Jumping on a bandwagon is not something I do very often but the debate around AV has started so I am going to jump in with both feet.
The AV system should encourage main parties to discuss and engage with more people. If you are in a 'safe seat' but only get around 35% of the votes (quite common) then you will have to ask what the other 65% of the electorate are thinking. If all of those people end up with the second placed candidate - you will be in trouble.
Unfortunately, we don't have huge amounts of forward thinking, innovative and popular politicians. We don't have politicians who will go out and speak to people who may not agree with their party ideas or who will debate and consider arguments rather than shout louder and discredit the alternative view.
Politicians and the main political parties are the main reason that this system might not deliver what it promises. It relies on politicians taking brave steps forward and doing things differently, which is not what British MP's are renowned for.
So here is my alternative.
Make the House Of Lords 100% elected through PR. Give the HoL more powers to scrutinise the HoC and to act as the 'Big Brother'. I would like to see the HoL act as the connection between National and Local Government by sitting on Local Council boards in rotation. They would only need to physically sit in HoL for one or two days per week as we would move to remote access debates through video conferencing etc.
This ensures that everyone has at least two but usually more people who they can go to if they have an issue and that these people are closer to the masses. Surely this is a better solution than messing around with grumpy idiots in HoC, who can then sit back and watch how they should be doing their job.
Yes it would cost money, but then so does the current system and who can you talk to in the HoL to get your point heard? This would be an investment in the future of the whole country and would provide more of a voice for those who do not currently have one.
As for AV, it is a good start and we all need to start somewhere. It will only change the results in a few very close seats and I doubt it will change the behaviour of MP's - but at least we are trying.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
A more detailed proposal for the deficit!
There is an alternative - anyone who says there is not is fooling themselves and you.
There is a price to pay both for the current path and for the alternative path - anyone who says there isn't is deluding themselves.
The question is, what price are we willing to pay and for what alternatives?
Having just had an operation, I spoke with a nurse who said to me, 'Your operation has resolved the problem but it is causing you short term pain, your physio will help you get back on your feet and stop the problem in the future'. I think this is a good way of looking at the economy.
I had a series of options to resolve my pain (in my back) which would then have different types and different lengths of pain associated with it, but unless I change what I do, that problem may come back in the future.
We are in a sticky situation as a national economy, yes we have a bigger debt than Portugal and Greece but we also have a much bigger economy and therefore a much better ability to repay that debt.
The case for a slower rate of cuts to allow the economy to recover more has been well made and the current 'Financial extremism' is only benefiting the extremists in the city and is having very little positive effect on the rest of the economy.
But where is the physio? Where is the plan that says this is how we will stop this happening again? Is there a better way of repaying the debt and ensuring we don't fall into the trap again?
Here is mine.
Firstly, We should have a written constitution that protects the people of the country from political whims and short term moves (please see my previous blog regarding this). What is the price to pay? It may be costly to set up but it needs setting up once and once only.
Secondly, It is the banks that should be repaying this debt. The government is aiming to take debt back to the levels of 2007, prior to the crisis. From this we can surmise that the extra spending has been made to protect the people from the worst effects of the recession and the banking balls up. Therefore we should offer banks an option of repaying our national debt for us. In exchange we reduce the level of tax on banks for a period of time after the debt has been repaid. The amount of tax and the length that it is reduced for will vary depending on how much of the debt they repay. This then allows the economy some breathing space to grow (which will in turn be good for the banks) and allow for job creation to grow. If you know that you will be losing an amount of tax in five years time, you can plan ahead and take account of it. This is a much more balanced approach rather than the slash and burn approach. The flip side of the coin is that if banks decide not to assist the economy then they will be penalised with extra tax now. What is the cost? There will be a cost to the city of London traders in the form of more difficult trading conditions. They would have to invest in less risky and more assured accounts which would result in less profits for them. There would be a short term complaint of 'We are not being competitive' and 'We will lose talent' etc, but these will disappear quite quickly (They are not talent - they are the problem and the rest of the country becomes more competitive).
There would be a loss of face for the government and political leaders but they would also benefit from a smoother repayment of the debt.
Third, the banks need to be split. If I want to invest money I need to have all of the risks and benefits explained and I need to sign a piece of paper to say I understand what will happen. Why then is the money in my current account taken and used for investments by the bank that I will receive no benefit from at all. it is simply wrong - they are playing roulette with other peoples money. If that then goes wrong, it is you and me that suffer the consequences, while we bail out the failing 'Talent' and make sure they don't leave to cock up someone else's economy.
Separate the banks and ensure that Retail banks and Investment banks are not owned by the same company and that they act in the interests of their own customers. I would also ensure that no institution has more than a 25% exposure to the stock market. This includes insurance companies and Pension funds.
The price to pay would be less profit and less risk. Some banks might become open to international takeover, but these would also be subject to the trading conditions within the UK. There may be a short term increase in interest rates but if you look at where we are now, that will not be a big change.
We have another choice, we have a different way of achieving the same target, we need to decide what we want and how much we are willing to pay for it.
There is a price to pay both for the current path and for the alternative path - anyone who says there isn't is deluding themselves.
The question is, what price are we willing to pay and for what alternatives?
Having just had an operation, I spoke with a nurse who said to me, 'Your operation has resolved the problem but it is causing you short term pain, your physio will help you get back on your feet and stop the problem in the future'. I think this is a good way of looking at the economy.
I had a series of options to resolve my pain (in my back) which would then have different types and different lengths of pain associated with it, but unless I change what I do, that problem may come back in the future.
We are in a sticky situation as a national economy, yes we have a bigger debt than Portugal and Greece but we also have a much bigger economy and therefore a much better ability to repay that debt.
The case for a slower rate of cuts to allow the economy to recover more has been well made and the current 'Financial extremism' is only benefiting the extremists in the city and is having very little positive effect on the rest of the economy.
But where is the physio? Where is the plan that says this is how we will stop this happening again? Is there a better way of repaying the debt and ensuring we don't fall into the trap again?
Here is mine.
Firstly, We should have a written constitution that protects the people of the country from political whims and short term moves (please see my previous blog regarding this). What is the price to pay? It may be costly to set up but it needs setting up once and once only.
Secondly, It is the banks that should be repaying this debt. The government is aiming to take debt back to the levels of 2007, prior to the crisis. From this we can surmise that the extra spending has been made to protect the people from the worst effects of the recession and the banking balls up. Therefore we should offer banks an option of repaying our national debt for us. In exchange we reduce the level of tax on banks for a period of time after the debt has been repaid. The amount of tax and the length that it is reduced for will vary depending on how much of the debt they repay. This then allows the economy some breathing space to grow (which will in turn be good for the banks) and allow for job creation to grow. If you know that you will be losing an amount of tax in five years time, you can plan ahead and take account of it. This is a much more balanced approach rather than the slash and burn approach. The flip side of the coin is that if banks decide not to assist the economy then they will be penalised with extra tax now. What is the cost? There will be a cost to the city of London traders in the form of more difficult trading conditions. They would have to invest in less risky and more assured accounts which would result in less profits for them. There would be a short term complaint of 'We are not being competitive' and 'We will lose talent' etc, but these will disappear quite quickly (They are not talent - they are the problem and the rest of the country becomes more competitive).
There would be a loss of face for the government and political leaders but they would also benefit from a smoother repayment of the debt.
Third, the banks need to be split. If I want to invest money I need to have all of the risks and benefits explained and I need to sign a piece of paper to say I understand what will happen. Why then is the money in my current account taken and used for investments by the bank that I will receive no benefit from at all. it is simply wrong - they are playing roulette with other peoples money. If that then goes wrong, it is you and me that suffer the consequences, while we bail out the failing 'Talent' and make sure they don't leave to cock up someone else's economy.
Separate the banks and ensure that Retail banks and Investment banks are not owned by the same company and that they act in the interests of their own customers. I would also ensure that no institution has more than a 25% exposure to the stock market. This includes insurance companies and Pension funds.
The price to pay would be less profit and less risk. Some banks might become open to international takeover, but these would also be subject to the trading conditions within the UK. There may be a short term increase in interest rates but if you look at where we are now, that will not be a big change.
We have another choice, we have a different way of achieving the same target, we need to decide what we want and how much we are willing to pay for it.
Monday, 28 March 2011
What is the point of a Government?
When you watch an American court drama at some point somebody will mention their constitutional rights. Political programmes within the UK quite often mention 'Our Constitution'. The vast majority of developed and developing countries have a constitution.
For most countries, a constitution is a number of statements that guide the country and the rights that every person has in order to achieve the aim of those statements.
The UK does not have a written constitution and it needs one now more than ever. Successive governments (Blue, Red and multicoloured) have demonstrated that they are incapable of acting in the long term good of the country. They act for the short term good of their ideals and those ideals change regularly, ebbing and flowing with who ever has most power at the time.
I would like to see a written constitution with protected rights that every person in the UK is aware of and every Government can be challenged against. The constitution should be an amalgamation of the views of the country - not the politicians - and should be seen as the yard stick by which we measure ourselves. It should be the document that protects us and ensures that no single Government can affect the country negatively and that the Government acts within the will of the people.
Why do we need it now? Times are hard and when times are hard, the first people to flourish are the corrupt and the illegal. Government should be free of big business and free of media. It should have an aim of creating long term well paid jobs and a well balanced society. It should be capable of making decisions with the public in mind but with the current 'financial extremism' the long term view is being distorted and forgotten as the need to make progress before the next election takes priority.
It would be a brave politician that stands up and says 'We need to be held to account over the long term - We need a written constitution!' Unfortunately, we don't have many brave politicians.
For most countries, a constitution is a number of statements that guide the country and the rights that every person has in order to achieve the aim of those statements.
The UK does not have a written constitution and it needs one now more than ever. Successive governments (Blue, Red and multicoloured) have demonstrated that they are incapable of acting in the long term good of the country. They act for the short term good of their ideals and those ideals change regularly, ebbing and flowing with who ever has most power at the time.
I would like to see a written constitution with protected rights that every person in the UK is aware of and every Government can be challenged against. The constitution should be an amalgamation of the views of the country - not the politicians - and should be seen as the yard stick by which we measure ourselves. It should be the document that protects us and ensures that no single Government can affect the country negatively and that the Government acts within the will of the people.
Why do we need it now? Times are hard and when times are hard, the first people to flourish are the corrupt and the illegal. Government should be free of big business and free of media. It should have an aim of creating long term well paid jobs and a well balanced society. It should be capable of making decisions with the public in mind but with the current 'financial extremism' the long term view is being distorted and forgotten as the need to make progress before the next election takes priority.
It would be a brave politician that stands up and says 'We need to be held to account over the long term - We need a written constitution!' Unfortunately, we don't have many brave politicians.
'Removing barriers to growth' e.g. Coastguards?
'We are removing the barriers to growth' is a direct quote from Vince Cable when he was justifying the current cuts.
How on earth is cutting back the services that my local authority provides 'removing a barrier to growth'. I used to hold Mr Cable in high esteem, he used to talk sense but he has lost his voice and his credibility with it.
I actually agree that local government needs to re-prioritise its services but the solution is to give them more of the important services to deliver instead of sidelining them and restricting their ability to operate. I give you the Parking Police who currently zap anything that stays still for ten minutes, who hinder business and smooth traffic. Why are they needed? Because councils have to raise money through parking charges in every single car park, which encourages people to park illegally and take chances. Or, the council could adjust traffic flows and make car parks free (certainly at low pressure times) thus encouraging trade back to the high street. The priority is wrong!
From Mr Cables comments, I would therefore conclude that the areas being cut are somehow preventing businesses from trading!
How exactly Mr Cable, does my local Coastguard station prevent companies from growing. How is preventing Oil tankers from crashing onto the rocks, preventing growth? How many Oil clear up businesses have gone out of business over the last few years?
How many 'sailing boat rescue services' have gone bust? How many Cliff rescue companies are struggling to make ends meet due to those pesky Coastguards stealing their business? How many 'Super Tanker guidance services' have gone to the wall as their trade has been stolen by 'over investment in the Coastguard'.
Does Mr Cable remember the Sea Empress disaster 10 years ago? Allow me to assure him that those of us who live in Pembrokeshire have not.
What exactly is my local library doing that prevents businesses from expanding and when did my local public toilets last prevent somebody from making money? How is cutting the funding for the caring service (a private business) going to boost private business? Who exactly suffers from keeping lawns and flower beds neat and tidy? How will businesses be affected when these 'sub concious signals' start to deteriorate and how exactly will businesses pay for this with no knock on effect?
As I stated previously, I used to respect Mr Cable for his independence and ability to think in a straight line to achieve an end. Unfortunately, the smell of power has (as often happens) affected this ability and ensured that positive thinking in the political arena has been stamped out.
Why are politicians so unwilling to accept that there is an alternative way? There is another way of achieving growth and there is a price to pay for it. The reduction in government spending can be slowed and targetted in areas where the effect will be felt less. You can offer the high profit companies a tax reduction in the future in return for assisting with the current issue. You can clamp down on the high earners who avoid taxes, you can break up banks and restrict pension companies from investing in the stock market, you can offer subsidies to re-locate Head Office operations out of big cities and into areas where job losses will be felt and you can move to a greener economy to make the most of the resources we have.
The price we will pay, will be that traders in the city of London will find it more difficult to raise money to invest in finance funds. The government might need to pay a higher interest rate on it's debt (It never bothered Cameron that much when he oversaw the collapse of the ERM which cost us Millions in extra borrowing) but most of us would accept that in exchange for having a job.
The unwillingness to even consider an alternative view will be the fall of this government. The lessons from the 80's and 90's have not been learned. The rich will benefit most from these cuts and the poorer will ultimately end up rebelling against society and given the starting point of the current society, any decline will have a significant effect.
It is time to reconsider and ask for the alternative view, before it is too late.
How on earth is cutting back the services that my local authority provides 'removing a barrier to growth'. I used to hold Mr Cable in high esteem, he used to talk sense but he has lost his voice and his credibility with it.
I actually agree that local government needs to re-prioritise its services but the solution is to give them more of the important services to deliver instead of sidelining them and restricting their ability to operate. I give you the Parking Police who currently zap anything that stays still for ten minutes, who hinder business and smooth traffic. Why are they needed? Because councils have to raise money through parking charges in every single car park, which encourages people to park illegally and take chances. Or, the council could adjust traffic flows and make car parks free (certainly at low pressure times) thus encouraging trade back to the high street. The priority is wrong!
From Mr Cables comments, I would therefore conclude that the areas being cut are somehow preventing businesses from trading!
How exactly Mr Cable, does my local Coastguard station prevent companies from growing. How is preventing Oil tankers from crashing onto the rocks, preventing growth? How many Oil clear up businesses have gone out of business over the last few years?
How many 'sailing boat rescue services' have gone bust? How many Cliff rescue companies are struggling to make ends meet due to those pesky Coastguards stealing their business? How many 'Super Tanker guidance services' have gone to the wall as their trade has been stolen by 'over investment in the Coastguard'.
Does Mr Cable remember the Sea Empress disaster 10 years ago? Allow me to assure him that those of us who live in Pembrokeshire have not.
What exactly is my local library doing that prevents businesses from expanding and when did my local public toilets last prevent somebody from making money? How is cutting the funding for the caring service (a private business) going to boost private business? Who exactly suffers from keeping lawns and flower beds neat and tidy? How will businesses be affected when these 'sub concious signals' start to deteriorate and how exactly will businesses pay for this with no knock on effect?
As I stated previously, I used to respect Mr Cable for his independence and ability to think in a straight line to achieve an end. Unfortunately, the smell of power has (as often happens) affected this ability and ensured that positive thinking in the political arena has been stamped out.
Why are politicians so unwilling to accept that there is an alternative way? There is another way of achieving growth and there is a price to pay for it. The reduction in government spending can be slowed and targetted in areas where the effect will be felt less. You can offer the high profit companies a tax reduction in the future in return for assisting with the current issue. You can clamp down on the high earners who avoid taxes, you can break up banks and restrict pension companies from investing in the stock market, you can offer subsidies to re-locate Head Office operations out of big cities and into areas where job losses will be felt and you can move to a greener economy to make the most of the resources we have.
The price we will pay, will be that traders in the city of London will find it more difficult to raise money to invest in finance funds. The government might need to pay a higher interest rate on it's debt (It never bothered Cameron that much when he oversaw the collapse of the ERM which cost us Millions in extra borrowing) but most of us would accept that in exchange for having a job.
The unwillingness to even consider an alternative view will be the fall of this government. The lessons from the 80's and 90's have not been learned. The rich will benefit most from these cuts and the poorer will ultimately end up rebelling against society and given the starting point of the current society, any decline will have a significant effect.
It is time to reconsider and ask for the alternative view, before it is too late.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Has 'Miss World' got a point?
Can you imagine a Miss World contestant running the country - any country? Would it really be that bad?
PMQs would be a lot easier to watch, you would engage a lot more shallow people who have never even spelled politician let alone spoken to one and everything would just be a little bit more pretty.
The main change that I think we would see would be the priorities. When asked at every contest (so I am told!) what their priorities are, contestants regularly reply with, 'Feed all the children of the world and encourage World Peace'. Ask yourself is that really such a bad thing to be aiming for?
Compare that with the priorities of most governments, which usually move along the lines of, 'Expand the economy, grow big business, be better than than other countries'. How is this helping?
We are obsessed with beating others, being the best, improving faster and growing faster - constantly judging ourselves against others instead of our potential. We look at what other countries do and we say, we can do that, only better so that makes us better than them. This does not feel like the right way for a country to be heading.
Surely, as one of the most developed and mature societies, we should be setting the lead in focusing on non financial measures as our priority. Maybe we focus on everyone being capable of working, rather than how many are working, maybe we should focus on how many people play a team sport or are active in their community rather than pushing to work longer hours.
Maybe we should focus on developing a more balanced society, where people enjoy the opportunities they have and feel they are capable of of taking those opportunities, rather than growing our stock market faster than Wall Street.
Many of my views and opinions are already in other blogs and many of you have contacted me to say -'It is just not realistic'. I would reply that the only thing that stops us from changing - is us!
So while Miss World may not be in line for a government office, maybe the views and intentions of the contestants might be better than some that current politicians tell us are 'the only way forward'.
Or is it just me?
PMQs would be a lot easier to watch, you would engage a lot more shallow people who have never even spelled politician let alone spoken to one and everything would just be a little bit more pretty.
The main change that I think we would see would be the priorities. When asked at every contest (so I am told!) what their priorities are, contestants regularly reply with, 'Feed all the children of the world and encourage World Peace'. Ask yourself is that really such a bad thing to be aiming for?
Compare that with the priorities of most governments, which usually move along the lines of, 'Expand the economy, grow big business, be better than than other countries'. How is this helping?
We are obsessed with beating others, being the best, improving faster and growing faster - constantly judging ourselves against others instead of our potential. We look at what other countries do and we say, we can do that, only better so that makes us better than them. This does not feel like the right way for a country to be heading.
Surely, as one of the most developed and mature societies, we should be setting the lead in focusing on non financial measures as our priority. Maybe we focus on everyone being capable of working, rather than how many are working, maybe we should focus on how many people play a team sport or are active in their community rather than pushing to work longer hours.
Maybe we should focus on developing a more balanced society, where people enjoy the opportunities they have and feel they are capable of of taking those opportunities, rather than growing our stock market faster than Wall Street.
Many of my views and opinions are already in other blogs and many of you have contacted me to say -'It is just not realistic'. I would reply that the only thing that stops us from changing - is us!
So while Miss World may not be in line for a government office, maybe the views and intentions of the contestants might be better than some that current politicians tell us are 'the only way forward'.
Or is it just me?
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Budget reply
I will keep it short and simple (similar to most politicians!).
We had a chance in yesterdays budget to really start pushing in a new direction but the Chancellor decided to stick to what he knows works i.e. the 80's! The situation feels very similar to the recessions of the 80's with high unemployment being blamed on those who are out of work rather than looking at the economy as a whole and saying what can we all do.
The Government thinks that simply restricting spending is somehow going to make everybody sit up and go 'I could have started my business before, but now that we are in a recession - the time is right - lets do it!' There will be some fantastic businesses that emerge out of this recession but they would have done that anyway. There are far more decent, hard working businesses that have not and will not make it.
To say that the public sector was preventing these businesses from growing is pure folly.
There are opportunities to reduce spending on a local level but sadly, the government has decided to turn it's back on these areas and hit the softer services that are actually vital to society functioning properly.
I agree that NI and Income tax should be merged, I fail to see why it will take six years to consult on it - that is not even implementing it!
The penny off fuel has been seen through by the public very quickly as a marketing and PR stunt - talk for an hour and everyone remembers the last minute! The Government has only got itself to blame on this as the public have become very wary of anything that they are told by Cameron &co.
So where did we miss an opportunity?
Osbourne himself admits 'I cannot control the price of fuel - only the tax upon it'. We have never been able to control the price of fuel and never will be able to, regardless of how close an eye he keeps on the oil companies (very easy to do it if you lunch with them and they attend party fundraisers!).
We had the choice to take some independent green steps. We could have left the fuel charges where they were, still taken the oil tax money and maybe even put airfuel charges up to encourage people to holiday in the UK rather than abroad. I heard one commentator say, 'It is only fair that the average family should have at least one holiday abroad each year, so holding the fuel charge makes sense.' What planet are they on?
We could have taken the tax from pollution generators and invested it in green technology, to remove our reliance on oil. We could put solar PV panels on every sports ground in the country, we could put them on every council house in the country, we could use wave generation technology (as we live on an island with huge tidal changes), we could have given tax breaks to electric cars throughout the country but we didn't.
We encouraged people to drive more, fly more and build where they want and how they want.
That is not progressive, that is the language of the 80's and it will result in the same end.
Big business and the City of London traders try to over centralise and control the money and therefore the power. This is a dangerous and corrupt path to walk down and I hope we can find a nice seat to sit down on soon, look around and make a path of our own for others to follow. Unfortunately, it will now be another twelve months before we have this option again. I wonder what the price of oil will be then?
We had a chance in yesterdays budget to really start pushing in a new direction but the Chancellor decided to stick to what he knows works i.e. the 80's! The situation feels very similar to the recessions of the 80's with high unemployment being blamed on those who are out of work rather than looking at the economy as a whole and saying what can we all do.
The Government thinks that simply restricting spending is somehow going to make everybody sit up and go 'I could have started my business before, but now that we are in a recession - the time is right - lets do it!' There will be some fantastic businesses that emerge out of this recession but they would have done that anyway. There are far more decent, hard working businesses that have not and will not make it.
To say that the public sector was preventing these businesses from growing is pure folly.
There are opportunities to reduce spending on a local level but sadly, the government has decided to turn it's back on these areas and hit the softer services that are actually vital to society functioning properly.
I agree that NI and Income tax should be merged, I fail to see why it will take six years to consult on it - that is not even implementing it!
The penny off fuel has been seen through by the public very quickly as a marketing and PR stunt - talk for an hour and everyone remembers the last minute! The Government has only got itself to blame on this as the public have become very wary of anything that they are told by Cameron &co.
So where did we miss an opportunity?
Osbourne himself admits 'I cannot control the price of fuel - only the tax upon it'. We have never been able to control the price of fuel and never will be able to, regardless of how close an eye he keeps on the oil companies (very easy to do it if you lunch with them and they attend party fundraisers!).
We had the choice to take some independent green steps. We could have left the fuel charges where they were, still taken the oil tax money and maybe even put airfuel charges up to encourage people to holiday in the UK rather than abroad. I heard one commentator say, 'It is only fair that the average family should have at least one holiday abroad each year, so holding the fuel charge makes sense.' What planet are they on?
We could have taken the tax from pollution generators and invested it in green technology, to remove our reliance on oil. We could put solar PV panels on every sports ground in the country, we could put them on every council house in the country, we could use wave generation technology (as we live on an island with huge tidal changes), we could have given tax breaks to electric cars throughout the country but we didn't.
We encouraged people to drive more, fly more and build where they want and how they want.
That is not progressive, that is the language of the 80's and it will result in the same end.
Big business and the City of London traders try to over centralise and control the money and therefore the power. This is a dangerous and corrupt path to walk down and I hope we can find a nice seat to sit down on soon, look around and make a path of our own for others to follow. Unfortunately, it will now be another twelve months before we have this option again. I wonder what the price of oil will be then?
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
NHS reform - bursting a political football !
The debate continues and will continue, regardless of the decision that comes out of this current round of political football. AT some point in the future, another party, another leader or another Health Secretary will take over and the direction will change again. This is wrong!
It is unfair to our NHS, it is unfair to the employees of our NHS and it is unfair to the patients i.e. me and you!
How can any system operate when their objectives and targets (yes we all need something to aim for) can change from day to day and week to week. The only reason the service is still operational is because there are enough people who have been willing to stand up and defend the idea of free health care for all.
For me, the NHS is too important to leave to the politicians to run. For them, it is a party issue, one wants more privatisation, one wants more targets and investment and the other wants what ever they need to agree with to be in power. This system of management will not provide us with the best Health Care system in the world and that is the one target that all major parties can agree on.
There is no point in going to other countries to see how they do it and then trying to apply the system here. Grow some balls and make a decision for the country you represent while you still have the chance. If there was one health care system that worked perfectly and could easily translate between countries, then everyone would be doing it and there would be no issue.
The point is that we need an NHS that serves the people of this country and it cannot do that while it remains a political football and until it actually asks the people of this country what it wants the NHS to be.
So here is my proposal. We make the NHS independent of government in the same way as the Bank of England is. The NHS is far more important for more people than the BoE so it should be treated as more important. The national NHS would be run by a body of professionals, experts and members of the public who would be tasked with ensuring that the wishes of the people of the UK are met. There would need to be a national consultation where everyone has a chance to have an input into the targets and aspirations of the NHS, which would then become a 5, 10 and 20 year plan. Local NHS boards would be selected and run in a similar manner with the aim of delivering the national and local targets.
The thing to remember is that what works in one area of the country might not be right for another and the adaptability and flexibility to make local decisions is vital to make any organisation a success.
There would obviously be more complexities to be dealt with an ironed out, but they could be dealt with in the knowledge that 'This is what the people want' and any solutions would always have that in mind.
We can mess around with structures and delivery mechanisms as much as we want and for as long as we want, but if we genuinely want an NHS that delivers what the people want, how they want it and when they want it, we need to take politicians away from it and give it the respect that it deserves.
I am about to have a back operation in a private hospital, because I have the option to (through my job). I have used the NHS for many years and think the people that work within it do an amazing job and I would like to think that when my kids grow up and they may face the decision of whether to go private or NHS, they have a bit more to think about than I did.
It is unfair to our NHS, it is unfair to the employees of our NHS and it is unfair to the patients i.e. me and you!
How can any system operate when their objectives and targets (yes we all need something to aim for) can change from day to day and week to week. The only reason the service is still operational is because there are enough people who have been willing to stand up and defend the idea of free health care for all.
For me, the NHS is too important to leave to the politicians to run. For them, it is a party issue, one wants more privatisation, one wants more targets and investment and the other wants what ever they need to agree with to be in power. This system of management will not provide us with the best Health Care system in the world and that is the one target that all major parties can agree on.
There is no point in going to other countries to see how they do it and then trying to apply the system here. Grow some balls and make a decision for the country you represent while you still have the chance. If there was one health care system that worked perfectly and could easily translate between countries, then everyone would be doing it and there would be no issue.
The point is that we need an NHS that serves the people of this country and it cannot do that while it remains a political football and until it actually asks the people of this country what it wants the NHS to be.
So here is my proposal. We make the NHS independent of government in the same way as the Bank of England is. The NHS is far more important for more people than the BoE so it should be treated as more important. The national NHS would be run by a body of professionals, experts and members of the public who would be tasked with ensuring that the wishes of the people of the UK are met. There would need to be a national consultation where everyone has a chance to have an input into the targets and aspirations of the NHS, which would then become a 5, 10 and 20 year plan. Local NHS boards would be selected and run in a similar manner with the aim of delivering the national and local targets.
The thing to remember is that what works in one area of the country might not be right for another and the adaptability and flexibility to make local decisions is vital to make any organisation a success.
There would obviously be more complexities to be dealt with an ironed out, but they could be dealt with in the knowledge that 'This is what the people want' and any solutions would always have that in mind.
We can mess around with structures and delivery mechanisms as much as we want and for as long as we want, but if we genuinely want an NHS that delivers what the people want, how they want it and when they want it, we need to take politicians away from it and give it the respect that it deserves.
I am about to have a back operation in a private hospital, because I have the option to (through my job). I have used the NHS for many years and think the people that work within it do an amazing job and I would like to think that when my kids grow up and they may face the decision of whether to go private or NHS, they have a bit more to think about than I did.
Friday, 11 March 2011
Room for a new one - Is it time for change?
Something is wrong with British Politics - come to think of it Politics in general is in pretty bad shape. In large parts of the world people cannot be bothered to vote or take any interest in their politics, while in other parts of the world people are regularly spilling blood as they fight to gain the right. There is a feeling that governments in both developed and developing countries, do not act in the best interests of their people - they act in the interests of big business. Whilst big business is not always against the interests of society as a whole, they certainly do not hold the well being of society as a main target.
We in the UK have long dispensed with the idea that politicians work for us and in our interest, whilst in places such as the USA, it is frightening to see the lurch towards special interest groups, that now appears to lead politics.
The current political parties and interest groups are far too well established to simply set up another party, with good policies and direction and then hope that common sense prevails. My previous Blogs have advocated the return of decision making and power back to local governments, with national government providing more of a guiding and supporting role but this would mean people in government effectively deciding to make themselves redundant - I am not thinking that is very likely.
We currently have the party that used to be 'The new voice', the party that people thought might actually deliver something new and progressive, jumping into bed and supporting a series of backward and regressive policies. The British people are being let down and dragged backwards, while those that put the brakes on have jumped cars and are racing again. We need a stronger and genuinely different option that gives everyone in the country a fair chance and opportunity.
So, is there an alternative? Of course there is and you are part of it. Right now you are part of a huge revolutions that is changing the way the world works. You are on the Internet and reading bits of information put together from different parts of the world. So far my Blogs have been read by people in the UK, USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Japan (Our thoughts are with you), Germany, Switzerland, Chile, Russia and probably loads more that I have missed and together we all have our own thoughts on the way forward.
How powerful would a political movement be, if it were to harness all of thoughts and feelings? How strong would that voice be if it came from all around the world, offering advice and support? Would it be possible to have a consistent message, one party existing in many countries all over the world, all aiming to achieve the same things and all working together in order to achieve a better outcome for all of us?
I think yes.
Let us all, together, start the first genuinely international political movement, with common aims and standards decided by ourselves. A party born and grown over the Internet, where everyone has a voice. I am up for it and I know there are some of you that feel the same.
Your comments on making it happen would be appreciated.
We in the UK have long dispensed with the idea that politicians work for us and in our interest, whilst in places such as the USA, it is frightening to see the lurch towards special interest groups, that now appears to lead politics.
The current political parties and interest groups are far too well established to simply set up another party, with good policies and direction and then hope that common sense prevails. My previous Blogs have advocated the return of decision making and power back to local governments, with national government providing more of a guiding and supporting role but this would mean people in government effectively deciding to make themselves redundant - I am not thinking that is very likely.
We currently have the party that used to be 'The new voice', the party that people thought might actually deliver something new and progressive, jumping into bed and supporting a series of backward and regressive policies. The British people are being let down and dragged backwards, while those that put the brakes on have jumped cars and are racing again. We need a stronger and genuinely different option that gives everyone in the country a fair chance and opportunity.
So, is there an alternative? Of course there is and you are part of it. Right now you are part of a huge revolutions that is changing the way the world works. You are on the Internet and reading bits of information put together from different parts of the world. So far my Blogs have been read by people in the UK, USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Japan (Our thoughts are with you), Germany, Switzerland, Chile, Russia and probably loads more that I have missed and together we all have our own thoughts on the way forward.
How powerful would a political movement be, if it were to harness all of thoughts and feelings? How strong would that voice be if it came from all around the world, offering advice and support? Would it be possible to have a consistent message, one party existing in many countries all over the world, all aiming to achieve the same things and all working together in order to achieve a better outcome for all of us?
I think yes.
Let us all, together, start the first genuinely international political movement, with common aims and standards decided by ourselves. A party born and grown over the Internet, where everyone has a voice. I am up for it and I know there are some of you that feel the same.
Your comments on making it happen would be appreciated.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Why do politicians fear de-centralisation?
The increased powers of the Welsh Assembly should be welcomed by the national government as a further step towards a much more progressive society where decisions are made closer to the places where the effects are felt. The traditional Downing Street reaction of a polite welcoming but several comments from senior insiders regarding the break up of Great Britain, was to be expected.
I would ask those in Downing Street and Westminster to think why people have requested the powers and why they want to do things differently.
I heard one commentator say 'We used to rule the world - now we don't even rule our own island'. He was disappointed with the fact that people did not want to be controlled by London because he felt they did an amazing job. That is the problem! London thinks it is doing an amazing job - very few others do.
Our government has lost touch with the people it serves and lacks the moral and emotional authority to make decisions on their behalf. We, as a society, have given up on influencing those that make decisions as history has demonstrated it to be a pointless task. Decisions are made by people who most people will never meet, see or listen to and there is no connection between the two.
It is only by bringing decision making closer to the point of impact, will we start to re-engage people in the democratic process. More power and control of money should be given away by central government back to local governments who are closer to the effects of decisions.
Does central government really care if social housing is managed correctly, or if rural roads are maintained, or if local youth groups have decent facilities to meet in? No - they don't. They will only ever meet a few success stories once every five years during an election and then only if their seat is in a marginal. They don't have to deal with these problems on a week to week basis, local councils deal with them on a daily basis and are in a much better position to create effective solutions for them.
The fact is that there will be a solution that works in central London, a different solution for the north of Scotland and a different one again for mid Wales. The 'single solution' generated by London, will work for some, will do ok for others and will be a waste of time for the rest. A better solution is for central government to become smaller, Income tax goes to local government with National Insurance going to national government to pay for genuine national services. When I try to think of a service that cannot be managed and paid for locally, I start to struggle, with the exception of the armed forces.
The over all effect of this change would mean that National Government would become less relevant and smaller, with Local Government and services becoming more important. The biggest barrier to making this change happen, is the vanity of the politicians, who would ultimately cease to exist. This is why politicians do not like de-centralisation and why we, the people, should push for it at every opportunity.
I would ask those in Downing Street and Westminster to think why people have requested the powers and why they want to do things differently.
I heard one commentator say 'We used to rule the world - now we don't even rule our own island'. He was disappointed with the fact that people did not want to be controlled by London because he felt they did an amazing job. That is the problem! London thinks it is doing an amazing job - very few others do.
Our government has lost touch with the people it serves and lacks the moral and emotional authority to make decisions on their behalf. We, as a society, have given up on influencing those that make decisions as history has demonstrated it to be a pointless task. Decisions are made by people who most people will never meet, see or listen to and there is no connection between the two.
It is only by bringing decision making closer to the point of impact, will we start to re-engage people in the democratic process. More power and control of money should be given away by central government back to local governments who are closer to the effects of decisions.
Does central government really care if social housing is managed correctly, or if rural roads are maintained, or if local youth groups have decent facilities to meet in? No - they don't. They will only ever meet a few success stories once every five years during an election and then only if their seat is in a marginal. They don't have to deal with these problems on a week to week basis, local councils deal with them on a daily basis and are in a much better position to create effective solutions for them.
The fact is that there will be a solution that works in central London, a different solution for the north of Scotland and a different one again for mid Wales. The 'single solution' generated by London, will work for some, will do ok for others and will be a waste of time for the rest. A better solution is for central government to become smaller, Income tax goes to local government with National Insurance going to national government to pay for genuine national services. When I try to think of a service that cannot be managed and paid for locally, I start to struggle, with the exception of the armed forces.
The over all effect of this change would mean that National Government would become less relevant and smaller, with Local Government and services becoming more important. The biggest barrier to making this change happen, is the vanity of the politicians, who would ultimately cease to exist. This is why politicians do not like de-centralisation and why we, the people, should push for it at every opportunity.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Is China the next Egypt?
What happens when the people of China decide that they want reform and political freedom - what does the west do then. Those of us old enough will remember the massacre of the last uprising in China and the horrific images that were smuggled out. The world now relies on China for the supply of cheap products and our supply chains simple could not cope without Chinese products.
So what would happen if there was another uprising and civil unrest in China?
Modern media would allow more images to be broadcast and the message would spread rapidly. The sheer volumes of people in China would make a popular uprising almost unstoppable. If the will was in the people of China for reform and freedom, then they would be able to take it rapidly.
But here is the problem, the west is now so in bed and so reliant on China, that it has decided to overlook the human rights record in the interests of trade. The spin that 'We are helping them to change' does not wash - it was the same spin that we put on UAE, Nigeria, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain and look where those countries are now.
As a country, we need to be strong enough to say 'NO!' to trading with certain countries who do not match or show signs of matching our expectations on humanitarian issues and political freedom. Unfortunately, we are too far down the road to do a U-Turn and stop trading with some countries, but we can put pressure on our politicians to start putting the brakes on at the very least.
Unless we 'the people' start to take a stand in our country, then we are leaving ourselves open to the political unrest that will surely come in other countries. In order to support ourselves and protect our future, we need to support people in places such as China and the Middle East/North Africa by encouraging a rapid a peaceful move to democracy. The best way we can do that is to hit them in the pocket.
How we do that is over to you - however, given the current financial situation, I am not going to hold my breath for radical change in the UK.
So what would happen if there was another uprising and civil unrest in China?
Modern media would allow more images to be broadcast and the message would spread rapidly. The sheer volumes of people in China would make a popular uprising almost unstoppable. If the will was in the people of China for reform and freedom, then they would be able to take it rapidly.
But here is the problem, the west is now so in bed and so reliant on China, that it has decided to overlook the human rights record in the interests of trade. The spin that 'We are helping them to change' does not wash - it was the same spin that we put on UAE, Nigeria, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain and look where those countries are now.
As a country, we need to be strong enough to say 'NO!' to trading with certain countries who do not match or show signs of matching our expectations on humanitarian issues and political freedom. Unfortunately, we are too far down the road to do a U-Turn and stop trading with some countries, but we can put pressure on our politicians to start putting the brakes on at the very least.
Unless we 'the people' start to take a stand in our country, then we are leaving ourselves open to the political unrest that will surely come in other countries. In order to support ourselves and protect our future, we need to support people in places such as China and the Middle East/North Africa by encouraging a rapid a peaceful move to democracy. The best way we can do that is to hit them in the pocket.
How we do that is over to you - however, given the current financial situation, I am not going to hold my breath for radical change in the UK.
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Should ALL banks be held accountable?
Barclays pay 1% in Corporation tax, HSBC are keeping their heads well under the radar and Santander wash their hands as they were clearly not in the market back when the financial mistakes started happening. RBS still pays extravagant bonuses while making a loss and Lloyds has made a 'small' profit of a couple of billion whilst under state control, all of the Big 5 are pretty much back to trading where they were prior to them sending the economy over the edge.
To be fair Lloyds and RBS are starting to move their retailing practices to a more customer friendly, more helpful and less aggressive, way of doing things. I would hazard a guess that this is because they are mainly state owned and have been instructed to change their ways.
The other banks and the larger financial institutions have not changed. They are convinced that if they continue to trade the way they did before, this will help the economy because lots of people will be making money.
It is time to tell them they are wrong!
Firstly, It was not just RBS and Lloyds that caused the crisis - it was the actions of all of the banks. Those two got bailed out first in order to stabilise the market. If they had gone bankrupt or into administration, then the confidence in the other banks would have also fallen and they would have needed to be bailed out. Barclays DID get a bail out - it came from the Oil Monarchies of Bahrain and I would hazard a guess that HSBC and Santander also required additional funding from somewhere as well.
For the banks to now stand up and say that they should not be punished is disgraceful. For the Government to say that they don't want to lose 'talent' from the UK banks - hence they will go easy on the bonus rewards is disgraceful. The fact that we the people swallow the rubbish that they throw at us - makes the problem our fault.
All of the major banks should be paying huge funds to the government to ensure that the deficit is paid off by them and not by the ordinary taxpayer. They have caused the problem, through their ineffective investment strategies. The stock market is over rated as the place to invest your money and banks love the fact that we give them permission to gamble on the stock market with our money and then take any profit that they make from it.
I believe it is in the banks interests to pay off the deficit and the national debt rather than the government making the cuts that it currently aims to do. As cuts are made, people will restrict their spending and not be able to invest the way they had previously. More people will not be able to repay debt, whether that be credit cards, loans or mortgages and the Banks will end up footing the bill for it. They will then have to put up interest rates and restrict their retail lending which tightens the spiral. More people will lose their jobs, on top of the cuts and the deficit and debt will become worse - not better.
If the banks had a bit of long term thinking, they would see the opportunity to become 'the peoples friend' and they would offer to assist with the debt in return for lower tax rates in the future. I would class that as a balanced pay off - they sort out the mess they have created, we re-structure the way they do business and they then receive a lower tax rate for the next ten years.
Failure to do this, will create the opposite outcome. At some point, a bank will come along and see that there is an opportunity to improve the way banking is done and they will be rewarded for it. If we continue as we are - we close down our vital services, we destroy the fabric of a fairly decent society and we widen the gap between rich and poor. To me, it is a very easy decision to make - but I am not the one making those decisions.
To be fair Lloyds and RBS are starting to move their retailing practices to a more customer friendly, more helpful and less aggressive, way of doing things. I would hazard a guess that this is because they are mainly state owned and have been instructed to change their ways.
The other banks and the larger financial institutions have not changed. They are convinced that if they continue to trade the way they did before, this will help the economy because lots of people will be making money.
It is time to tell them they are wrong!
Firstly, It was not just RBS and Lloyds that caused the crisis - it was the actions of all of the banks. Those two got bailed out first in order to stabilise the market. If they had gone bankrupt or into administration, then the confidence in the other banks would have also fallen and they would have needed to be bailed out. Barclays DID get a bail out - it came from the Oil Monarchies of Bahrain and I would hazard a guess that HSBC and Santander also required additional funding from somewhere as well.
For the banks to now stand up and say that they should not be punished is disgraceful. For the Government to say that they don't want to lose 'talent' from the UK banks - hence they will go easy on the bonus rewards is disgraceful. The fact that we the people swallow the rubbish that they throw at us - makes the problem our fault.
All of the major banks should be paying huge funds to the government to ensure that the deficit is paid off by them and not by the ordinary taxpayer. They have caused the problem, through their ineffective investment strategies. The stock market is over rated as the place to invest your money and banks love the fact that we give them permission to gamble on the stock market with our money and then take any profit that they make from it.
I believe it is in the banks interests to pay off the deficit and the national debt rather than the government making the cuts that it currently aims to do. As cuts are made, people will restrict their spending and not be able to invest the way they had previously. More people will not be able to repay debt, whether that be credit cards, loans or mortgages and the Banks will end up footing the bill for it. They will then have to put up interest rates and restrict their retail lending which tightens the spiral. More people will lose their jobs, on top of the cuts and the deficit and debt will become worse - not better.
If the banks had a bit of long term thinking, they would see the opportunity to become 'the peoples friend' and they would offer to assist with the debt in return for lower tax rates in the future. I would class that as a balanced pay off - they sort out the mess they have created, we re-structure the way they do business and they then receive a lower tax rate for the next ten years.
Failure to do this, will create the opposite outcome. At some point, a bank will come along and see that there is an opportunity to improve the way banking is done and they will be rewarded for it. If we continue as we are - we close down our vital services, we destroy the fabric of a fairly decent society and we widen the gap between rich and poor. To me, it is a very easy decision to make - but I am not the one making those decisions.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Coastguards and libraries part 2
At last - the have admitted that they got something wrong - selling off forests. All we have gained is that they will now have to look for the money somewhere else because they are obsessed with taking the easy route out.
Why is it the easy route - because they are taking money away from those who do not have power. If you truly want to recover the money to repay the debt, then you start at the top - not the bottom. You certainly don't start by cutting services such as the library. Start with Banks, Investment houses, Insurance companies, Oil companies and the big supermarkets.
Why should my local library, that my children visit at least once a week, be forced to reduce its services or maybe even close completely simply because we propped up the failing financial sector. That financial sector is now firmly back on its feet and should be happy to pay back the lifeline it was extended plus a little extra, in order to support areas of the economy that have been hit most.
What practical use will cutting local services have? Will removing access to books help our society become more literate, will it help people who want to develop themselves but cannot afford to buy the book or will it somehow help those who lack social contact - the answer is no. Our libraries do all of these and more.
A small point for the idiots who are making these cuts - nobody is believing that it is not your fault - you can blame the previous lot or you can blame local councils - we don't believe you. You are making the decisions - you WILL live with the consequences. The rest of us have no choice but to live with the effects - in a few years time - you will live face the consequences.
So, here is my solution to not only keep, but to improve our libraries.
Control of libraries should fall under the same people that control back to work training schemes and job centres. Libraries should become the place where you go to improve yourself. I would like to see training courses delivered in libraries either in person or through interactive video links. The Internet has already changed the way that local libraries are used and this just takes it to a next level.
Hi speed internet links could deliver a huge amount of training to people who would never be able to access that training, whether it be basic computing, managerial skills, creative writing, applying for jobs or a million other subjects. The library then becomes a hub for the community - where people go to meet, interact and grow. Using hi speed internet, people would have more access to events such as speeches and seminars that they would simply not be able to do previously.
Libraries should have more community rooms, where a variety of groups could meet and use the resources to grow. These would act as drop in centres, where community groups could grow and develop and have a 'home' where they could improve their offering - whatever that may be - from.
Closing these facilities down removes the possibility of developing these services in any shape and kills an opportunity for the next generation to be a step above this one. I have not even touched upon the joy of reading and of developing your own intelligence.
I doubt that those at the top of government, those that make decisions have ever had to rely on local services such as the library and the Coastguard and I doubt they ever will.
The only way they will find out about the true effects of these decisions is if we tell them. If we wait four years until the next election, it will be too late. We have an opportunity to make improvements if we choose to - the decision appears to be not to, but we need to act now, before it is too late to turn it around and recover the situation.
Lastly - a quick thought on Coastguards again. If Coastguards were merged with the immigration and customs service, with an expanded role in checking boats etc as well as in safe passage and rescue - would this be a better situation than to get rid of most of them? Just a thought!
Why is it the easy route - because they are taking money away from those who do not have power. If you truly want to recover the money to repay the debt, then you start at the top - not the bottom. You certainly don't start by cutting services such as the library. Start with Banks, Investment houses, Insurance companies, Oil companies and the big supermarkets.
Why should my local library, that my children visit at least once a week, be forced to reduce its services or maybe even close completely simply because we propped up the failing financial sector. That financial sector is now firmly back on its feet and should be happy to pay back the lifeline it was extended plus a little extra, in order to support areas of the economy that have been hit most.
What practical use will cutting local services have? Will removing access to books help our society become more literate, will it help people who want to develop themselves but cannot afford to buy the book or will it somehow help those who lack social contact - the answer is no. Our libraries do all of these and more.
A small point for the idiots who are making these cuts - nobody is believing that it is not your fault - you can blame the previous lot or you can blame local councils - we don't believe you. You are making the decisions - you WILL live with the consequences. The rest of us have no choice but to live with the effects - in a few years time - you will live face the consequences.
So, here is my solution to not only keep, but to improve our libraries.
Control of libraries should fall under the same people that control back to work training schemes and job centres. Libraries should become the place where you go to improve yourself. I would like to see training courses delivered in libraries either in person or through interactive video links. The Internet has already changed the way that local libraries are used and this just takes it to a next level.
Hi speed internet links could deliver a huge amount of training to people who would never be able to access that training, whether it be basic computing, managerial skills, creative writing, applying for jobs or a million other subjects. The library then becomes a hub for the community - where people go to meet, interact and grow. Using hi speed internet, people would have more access to events such as speeches and seminars that they would simply not be able to do previously.
Libraries should have more community rooms, where a variety of groups could meet and use the resources to grow. These would act as drop in centres, where community groups could grow and develop and have a 'home' where they could improve their offering - whatever that may be - from.
Closing these facilities down removes the possibility of developing these services in any shape and kills an opportunity for the next generation to be a step above this one. I have not even touched upon the joy of reading and of developing your own intelligence.
I doubt that those at the top of government, those that make decisions have ever had to rely on local services such as the library and the Coastguard and I doubt they ever will.
The only way they will find out about the true effects of these decisions is if we tell them. If we wait four years until the next election, it will be too late. We have an opportunity to make improvements if we choose to - the decision appears to be not to, but we need to act now, before it is too late to turn it around and recover the situation.
Lastly - a quick thought on Coastguards again. If Coastguards were merged with the immigration and customs service, with an expanded role in checking boats etc as well as in safe passage and rescue - would this be a better situation than to get rid of most of them? Just a thought!
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Did libraries and Coastguards cause the recession?
Have I missed something here, we propped up the financial sector, not just the banks, in order to lessen the impact of the recession. Now that we need to pay some of that money back, we continue to prop up the banks and decide to close Coastguard stations and libraries instead. There is a nominal charge for this year which the banks have made a suitable noise about however it will have exactly no effect on their thinking and their behaviours.
How can anyone justify cutting a Coastguard service which actually saves lives and prevents deaths, mainly due to the fact that they have local knowledge and local experience of sailing in the waters that they guard. I am not sure if Cameron understands this but - water is not like land. It moves under you and around you, there are no lanes and no motorways, there are no lights to help you see where you are going and the ambulance cannot get to you inside 12 minutes. If you make a mistake while you are floating in a big lump of metal, you cannot just put the brakes on and come to a safe stop - you need help. If you slip on rocks while you are walking or climbing, you can't rely on a passerby to stop and ask are you ok - there are none. You will need help.
To suggest that my local station which covers the third busiest port in the UK and possibly the most dangerous, as a serious accident with a fully laden LNG tanker would cause an incalculable amount of damage, can be covered effectively from 200 miles away is to say the same as Birmingham Police running the River Police on the Thames. This actually makes more sense as the running costs and fixed costs would both be much lower. Do I see this as a proposal for cost cutting - no!
Again, this policy stinks of double standards and the wrong strategy to move forward with.
The over-centralisation of money and power reduces the impact of the voices in the distance and makes it very easy to completely disregard the issues as 'a small price to pay'. When the government is ready to give control of the river police and the underground police in London, to a control room over 200 miles away - then they can say that they are being fair. Until that day, we must fight these ridiculous cuts. They are not only practically wrong - they are morally mis-guided.
There is no - alternative option on this one - one is not needed. Leave it as it is!
Your local MP will only listen to your voice if you make them, so it is time to start shouting. Make them listen to your opinions and demand action. Request a reply from them that gives you their views and what they are doing about these cuts and then publish the reply on your twitter or facebook so people are aware of what is going on.
Libraries will have to wait till next time - but these cuts are just as mis-guided but I do have an alternative.
How can anyone justify cutting a Coastguard service which actually saves lives and prevents deaths, mainly due to the fact that they have local knowledge and local experience of sailing in the waters that they guard. I am not sure if Cameron understands this but - water is not like land. It moves under you and around you, there are no lanes and no motorways, there are no lights to help you see where you are going and the ambulance cannot get to you inside 12 minutes. If you make a mistake while you are floating in a big lump of metal, you cannot just put the brakes on and come to a safe stop - you need help. If you slip on rocks while you are walking or climbing, you can't rely on a passerby to stop and ask are you ok - there are none. You will need help.
To suggest that my local station which covers the third busiest port in the UK and possibly the most dangerous, as a serious accident with a fully laden LNG tanker would cause an incalculable amount of damage, can be covered effectively from 200 miles away is to say the same as Birmingham Police running the River Police on the Thames. This actually makes more sense as the running costs and fixed costs would both be much lower. Do I see this as a proposal for cost cutting - no!
Again, this policy stinks of double standards and the wrong strategy to move forward with.
The over-centralisation of money and power reduces the impact of the voices in the distance and makes it very easy to completely disregard the issues as 'a small price to pay'. When the government is ready to give control of the river police and the underground police in London, to a control room over 200 miles away - then they can say that they are being fair. Until that day, we must fight these ridiculous cuts. They are not only practically wrong - they are morally mis-guided.
There is no - alternative option on this one - one is not needed. Leave it as it is!
Your local MP will only listen to your voice if you make them, so it is time to start shouting. Make them listen to your opinions and demand action. Request a reply from them that gives you their views and what they are doing about these cuts and then publish the reply on your twitter or facebook so people are aware of what is going on.
Libraries will have to wait till next time - but these cuts are just as mis-guided but I do have an alternative.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Lessons from the past!
This lot of numpties are still determined to go ahead with the cuts, so I would like to point out a few obvious lessons that appear to be forgotten.
The Conservative government elected in 1979 was determined to completely remove the power of the unions and set about privatising public services and changing the rules around unions. Speed was of the essence. It was key that the changes were made rapidly and that they were BIG changes. This would mean that the government could stand tall and say 'Look at what we have done!' by the next election.
As we find ourselves now - the intention is right but the execution is very wide of the mark.
The speed and depth of the changes in the early 80's resulted in large parts of the country and the economy being crippled, brought to it's knees because of the 'We know best' attitude. National bodies that were not ready for privatisation were sold off cheap in order to prove a point and the miners strike became the focal point for the Conservative agenda.
The problem was it was all or nothing. There was no 'Plan B' or second option and we are still paying for that failure now. A slow and gradual reduction in support for the mines would have allowed local economies to adjust and not go through the hardship and pain of an instant cut. A gradual preparation for privatisation and a correct assessment of suitability together with a correct valuation would have meant years of wrong decisions and corrections could have been avoided.
We are making the decisions now - too fast and too hard. It is panic politics at its worst. 'We need to do this quickly before we get voted out' is the leading thought in many Conservative MPs and voters and that leads to poor decision making. The constant line of 'We must do this - we have no choice' wears thin very quickly when other economies are taking different choices and making them work.
There is a 'Plan B' if it is wanted. It would mean the Conservative government admitting they are wrong and taking a brave decision to change. I am fairly certain that will not happen. Arrogance and stubbornness will ensure that the present path is pursued until they are voted out. These changes are going to make this country more Conservative for a very long time and future governments will struggle to change the country for the better if they are not stopped before it is too late. We are handing control of the country to the money men who are responsible for ballsing it up in the first place and the rest of us are being told that this is good for us.
I am not going to stand for it and I encourage you also to do something about it - before it is too late.
The Conservative government elected in 1979 was determined to completely remove the power of the unions and set about privatising public services and changing the rules around unions. Speed was of the essence. It was key that the changes were made rapidly and that they were BIG changes. This would mean that the government could stand tall and say 'Look at what we have done!' by the next election.
As we find ourselves now - the intention is right but the execution is very wide of the mark.
The speed and depth of the changes in the early 80's resulted in large parts of the country and the economy being crippled, brought to it's knees because of the 'We know best' attitude. National bodies that were not ready for privatisation were sold off cheap in order to prove a point and the miners strike became the focal point for the Conservative agenda.
The problem was it was all or nothing. There was no 'Plan B' or second option and we are still paying for that failure now. A slow and gradual reduction in support for the mines would have allowed local economies to adjust and not go through the hardship and pain of an instant cut. A gradual preparation for privatisation and a correct assessment of suitability together with a correct valuation would have meant years of wrong decisions and corrections could have been avoided.
We are making the decisions now - too fast and too hard. It is panic politics at its worst. 'We need to do this quickly before we get voted out' is the leading thought in many Conservative MPs and voters and that leads to poor decision making. The constant line of 'We must do this - we have no choice' wears thin very quickly when other economies are taking different choices and making them work.
There is a 'Plan B' if it is wanted. It would mean the Conservative government admitting they are wrong and taking a brave decision to change. I am fairly certain that will not happen. Arrogance and stubbornness will ensure that the present path is pursued until they are voted out. These changes are going to make this country more Conservative for a very long time and future governments will struggle to change the country for the better if they are not stopped before it is too late. We are handing control of the country to the money men who are responsible for ballsing it up in the first place and the rest of us are being told that this is good for us.
I am not going to stand for it and I encourage you also to do something about it - before it is too late.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Statistics and spin - Side by side!
It was all the snows fault! This actually makes a refreshing change from 'It is not our fault - it is the other lot!' as a reason for their under performance.
It is inevitable that the economy will actually recover - even if they sat back and did nothing. It is called an economic cycle and it runs for between eight and fourteen years depending on a few other factors. As we move through the cycle, the economy will expand, over heat, correct itself, start to contract and then bottom out as it finishes correcting itself. It takes a lot to affect an economy to a significant effect as there is very little that the government can actually control.
So this is my message to them: Stop taking the credit when it going well and then accept that you cannot do much when it is not.
The snow reduced output by a little - it was not a 'significant impact' Mr Osbourne. The ONS report says that it is quite likely that the economy would have contracted without the snow and at best would have remained the same i.e. no growth.
Trying to blame everybody and everything else for this makes you look simple and extremely arrogant. STOP IT!
The economy is not expanding because people are still worried about the cuts that have not yet started. Two months ago, Mr Cameron claimed that the growth in the economy was due to the cuts and measures that the ConDem government had made. Now that the figures are not so good Mr Osbourne has said that it is not the fault of the cuts as they have not started to take place yet. This is the kind of spin that governments usually fall down on after ten or twelve years in power, it is not the stuff that they do after 10 months.
Having said that it takes a lot to affect an economy, we have seen examples of this over the last few years. The Labour spending, undoubtedly propped up the economy and prevented a much deeper dip. However, the money that was given to the banks has mainly been invested in Futures, Oil and Commodities, which we are now paying much higher prices for.
The second impact is the promise of cuts. This has significantly reduced confidence and willingness of ordinary people to spend money - hence a contraction in growth.
Is it really that simple?
Probably not but that is the basic point that the government needs to get its head around. The financial power houses of this country are not the people who are going to get us back to a stable and comfortable economy - so stop listening and helping them. It is the ordinary person on the street - me and you - who ever reads this, that needs to helped and listened to. We are the people who will provide a strong and stable economy. We are the people who will buy goods, work more efficiently and generate more income. The finance castles will simply line their own pockets.
I urge you all to bombard the news stations through twitter and facebook, every time this lot, stand up and tell us what is good for us. They know nothing and we need to find our voice and tell them. We need to tell them exactly how each and every one of us has a part to play in this economy and how we feel when we get pushed to one side because 'they know best'. We need to tell them that we don't believe them. Tell them how much we have to live on. Ask them to walk in our shoes and make them live up to their responsibilities.
If you read my previous posts you will see my ideas about de-centralisation and how you get real income down to lower levels and spread more (geographically) evenly.
Don't believe the spin or the stats that they give you. Challenge them and make them feel our pain every time you get a chance because if we don't, they will continue to move this country into a very uncomfortable position that we may not be able to truly recover from.
And lastly, (to quote a politician) 'It wasn't the snow - it was the economy - Stupid!'
It is inevitable that the economy will actually recover - even if they sat back and did nothing. It is called an economic cycle and it runs for between eight and fourteen years depending on a few other factors. As we move through the cycle, the economy will expand, over heat, correct itself, start to contract and then bottom out as it finishes correcting itself. It takes a lot to affect an economy to a significant effect as there is very little that the government can actually control.
So this is my message to them: Stop taking the credit when it going well and then accept that you cannot do much when it is not.
The snow reduced output by a little - it was not a 'significant impact' Mr Osbourne. The ONS report says that it is quite likely that the economy would have contracted without the snow and at best would have remained the same i.e. no growth.
Trying to blame everybody and everything else for this makes you look simple and extremely arrogant. STOP IT!
The economy is not expanding because people are still worried about the cuts that have not yet started. Two months ago, Mr Cameron claimed that the growth in the economy was due to the cuts and measures that the ConDem government had made. Now that the figures are not so good Mr Osbourne has said that it is not the fault of the cuts as they have not started to take place yet. This is the kind of spin that governments usually fall down on after ten or twelve years in power, it is not the stuff that they do after 10 months.
Having said that it takes a lot to affect an economy, we have seen examples of this over the last few years. The Labour spending, undoubtedly propped up the economy and prevented a much deeper dip. However, the money that was given to the banks has mainly been invested in Futures, Oil and Commodities, which we are now paying much higher prices for.
The second impact is the promise of cuts. This has significantly reduced confidence and willingness of ordinary people to spend money - hence a contraction in growth.
Is it really that simple?
Probably not but that is the basic point that the government needs to get its head around. The financial power houses of this country are not the people who are going to get us back to a stable and comfortable economy - so stop listening and helping them. It is the ordinary person on the street - me and you - who ever reads this, that needs to helped and listened to. We are the people who will provide a strong and stable economy. We are the people who will buy goods, work more efficiently and generate more income. The finance castles will simply line their own pockets.
I urge you all to bombard the news stations through twitter and facebook, every time this lot, stand up and tell us what is good for us. They know nothing and we need to find our voice and tell them. We need to tell them exactly how each and every one of us has a part to play in this economy and how we feel when we get pushed to one side because 'they know best'. We need to tell them that we don't believe them. Tell them how much we have to live on. Ask them to walk in our shoes and make them live up to their responsibilities.
If you read my previous posts you will see my ideas about de-centralisation and how you get real income down to lower levels and spread more (geographically) evenly.
Don't believe the spin or the stats that they give you. Challenge them and make them feel our pain every time you get a chance because if we don't, they will continue to move this country into a very uncomfortable position that we may not be able to truly recover from.
And lastly, (to quote a politician) 'It wasn't the snow - it was the economy - Stupid!'
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Are the cuts a help or a hinderance?
Having read over my blog for today I need to add a point to the beginning - I am not a supporter of any political party and am not a political activist in any way - these are just thought and arguments that I feel should be discussed.
The general thrust of the current government is to accept the credit when things are going well and to blame the previous governments 'reckless spending' when it is not going their way. I am sorry but I am fed up with it and I fail to see how cuts (that had not even started) were leading to falling unemployment up to December, but when it started to rise again, this was somehow the fault of the previous government because they had not spent the money efficiently.
There is only so much of the 'blame the previous guy' that we can put up with and I believe it has been and gone. We are already in a situation where the tide has turned very sharply against the government and they tactic appears to be - keep a stiff upper lip and a straight bat - blame the riff raff and keep the fingers crossed. this government is starting to unravel already and the pace of this will accelerate rapidly over the coming year as more of the LibDem core voters are affected and some of the Tory 'swing voters' that won them the slimmest majority, start to question their decision.
So lets deal with the BIG question, the deficit!
My understanding is that the deficit is very close to where the Labour party took over from in 1997 in percentage terms. This was mainly due to the debacle surrounding the ERM and the loss in confidence in the Pound if my Economics degree is to be believed. Was there a need for 'Urgent Action' - in the end yes there was because the voices of spin worried the market traders (or chums as they are better known) to the point where they had to take action. If they had put a 5 year plan on the table for fiscal control and a gradual, sustainable tightening of government spending the effect would have been the same. The fact that they continue to spin this line about the biggest ever deficit in £'s, while failing to recognise that in % terms it is actually very manageable over a fiscal cycle (between 8 and 14 years) says to me that they know that will be caught out at some point and therefore they need to make some rapid changes before something stops them from making these changes e.g. commonsense.
These current cuts are politically driven and not financially driven and therein lies the problem.
If you or I need to pay off a credit card, we plan to pay it off gradually over a period of twelve months or longer. We don't decide to stop eating and putting petrol in the car for three months so we can pay it off sooner. If you eat a little less each month and drive a little less each month - you can pay it off in a much more comfortable way. I don't need to tell you how this translates to the economy.
So the size of the cuts is unnecessary, while the speed of the cuts will damage the long term growth prospects of the country.
What is does do is make it easier for gamblers who play the stock market and international finance markets - I will call them 'bankerchums' to get hold of credit as the 'urgency' that was created has now subsided and we appear to be a better bet than before the cuts were announced.
So, rather than bleat on and on about how deceitful politicians are being around the deficit and how bad it all is - I will give you an alternative to mull over.
I am in favour of a much smaller government at the top level with much more power being moved to local council level. But this also means that the benefits also need to be moved down to the local level. If we take the example of a Power station, it is a decision made by national government, the negotiations and payments are made to national government. The local government then has to cope with the extra traffic and road repair, extra signage, often extra waste created by workers who are mainly 'shipped in' not local, which seems to me to be unfair. It is usually justified through ' local jobs' but local jobs are usually temporary with very few permanent well paid positions going to local people. The workers who are shipped in, often stay in rented accommodation which is quite often bought up by large companies so the money leaves the local economy.
Central government then takes the credit for the creation of new jobs etc and takes the tax from the power station back into central funds. The local government is left with very little to show for it.
This will act to re-balance the economy as the urban areas which attract much of the development and investment - cannot also have large installations. Funds therefore start to re-distribute away from the centre.
This will act to re-balance the economy as the urban areas which attract much of the development and investment - cannot also have large installations. Funds therefore start to re-distribute away from the centre.
As money and investment and therefore power, becomes less centralised, so the gap between top and bottom become smaller. Yes, this will mean that some of the very wealthy will not have things their own way and may feel like they are working hard to support others but to quote a current wealthy politician 'Everyone needs to do their bit!'
As central government shrinks (along with the size of Parliament etc) so their role changes from one of controlling everything and everyone, to one of supporting the needy and reducing the gap between rich and poor. Think of it a bit like building a road - you take soil from the hills and use it to fill the valleys so that the road is easier for everyone to travel.
This change will be very difficult for local and national governments to understand - they will be giving away more power and accepting new roles, but it needs to be done and the sooner it gets done the better.
As central government shrinks (along with the size of Parliament etc) so their role changes from one of controlling everything and everyone, to one of supporting the needy and reducing the gap between rich and poor. Think of it a bit like building a road - you take soil from the hills and use it to fill the valleys so that the road is easier for everyone to travel.
This change will be very difficult for local and national governments to understand - they will be giving away more power and accepting new roles, but it needs to be done and the sooner it gets done the better.
Saturday, 22 January 2011
NHS Reform
This is a difficult one. There are many different forms of the NHS around the world. Some work well, some don't. Some cost more, some don't. There is no such thing as a perfect health service, if you want a better service you have to pay for it.
The USA spends twice the amount per head that we do in private insurance and has worse death rates in nearly every area (but they do have nicer teeth) while some of the Nordic countries spend twice the amount we do on their health services through direct payments and have some better and some worse results than we do.
My belief is simple. Our service tries to do too much and spreads itself too thinly. I believe that the NHS should concentrate on the core values and ensure they are delivered swiftly, professionally and free to all. However, in order to achieve this I believe that the private health care sector needs to expand to a stage where it can relieve the pressure from the NHS without substantially affecting its delivery of service.
The problem is 'What are the core values of the NHS?' Which areas are important to everyone and why? I don't have the answer to this, I only have what is important to me, but if I knew exactly what was and was not provided by the NHS, I could make provision for the areas I needed through insurance or something similar.
How do we decide on the core values?
Here is a novel idea - ask people. The current reforms aim to remove the 'top down' approach and give control to a group of people who have no experience of managing budgets or planning budgets at all. Doctors are great at making people better, politicians are great at lying but neither are very good at financial budgeting over a three year fiscal cycle. If anything giving control to GP's would open the system to corruption in an American style revolution - it would not create a British solution.
So why not ask the GP's, Doctors, Nurses and general public about their priorities. Lets find out exactly what we want and why we want it - lets ask the professionals (and I mean all of them - not just the ones that agree with politicians) for the best way to run the service and lets ask people with ideas for new solutions to old problems.
Then, when we have got an agreement on what we should aim for and how it should be run - this is the bit that will frighten politicians - take control of the NHS out of the hands of government and politicians. Get all main parties to sign up to a twenty year plan with a review of specific targets every five years (at least two years after an election) so that there is a consistent and supported plan with no danger of it being de-railed by political whim.
One final point, the inevitable expansion of the private sector needs to be more managed in line with the needs of the country than it is currently. Again the over centralisation of services only serves the needs of certain parts of the country and creates resentment and non cooperation from those parts not served. I would suggest that if a private hospital wants to be built in a very profitable area e.g. London - then a hospital of the same size and service level should be built in a more deprived area to compensate e.g. The Welsh Valleys. If the company wishes to make any changes to one they must change both and both must be open to a certain level of NHS services as well.
I hope I have generated a few points to ponder here - I genuinely don't believe that anyone group has the answer to the NHS - but I do believe that if everyone works together a much better solution can be found.
Your comments are always welcome.
The USA spends twice the amount per head that we do in private insurance and has worse death rates in nearly every area (but they do have nicer teeth) while some of the Nordic countries spend twice the amount we do on their health services through direct payments and have some better and some worse results than we do.
My belief is simple. Our service tries to do too much and spreads itself too thinly. I believe that the NHS should concentrate on the core values and ensure they are delivered swiftly, professionally and free to all. However, in order to achieve this I believe that the private health care sector needs to expand to a stage where it can relieve the pressure from the NHS without substantially affecting its delivery of service.
The problem is 'What are the core values of the NHS?' Which areas are important to everyone and why? I don't have the answer to this, I only have what is important to me, but if I knew exactly what was and was not provided by the NHS, I could make provision for the areas I needed through insurance or something similar.
How do we decide on the core values?
Here is a novel idea - ask people. The current reforms aim to remove the 'top down' approach and give control to a group of people who have no experience of managing budgets or planning budgets at all. Doctors are great at making people better, politicians are great at lying but neither are very good at financial budgeting over a three year fiscal cycle. If anything giving control to GP's would open the system to corruption in an American style revolution - it would not create a British solution.
So why not ask the GP's, Doctors, Nurses and general public about their priorities. Lets find out exactly what we want and why we want it - lets ask the professionals (and I mean all of them - not just the ones that agree with politicians) for the best way to run the service and lets ask people with ideas for new solutions to old problems.
Then, when we have got an agreement on what we should aim for and how it should be run - this is the bit that will frighten politicians - take control of the NHS out of the hands of government and politicians. Get all main parties to sign up to a twenty year plan with a review of specific targets every five years (at least two years after an election) so that there is a consistent and supported plan with no danger of it being de-railed by political whim.
One final point, the inevitable expansion of the private sector needs to be more managed in line with the needs of the country than it is currently. Again the over centralisation of services only serves the needs of certain parts of the country and creates resentment and non cooperation from those parts not served. I would suggest that if a private hospital wants to be built in a very profitable area e.g. London - then a hospital of the same size and service level should be built in a more deprived area to compensate e.g. The Welsh Valleys. If the company wishes to make any changes to one they must change both and both must be open to a certain level of NHS services as well.
I hope I have generated a few points to ponder here - I genuinely don't believe that anyone group has the answer to the NHS - but I do believe that if everyone works together a much better solution can be found.
Your comments are always welcome.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
EMA reform
Once again, The ConDem government is failing to learn from history and are insisting on reforming everything they can, as quickly as they can. This is what they did in the early 80's. Instead of a gradual withdrawl of support for mines and maunfacturing, which would allow people to adjust, find new jobs, re-train and new businesses to start in a good economy - Thatcher and her chums, decided to do everything in one go and create a state of chaos.
A generation of children grew up with one or both parents out of work, where the only aspiration they ever knew was 'Do what you need to get by'. Many fathers had to find work in other parts of the country or they had to work excessive hours in order to earn a wage.
How is this relevant?
The children that grew up under Thatcher and Major (for Cameron must accept some blame) are now parents themselves. the changes and support that came, came too late and these parents are now setting the same example to todays children. Some of these children need to be encouraged to stay in school at all costs, so that they do not perpetuate the lack of ambition in their children. To remove this payment now would tell these young people that we don't value their education - so why should they.
Many of us will be wishing that we had the chance to go back and re-live a couple of key moments in our education, such as that question in my maths paper that I know I got wrong and could have made it an A - or maybe I should have read 'Pursuation' before sitting my A level on it (I got bored after the first chapter and went rugby training - read the study guide about ten times though). I did not value my education back then - maybe something like an EMA would have helped me - not neccesarily with travel costs (I walked to school) but it would have made it important and that is my point.
Expecting children from the lower end of achievement to value their education is wrong. I agree these should be the people who value it most as it is their route to personal improvement - but believe me that is not a reality for a large section of society.
I would like to change it slightly however. I would like to see an element of effort and behaviour as well as attendance in order to receive the money. This may help to counter act some of the issues in schools today and give these young people a realisation that their education matters to everyone in society. Without it and combined with the 'Change everything quick - before we get voted out again' attitude, will mean that we lose another generation of parents in ten or twenty years time and we will need to find another way to solve their problems.
These are the people who will pay for my retirement and I believe that they should be supported more and not less.
A generation of children grew up with one or both parents out of work, where the only aspiration they ever knew was 'Do what you need to get by'. Many fathers had to find work in other parts of the country or they had to work excessive hours in order to earn a wage.
How is this relevant?
The children that grew up under Thatcher and Major (for Cameron must accept some blame) are now parents themselves. the changes and support that came, came too late and these parents are now setting the same example to todays children. Some of these children need to be encouraged to stay in school at all costs, so that they do not perpetuate the lack of ambition in their children. To remove this payment now would tell these young people that we don't value their education - so why should they.
Many of us will be wishing that we had the chance to go back and re-live a couple of key moments in our education, such as that question in my maths paper that I know I got wrong and could have made it an A - or maybe I should have read 'Pursuation' before sitting my A level on it (I got bored after the first chapter and went rugby training - read the study guide about ten times though). I did not value my education back then - maybe something like an EMA would have helped me - not neccesarily with travel costs (I walked to school) but it would have made it important and that is my point.
Expecting children from the lower end of achievement to value their education is wrong. I agree these should be the people who value it most as it is their route to personal improvement - but believe me that is not a reality for a large section of society.
I would like to change it slightly however. I would like to see an element of effort and behaviour as well as attendance in order to receive the money. This may help to counter act some of the issues in schools today and give these young people a realisation that their education matters to everyone in society. Without it and combined with the 'Change everything quick - before we get voted out again' attitude, will mean that we lose another generation of parents in ten or twenty years time and we will need to find another way to solve their problems.
These are the people who will pay for my retirement and I believe that they should be supported more and not less.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Reform of the House of Lords
This government is brilliant! It just keeps giving me things to write about - they are like a breath of stale air. I will cover Coastguards, The Thatcher legacy, EMA and NHS reform as well as the general direction that they are pursuing in future but today it is the turn of the House of Lords.
The original idea behind the Lords was 'We know the house of commons is corrupt - so we need to put someone there to keep them in check and make sure that the upper classes are not affected by their decisions'. This has worked well for the second part - they have protected the upper class and high earners for quite some time but corrupt MP's was too big for them (or maybe the second part overtook the first - who knows?).
I will save beating around the bush and simply state the HOL does not work.
So, here is my suggestion.
The House of Lords should be made up from the heads or leaders of local councils. When we elect local councils we would also elect a 'Figurehead' with whatever title it is given. This person would sit as a connection between local and national government and ensure that local people views are taken into account. This person would have an input into local government and act as a 'direction setter' as they will be elected (almost presidential style) directly by the people they serve (not parish by parish). They would also have the same input as MP's into video questions and conferences and then they will have two days of voting and direct questions. There would be no un-elected members of the HOL - every person in the UK would have access to two people who can impact upon government policy and make their voices heard.
This would maximise the role and actually make it a worthwhile position. The current system makes the role of 'Lord' a pointless title that simply looks good on paper. When you make these people elected - you put them on an even footing with MP's and you start to ensure that the policies that are passed are good for the whole country and that the people running the country are acting in the interest of the whole country.
As always your views are welcome and you are very welcome to share my blog through Facebook and Twitter etc - maybe one day somebody from 'on high' might act upon these ideas - stranger things have happened!
The original idea behind the Lords was 'We know the house of commons is corrupt - so we need to put someone there to keep them in check and make sure that the upper classes are not affected by their decisions'. This has worked well for the second part - they have protected the upper class and high earners for quite some time but corrupt MP's was too big for them (or maybe the second part overtook the first - who knows?).
I will save beating around the bush and simply state the HOL does not work.
So, here is my suggestion.
The House of Lords should be made up from the heads or leaders of local councils. When we elect local councils we would also elect a 'Figurehead' with whatever title it is given. This person would sit as a connection between local and national government and ensure that local people views are taken into account. This person would have an input into local government and act as a 'direction setter' as they will be elected (almost presidential style) directly by the people they serve (not parish by parish). They would also have the same input as MP's into video questions and conferences and then they will have two days of voting and direct questions. There would be no un-elected members of the HOL - every person in the UK would have access to two people who can impact upon government policy and make their voices heard.
This would maximise the role and actually make it a worthwhile position. The current system makes the role of 'Lord' a pointless title that simply looks good on paper. When you make these people elected - you put them on an even footing with MP's and you start to ensure that the policies that are passed are good for the whole country and that the people running the country are acting in the interest of the whole country.
As always your views are welcome and you are very welcome to share my blog through Facebook and Twitter etc - maybe one day somebody from 'on high' might act upon these ideas - stranger things have happened!
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Just attacking the rich?
The sun newspaper is truly home once again. Most of its reader are suffering from the cuts, the vat and the petrol increase and how does the Sun report it? Attacking the rich does not help. It was a good job I was reading it in work where Helen could not hear my anger.
When you tax the 'Rich' you are trying to divert some of the funds in the economy from those who have plenty to those who needs more.
This is not wrong, it is hard for those who have plenty to see more of their money being taken than is taken from the less well off - but it is just hard - not wrong. Without the people at the bottom of the ladders on which the rich sit, the rich have no ladder to climb and therefore no way of increasing their wealth.
It has been proven that the 'Healthiest' economies are ones where the distance between the top and the bottom is less. Economies where the overwhelming majority of people feel comfortable in their situation are the most resilient to shocks and show a more consistent growth pattern and this is what we should be aiming for.
I would like to see a situation where the top earners can offset more of their taxes against charity donations. I believe we should have a system where if you donate £50,000 to a national charity fund you get to keep and extra 1% of your income (the numbers are irrelevant - that is for others to decide on - this is about the principle). The money should be paid into a national charity fund, along the lines of the Lottery fund only for charities such as help the aged etc. This would ensure the funds are spread evenly throughout the country and not just donated to the local brass band charity or something similar. It is vital that the mechanism moves the money around the country in the same way that a companies Head Office does the opposite i.e. if you buy a coffee in the north of Scotland, you will be supporting a HO in London with the profits made on the cup.
The HO also holds most of the high paid jobs and therefore a lot of the profits from that company will be spent locally rather than nationally, so the redistribution of this wealth plays an important part of the solution.
This (along with the moving of government offices) will help to smooth out the money across the country and will help to create a more even distributed economy. It is not the complete solution but it is part of it - it allows high earners to earn more and keep more while at the same time giving more to those who need it most.
One final thing, to return to my original point. This is not taxing the rich - it is taxing the greedy. I don't think anyone in society has a problem with some people earning more than others, provided it is deserved and they have worked for it and that they then re-pay some of it to society. The greedy are those who feel they should not contribute funds back into the economy and do everything they can to avoid helping others. This is why the Sun (see earlier posts regarding the over centralisation of political power) is wrong.
When you tax the 'Rich' you are trying to divert some of the funds in the economy from those who have plenty to those who needs more.
This is not wrong, it is hard for those who have plenty to see more of their money being taken than is taken from the less well off - but it is just hard - not wrong. Without the people at the bottom of the ladders on which the rich sit, the rich have no ladder to climb and therefore no way of increasing their wealth.
It has been proven that the 'Healthiest' economies are ones where the distance between the top and the bottom is less. Economies where the overwhelming majority of people feel comfortable in their situation are the most resilient to shocks and show a more consistent growth pattern and this is what we should be aiming for.
I would like to see a situation where the top earners can offset more of their taxes against charity donations. I believe we should have a system where if you donate £50,000 to a national charity fund you get to keep and extra 1% of your income (the numbers are irrelevant - that is for others to decide on - this is about the principle). The money should be paid into a national charity fund, along the lines of the Lottery fund only for charities such as help the aged etc. This would ensure the funds are spread evenly throughout the country and not just donated to the local brass band charity or something similar. It is vital that the mechanism moves the money around the country in the same way that a companies Head Office does the opposite i.e. if you buy a coffee in the north of Scotland, you will be supporting a HO in London with the profits made on the cup.
The HO also holds most of the high paid jobs and therefore a lot of the profits from that company will be spent locally rather than nationally, so the redistribution of this wealth plays an important part of the solution.
This (along with the moving of government offices) will help to smooth out the money across the country and will help to create a more even distributed economy. It is not the complete solution but it is part of it - it allows high earners to earn more and keep more while at the same time giving more to those who need it most.
One final thing, to return to my original point. This is not taxing the rich - it is taxing the greedy. I don't think anyone in society has a problem with some people earning more than others, provided it is deserved and they have worked for it and that they then re-pay some of it to society. The greedy are those who feel they should not contribute funds back into the economy and do everything they can to avoid helping others. This is why the Sun (see earlier posts regarding the over centralisation of political power) is wrong.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Politicians drive me mad!
So there was a bi-election, one candidate got selected, yet all three parties claimed success. Two said, 'We were expecting a right kicking, We are surprised we got that much' and the winner said ' we won!'.
The fact is no one won - the public have lost out again. There is no separation between the parties other than who they would shaft the most in order to be in power. The fact is that the power behind the government lies in the lobbyists and the media. these are people with the financial power to make things happen and they sit on the lap of politicians with a knife pointed at their rather small genitalia (if they had more balls we would not be in this situation).
So, here is my next proposal for change:
Move the Houses of Parliament out of London. Move it to a part of the country that needs the investment. For two days of the week politicians would be able to debate and take part in committees via video conferencing, so they would only need to attend for the other two days. The building would be shared with a newly structured Lords, which would operate the same way. This would mean politicians would be in constituencies more than in Parliament. This then reduces the opportunity for lobby groups and financiers to intervene in the political process and would keep the politician in touch with reality a bit more.
Government offices would also be separated around the country (as was the process previously). This again ensures that the power of lobbyists and interest groups are diluted even more and a wider view of public opinion is heard.
The office of the Prime Minister would also be separated and located somewhere other than London and not next to Paliament.
I would also make a law that businesses should hold more meetings via video link as well. This would cut down on travel and increase the time that role models spend with their families (usually the father but not exclusively). I will expand on this on a different day.
As i mentioned above I would restructure the House of Lords but in a much more radical way than any of the national parties dare even suggest! This will be my next post! Your comments would be appreciated.
The fact is no one won - the public have lost out again. There is no separation between the parties other than who they would shaft the most in order to be in power. The fact is that the power behind the government lies in the lobbyists and the media. these are people with the financial power to make things happen and they sit on the lap of politicians with a knife pointed at their rather small genitalia (if they had more balls we would not be in this situation).
So, here is my next proposal for change:
Move the Houses of Parliament out of London. Move it to a part of the country that needs the investment. For two days of the week politicians would be able to debate and take part in committees via video conferencing, so they would only need to attend for the other two days. The building would be shared with a newly structured Lords, which would operate the same way. This would mean politicians would be in constituencies more than in Parliament. This then reduces the opportunity for lobby groups and financiers to intervene in the political process and would keep the politician in touch with reality a bit more.
Government offices would also be separated around the country (as was the process previously). This again ensures that the power of lobbyists and interest groups are diluted even more and a wider view of public opinion is heard.
The office of the Prime Minister would also be separated and located somewhere other than London and not next to Paliament.
I would also make a law that businesses should hold more meetings via video link as well. This would cut down on travel and increase the time that role models spend with their families (usually the father but not exclusively). I will expand on this on a different day.
As i mentioned above I would restructure the House of Lords but in a much more radical way than any of the national parties dare even suggest! This will be my next post! Your comments would be appreciated.
Friday, 14 January 2011
We have got this wrong.
Why do politicians think that they have all the answers? They don't, they have the answers to a few problems that affect themselves and nothing else. They are narrow minded and ineffective in finding effective solutions for anyone other than themselves and the people around them.
Our country is over centralised and over dependant on the financial whims of a few hundred guys in the city. This is not a way to operate a country and too many successive governments have pandered to them because if they don't then 'We will lose some of the best people' (as quoted frequently on SkyToryNews. These people are not the best people - they are a big part of the problem. The need to keep this tiny section of society comfortable often ensures that the rest of us are not!
So - rather than diessecting it issues in great detail, I am going to give my solutions to the problems. This is why I am not a politician and have no political leanings either way.
My first change would be to seperate Investment banking from Retail banking. Retail banks should be a safe way for everyone to store money for retreival as they wish. Investment banks should take funds that people are willing to risk losing and invest them on behalf of those individuals. Retail banks would be allowed to invest a maximum of 15% of their deposits with an investment bank, provided this has a guaranteed return greater than the value of the interest the bank is offering on those deposits e.g. If the retail bank is offering an interest rate of 1%, the Investment must have a guaranteed return of at least 1.1%.
Retail banks would not be allowed to invest customers deposits in any fund which does not have a guaranteed return - this includes the StockMarket.
This would protect peoples savings and deposits and protect Retail banks from the fluctuations and whims of the Stock Market and other volatile investments.
So, how would Retail banks make enough profit to ensure the doors stay open?
A lot of the big heavy costs of banking are actually in the Investment sections or they support the investment sections, so the removal of these costs would ensure it remains easier to run a Retail bank. Banks would be forced to make many through traditional lending and insurance products such as Mortgages, loans, car Insurance etc.
But they would not have enough money to lend! I hear you say.
I would also ensure that Pension Funds are not part of Investment banks. Investment banks would not be allowed to run Pension Funds as the funds invested need to be secure rather than volatile. Pension Funds would be allowed to invest in Retail banks (Retail Banks could offer their own Pension Funds) so that the return for Funds would be more consistent and Retail banks would then have the funds to lend responsibly to businesses and individuals.
I would also ensure that Investment banks have at least 10% of their overall balance, on loan to small businesses. As the value of Investments increase - through investment on World markets, so would the value of lending to small business.
These measures would mean that the money we deposit in a bank is used constructively to ensure the steady and sustainable growth of an economy. Yes we would lose the top end of high earners in Investment banking - they are very welcome to continue to destroy other countries economic prospects or work harder to earn the wage they do. More people would have access to loans and pensions, which would probably be at a higher rate than at present but they would be able to access it easier.
The next time a Politician, or a politicians friend (often referred to as Finance experts) says that the consequence of changes to the City would be disastrous - ask yourself this. Who would they be disastrous for and why? Then we can really start to make some changes.
Our country is over centralised and over dependant on the financial whims of a few hundred guys in the city. This is not a way to operate a country and too many successive governments have pandered to them because if they don't then 'We will lose some of the best people' (as quoted frequently on SkyToryNews. These people are not the best people - they are a big part of the problem. The need to keep this tiny section of society comfortable often ensures that the rest of us are not!
So - rather than diessecting it issues in great detail, I am going to give my solutions to the problems. This is why I am not a politician and have no political leanings either way.
My first change would be to seperate Investment banking from Retail banking. Retail banks should be a safe way for everyone to store money for retreival as they wish. Investment banks should take funds that people are willing to risk losing and invest them on behalf of those individuals. Retail banks would be allowed to invest a maximum of 15% of their deposits with an investment bank, provided this has a guaranteed return greater than the value of the interest the bank is offering on those deposits e.g. If the retail bank is offering an interest rate of 1%, the Investment must have a guaranteed return of at least 1.1%.
Retail banks would not be allowed to invest customers deposits in any fund which does not have a guaranteed return - this includes the StockMarket.
This would protect peoples savings and deposits and protect Retail banks from the fluctuations and whims of the Stock Market and other volatile investments.
So, how would Retail banks make enough profit to ensure the doors stay open?
A lot of the big heavy costs of banking are actually in the Investment sections or they support the investment sections, so the removal of these costs would ensure it remains easier to run a Retail bank. Banks would be forced to make many through traditional lending and insurance products such as Mortgages, loans, car Insurance etc.
But they would not have enough money to lend! I hear you say.
I would also ensure that Pension Funds are not part of Investment banks. Investment banks would not be allowed to run Pension Funds as the funds invested need to be secure rather than volatile. Pension Funds would be allowed to invest in Retail banks (Retail Banks could offer their own Pension Funds) so that the return for Funds would be more consistent and Retail banks would then have the funds to lend responsibly to businesses and individuals.
I would also ensure that Investment banks have at least 10% of their overall balance, on loan to small businesses. As the value of Investments increase - through investment on World markets, so would the value of lending to small business.
These measures would mean that the money we deposit in a bank is used constructively to ensure the steady and sustainable growth of an economy. Yes we would lose the top end of high earners in Investment banking - they are very welcome to continue to destroy other countries economic prospects or work harder to earn the wage they do. More people would have access to loans and pensions, which would probably be at a higher rate than at present but they would be able to access it easier.
The next time a Politician, or a politicians friend (often referred to as Finance experts) says that the consequence of changes to the City would be disastrous - ask yourself this. Who would they be disastrous for and why? Then we can really start to make some changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)