfare state and let everyone fend for themselves. But if you look at Ian Duncan Smith's work on social justice, if you read Dan Hannan's and Douglas Carswell's book The Plan, you will see that they passionately care about addressing these issues, including poverty, fairness, opportunity, and civil liberties. They are far from uncaring - they are very compassionate, caring, but also thoughtful and intelligent. They have looked at human behaviour, they have looked at functioning societies, and they have concluded that charities and communities and the encouragement of social responsibility are more powerful antidotes to poverty and unfairness than anything the state can offer. Communities and people working together because they have been given a "hand up", because they feel involved, engaged, and empowered, are far more likely to come up with workable solutions than top down state 10 year plans. This means that those who are most vulnerable will be protected, but those that can participate, will - and we will all be happier for it.

That is why Nick Clegg said that when David Cameron says reponsibility, he means the same as Nick Clegg when he says empowerment - "What I'm discovering is we've been using different words for a long time – it actually means the same thing. Liberalism, big society. Empowerment, responsibility. It means the same thing." . That is why Douglas Carswell is inspired by Nick Clegg's approach to localism and civil liberties.

The fact is that many of us will be impatient with the coalition - because the Lib Dems have watered down our plans on immigration, prison building, and repatriation of powers from Europe. But most of us (not just right wingers) in the Conservatives - and in the country - want these things. But the so called "right wingers" will probably on the other hand be the most pleased with the extra impetus on civil liberties, localism and reform of the welfare state.

The moral of the story - a right winger is many things, and some of them can be surprisingly closer to the Lib Dems than you might expect (and some just as far apart). These things are not always that simple.

*In modern British English, "liberal conservatism" typically has a quite different meaning. Rather than referring to a combination of classical conservatism and free-market economic ideas, it refers to free-market (in this context, "conservative", because most conservative parties in Europe have adopted economic liberalism) economics allied with culturally liberal gay marriage, for example. This position is sometimes associated with support for moderate forms of the welfare state and of environmentalism. "Liberal conservatism" in this sense is for instance represented by David Cameron, British Prime Minister, of the British Conservative Party, the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party, the Norwegian Conservative Party, and the Finnish National Coalition Party. In a recent interview with jourmalist Andrew Marr, for BBC Television, David cameron described himeslf as a liberal Conservative. He defined this as believeing in individual freedom and human rights; but being sceptical of "grand schemes to remake the world". views - on issues such as

What Will They do about Rose?

2010-05-21T18:46:00.004+01:00

I got this email the other day:

(No Subject)‏

From:	Rose (tom-coffey@sbcglobal.net)
	You may not know this sender.Mark as safe\|Mark as junk
Sent:	19 May 2010 10:39:36
To:
Character set:	Learn more


Your Email ID has been awarded £750,000.00 in the British Toyota Promo.
Names..
Address..

I've also received loads of others (emails wanting personal details to claim a supposed fortune - known as phishing scams) in the past few days.
Hotmail allows me to mark them as "phishing scam" - but they still keep coming.
What I want to know is:
1. What do Hotmail do about them (it appears to be nothing)
2. Why someone isn't compelled to do something.

Surely the fact that the email address is there means that a rudimentary investigation could track them down?
I know they probably originate from another country, but I fail to see that nothing can be done.
Ideas.....

I'm so Proud!!

2010-05-20T19:04:00.004+01:00

My ten year old daughter has started a petition at school! I picked her up today to find her clutching it. It's very well written, and so far she's got about 50 signatures, and tomorrow she plans on getting more.

She is outraged that real stuffed animals have been placed around the school - a badger, a stoat and a bird (a pheasant I think). Heavens knows why they have been put there, but being an animal lover she can't bear the idea of stuffed dead animals being used for decoration purposes (and they were all killed for the purpose too). I agree it is pretty poor taste, and many of the girls in particular are horrified. They aren't in cases either so children are touching them which I find disturbing.

Anyway, I didn't know she was going to do this, but I'm really proud that she felt strongly about it, that she has actually done something about it, and that she is motivating other children. Let's just hope she ends up with a decent result. As a minimum I think the head teacher should agree to a vote.

And He's a Union Chief too...

2010-05-20T18:49:00.002+01:00

First Jonathan Baume, the leader of the civil service union said about Labour's last minute scorched earth policies. You remember, civil servants were so concerned about the recklessness of ministers with the public finances they were compelled to write "letters of direction":

"It's not a decision that is taken very often to ask for such a letter of direction, which is why it is regarded something of a nuclear option. So when it happens it tends to be a big spending decision, where the civil service believes this is not the right thing to do."

Then today he said "new ministers and MPs must begin to display the personal and moral integrity that was so obviously lacking in the previous Parliament, even within the Cabinet."

It's good therefore that the coalition will be publishing all government expenditure over £25,000 - that's £500 for local governments as well! Should help deal with a few crazy waste programmes, and let the public see the waste that does go/ has gone on.

Fair Deal Frank

2010-05-16T10:51:00.009+01:00

I'm delighted at the news that Frank Field will be the anti-poverty Tsar under the coalition.

This was the man who was denied the chance to sort out our welfare system under Labour. If he had been allowed to 13 years ago, we would - I'm absolutely sure- have a much fairer society, more social mobility, less health inequalities, and happier children.

Dependency begets more votes for dependency. The evidence suggests that is what the Labour party realised and why Frank Field was taken away from the role of welfare reform minister. The fact that we may -just may- under Ian Duncan Smith and Frank Field, be able to reform the welfare state so that work actually pays and personal and social responsibility is rewarded must send shivers down the spine of most people in the Labour party - it would be electorally very damaging for them to actually get people out of the poverty trap, after all.

Bankrupt Britain - do we address this with Common Sense or Snake Oil?

2010-05-15T20:13:00.005+01:00

George Osborne has today accused Labour of bringing Britain to the edge of bankruptcy. I think everyone has already worked that one out. Some foolish/ naive people say it is a "global crisis", ignoring the fact that we are the most indebted country on the planet (if you count private debt as well as national) and have the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. They are also ignoring all the frightening off balance sheet debt - the PFIs for hospitals/ schools, and network rail.

The issue is - how to address it. Gordon always seemed to imply that the answer was more borrowing. Sounds like a short term fix for someone in denial - and remember, like credit cards, you can only take out so much extra debt to pay for your repayments, and then the creditors send in the bailiffs.

We can't afford for the metaphorical bailiffs to come to Britain. Labour also tried to sell the snake oil salesman idea that there was some magical solution up their sleeves - "supporting the economy" which in fact turned out to be continuing to fund ministerial departmental waste!!

The only way to deal with debt is:

to start paying it off - and keeping the creditors happy - and having a costed plan based on real figures - and do this quick before they lose patience and mark it as risky debt (risky debt has higher interest rates attached)
to find more ways of earning money. For this, we need to stimulate the economy. By this, I mean the real economy - not ministerial waste. We need to make this the best country in the world to do business. We need low corporation tax, and to provide all the resources and support that would make an entrepreneur want to set up business and make a global business want to move to Britain, or at least set up a branch.

For this reason Labour's plans to increase national insurance on employers was always madness. Their policies were based on increasing the state, not the real economy.

I thank my patriotic bones that Labour are no longer in government. Now to move on to sorting out the biggest financial mess of the modern era in Britain.

Respect, Yes - More Money????

2010-05-14T20:09:00.004+01:00

David Cameron has visited Scotland today. Sure - he should do. It represents in population terms less than 8% of the UK, however - a bit less than the East of England, so let's keep it in perspective, however.

Scotland has benefitted from:

a. an unfair voting system with smaller constituency sizes and the ability to vote on English only affairs, whilst the reverse is not true - making a Scottish voter worth twice a London voter electorally;
b. more funding - through the Barnett formula.

Scotland used to be the land of commerce - much of the rise of Britian economically in the 18th and 19th Century was due to Scottish innovation - it used to be the land of the proud British army soldier (both my grandfather and great uncle were in Highland regiments). Now it is increasingly reliant on state funded jobs - and appears to be trapped in a cycle of dependency on England.

According to the IPPR:
"Current disparities in funding across the UK is becoming an increasing source of tension between the four nations, especially between England and Scotland, and that unless addressed it could have implications for the union;

The report shows that the distribution of spending through Barnett does not correspond to need. In 2007/08 the spending disparities between the nations of the UK were:

Northern Ireland received £5,684 per head: 21 per cent above the UK average spend per head and £1,161 more per head than that spent in England
Scotland received £5,676 per head: 21 per cent above the UK average and £1,153 more per head than that spent in England
Wales received £5,050 per head: 8 per cent above the UK average and £527 more per head than that spent in England
England received £4,523 per head: 3 per cent below the UK average."

And what is Alex Salmond's response - he has requested a further £700 million package!

We all have to take the pain of this awful economic climate, budget deficit and enormous debt that Labour got us into. We all need to show we have taken our fair share. Scotland should be no exception.

I actually think that all this extra funding for Scotland is actually more likely to lead to continued dependency on England (trapped in a vicious circle), and continued voting for socialism and a mindset of dependency rather than self sufficiency, commerce and innovation.

The Scots of the past wouldn't have dreamed of a socialist dependent future for their nation - they would have wanted to be financially independent, and a respected nation. Instead the current situation - seeming to take more than the fair share - is hardly going to garner respect for Scotland.

So why on earth is Alex Salmond asking for £700 million more?

OMG! - what a terrible magazine!

2010-05-13T18:44:00.006+01:00

I was sitting in the hairdressers the other day waiting for my daughter to have a trim (the type of thing I've been badly neglecting of late, and glad to have some time to catch up on). Whilst waiting I looked at the magazines on offer - hair style magazines, or Closer.

I've heard of Hello (which lots of my friends read) and Cosmo (which I read when I was younger - but not until I'd graduated first from Jackie), but hadn't noticed Closer before......

Okay, it's a pretty poor quality mag. I can cope with that. Afterall, I watch Eastenders (with some reservations - it should be on after the watershed). But that isn't the point.

EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE was about people splitting up, two-timing, getting vengeance, keeping babies away from their mum or dad, or similar.

It was a long catalogue of lessons for young and vulnerable people that to be sexy, popular or cool you have to go from boyfriend to boyfriend, with regular heartache and attention seeking, dropping a few babies along the way. What do we do about this kind of filth? [It is filth, in my book. It will be responsible for far more social problems in my view than Playboy or similar soft porn.]

You can argue that people buy it because it reflects society. Or you can argue that it sets trends in society. I think both are the case. The fact is that the role models the readers are being given don't appear to have stable relationships with their partners or their children.

So do we ban these magazines, or change society through other means so that they won't be wanted? Personally I think they should be categorised as an 18 and then they wouldn't be allowed in hairdressing salons where my 10 year old daughter and teenagers could read it.

Free of the Whip

2010-05-13T16:03:00.006+01:00

One good thing about no longer being a PPC is that I am no longer subject to the party whip. I don't have to get my blog posts and my tweets checked any more (not that I was planning on writing anything crazy anyway). Therefore I will be talking about what I do and don't like about the coalition and the plans.

I am a former Lib Dem, and on some things people say "you're too left wing to be a Tory". But on the other hand, I am quite right wing on some issues (like the constitution, England, history, society, responsiblity), and I'm definately more of a libertarian than an authoritarian Conservative. So I will like some of the things this coalition comes up with - and some I won't. But I also believe in the evidence base, in being pragmatic, on working through things, and I recognise that we all make mistakes, and sometimes we don't know in advance what the consequences of an action might be - even experts in Game Theory don't know it all. I also respect people who are in politics for the right reasons - and continue to be decent human beings at the same time as politicians - and I don't respect people from any party who can't behave decently to people who have an opposing view.

So I'll be posting my thoughts a little more freely over the next few weeks. England's poor deal and unfairness on the English and those who work hard are top of my list............

The Research Deficit

2010-05-12T19:43:00.005+01:00

As I said in the previous blog, we really need science in this country to get us out of the hole we are in economically, and to again help Britain become a respected state that has a purpose and is actually good at something.

The promotion and funding of research is important for Britain for two reasons:

A. Because it brings in scientists, and fills universities and schools with scientists and scientific teaching. With it comes biotechnology and other technologies. It would help give Britain that edge that discoveries such as the spinning jenny, the steam train and radar have given us in the past.

B. Because we need to base government policy on evidence and not just dogma. What is the point of welfare reform if it isn't based on evidence, or it isn't rolled out in such a way that we learn lessons early? What is the point of injecting more money into the NHS if it funds treatments or programmes that don't work?

I ask you a few things -
- Did the £ 100s millions spent on stop smoking advisers since 1997 make a difference to UK smoking prevalence rates? You might look at this graph and say no. But the cost of smoking is £ billions a year. Perhaps it is cost effective - but then again perhaps not. We have some research that indicates that you are more likely to stop smoking if given advice - but we don't know if it actually affects population prevalence - the end result. Without proper research we will stay ignorant.

- Have 5 a day advisers made a difference?
- What would be the best way to encourage someone claiming long term disability benefits for depression to get back to work? Would this improve or worsen their mental health?
- What is the effect of an ASBO? Are there groups or subgroups who would respond to an ASBO positively - are there groups where it would make their behaviour worse?

The fact is that we don't know the answers to many of these questions - because proper research was not set up to assess them. Which means that £ billions are wasted every year on "initiatives" that don't work or might make the problem worse.

The best research is done prospectively - through randomised control trials, cohort studies and other studies. Behavioural economics/ psychology should be one of the most important considerations when considering government policy - but without enough research in this area will will continue to waste money on useless and harmful initiatives.

My recommendation - a cross departmental minister for research. But then, as has been said earlier, it is not a good time for science.

Bad Election for Science

2010-05-10T18:42:00.003+01:00

Both The Times and New Scientist mentioned me when they described the election as having been bad for science.

They are right - not just about me (but obviously I feel I have something to offer in parliament), but we already have loads of lawyers, lobbyists and career politicians.

The answer to many of the problems this country faces is to be found in science - in education, in boosting the economy, in creating jobs, in developing evidence based policies for social problems. It is a shame that those who have the understanding of science and scientific research are at such low numbers in Parliament.

Dust Yourself off and Move on to Plan B

2010-05-08T18:37:00.005+01:00

To say I am disappointed not to have won Harrow West will be an understatement. I worked very hard, as did my team. I am pleased that during my time as the PPC I ran a number of positive campaigns, many of which were successful, so that I know that I made a positive difference. I also managed to keep the Labour MP on his toes - when I was first selected he didn't appear to be visible at all, but as time went on and I got more traction, he became more active - or so it appeared to all of us.

I also got a larger swing than the London average (more than double), so I am proud of that. Unfortunately the Labour MP had literally hundreds of people on the ground - many bussed in union activists from around the country. Many people were misled into believing we were about to stop all sorts of benefits that we weren't - but that is politics, I suppose (I just find it very galling that negative untrue campaigning got their vote out).

Anyway - I won't criticise all the Labour lot. Some are always very courteous and behave very ethically. A few of councillors and a council candidate from the Labour side are always courteous and honourable. Even Tony McNulty is very friendly. Some are not at all friendly however - far too tribal, I suppose - but it takes all sorts, and people can get rather absorbed by politics.

Anyway, I will be taking stock over the next few days. I am lucky to have the most supportive family imaginable in terms of my husband and kids - and they are an absolute rock for me.

I am a driven person - to be honest, I just can't help it - it is a habit I got into in school and have never stopped - so I will be moving onto plan B.....

Nick Clegg confirms 600,000 would benefit from their plans for an Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

2010-05-03T22:16:00.001+01:00

A bit of a flip flop again?

They Must be Worried

2010-04-27T00:02:00.004+01:00

I am receiving a fantastic response on the doorstep recently. Up until now we have been mainly focussing on helping people with local problems, but now the election has been called, the issue is who people are going to vote for - and more and more people are switching to us.

I have had 3 lots of Hustings so far, and all were okay - there were members of the Labour party in the first (but they admitted it and wore a rosette). There weren't any Conservative stooges. In the second hustings, again there were a large number of Labour activists and councillors, but only 1 Conservative activist (perhaps I should have herded them all there). But generally, very well behaved.

Tonight at the hustings, I was shocked that when I stated that children statistically do better (ie on average, not as a blanket rule) when brought up in two parent families, and when I said that the pupil premium we plan on implementing (which gives more money for children from deprived communities who have worse life chances) was a good idea, the Labour stooges in the audience started sucking in their teeth and making inflammatory noises.

The fact is that inequality has widened under Labour, the very poorest are worse of under Labour, 4 million children and 2 million pensioners live in poverty and the gap between rich and poor in our educational outcomes has increased. The system means that for those on low incomes, work often doesn't pay, and families are often better off apart financially than together. What kind of a state allows us to get into that situation?

Unless we address the underlying causes of deprivation, which includes family breakdown, and worklessness, then we won't be able to get these disadvantaged children into a better life.

A. The Labour party should know better, and if they were serious about addressing poverty they would actually engage in the debate and not make silly noises.
B. They must be very worried if they want to behave in such a way.

Hustings

2010-04-22T18:19:00.004+01:00

The Harrow West Candidates will be questioned, including me. If you want to come along it is at:

Monday 26th. 8pm at the North Harrow Methodist Church, Pinner Road, North Harrow.

UPDATE 26TH: THAT'S TONIGHT!