It must be difficult to be a local councillor and be asked to reduce expenditure or accept that your school won’t be rebuilt.  When you walk down the street no-one likes you anymore, you’ve no chance of re-election.  Yet who is deceiving who?   Any government would need to make cuts and the biggest cuts have not been announced.  Is it that if someone else bears the brunt it’s OK to cut. Even if there is a valid stance that you’d always have preferred something else to be cut is it right to resign over a few issues when there is a big picture.

Is it also OK that 18,000 Royal Bank of Scotland staff get cut,  and before the election 1000’s of car workers were on short time or standby and 1000’s of construction workers were sitting at home and many still are.  But it becomes a major issue of integrity when public services are cut or schools aren’t rebuilt in your own area.

There are so many issues in local politicians allegiances that it must be difficult.  If a councillor was very anti the Coalition policies when announced then an immediate resignation would be in order. However to wait several months down the line and decide it’s getting too hot seems a bit opportunist.  Yes, must be difficult, but it’s too late now and the Coalition should be given at least 2 years.

The main issue seems to revolve around an outcome in 2014 which is a long way away.  Predicting that far ahead in such detail is very difficult.  The government claims their progressive forecast went to 2012 and their policies are to raise standards by getting people out of unemployment which will put different slant on the situation.

Other big points are that using CPI will have a big effect by 2014.  It also says changes to housing benefits have a big impact. Although the main change appeared to be that excessive rent can’t be claimed so if that is a big contributor to the reports findings it is one brought in by popular request.

A simple stacked bar chart showing the contribution each budget change has brought to the poorest would be useful. Presenting a finished graph without seeing the working doesn’t satisfy curiosity enough to settle the issue.

Although the IFS have a strong reputation if you use certain assumptions and limit the range of data even the best analysis doesn’t close the issue.   This is likely to only reinforce prejudice for some time, although it does provide a case to be answered.  So far the answers haven’t been that clear either.

It is easy to think that with the degree they have a chance for a better job. Also they’ll be doing what their friends are doing. Is this what countries like China are doing, sending people to university on the off chance or for some kind of social therapy.  Probably not.

In reality employers might actually think better of some people if they took a more realistic view of their potential and started work while doing part-time study.  Many years ago it was almost mandatory for an employer to send young employees to college for one day a week.  This target for graduates is just to keep unemployment down when incentives for training should be given employers and it would be doing more for more without giving unreal hopes.

In East Europe there is a heatwave that has lasted several weeks and at the boundary of the heat wave  over Asia colder air has caused torrential rain that is flooding Pakistan. This also seems to be driven by the jetstream moving south.

Areas of the USA, South America, China and Australia are having exceptional weather and some say the change from La Nina to El  Nino in the Pacific is causing upset effecting the overall climate.

Temperatures and extreme weather events seem to be on the increase which appears to match expectations of climate change. Yet fluctuations in climate are not unusual.  Potential food shortages caused by reduced grain harvests might also manifest in greater instability in the world.  At this moment it appears there is increasing evidence to support greater investment in preventing climate change, even if the evidence isn’t conclusive. Certainly this years weather has been very unusual.

The basic idea that the party that won the most seats and votes are supported by the third biggest party to keep out the unpopular previous government still seems sound. That the LibDems will moderate the Conservatives still appears the most likely outcome. That many unpopular controlling measures are being undone is what most people wanted. It is unfortunate that the massive borrowing to fund things like schools that people also want can no longer be fully afforded in the timescales planned. The example of EU countries having their debt interest payments ramped up has made it obvious that we can’t go in that direction as our debt is even bigger.

It isn’t clear whether the sight of unions promoting havoc on the streets will turn opinion even further away from the previous government. It is to be hoped that the handling of the schools building programme will be a lesson and that future budget changes are presented in a way that provides hope and uses accurate data.  It really wasn’t necessary to give the impression that school building is stopped completely. Surely the schools are still to be rebuilt but in a different timeframe.

Logically it might be thought that council houses are for those most in need and if your income rises to a certain level then you should make space for someone else.  On the other hand many, if not most, people live where they are comfortable with the neighbours and environment.  It is said that changes will only be for new tenants, but isn’t it likely they also will want to stay in the same place.  Also there is a risk that an area might become only for the most needy and it might turn into some kind of ghetto where the occupants post code is one where normal services are rejected.  Overall can’t say this policy sits well, although it is said not to be a coalition policy as the LibDems are very much against it.

The other piece of news that stayed in my thoughts was the proposal to use stamp duty to as an incentive to insulate your house. When the coalition came in they immediately stopped HIP’s and it appeared a more free future was on the horizon. Yet with this statement already the creeping hand of bureaucracy is straying back where it needn’t.

Thirdly Mr Cameron has made some interesting speeches overseas and David Miliband came out saying he was naively headline grabbing and using a big stick where light touch is the norm.  Maybe this is the good news because it can also be said that Mr Milibands light stick did nothing over many years. Can anyone name an achievement of his time in the Foreign Office?

For example handing over control of NHS budgets to GP’s. Are GP’s really in a position to determine an areas health needs and which GP’s have the time, desire or capability to do that.  On the plus side of this change the cost of the NHS is escalating far beyond affordability and its processes appear to be subject to bureaucratic, political and political bureaucratic interference. If  this move changes that then it will be for the good.

Stopping the school building programme has given the impression that some schools will never be updated when surely it would have been better to reschedule the plan. That the current scheme has a massive cost and tailor designing all of these schools must be creating a lot of extra costs are points in favour of a change.

The ‘free’ school plan has never appeared an obviously good idea if it means running several schools in one area and if pupil selection is financial. Although it isn’t clear why parents should be prevented from schooling their children the best way they can.

Reducing police budgets seems a strange policy for a Conservative led government and the statements about reducing speed cameras sounds good until accidents start to increase.  Even if the increase is really due to the end of the recession increasing traffic it will be difficult to control the message. It might have been better to leave things where they are rather than reduce it. 

The latest announcement about Trident being included in the Defence Budget puts further strain on what already is a very shrunk and inadequate level of funding for defence.

Today we visited a couple of buildings from the time Britain had a strong industrial and economic base. In effect we have exported to developing countries the poor conditions we once experienced so we have cheap shirts.  It seems the time is getting closer when our standards will decline as there is competition for resources from newly rising economies. At some point we will need to learn to accept less government benefits and more individual enterprise. If these measures put off that date by improving our performance then they will be worthwhile.

The biggest reason against carrying on is that it is keeping younger people either out of a job or blocking a rise to promotion. In many cases older people are likely to have old attitudes, some of which might be good but many are probably not the way of todays world.

The average life expectancy is rising so people are retired longer and pension schemes are struggling to cope. Also as the ‘baby boomer’ generation goes out of the workforce there will be a glut of pensioners. Simultaneously there will be a drop in the workforce unless others are brought in from outside the UK. Yet there is unemployment of over 2million so how can there be a shortage of workers and if they have the wrong skills they must be being given poor guidance on training choices.

Overall removing the compulsory retirement age appears a good thing to enable people enough time to pay for their pensions for a shortened retirement period.

Building Schools for the Future has laudable ideals even if the schools seem over designed and therefore expensive. In reality this programme was almost certainly going to get some cut backs or delays. However it seems the list of schools that are to be cut or delayed, which presumably was put together by a long standing team, contained errors and seems to have been presented as a cancellation when in reality it is presumably more of a delay or perhaps subject to other change. Such as the change enabling new schools started by new entrants or academies could make this programme redundant. Can’t say it is intuitively fully convincing, although at the moment the coalition is to be supported.

Then there is the change to the NHS which seems to imply that GPs are going to control 80% of the  budget. It will be interesting to see how this works as it’s hard to imagine how my GP will manage this as it’s almost impossible to see him. It would be a surprise if he has such foresight and oversight. Again the coalition is to be supported blindly for now.

Finally it was announced that private sector pensions will be subject to regulation that makes inflation link to the CPI rather than the RPI. This has the effect of reducing the increases and over a long period of time, say for a deferred pension, could be substantial. Yet in principle this is a good move. Pensioners don’t pay mortgages and although council tax is paid it is a fairly known cost. It also takes some of the pressure off pension schemes which are gradually disappearing. So overall it seems a reasonable move and might mean some people are able to retain their final salary schemes.

At the moment there are a number of points that need clarifying and then there are political differences that will continue to the end. The main positions being that basically the LibDems favour this but the bigger parties aren’t keen.  In fact the Conservatives are quite anti.

Then there is the early / late date. The LibDems want it early to get something out of the coalition because some are feeling a bit tender about it. The Conservatives want it late as it keeps the LibDems on-side longer.

The actual date: It is proposed to hold it on the same date as local and Scottish / Welsh elections as it makes it easier for voters. On the other hand it makes it more complicated and could cause confusion. Also not everywhere has an election on that date so some places will only have a referendum vote which might skew turn-out.

Also there is the threshold to be established. The threshold to pass a change in a referendum could be set to a minimum number of voters that would make it most unlikely to pass.

Another change in the Conservative manifesto was to reduce the number of MP’s.  Labour are calling this Gerrymandering or manipulation of boundaries to your own advantage. Conveniently forgetting that for the last 40 years Labour MP’s have had far smaller seats than other parties and are over-represented.

In political terms the Labour Party can sense that if the LibDems don’t win this referendum they are going to be very unhappy. So they have a motive to spoil it regardless of whether their own manifesto said reform of the voting system was a priority.  Reminds me of the EU referendum in the 1970’s when Labour supported joining until the Conservatives actually were the ones who put us in. Then they invented spurious reasons to oppose the government for party political reasons rather than what was best for the country.

At some point maybe we’ll get a crash course in Alternative Voting.  Seems like you have to prioritise your favourite politicians and I’d think that beyond many voters.

Alternative Voting seems like a good scheme. It keeps MP’s linked to seats.  Gives MP’s a mandate to always say they represent more than half their voters.  Not too concerned about how many MP’s there are although having equally sized seats sounds a good idea.

In the referendum it would be better to seperate it from other elections to give everywhere an equal chance. Then that a turn out of say 25% might be expected and a straight majority will win.  No vote, no say.