Origin North West

Despite the novelty of the coalition wearing off it is still the best option.  This is true even after the public discomfort of those on the right of the Conservatives and the left of the LibDems, and the Labour Party and media trying to create and locate splits.

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.

Is it that bad news stays in the mind longer than good news. Is it hard for a government to actually create good news. Looking back on the week recollections are about council housing which was sparked by David Cameron last week, stamp duty to insulate houses, David Camerons overseas speeches.

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?

The Coalition government is being very active at an early stage with several announcements some of which haven’t got obvious benefits.

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.

This week saw three announcements from the coalition. One that seemed to be badly handled, one that doesn’t offer obvious benefits and one  that seems understandable and reasonable. 

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.

The government is expected to announce, on Tuesday, a referendum on using the Alternative Voting System.  This is a key part of the Coalition agreement although not as far as the Proportional Representation System the LibDems want.

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.

A month ago we thought the British economy depended on the banks but now we’re learning it also depends on dividends from BP.

Is Barack Obama correct in ramping up the criticism and penalties on BP?  The spill is big, the company has taken several imaginative engineering measures and had some success with more to follow, it is also offering to clear up the mess. How much more does Mr Obama want? 

The US  is now saying that it is going to intervene in BP’s business by dictating its dividend policy, and expecting it to compensate other companies who can’t now set up drilling in the Caribbean.  Both of these seem to be excessive measures.

From what I have read the US is trying to be independant in oil supply and that means taking bigger risks drilling deeper oil.  That one of these risks occurred should be something the US is prepared for. How much a company can do seems quite limited compared to a government and perhaps also relates to how much people are willing to pay for their fuel. It’s becoming a bit like a witch-hunt on BP and the UK should be looking at what it can do both to assist and to put pressure on the US to ease up on BP.

It is fair to comment that BP has been involved in two other major incidents in the US and it would be interesting to know how that stacks up with other companies. For example the Total fuel dump that exploded near London was huge but I don’t recall a government campaign against Total.

The jury has been out on the UK / US relationship over the last couple of years despite Mr Obama using the ‘special’ word recently, the appropriateness of the action on BP  can be seen as another piece of that jigsaw.

The terrible events in Cumbria last week are now entering a phase where people are asking questions. Within a day of the shootings people were asking if Cumbria police were up to the task obviously to the irritation of the police chief.

Now it has come to light that 3 policemen saw Mr Bird early in the sequence.

Yet what is a force in a small town in an isolated area supposed to be capable of. How quickly do you realise that someone who shot one person is going to shoot more or if you as an unprotected and unarmed policeman might be a target.

Most of the commentators have travelled from London and imagine that there are police sharpshooting squads on hand in high powered cars covered by helicopters 24hrs a day with an instant reaction time like they’re used to. Yet, even with all this in London criminals aren’t caught. So let’s leave Cumbria police to do a job as appropriate for their area and not get carried away with notions of a big city force.

Publishing the names of those who earn more than the Prime Minister might sound a populist measure and perhaps when the fuss ends it will be.  The PM takes around £150k although he’s entitled to around £200k, not including board, lodgings, second houses and transport. Seems a bit wrong way round really as the PM should be worth more than £200k and should take his full salary. An ordinary manager in a large company can earn £50k and in London no doubt higher. The salary below £250k is a bit light, surely the PM is worth £400k. The Civil Servants earning large salaries have large organisations with massive budgets that  need detailed and visionary leadership. Surely they are worth their salaries it’s just that the PM is paid too little.

How long is the expenses saga going to continue. It’s time the press switched off and gave it fair commentary. The constant sniping with blown up headlines is making a mockery out of politics. Few people in the whole population could have all their dealings examined and not have an item pulled out and questioned especially when it comes to business expenses. So someone claimed for a room they were actually living in!

All purchases made from public expenditure are to be published if they are above £25,000. This sounds a good idea and ideal for those rakers of data who might turn up a few less justifiable items that crept through.  Then again there might be a sudden increase in items costing £24,999.  It will probably be a long list and should be successful in bringing government activity into public scrutiny. Might we find out how much a building actually costs or will it be a building with a full stock of furniture and 5 years of maintenance so letting through a mass of purchases.

From what I can gather David Laws has paid his close friend or partner so he can use his flat in London for his government duties. Apparently this might be against rules introduced in 2006 as his close friend might be classed as a partner.

Many people who know David Laws say he is a person of integrity and the amound paid is very small in comparison with what he could have claimed. He says he claimed it because he didn’t want people to be aware of the relationship.

This seems doubly difficult in that he is now a member of the cabinet, which he probably never expected until a couple of weeks ago. Also there has been two years of controversy about expenses during which time this never came up.

Secondly he has been making a big impression in his new post and the coalition must be reluctant to move him as well as being reluctant to make changes at such an early stage of its formation.

The question is will this be a running sore if he stays. It probably depends on how its handled and how much good will David Laws can muster. Also how it compares with other MP’s situations. Even if it comes out justifiable there are some who will undoubtedly not let this pass, although the opposition might not want to appear to be making an issue that could be construed as being driven by sexual orientation prejudices.

Tough decision for Mssrs Cameron and Clegg.  Hope David Laws survives as talent shouldn’t be wasted.

The coalition announced yesterday between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats appears to be one of the best outcomes for many a year. It provides a healthy majority and takes the best policies of both parties and reduces the possibilities of the worst ones.  A more socially liberal agenda coupled with a more hard-nosed defence policy seems in tune with the 21st century. Even the basic concept of parties working together seems in tune with the 21st century.

Many LibDem supporters don’t like this and some Conservatives don’t.  But the Liberal Democrats might have continued whistling in the wind with their policies ignored and now some are being promoted. Some of their members will be visibly involved in serious government.  This must be good for them except for those who might have voted Labour. Although many politicians warned about the dangers of tactical voting.

At the moment the two leaders are in a honeymoon period even to the extent that they are trying to cement the knot for 5 years. Time will tell.

Some are saying this is new ground, a hung parliament. What might be new is if the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems combine. There are so many areas of policy where they don’t agree.  Yet it could be what is needed. A Conservative party with its hard edges taken off. A Lib-Dem party with its odd box policies put to one side for now. A combination with no dependence on trade unions and a strong belief in personal liberty.

A sticking point might be electoral reform. Offering some kind of talking shop isn’t going to fool anyone. If the Conservatives fear there never being a single governing party of the right they should awaken to life in a democracy because if that is the case then that is what the people are voting for.

A combination of Conservatives and Lib-Dems would have a tidy majority so MP’s who feel strongly against something, for example European or nuclear policies could probably be allowed to vote as they wished. It could be said that if the combined parties can’t carry off a policy then it isn’t what is wanted anyway.  In some cases Labour might vote to assist the passage but it would be foolish to think they wouldn’t find a way to object and not assist.

A Labour – Lib-Dem combination would seem more natural, yet such a combination hasn’t got a parliamentary majority so isn’t strong,  and wouldn’t even have half of the votes cast. So it seems right to explore the Conservative – Lib-Dem options and if there are strong objectors on either side it will depend on how many there are as you can’t make everyone happy.

The leaked memo from the Foreign Office on the Popes visit to the UK is either one of its biggest blunders or could be thought deliberate to placate those who oppose the Popes preachings. The Catholic Church has had some bad press lately and there are several areas where Catholic beliefs are very different from the UK government, such as on abortion, contraception, gay rights and although not currently government policy euthanasia could become another one.

The theory of some government support for the memo should be resisted as you would hope the government would see the loss is far greater than the gain. Although there is a worrying factor that people in government departments discussed these ideas and actually considered them worth recording.

No matter what you think of the Catholic faith and the Pope, and I’m not a member, there are millions of worshippers in the UK and millions who will flock to see the Pope visit the UK.  Those who want to disrupt should have some common decency and allow the leader of one of the worlds greatest churches a peaceful and welcoming visit.

Another case of contradiction - the Human Right to protest opposing the Human Right to worship in peace.

The people of Ireland and Greece are suffering in the Euro. The Irish have taken their medicine on the chin while the Greeks are reluctant to accept it. In both cases it isn’t clear why the countries are in the Euro. Their economies are so small that they are always going to get little consideration when it comes to supporting the Euro. If Germany needs an adjustment in the interest rate then the interest rate will change.  If Greece needs it, well that’s another matter.

The Euro is a good idea but the criteria for membership isn’t rigorous enough. If the UK had been in the Euro there is no way Germany and France could have supported it in the recession and we’d  be facing massive pay cuts and redundancies. Even EUphile me has realised that keeping out of the Euro has been a major plank in helping the UK economy in the recession.

It would be interesting to read any other thoughts on UK membership.  The Liberal Democrats support joining the Euro and maybe in next weeks leaders debate the subject will come up.