Gordon's Hung Parliament Downfall

Sorry, I just had to...

**!$ Parliament Downfall @ Yahoo! Video

The Pathetic Cut

David Cameron is suggesting ending income tax on savings for basic rate payers.

Well, is it good? Yes, if it were part of the abolition of Income Tax, period, but it is not, so the if and only if rule applies. No, it is not really "good". DC thinks it might result in increased spending. Fat chance. If your savings grow faster, the temptation to leave them there is greater.

And look at the numbers trumpeted. Far from cutting, Dave is suggesting an additonal £25bln MORE spending instead of £30bln - a cut of £5bln, less than 1% of the entire budget.

Pathetic. It is like a family who cannot afford to go on holiday deciding to take the tube instead of driving to the airport. 

No, Mr Cameron, you have to realise the holiday is over for now.

DC did witter on about "green technology", and that is fine as far as it goes. Not sure I want to encourage rent-seeking, however.

What was even dafter was DC's idea of some kind of independent budget watchdog. What a joke. You can see that it will end up being stuffed with Fabians and other such numpties who will interfere in the budget process and try to dictate the priorities. I suppose this is Cameron's way of getting the departments and the public in general used to the idea that the Government of the day will have no real say over spending for when the EU takes over full Sovereignty. The real key is to have a BoE which has a responsibility to the currency and thus to all those who hold and are paid in that currency - the people - not to Government. The State will then have to cut its cloth accordingly.

Swindon loses access to a teat. Stops feeding the cow.

We see that Swindon Borough Council (Con) has decided to take their jumper away from the footie game by refusing to pay £400k towards speed cameras.

Hurrah you say. Yes indeed. However, this was not a sincere act of common sense, but a reaction to the fact that HM Treasury, desperate for any brass farthing they can steal from the cups of beggars, have decided to keep the revenue themselves instead of it going to the Council.

Thus the £400k "investment" to keep a revenue stream now becomes a cost and so has been reviewed. The Council will now spend that money on a department it DOES control...

Swindon has now stopped doing the wrong thing because the financial incentive to keep doing the wrong thing has now been withdrawn. Not noble nor even proactive, it is at least doing the right thing at last.

Such a cause and effect should be a lesson to anyone who does not understand the damage caused by the Welfare State.

Political Cancer UK pt.3: Derek Conway

Derek Conway is still an MP. He should not be here. There is no honourable way out but for him to resign, to seek to RETURN the money or have his sons actually WORK for, lets say, Hazel Blears as a researcher (HB decides if they have earned their money) for a fee to pay back the money.

For him to not confess and thus go through the pantomime of enquiry and review is a disgrace.

"Share the Proceeds of Growth"

Who does the growing? The Government? No. Employers and workers do the growing. The best way of enabling them to automatically get their rightful proceeds is to stop taxing them and not, as is suggested by the poisonous phrase, have a "beneficent" Government decide how much and when such proceeds are to be "shared" after they have taken their slice. It is collectivism, and being the Government with its enforcement, of the involuntary kind.

I doubt the Tories will listen hard enough. Regardless, an alternative in the wings.

Good Post, not so sure about the conclusion.

Steve Baker posts a couple of good quotes here.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. — Cicero, 42 B.C.

The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without, they come from within. They come from a peculiar type in our country who if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism and the promise of impossible Utopias? — Winston Churchill, St George’s Day 1933

These two quotes touch on one of my constant themes - that of the Fifth Column, the traitor within who wears down people as surely as water wears down stone or fungus eats at the most hearty oak given time. Combined, as anyone should know, the effect is magnified.


His conclusion - to become a Conservative MP - is not what I would have suggested, but he may well have reasons which I am not fully aware of yet.

More Doubletalk from Islamist Interests

When are Muslims going to be freed from their "community leaders" and "spokesmen"?

His Grace (hat tip, DK) has put up a very good post on the topic of the Conservative Muslim Forum§ document outlining policy recommendations.

I will not repeat or attempt to duplicate what is a fine post and followup by DK.

Regardless of if the suggestions/demands are rejected or not, the fact is the think tank actually had the brass neck to put them forward. Conservatives be warned, this document should be a wake-up call to you that you have a fifth column inside your walls. An entire section is liable to collapse and crumble, nay, openly support enemies of freedom and democracy. Maybe it is a good trick - handing rope to them - but I do not have such faith in the wisdom of the Conservative Leadership. No sir.

However, I just want to highlight one paragraph which is interesting, even more so that other more open statements. Here it is:

24. The report states "It should be the aim of a Conservative Administration to help bring about the right conditions for a move from a collective approach led
through community organisations to one in which individuals take responsibility
for their role in society and participate fully in it. This is a key aspect of full
integration." We concur and are content to adopt this as a working definition of
integration.

Look at that again. They concur that it is a working definition. They do not say it is something to achieve, aim for, promote or support. They are "content to adopt" the meaning, eh? Why thankyou! Just the meaning. Not the spirit. Not the act. This speaks volumes as to who is behind pulling the strings.

§ Why is it they just love/crave/covet terms like this? At least they did not try and pretend to have any legal authority, like the MCB.

Conservatives Report: Restoring Pride in Public Services

Before I look a the green issues, I just wanted to finish up with the above report.

The section on Heath was a bit flim flammy, frankly.

The Policy Group proposes the freeing up of local decision-making and a new enabling partnership with clinicians.

You do not "restore pride" by introducing a universal labelling strategy, an NHS Board or tinkering with health policy organisational trees. Oh, and the GP cat is out of the bag, Dave, courtesy of the numpties at New Labour. The best solution for healthcare is to unhitch the monopoly totally from the State and create a proper pluralistic solution using compulsory insurance.

Education is ok - more power to exclude, for example. This might free up the resources to enable remedial education to be performed as suggested. Extending setting is a tricky one as I believe you really have to go the whole hog and once you get sets you really need to have enough kids in each school to make it work properly.

Social Housing section is flawed deckchair shuffling and vague talk about local decision making, which for housing means either "nimby" blocking or a tyranny of the masses. The point about bribing giving share of equity "for good behaviour" shows naivety in the extreme and is an insult to all those working hard to have their own home and pay a mortgage. When will politicians learn? The reward for good behaviour must be simply the continuation of a roof over your head. The consequence of bad behaviour should be eviction, pure and simple. The State has to stop being "landlord of last resort" and ditch the "Duty of care" fraud that has crept into our systems.

The Conservatives talk about reforming the housing benefit system. In Roger's Manifesto there was a very clear statement on this which should deal with the whole issue. This can be summed up thus:

State housing and/or benefit must be a safety net, not a hammock. Once begun the allocation will not increase even if the tenant increases the size of their family by whatever means, such as birth, marriage or cohabitation with dependents regardless of their country of origin.

This way people who fall into poverty can be helped but people should not consider State housing as a life-long and ever expanding resource. They are, in effect, "home blocking" people who fall on hard times.

This report is a big disappointment. How it can be described as a means to "restore pride" I do not know. The authors should be ashamed.

I'm going green...

..cos I'm about to hurl my breakfast:

From the Sunday Times:

Zac Goldsmith inherited his concern for the environment from his Uncle Teddy, his political zeal and fortune from his father James and his looks from his mother Annabel.

Shame he ran out of relatives in the common sense, wisdom and brains departments, then.

The report is out. I will be reading it before commenting further.

Sociofascist Media On the Prowl pt.4

The David Cameron interview on Newsnight.

What an utter shower the panelists were. Stef was totally irrational and they were all very "6th Form" who think they have an unpopular kid they can bully in front of a "knowing" audience. All very amateur and smart-arse, like those irritating ponces who pipe up during presentations - you know the kind: "what about 'always on'"?

The Devil's Kitchen gives them all a sound kicking, and rightly so. Appalling, the lot of 'em. How much are these amateurs being paid? Are they actually going around calling themselves "journalists"? I used to work for Reuters way back when, and I saw and knew a good journo or ten, and this pack of juveniles journalists they are not (hat tip: Yoda).

Is there a transcript? Their questions need a thorough fisking.

David Cameron's Crime and Punishment Blueprint

...or is that greeprint these days. Seems to be recycled, anyhow.

It appears a bit flimsy and knee-jerk, if you ask me. Some good bits but also bad parts, often bursting with unforeseen consequences. Cameron's intro talk hinted at potential actions but that does not come across in the document.

No talk of dealing with street violence (knives, kickings, drugs) or of the welfare hammock that exists come-what-may.

A summary by the Times is the basis for my response here.

POLICE

• Abolish the 40-question "stop form", which police have to fill in every time they halt someone in the street.

Good.

• Extend "stop and search" powers to make it easier for officers below the rank of inspector to carry out searches for weapons or drugs.

Good, but you need to have the nerglers to fend off the "human rights" and "Muslim oppression" nonsense you will get.

• Increase the time police spend on the beat by slashing bureaucracy.

Good.

• Make police accountable to an individual directly elected by local people - either an elected mayor or local crime commissioner.

I know this is a trendy thing, but I do not yet support elected police chiefs or sheriffs. It will become a pandering exercise for special interest groups, such as Sharia-friendly or other "sensitive" nonsense peddled by self-appointed "community" leaders.

• Introduce a national border police force with responsibility for stopping illegal immigration and smuggling.

One needs to work out how to kick out people as well. Leaving the EU is a step forward.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

• Scrap Labour's early release scheme under which 3,000 prisoners - more than 300 of them guilty of violent crimes - have already been freed.

Indeed.

• Extend maximum sentence that a magistrate can hand out to a year.

Not sure what this does. Better to charge people with the right crime. I am against tinkering like this.

• Introduce minimum sentences, with no chance of parole until the minimum has been served.

Better to have the prison space to enable the Judges to act accordingly. Unforeseen consequences lurk, otherwise.

• Delay young offenders' access to a driving licence when they reach 17.

This is totally hat-stand. All it will mean is they will be unemployable and will just drive illegally. If they are capable of driving and can prove it, they should be free to drive. If they offend again they should be detained, so of course they would not drive. This is just vindictive.

• Build more prisons as they become necessary.

Build more NOW. How about 50-100,000 new places to house those committing 50% of the crime?

ALCOHOL

• Review licensing laws, including the rules on 24-hour opening.

• Make pubs responsible for rowdy customers inside and outside premises.

Look into the psychological impact of 'vertical drinking halls'. Better to limit NOISE from music heard outside the premises. Better to penalise large places vs small via licensing charges. Small, cosy pubs with lots of seats should not bear equal burden to a massive Yates.

• Clamp down on shop owners who sell drink to under-18s.

I.e. just enforce the laws we have.

• Examine whether councils need additional powers to tackle irresponsible drinks promotions.

I have examined it for 34ms and the answer is No. Councils spend too much money as it is and the promotions are the business of the company, not government.

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

• Return the last say over "exclusions" - formerly known as expulsions - to schools by scrapping appeals panels.

Yes. Sensible.

• Make home-school contracts, which define what is expected of parents and pupils, enforceable - and a requirement for admission or grounds for exclusion if they are not met.

Better to just allow schools to set their own rules and allow them to expel kids who do not behave. This does need an environment with a surplus of good school places, and this is best done by allowing new Schools outside of LEA control to be formed anywhere, not just in certain places as defined by Government, which is the Tory plan, as that will just move the problem about and cause all manner of inefficiencies and bureaucracy.

• Halt the closure of special schools and end the idea that schools should cater for every child, no matter what their needs, aptitudes or behaviour.

Agreed. Remove the Socialist dogma of "equality".

FAMILIES

• Use the tax and benefits system to support families.

Better if you stop funding dysfunction. Withdraw housing to wayward families. No more benefits if a person on benefits grows their family. Flat Tax.

• Give all employees with children the right to request flexible working.

Is that "request" or "demand", Dave? Better to reduce taxation and allow pooling of tax allowances to enable one partner to not work and increase the chances of them raising the kids properly. Employers are finding it hard to compete - a job exists because work needs to be done, not as a convenient place to sit while being paid. What would a politican know about that, eh?

POPULAR CULTURE

• Work with the music industry to stop lyrics and videos from popularising guns, gangs and the degradation of women.

I disagree. Better to use ridicule to make the "cul-cha" seem idiotic and lame-ass, which it is. The MSM and BBC are very much to blame for their sad-act "right on" ness.

• Regulations to stop films and video games promoting violence and misogyny to young people.

How about enforcing the laws we have?

Some good points, but it misses out on the issues I put forward here. which deals with the immediate issues of violence. People need to know they can challenge bad behaviour and be backed up by the law and the courts. Yoofs need to know that if they cut up rough they are likely to spend a very unpleasant time with no phone, no TV, no gameboys. Bit of 1950's life for them.

I see measures, but still no realization of the issue of consequence - the lack of which is at the heart of most crime and disorder.

Verdict? C-. Must try harder.

John Redwood: Right Diagnosis, bit fuzzy on the cure front

Reading John Redwood's article in the Telegraph was disappointing. It starts out promising but then does not deliver.

His diagnosis is correct. He detects the symptoms, identifies the disease but is a bit off target in my view for some of the remedies. He also does not articulate any real crystalline policy or mindset to move forward. It is not good enough to say 'privatise', for that is not enough. There is no point just swapping a State Monopoly for a private one. It is even worse, frankly, if badly done.

A couple of points he raises:

1. The school run. To me it is not an issue of public transport, but an over-supply of quality schools properly distributed. I say over supply on purpose. Over supply is THE way to ensure we have enough. If schools have space to tempt more kids and even more importantly their competitors have spaces to lure away THEIR pupils, then standards will be vigorously maintained. Plenty of good schools enforcing order and attitude will make walking or cycling to school both practical and safer. How do we get an over-supply of good schools? Vouchers and the dismantling of the LEA monopoly.

2. Railways. Some of the suggestions put forward are tricky. They ignore the issues in regard to mixing different kinds of rail traffic. Our trains are heavy because they share tracks with very heavy freight vehicles. This is for safety reasons. Imagine a road bus being shunted - a 14m double-deck crumple zone, or even a light rail car. The ideas presented would work on a new, isolated network. If you are going to isolate it, better to have a guided busway or a frieght version, both powered by electricity. If properly designed, such systems will allow buses and freight to easily move from the guided to normal roadways. Our ports should be the hubs for such guided freight routes, preventing the need for diesel tractor units to drag freight all the way to the port on the roads. With the right tractor units, they could perform the last miles from a 'guide rail head' on battery and/or series hybrid power.

3. Airports. I think I have outlined my view on what we need to do with England's main international hub here.

To me, the argument for privatisation does need to begin with showing where State monopolies cannot work effectively and to be brutal in showing where Private monopolies, PFI and other experiments do not work effectively. We need the "least worst" option. John Redwood's article does not land the punches I was expecting.

Still, I have not read the full report yet. Let us see what meat and what bones lie within.

p.s. I have a sneaking suspicion poor old JR is being lined up to be shot. Let John talk in the silly season, get slated, dent the polls, blame him and so Cameron the Cuckoo can oust another chick from the nest.

EU Constitution: Treason revealed

The Devils Kitchen writes a good piece uncovering the treasonous nature of the EU Constitution Treaty. In a nutshell, it means ministers must place the EU first, the citizens second and the Nation third.

This has been clear to me for a long time. Regions will be used to bribe the pompous amateurs of the local and county councils. New ministers are already appointed for this task and have been since the second day of Brown's maladministration. The sparkling beads of Devolution have already bewitched the Welsh and Scots. Oh, how they must laugh at them back at Childcatcher Central the EU Commission.

Even Cameron is massaging the Tory party so it can remain "kosher" in the EU, which will soon outlaw political parties that are not aligned to a pan-European grouping that signs up to the concept of the EU in all its forms.

People are being frog-boiled and I think stupor has set in.

Right now, only UKIP is not acting like an outright traitor to the Nation. The biggest traitor of them all I think is Cameron, for they are not tearing into the detail and implication of the treaty, just wanting a vote - how can they be asking for a vote without articulating the implications? I almost wonder if they want the referendum to be a "yes", so it will be buns for tea with no guilt. Scumbags!

Hamster/Snake/Alien

Right now the three main parties are equally unappealing.

When asked which leader you prefer, right now, Fri 13th July 2007, for me it is Gordon Brown. The term "prefer" is not quite right, as it is really a form of least-worst - who is the least objectionable.

WHAT! You cry, has Roger gone mad?

To answer, I have my hamster/snake/alien argument. If you wanted a PM, which one would YOU choose? I know it is a false dilemma, but bear with me. UPDATE: Note that this does not imply I would ever VOTE for ANY of the three, least of all Brown.

A hamster is naive, trusting, weak and self-centred, if cuddly. Ming, basicially.
A Snake is quick, cold, often aggressive, secretive and dangerous, but a known quantity. Brown.
An Alien is mostly unknown. The veneer looks good and appears smooth, but when in power what on earth (or beyond) will happen? Cameron.

I think if you have any sense you would choose, like I did, the Snake. A hamster is a risk to itself and to us. A Snake is dangerous, but at least you roughly know in what way. It will defend itself though and is not to be taken lightly - and probably views the hamster as its next snack. The Alien is an unknown quantity - the worst kind, in fact. Many suspect, given recent behaviour, that under that mammalian exterior, a reptile lurks, not quite like the Snake, but with similar motives.

Right now, modern British Politics presents itself to us as this false dilemma - Hamster, Snake or Alien. It is an utterly absurd situation. It cannot go on like this. Something needs to give. A Libertarian party is so desperately needed.

If you think so too, then how about writing an essay on the subject and potentially win £1000 from the Libertarian Alliance?

I'm certainly going to give it a go!

Breakthrough Britain

The report is out. It is a shame that the launch was marred by daft scaremongering on one policy point by the BBC and other media in a successful attempt to whip up bleats about discriminating "against" unmarried and single parents. Daft.

However, the good news is that it does seem that the findings are being praised, even if the recommendations are not unanimously agreed upon. This means we work done can produce further suggestions using a baseline of inputs.

The key areas are:

• Family Breakdown
• Economic Dependency and Worklessness
• Educational Failure
• Addictions
• Gambling
• Serious Personal Debt
• The "Third" Sector

Before I continue, I am reading the briefing, so I apologise if I respond inaccurately or in ignorance of the full report - I am very happy to be corrected if that is the case.

Family Breakdown: Some good thoughts, yet the worry I have is that yet more people will be involved from the State who will wish to manage the situation, not prevent it.

1. The State should allow voluntary groups to operate more freely but not be gatekeepers to funding, which will always have strings and so distract and undermine sincere intent. I cannot stress this too much - State funding will pollute the Voluntary Sector with their agenda and glacial timescales. This does not appear to be well safeguarded here - quite the reverse. A Minister for the Third Sector - the rot is setting in.
2. I have long made the case for no additional benefits to be given to people on benefits or housing who increase the size of their family unit and I remain convinced of this as the "least worst" option. There is nothing here to reverse the perverse incentivisation of feckless procreation, to put no finer point on it. This adds to my suspicion that all these people are there to manage the problems, not prevent them.
3. I do think it is right to consider the concept of "family" as a single taxable entity if children are involved, allowing all legally bound adults to transfer their tax allowances to the household that is there to support the children, including grandparents. Civil partnerships, yes. A cohabiting couple, no, but a grandmother and mother?, yes. This report does at least move a little in that direction.
4. I find it distressing that no mention is made about the entropic programming pumped out by the BBC and others, such as Eastenders, which appears to be a "Blueprint for Dysfunction". Where are the strong media role models are needed to promote self-reliance, fortitude, courage, moderation, inventiveness and other qualities? Our State broadcaster often seems to have decided on the role of "recruiting Sargent" to keep our Social Services fed with a plentiful supply of "customers"!

Economic Dependency and Worklessness: The recommendations do not appear to do more than tinker and they tinker in a way that requires more oversight and inspection, so more "salaried unemployed". Some things suggested are an improvement, but this is a missed opportunity to put forward significant changes in the context of all the other recommendations. The nettle has not been grasped. No talk of Flat Tax and a fat personal allowance, which is key, IMHO, to boosting productive employment, taking the low paid OUT of Income Tax and enabling a smoother and more rewarding segue from dependency to self-reliance.

Educational Failure: This has excellent stuff - to allow the formation of independent schools free of LEA control and allow parents to switch to such schools, taking the underlying funding with them - it is vouchers by any other name but articulated properly (for once?) so that it makes it hard for the Sociofascists to disingenuously denounce. This alone could do so much, it is hard to articulate the importance this could have on our society. Alas, I feel the LEA Mafia will stomp on this as soon as their rice-bowl is threatened. A pox upon them!

Addictions: Tinkering. Totally misses the key issue of removing the criminals and pushers from the loop. There is only one sensible way to do that and that is to make the supply of drugs not economically viable for criminals to bother selling or recruiting new customers (i.e. pushing). This is through low cost, flat fee supply at regulated outlets. Until you stop the "marketing" end, you are fighting an uphill battle to kerb usage and the crime that is caused by the addicts needing to feed their habit. Many of the recommendations are great if you are in the State machine - lots of jobs. You know the rot is well and truly set in here, with terms like "treatment journey" - the poison of the NHS behemoth leaks far and wide. This is about addiction - addiction to the State.

Gambling: Mostly Statist tinkering. Linking gambling treatment funding and the tax revenues raised concerns me for reasons I cannot quite articulate. No mention of Super Casinos, which is shocking. If the State earns zero revenue from gambling, it would consider it an irritant and not wish it to grow. I am convinced that Super Casinos are about tax revenues, which is DAFT as the taxes are on profits which will almost certainly be repatriated overseas, sucking wealth out of the nation. Maybe the State needs some treatment for their addiction?

Serious Personal Debt: This section does not hit home, in my view. IVAs are allowed and to an extent still encouraged, which I believe will do the opposite of the intended purpose. Considering how numerically illiterate people are, it is no surprise they are financially illiterate, too. I did not detect a way to formally and clearly display the terms of credit cards and refinancing. I know people should be responsible, but the State has a role, in my view, in the area of "weights and measueres" and more intuitive ways to display the consequences of various forms of credit should be put forward, including graphically.

The Third Sector: Alas, we see more moves to entrench the State into the activities of Voluntary Groups. The idea that the unemployed can be brought into volunteering is a good one, as long as it is not abused. This will be hard. It could sort out sheep from goats in terms of the sincere out of work who can volunteer and build up a CV, even if they are not actually in paid employment - this is "unpaid employment", which is at least a step in the right direction, the antithesis of Gordon Brown's 900,000 "salaried unemployed". I suspect the State will not hesitate to get its talons into this area, interfering in what projects can "qualify", so engineering and influencing the precise work of such entities. Once that is in place you are a short hop and skip to some dangerous ground in terms of mobilising masses. The TWO groups who should influence what happens should be those volunteering and those contributing.

The State should BUTT OUT. It is not good news for this area - the State is on the prowl - it has OUR money, but IT wants control over how it is spent. If the State wants to see more taxpayers money going on voluntary groups may I suggest it cuts out the middle man - itself - and lowers taxes.

The document does not tackle State housing, which I feel is a millstone in its current form. If you are in State housing, you need to ASK to move and apply to join the queue of the relevant Local geographic monopoly Authority. Not good for chasing work. That is a very bad thing. Housing needs to be taken out of the 'entitlement' sphere and into the voluntary sector. If housing is not a 'right', dysfunctional families will need to reform to remain housed. I sincerely believe 90% will reform themselves when faced with such a reality.

Overall some good points, and especially one of the two key issues - Education. However, drug reform is not dealt with and most of the other areas seem to reach for the State interventionist approach, with the serious risk of creating yet more organisations, QUANGOs and "bodies" that want to manage the problem yet, subconsciously, will not wish to eradicate it, as that will threaten their rice-bowls.

Tory NHS Reform: British Leyland, meet your next patient...

The Conservatives have announced their plans for the NHS.

Instead of moving towards a government regulated but independent, pluralistic, self-tuning (via said pluralism) and responsive (same) health service which I have outlined we will still have a monolithic entity. This looks similar to the BMA view which I briefly commented on earlier.

Power will still not be devolved into the hands of those who PAY for the service, so it will always be dysfunctional. The cart is before the horse. If you give power to Doctors and other professionals it is at least better than now and to an extent welcome insofar as it gives respect and trust to those who know more than faceless bureaucrats. However, the objective of that power is to meet the healthcare needs of patients. Therefore you will see the power exercised indirectly and via a prism. It will also be exercised without the benefit of hundreds of thousands of small, subtle corrective hints that individual patient choice will give. Choice here should not be the false choice of "you can choose between four pre-selected and equally overloaded hospitals". The choice should be to the extent of "I am changing health insurance provider because they are too expensive" or that "I will go to any hospital but X, because I hear bad things about it". Such choice will either trigger improvements or result in the closing of dysfunctional parts. Shape up or ship out.

The Conservative reforms do no appear to move forward in this respect. If anything, they run the risk of putting another unaccountable entity in the rather too long a loop.

UPDATE: Phil A (in comments) has found this article on Bromley's woes. I suggest you read it. A key point in that article is the following:

The outcome is that hospitals that are cheaper to run will face cuts, while patients will be crammed into the more expensive PFI hospitals in an attempt to make them profitable.

This is most worrying and to me looks almost criminal - the PCT is forced to use the worst option due to the contract terms imposed by the slimey toe-rags PFI contractor. People need to be fired.

In such a case and under Roger's reforms, if the PCT cannot unhook the Hospital it would need to remain with that Hospital, tied to it like an albatross, and all other Hospitals would be moved to a new PCT in the interim. As outlined in the plan, the Hospital/PFI operator would need to reform itself or see the runt PCT implode. Such implosions would be contained within the runt PCT and not affect healthcare for the population using the main PCT. Roger would like to see those responsible made life Directors of the runt PCT and so any such fall-out would splatter them. That is not possible, but worth a jolly good try.

UPDATE2: Earlier I said people need to be fired. Upon reflection I was wrong. People need to be fired, re-hired and fired again just as they take out their little pencil case and packed lunch (containing a Viscount biscuit, I suspect). Each time they will not pass "Go", nor collect a redundancy package.

Tories Abandon Selective Education.

Dave "Two Brains" Winnets Willetts is to announce that Tory policy no longer supports Grammar Schools and selection.

There were few enough reasons to vote Conservative vs NeueArbeit as it was. This has removed another.

He displays unreason in his argument. Grammar schools are "dominated by the middle class" he says, so lets turn our back on them is the answer. Willetts, you have fallen for the Sociofascist ploy of undermining something then using its weakness as "proof" it was wrong to start with. You have become a "useful idiot". Grammars are not performing properly in this regard because there are not enough of them and their catchments do not cover the country. How difficult is that to work out?

According to the Telegraph he is said to assert that

Now, 40 years on, children had such different experiences that it was a fantasy to think that an exam could fairly distinguish between them.

"Such different experiences"? 40 years ago middle class kids had very different experiences to the working class. Now, the issue is the chav mentality of entropy that has the upper hand. What David is implying is basically defeatist. He is abdicating. He is giving in to the State-sponsored entropy that is Welfarism. He is also yielding to the hat-stand idea of multiculturalism where people are encouraged and nurtured to grow up in ghettos. I consider chav to be a separate "effnik" culture to my own, btw. The reason why nonWorking Class kids live such a different life is because of the world of Welfarism and the lowest-common-denominator that is Comprehensive eductation ferments. David Willetts wishes to entrench that, even if he does not realise what he is doing.

The BBC reports that

In his speech he will say it is "fantasy" to think selection at age 11 can be fair.

For an intelligent man this is a worrying statement. Selection at 11 is not fair, but it is the LEAST UNFAIR system we have available. It is irrelevent to talk about the unfairness of one system without discussing the unfairness of the alternatives. If you think it is unfair to at least try and find out who are the more academic kids, how unfair do you think it is to not bother and just leave them to rot in Comprehensive hell-holes surrounded by chavs who will root out the least sign of ambition and endeavour. The issue of selection at 11 is dealt with to an extent by allowing kids to migrate in to Grammar Schools after that time and in some way to reward the original school by publishing the fact. Imagine a non-Grammar school that has an excellent record for improving kids so they can hop to a Grammar before the GCSE coursework starts in earnest. Surely non-Grammars would fight for such "bragging rights". They would get those who failed the 11+ and give them a very achievable goal.

One Solution:

The entire country should be covered by the catchment area of at least one Grammar school so that bright kids of whatever socio-economic background can have a chance at bettering themselves. It would be good to have overlapping catchments as well, so Grammars compete with each other too.

Ideally schools would operate outside of the LEAs and use vouchers without top-up inititally, pending a review of that policy. Private companies should be free to compete for the vouchers. Non-Grammars would be encouraged to put forward their best for "promotion" to Grammars. Grammars would then be free to expell unruly children to enable the brigher kids who are now blossoming to take up the opportunity.

The Sociofascists hate such ideas as they know what it will mean - the proof that monopolistic State-controlled, State-provided education is utterly wrong-headed.

That Speech By Letwin

Conservatives 'put winning society first'

Power Society is at the heart of David Cameron's Conservative Party, party policy chief Oliver Letwind has said.

In a speech setting out the party's fudge stall principles he said the old economic arguments were abandoned over and that society was the new ideological battleground du jour.
Labour, says the Tories, have no new significant policies and David Cameron has none either, so has been dubbed the "heir to Blair".
But Mr Letwind said the Tories differed "radically" from Labour's top-down approach towards society, by being arse-backwards instead.

In the speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, Mr Letwind, the Conservative policy review chair, said the old arguments about capitalism versus socialism had practically ended with the Thatcher government.
"From Beijing to Brussels, the Statist oligarchy masquerading as the free market has won the battle of economic ideas," he said.
He said the victory had left a "hiatus in political thought", with which the Conservatives had struggled to deal during "a decade of disarray and enforced reflection along with the rest of the hapless UK population".

'Socio-centric' politics

But the party had now recognised that "politics, once insert daft hyphenation here econo-centric, must now become insert another daft hyphenation here socio-centric".

He said Labour saw the state as their mechanism for oppression and looting the "proper provider of public services and of well-being through direction and control".
Targets, reorganisations and initiatives have been imposed on schools, hospitals, the police and councils, he said.

But the Conservatives would put in place some new set of quango-managed puffery frameworks to allow individuals and organisations to be hamstrung as usual by the State "act of their own volition in ways that will improve society by increasing general well being".
Cabinet Office Minister Ed Miliband said the speech exposed but duplicated Labour's craven mendacity showed the Tories opposed an "enabling state".

"It undermines and ignores the essential role of government in sequestering peoples' wealth and spending it to create a population of clay while enriching our mates helping liberate peoples' potential through strong and well-funded public services," he said.

While Labour wanted "a partnership between the State and its lickspittle organizations an enabling state, voluntary sector and communities", a Conservative government would use individuals "as an excuse to allow people to spend their own money as they see fit... to abdicate its responsibilities to fund public services".

Mr Cameron set out to bugger up change the Conservative Party when he took over as party leader in December 2005 and has faced opposition from within his own party ranks to some of his confectionary reforms.

But dead duck soon to sail away grinning like the shaved gibbon he is Prime Minister Tony Blair has said the Conservatives have failed to find a "strategy for government", preferring to "charge off in any direction which the popular bugle sounds, which is our forte".

Cleaving to the Winner

I'm Sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that...

Something I have observed for a long time is people do like winners and nowhere else more so than in politics

People are hard-wired to cleave to winners. People might agree with somebody's viewpoints, but they want to belong and support the WINNER who has at least some of the viewpoints they agree with, the glossy coat and the impression of backing and access to resources. It might be odd, but it would not surprise me if people filter on winner first, then select amongst the potential winners who they will back. I guess this is primeval, as if you are on the losing side you might just get a Tapir jawbone whumped into your noggin.



Why bring this up now? I saw this extract of a GMTV interview with George Osborne courtesy of Iain Dale on the topic of MP defections:

Ozzy: We’ve got councillors who have switched over to us and there’s a real sense at the moment that the excitement is with us, that people are coming to join us. In my own local area people are coming to join my local party. And you know there are quite a lot of ideological soulmates out there who say ‘Well hold on, actually the Conservative party are the future and actually this lot have had their go and they’re the past.’

I think this is more to do with "they are the losers. Look a our shiny new feathers!"

People want to back winners, but it does not work properly if you keep getting the same MP pond-life floating from one rock-pool to the next each time the tide looks like going out.

This country is hamstrung by floating constituencies as it is. Worse still if it has a nebulous community of self-interested MPs.

Oh, sorry, forgot. We already have one.