Most university education is a waste of money. The country would be better off if 90% of them started work at 18 and worked their way up if they've got the brains.
The exceptions being subjects like science, engineering(?), medicine, mathematics etc. I'd also keep Classics for the civil service.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
This is why the focus needs to be 100% on renewables.
Well with no economy it won't matter if renewables are useless, sure.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
This is why the focus needs to be 100% on renewables.
We need to focus 200% on renewables - 100% wind and 100% other to cover the grid when it isn't windy.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
This is why the focus needs to be 100% on renewables.
Ridiculous. We need a mix of energy supply. Renewables have a place, but they are far from being the whole story.
But who will build these renewables, as a matter of interest? Will it be the hordes of unemployed given non-jobs, digging holes with spades and mixing concrete by hand? Will we have a furnace in each home, making pig-iron in BenM's Great Leap Backwards?
When I were a lad on't Lewisham's Tertiary Edification Council (ILEA-funded), as student rep', I voiced my concerns that 20% of all sixth-form funding went on Art. Considering that intake from Forest Hill Boys, Sedgehill and Sydenham Girls* was about 250 (lower and upper) I wondered why so much money was wasted.
Ofcourse Red-Ken's Lewisham lickspittles brushed-off my concerns (despite local businessmen backing my position). I went to another meeting (this time without the token female bint we had imposed upon our representation) and then gave up. No doubt things have got worse since.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
All the fault of renewables, right?
Now I have a question for you. The current baseload price for UK Electricity is £51.68 for a Megawatt hour of electricity. If I build a new windfarm, what will the government pay me per MW/hour of electricity?
The cause is the belief in the urgent necessity of reducing carbon emissions. The focus on renewables is one effect of that cause, not a cause itself - obviously.
The political class' energy policy of making energy so expensive people will use less of it results from the same cause.
No amount of number juggling outweighs the simple fact that the *specific aim* of making energy in this country as expensive as possible is economic suicide.
As I noted the other day and was rubbished for saying so:
"Consider: a Conservative health spokesman has used the word "rotten" about the NHS. Since he did so, the sky has not fallen on his head. He has not been pilloried, birched or put on trial on the BBC for his heresy against our national religion. Nor have people on the Left popped up to accuse him of a callous and "nasty" attitude towards angelic nurses and saintly doctors. Once, not long ago, a Tory who offered such hard words about the NHS would be lucky to survive the day. Yet Dr Poulter remains in rude political health, his career prospects at least as good as ever.
Now, it helps that Dr Poulter is, in his spare time, a saintly doctor, the sort of too-good-to-be true politician who spends his holidays working in A&E departments. It also helps that he's continuing a process started by his boss, Jeremy Hunt.
Mr Hunt is trying to rewrite the job spec of health ministers. Once, they were the people who went on TV to defend and explain the NHS – even though they didn't really run it. Now, in the post-Lansley world where ministers really don't run the NHS, health ministers are the people who criticise and scrutinise the NHS on behalf of you, the patient.
I've written before about the political risks involved in this attempt to be the Michael Gove of health. I've also written about NHS scandals and the parallels to be drawn with the Hillsborough deaths and cover-up. Dr Poulter's oped, and the lack of furious backlash to it suggests that the Gove gambit is still working, and that political criticism of the NHS is no longer automatically fatal to Conservatives.
This is a significant plot twist, like the moment in a vampire movie that the garlic stops working and the vamps start walking in sunshine without frying. That's something for all parties to think about as the next general election approaches, and especially those who think the NHS is a magic bullet that kills Tories." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100223160/political-criticism-of-the-nhs-is-no-longer-fatal/
This story is going to run for a while. So far Hunt has come out of this quite well. Lansley, not so much. As for Burnham, well he looks less like the next leader every day.
What a surprise, UKIP voters are much more likely to know of a cover up.
I wonder which socio-economic group nurses and people married to or related nurses mostly falls under.
For example if i was looking into NHS cover-ups i'd look at maternity hospitals in inner London.
Looking at the photo I immediately thought the 'garden' in question must be something that is funded by North Tyneside council and unfortunately in these tough times they've had to pull the plug on the funding. But then I read on, good old 'elf and safety brigade. So decided to check if this story was a Hamilton/Express wind-up - turns out it isn't ! Covered by the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22957953
What a nonsense ! Clearly a lot more fat to be trimmed off payrolls at council and Gov't level till we get down to the bone.
The fundamental principle is that people who got a free university education have had a disproportionate benefit from *that specific piece of government spending*. They are being asked to contribute some of the cost.
Increasing income taxes on everyone would be asking the 80% of people who didn't go to university (don't forget we are talking historically) to pay more so that the 20% can carry on pocketing the majority of the uplift in their income.
If graduates have benefitted by having increased incomes, then progressive (rather than flat) income tax rates will catch this. If their income has not increased, and their only benefit is enlightenment, they should not pay more.
Otherwise the danger of retrospective taxes is that politicians will like them. A retrospective inheritance tax might have interesting consequences.
Sure - but progressive income taxes don't differentiate between people who earn a lot because they are naturally smart/lucky/good at business (e.g. did Richard Branson go to university?) and those who earn a lot because the government has invested in their education.
I take your point on the danger of politicians though...
Designing a tax system based on those who are "naturally smart" isn't one of your smarter ideas Charles.
Your belief that footballers rise to the top solely through innate ability is also touchingly naive. Unless of course you believe that the Germans or the Dutch are innately better footballers than the English and the coaching of boys is irrelevant.
Footballers rise to the top through talent, hard work, dedication and good coaching. I suspect that talent is the most important, followed by hard work, followed by coaching. The point is that it is not down to government investment, so they shouldn't asked to contribute more than the average person who earns that income.
The point on the "naturally smart" is that those people (i.e. paid-for graduates) who have received more help from the government than others should contribute more than those who have not received that help.
Looking at the photo I immediately thought the 'garden' in question must be something that is funded by North Tyneside council and unfortunately in these tough times they've had to pull the plug on the funding. But then I read on, good old 'elf and safety brigade. So decided to check if this story was a Hamilton/Express wind-up - turns out it isn't ! Covered by the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22957953
What a nonsense ! Clearly a lot more fat to be trimmed off payrolls at council and Gov't level till we get down to the bone.
To take a wild guess, I'd imagine someone's asked the question of "who's legally liable if anything bad happens" got the answer "the council" and they're looking to cover themselves.
Of course you could trim the fat of the health and safety brigade and then have the minor expenditure of being sued regularly.
New Labour went one better and sold the family gold.
Well, at least you can use the family silver if you have people over for dinner. I can see why a country might want to own its telecommunications infrastructure or whatever.
But what's the family gold for? Is the government expecting to be doing a lot of urgent dentistry or something?
It's mainly because governments in aggregate own such a huge percentage of the supply that they can't easily exit from an illiquid position.
I'm not one of those people who makes a fuss about the sale of the gold - it's small beer in the scheme of things.
From a technical execution perspective it was badly handled though (WTF would you pre-announce a sale like that). Probably Brown could have got 10-15% more than he did.
I see Al-Beeb are red-lining the fact that the BMA have exercised "a vote of no-confidence" in Jeremy Hunt. Anyone surprised that a public-sector union does not want their members to be investigated in relation to unexplained deaths and subsequent cover-ups...?
Consider: a Conservative health spokesman has used the word "rotten" about the NHS.
I can;t remember the last time the conservatives had something meaningful to say to the electorate on health. Certainly not since 1979.
The notion that the labour aren;t actually that good at running the NHS is something that has yet to enter the nation's psyche however. The tories have a lot more work to do.
I see Al-Beeb are red-lining the fact that the BMA have exercised "a vote of no-confidence" in Jeremy Hunt. Anyone surprised that a public-sector union does not want their members to be investigated in relation to unexplained deaths and subsequent cover-ups...?
I saw this a little earlier and just thought = well that's a surprise. VONC are meaningless nowadays if this is the yardstick. What exactly has Hunt done to prompt it? Nothing that I can see.
Anyone surprised that a public-sector union does not want their members to be investigated in relation to unexplained deaths and subsequent cover-ups...?
Ken Clark recently said on QT that the BMA were by far the most militant union he ever had to negotiate with.
If ever boris is elected tory leader,expect the left and labour laughing to a easy election win,it's one thing been elected mayor of london'it's another trying to be a national leader.
I expect boris to be popular at first if he became conservative leader,then six months to a year into his reign,he will be up with IDS leadership,what the tories don't want as they next leader is another eton old boy,who acts and looks like a buffoon.
"Wavertree councillor Jake Morrison is to quit the Labour Party to stand against its MP Luciana Berger at the next general election.
Cllr Morrison will stand as an independent, and will now have to sit as an independent on the council."
Hmm...got to say (through gritted teeth and all that) my sympathies are instinctively more with the party and MP. This appears to have all the hallmarks of the arrogance and tantrums of immaturity.
As I noted the other day and was rubbished for saying so:
I've written before about the political risks involved in this attempt to be the Michael Gove of health. I've also written about NHS scandals and the parallels to be drawn with the Hillsborough deaths and cover-up. Dr Poulter's oped, and the lack of furious backlash to it suggests that the Gove gambit is still working
This is, of course, a reversal of the Cameron/Osborne "love bomb" strategy. It might be seen as a Rovite (Rovist?) "attack your opponents' greatest strength" tactic. To what extent it succeeds might depend where the NHS is when the music stops.
My own view of Hunt, at least this week, is that he'd be better deployed as a Tebbit-like Party Chairman in place of Shapps, although the latter's presumed expertise in social media as campaign tools will not be fully tested till 2015. Hunt seems to be better at political street-fighting than running the department, where he seems to be using the scandals and cover-ups to shout "look, squirrel" as waiting lists are creeping up, and A&Es are full to bursting. (Again, there are parallels with Michael Gove and increased class sizes and a shortage of school places.)
As an aside, it would be easier to respond to any substantive points you make if rather than pasting whole articles (and incidentally undermining the entire free market economy in journalism) you summarised it or at most copied only the relevant extract, with a link to the rest.
What the tories don't want as they next leader is another eton old boy.
Don't fall into the left's trap of judging someone by their class.
It doesn't matter where Boris went to school as long as he makes a good Prime Minister. Which he would. The knockabout comedy stuff conceals a ferocious intelligence. He's handed Paxman his backside on more than one occasion.
What the tories don't want as they next leader is another eton old boy.
Don't fall into the left's trap of judging someone by their class.
It doesn't matter where Boris went to school as long as he makes a good Prime Minister. Which he would. The knockabout comedy stuff conceals a ferocious intelligence. He's handed Paxman his backside on more than one occasion.
I wouldn't want Boris as PM but its got bugger all to do with where he went to school for heaven's sake. Anyone really bothered by this needs to get a grip.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
All the fault of renewables, right?
Now I have a question for you. The current baseload price for UK Electricity is £51.68 for a Megawatt hour of electricity. If I build a new windfarm, what will the government pay me per MW/hour of electricity?
The cause is the belief in the urgent necessity of reducing carbon emissions. The focus on renewables is one effect of that cause, not a cause itself - obviously.
The political class' energy policy of making energy so expensive people will use less of it results from the same cause.
No amount of number juggling outweighs the simple fact that the *specific aim* of making energy in this country as expensive as possible is economic suicide.
You deny the urgent need to eliminate (reduce no longer enough) carbon emissions?
MrJones 10:12AM Most university education is a waste of money. The country would be better off if 90% of them started work at 18 and worked their way up if they've got the brains.
The exceptions being subjects like science, engineering(?), medicine, mathematics etc. I'd also keep Classics for the civil service.
I couldn't agree more, there is a massive skills shortage in this country and just sending more & more people to University to do pointless degrees is not helping
Most university education is a waste of money. The country would be better off if 90% of them started work at 18 and worked their way up if they've got the brains.
No doubt with much less education more people might vote UKIP!
What the tories don't want as they next leader is another eton old boy.
Don't fall into the left's trap of judging someone by their class.
It doesn't matter where Boris went to school as long as he makes a good Prime Minister. Which he would. The knockabout comedy stuff conceals a ferocious intelligence. He's handed Paxman his backside on more than one occasion.
Well I'm coming from the left on this as a former labour voting family,do you really think Johnson can do any better than Cameron for votes in the midlands,north,scotland and wales,where I live,the man is seen as a idiot or buffoon.
What the tories don't want as they next leader is another eton old boy.
Don't fall into the left's trap of judging someone by their class.
It doesn't matter where Boris went to school as long as he makes a good Prime Minister. Which he would. The knockabout comedy stuff conceals a ferocious intelligence. He's handed Paxman his backside on more than one occasion.
It's hardly the left's trap. The recent history of the Conservative party is that if they think their leader's social background is beneficial they campaign on it, if they think it's not then they complain the left is bringing up irrelevant details.
"....What precisely is Labour’s cunning plan? Two weeks ago it seemed strategists had finally decided to tackle the party’s lack of economic credibility. To do so they announced a cap on benefits and a commitment to match Tory spending limits. There was some talk of flexibility for a bit of spending on housing if the economy picked up. But it was hinted that even this commitment was likely to be watered down once the economy started to recover.
The message was clear. Labour would not borrow more and Labour would not spend more on welfare. Or it was clear, until Ed Miliband and Ed Ball’s popped up to announce they’d happily borrow more for everything from new houses to new railways to new access to Netflix.
Today in the Telegraph, we’ve got Liam Byrne announcing that Labour are planning an increase in benefits for those over 50. “We should be doing more for the people who have paid most in. That’s why Ed Miliband has already asked Labour’s Policy Review to look at higher rates of JSA for those who have paid more into the system”, he writes...A month ago Labour was going nowhere. But it at least held a position. Austerity was wrong, but there was an alternative, and that alternative was to spend for growth. Cuts in welfare were wrong, and Labour would defend them. The party was dug in.
Now Labour’s high command are wandering aimlessly amid the shell-holes and the corpses, waiting for the bullet with their name on. Labour won’t borrow more, apart from those areas where it will borrow more. Labour will cap benefits, except for those areas where it will increase benefits. Liam Byrne announces he will increase welfare for those over 50. But Ed Miliband refuses to say he will cut it for anyone else.
It’s right that Labour shifts its position from deficit denial to one of fiscal responsibility. It’s equally vital the party moves from its support for a blanket system of benefit to more targeted welfare.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
All the fault of renewables, right?
Now I have a question for you. The current baseload price for UK Electricity is £51.68 for a Megawatt hour of electricity. If I build a new windfarm, what will the government pay me per MW/hour of electricity?
Is it nearly £9? [The buyout price is £42.02 per ROC, and the obligation is 0.206, so the cost per MW is 0.206*£42.02 = £8.66]
I may have completely misunderstood the way that ROCs work, and so my numbers may be completely useless. £9 out of £52 is a lot more than I was expecting, though.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
All the fault of renewables, right?
Now I have a question for you. The current baseload price for UK Electricity is £51.68 for a Megawatt hour of electricity. If I build a new windfarm, what will the government pay me per MW/hour of electricity?
The cause is the belief in the urgent necessity of reducing carbon emissions. The focus on renewables is one effect of that cause, not a cause itself - obviously.
The political class' energy policy of making energy so expensive people will use less of it results from the same cause.
No amount of number juggling outweighs the simple fact that the *specific aim* of making energy in this country as expensive as possible is economic suicide.
You deny the urgent need to eliminate (reduce no longer enough) carbon emissions?
duh
However that's irrelevant to the point. If this country aims to make energy as expensive as possible - regardless of the reason or whether the reason is correct or not - while everyone else in the world are doing the opposite, that's economic suicide - plainly.
As I noted the other day and was rubbished for saying so:
I've written before about the political risks involved in this attempt to be the Michael Gove of health. I've also written about NHS scandals and the parallels to be drawn with the Hillsborough deaths and cover-up. Dr Poulter's oped, and the lack of furious backlash to it suggests that the Gove gambit is still working
This is, of course, a reversal of the Cameron/Osborne "love bomb" strategy. It might be seen as a Rovite (Rovist?) "attack your opponents' greatest strength" tactic. To what extent it succeeds might depend where the NHS is when the music stops.
My own view of Hunt, at least this week, is that he'd be better deployed as a Tebbit-like Party Chairman in place of Shapps, although the latter's presumed expertise in social media as campaign tools will not be fully tested till 2015. Hunt seems to be better at political street-fighting than running the department, where he seems to be using the scandals and cover-ups to shout "look, squirrel" as waiting lists are creeping up, and A&Es are full to bursting. (Again, there are parallels with Michael Gove and increased class sizes and a shortage of school places.)
As an aside, it would be easier to respond to any substantive points you make if rather than pasting whole articles (and incidentally undermining the entire free market economy in journalism) you summarised it or at most copied only the relevant extract, with a link to the rest.
Apparently Hunt is spending a day a week working 'on the floor' in NHS departments around the country. Whether this is a good idea or not depends very much on your outlook.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
All the fault of renewables, right?
Now I have a question for you. The current baseload price for UK Electricity is £51.68 for a Megawatt hour of electricity. If I build a new windfarm, what will the government pay me per MW/hour of electricity?
Is it nearly £9? [The buyout price is £42.02 per ROC, and the obligation is 0.206, so the cost per MW is 0.206*£42.02 = £8.66]
I may have completely misunderstood the way that ROCs work, and so my numbers may be completely useless. £9 out of £52 is a lot more than I was expecting, though.
I think, perhaps, this is different. No money comes from the government, but if you operate a windfarm you are allowed to issue renewable obligation certificates for each MWh of electricity that you generate, and these are sold on the open market. The electricity suppliers are obliged to buy these, and they are currently selling at £44.19 per ROC.
The number of ROCs you can issue depends on the type of energy you generate - offshore wind farms are allowed to issue 2 certificates per MWh, whereas onshore windfarms only 0.9 per MWh, for those accredited this year [presumably this acts to subsidise for the higher cost of building offshore, and to encourage offshore windfarms that are politically less problematic].
So, for an onshore windfarm built this year, you can expect about £39.77 per MWh from the ROC, which is a vast sum of money, if I have understood this correctly...
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
All the fault of renewables, right?
Now I have a question for you. The current baseload price for UK Electricity is £51.68 for a Megawatt hour of electricity. If I build a new windfarm, what will the government pay me per MW/hour of electricity?
The cause is the belief in the urgent necessity of reducing carbon emissions. The focus on renewables is one effect of that cause, not a cause itself - obviously.
The political class' energy policy of making energy so expensive people will use less of it results from the same cause.
No amount of number juggling outweighs the simple fact that the *specific aim* of making energy in this country as expensive as possible is economic suicide.
You deny the urgent need to eliminate (reduce no longer enough) carbon emissions?
Eliminate carbon emissions?
Since you are such an 'expert', can I have your calculations for what a non-carbon energy supply for the UK would be by 2030? For instance, what proportion of energy comes from each of wind, tide, wave, nuclear etc.
You must have thought all this through to be making such a statement.
Apparently Hunt is spending a day a week working 'on the floor' in NHS departments around the country. Whether this is a good idea or not depends very much on your outlook.
I can see both advantages and disadvantages to such an approach. However, I bet the Whitehall mandarins don't like it.
It might mean he is less likely to fall into the same trap as Tony Blair did with 48-hour appointments. It may be a good thing. We have NICE to spread good practice in treatment, so I don't see why there should not be the equivalent to share ways of making outpatients run on time.
On one of the recent fly-on-the-wall series following newly-qualified medics, one of the doctors was hunting through cupboards to see what was stored where in her new department. One could not help wondering if medical efficiency might be best aided by (a) having standard storage arrangements, (b) having transparent cupboard doors, or (c) labelling the doors. Perhaps Hunt will see and address that sort of problem.
But once he's spent a few months as a volunteer, maybe he should concentrate on the day job.
Well I'm coming from the left on this as a former labour voting family,do you really think Johnson can do any better than Cameron for votes in the midlands,north,scotland and wales,where I live,the man is seen as a idiot or buffoon.
Surely its the policies that count, regardless of the accent they are delivered in. If the tories showed their core constituency is aspiring working and lower middle class people they might garner more votes in these areas.
I reckon a northern plebian tory would still receive short shrift if he championed windmills, was an EU apologist and introduced gay marriage.
I may have a problem with a cache/proxy interface: Can anyone tell me if they can find a BMA vote-of-confidence decision regarding Jeremy Hunt story on Al-Beeb? If so please provide a link (as it appears to no longer be a story on the Labour Party's propaganda-wing).
Isn't this a very risky re-branding of the last Labour Governments attempt to define their borrowing as Investments vs Tory Cuts? It would seem that the Labour party still hasn't accepted or learnt the lessons of their economic and political mistakes last time they were in Government. And this kind of political strategy seems to indicate that they are still banking on the UK not returning to any kind of sustainable growth in the next two years, or that they intend to face economic realities of their legacy any time soon. Those posters saying don't let Labour ruin our recovery by turning on the spending taps again will write themselves.
Labour spent the last three years really over egging Ed Balls not so clever 'too far too fast' cuts meme. And to the point that it will make his own strategy of borrowing more to fund investment look totally redundant by 2015, especially if the economy is already growing and the deficit is reducing at a steady trajectory. The electorates memories are still far too fresh on Labour's economic legacy, and their culpability for it
"Demonstrations and instability in Brazil and Turkey. Economic slowdown in China. Continuing recession in the eurozone. These are nervous times for the world economy.
Here in Britain, with living standards and bank lending still falling and our national debt rising, our economy is ill-prepared for a further bout of instability. The International Monetary Fund says our recovery is expected to remain weak.
And yet on Wednesday, when George Osborne sets out budgets for government departments for 2015, all the evidence is that he will once again be putting party politics before the national economic interest. For months Osborne has been boasting about the political “game” he is playing by setting out spending totals for after the next election — a task that does not need to be done for at least another 15 months. This is the same Chancellor who, in recent weeks, has also been desperately trying to find a way to sell off the Government’s stakes in RBS before the election.
When the International Monetary Fund says our recovery is expected to remain weak, the country needs to know that our Chancellor has the national economic interest at the top of his agenda. After last week’s sharp falls in stock markets around the world, this is no time for complacency.
On banking, his plans for a political fire sale have been put to rest, following Labour’s warnings that selling those shares now would mean a huge loss to the taxpayer and the cack-handed departure of RBS chief executive Stephen Hester.
Still, all the evidence suggests that Osborne is spending more time on his part-time role as David Cameron’s political and election strategist than on his day job as Britain’s Chancellor. My fear is that our Chancellor is taking his eye off the ball. That is why I have said the focus of Wednesday’s Spending Review should be clear and decisive action to boost growth and living standards this year and next year — not simply setting out cuts for two years’ time.
The problem is that this would not fit the Chancellor’s political script. Because action on growth this week, as the IMF urged, would require the Chancellor to recognise that the past three years have not gone to his economic and political plan. And that is not an admission he wants to face up to.
Osborne wants desperately to claim that his plan has worked and things are getting better. But life is getting harder for ordinary families. Prices are rising much faster than wages, bank lending to businesses is down, and long-term unemployment is rising.
If, as expected, this week the Office for National Statistics makes a 0.1 percentage change to the growth figures for last year so that the double dip recession is technically revised away, Tory cheerleaders will try to claim it is good news for the Chancellor.
But it will not change the underlying reality that the economy has flatlined for three years and that this failure on growth and living standards has led to the Government’s failure on the deficit."
Well I'm coming from the left on this as a former labour voting family,do you really think Johnson can do any better than Cameron for votes in the midlands,north,scotland and wales,where I live,the man is seen as a idiot or buffoon.
Surely its the policies that count, regardless of the accent they are delivered in. If the tories showed their core constituency is aspiring working and lower middle class people they might garner more votes in these areas.
I reckon a northern plebian tory would still receive short shrift if he championed windmills, was an EU apologist and introduced gay marriage.
People don't vote just on policies (or even mainly on policies). It's a lot more about feel, do you feel competent, do you feel like you understand their problems, etc. Part of that is background and identity, if you come from a more "ordinary" background it's easier for people to feel you understand ordinary issues.
As I said there's an amusing level of hypocrisy by the Tories on the subject. John Major was "The boy from Brixton", Margaret Thatcher placed a lot of emphasis on herself as "The Grocer's daughter" and he normal background (she was very skilled at identity politics) to name a couple of obvious examples.
Cameron becomes leader and the record is hastily switched to "leader's backgrounds don't matter and mentioning them is wrong".
Good timing this thread, after Boris's utterly bizarre climate change conspiracy theory / swimming pool column today.
I can only assume he'd had a drink.
He had a deadlne to hit and just chuned out something he knew would appeal to Telegraph readers. It's a very lazy piece of writing, but that's Boris for you. To be fair, though, he does know his readership. He is not one to challenge them. My guess is that he has probably already forgotten what he wrote.
I may have a problem with a cache/proxy interface: Can anyone tell me if they can find a BMA vote-of-confidence decision regarding Jeremy Hunt story on Al-Beeb? If so please provide a link (as it appears to no longer be a story on the Labour Party's propaganda-wing).
Chahs!
It was on the ticker (and mentioned on News 24) , but I can't find a story on their website, even in their health section.
Well I'm coming from the left on this as a former labour voting family,do you really think Johnson can do any better than Cameron for votes in the midlands,north,scotland and wales,where I live,the man is seen as a idiot or buffoon.
Surely its the policies that count, regardless of the accent they are delivered in. If the tories showed their core constituency is aspiring working and lower middle class people they might garner more votes in these areas.
I reckon a northern plebian tory would still receive short shrift if he championed windmills, was an EU apologist and introduced gay marriage.
People don't vote just on policies (or even mainly on policies). It's a lot more about feel, do you feel competent, do you feel like you understand their problems, etc. Part of that is background and identity, if you come from a more "ordinary" background it's easier for people to feel you understand ordinary issues.
As I said there's an amusing level of hypocrisy by the Tories on the subject. John Major was "The boy from Brixton", Margaret Thatcher placed a lot of emphasis on herself as "The Grocer's daughter" and he normal background (she was very skilled at identity politics) to name a couple of obvious examples.
Cameron becomes leader and the record is hastily switched to "leader's backgrounds don't matter and mentioning them is wrong".
Well I'm coming from the left on this as a former labour voting family,do you really think Johnson can do any better than Cameron for votes in the midlands,north,scotland and wales,where I live,the man is seen as a idiot or buffoon.
Surely its the policies that count, regardless of the accent they are delivered in. If the tories showed their core constituency is aspiring working and lower middle class people they might garner more votes in these areas.
I reckon a northern plebian tory would still receive short shrift if he championed windmills, was an EU apologist and introduced gay marriage.
It's a mixture, isn't it? If you sound like the voters they may be more receptive initially, but not for long if they don't like what they hear. Conversely, it's possible to overcome sounding different if you're authentic in your own terms and sound reasonable. What they really hate is if you're obviously a standard politician but pretend to be one of the lads (Dave and the pasties, Gordon and the Arctic Monkeys, Tony and estuary English, etc.).
Voters all over the wold have shown they're willing to elect people who they see as buffoons, for a laugh or a protest, especially for a semi-non-job like Mayor. But it's high-risk for a national party leader choice.
"The Apprentice star Karren Brady has revealed the scale of her political ambitions, claiming Britain would not be in such a mess with more people like her in power.
The businesswoman and West Ham vie-chairman suggested the country’s never-ending economic woes could have been avoided with more successful business leaders in the government.
And she burnished her credentials as a future Conservative high-flier, taking a swipe at Lib Dem Vince Cable who has grumbled about her smash hit TV show."
Well I'm coming from the left on this as a former labour voting family,do you really think Johnson can do any better than Cameron for votes in the midlands,north,scotland and wales,where I live,the man is seen as a idiot or buffoon.
Surely its the policies that count, regardless of the accent they are delivered in. If the tories showed their core constituency is aspiring working and lower middle class people they might garner more votes in these areas.
I reckon a northern plebian tory would still receive short shrift if he championed windmills, was an EU apologist and introduced gay marriage.
It's a mixture, isn't it? If you sound like the voters they may be more receptive initially, but not for long if they don't like what they hear. Conversely, it's possible to overcome sounding different if you're authentic in your own terms and sound reasonable. What they really hate is if you're obviously a standard politician but pretend to be one of the lads (Dave and the pasties, Gordon and the Arctic Monkeys, Tony and estuary English, etc.).
Voters all over the wold have shown they're willing to elect people who they see as buffoons, for a laugh or a protest, especially for a semi-non-job like Mayor. But it's high-risk for a national party leader choice.
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.
Labour need to find a new meaningless topic to run with, a follow up to the phone hacking bore maybe. Whatever way they spin it, the economy won't be fertile ground for endless complaining and groaning about cuts of all kinds. As of now it appears that Ed squared are going along with the coalition spending plans. Of course that may all change depending on union/Guardian/Beeb reaction. Actually their policy may well depend on which way Eds goldfish is swimming round his bowl tomorrow. Who knows? Or even cares really?
There's nothing on the forseeable horizon to give Labour a chance to offer better government. This is the beginning of the end of the Labour surge, the 'I hate the coalition so I'll say I'll vote for the other lot' syndrome is gonna collapse, leaving the Ed and Ed show floundering for an audience.
"The Apprentice star Karren Brady has revealed the scale of her political ambitions, claiming Britain would not be in such a mess with more people like her in power.
The businesswoman and West Ham vie-chairman suggested the country’s never-ending economic woes could have been avoided with more successful business leaders in the government.
And she burnished her credentials as a future Conservative high-flier, taking a swipe at Lib Dem Vince Cable who has grumbled about her smash hit TV show."
A white Tory woman who went to a public school - tim will be in flame overdrive.
God, I know people are getting stupider every year but why did the BMA choose Edinborough for their attack on Jeremy Hunt? Don't they understand the basics of devolved health-services...?
Seven-years at University and the BMA don't understand borders, priortities and political accountability. What a fecking bunch of twunts....
Labour need to find a new meaningless topic to run with, a follow up to the phone hacking bore maybe. Whatever way they spin it, the economy won't be fertile ground for endless complaining and groaning about cuts of all kinds.
The economy is a rip-roaring success for the Tories is it?
As I noted the other day and was rubbished for saying so:
"Consider: a Conservative health spokesman has used the word "rotten" about the NHS. Since he did so, the sky has not fallen on his head. He has not been pilloried, birched or put on trial on the BBC for his heresy against our national religion. l/
Lol. Kirkup is ever so slightly mistaking his own Rightwing fantasies for reality in that piece.
But you're right, it does seem the Tories have a deliberate strategy of trying to undermine the NHS purely for cynical party political reasons.
Given where public opinion is on the matter, that's a very - shall we say "bold" - move by your Party, Plato.
Labour need to find a new meaningless topic to run with, a follow up to the phone hacking bore maybe. Whatever way they spin it, the economy won't be fertile ground for endless complaining and groaning about cuts of all kinds.
The economy is a rip-roaring success for the Tories is it?
Its getting there - double dip becomes history tomorrow.
Short simple post. Why we will not have blackouts:
The political class' energy policy is to make energy so expensive people will use less of it. The economic suicide that will result from this energy policy means there's no need to build the adequate, secure capacity that would be needed by a sane country.
All the fault of renewables, right?
Now I have a question for you. The current baseload price for UK Electricity is £51.68 for a Megawatt hour of electricity. If I build a new windfarm, what will the government pay me per MW/hour of electricity?
The cause is the belief in the urgent necessity of reducing carbon emissions. The focus on renewables is one effect of that cause, not a cause itself - obviously.
The political class' energy policy of making energy so expensive people will use less of it results from the same cause.
No amount of number juggling outweighs the simple fact that the *specific aim* of making energy in this country as expensive as possible is economic suicide.
You deny the urgent need to eliminate (reduce no longer enough) carbon emissions?
Eliminate carbon emissions?
Since you are such an 'expert', can I have your calculations for what a non-carbon energy supply for the UK would be by 2030? For instance, what proportion of energy comes from each of wind, tide, wave, nuclear etc.
You must have thought all this through to be making such a statement.
If we eliminate all carbon then non carbon energy supply would be 100% of the total wouldn't it?
Labour need to find a new meaningless topic to run with, a follow up to the phone hacking bore maybe. Whatever way they spin it, the economy won't be fertile ground for endless complaining and groaning about cuts of all kinds.
The economy is a rip-roaring success for the Tories is it?
Its getting there - double dip becomes history tomorrow.
Labour need to find a new meaningless topic to run with, a follow up to the phone hacking bore maybe. Whatever way they spin it, the economy won't be fertile ground for endless complaining and groaning about cuts of all kinds.
The economy is a rip-roaring success for the Tories is it?
Its getting there - double dip becomes history tomorrow.
"Of course that may all change depending on union/Guardian/Beeb reaction. Actually their policy may well depend on which way Eds goldfish is swimming round his bowl tomorrow. "
@davethecon Thanks, that one made me lol, definitely a keeper.
"Labour screwed in 2015, nailed on."
Yep Ed Balls nonchalantly trying to dismiss the possibility that the UK may be revised out of a double dip recession comes across as another churlish so what moment.
"A white Tory woman who went to a public school - tim will be in flame overdrive."
I always thought Karren Brady was relatively sane until I read that barking mad article in which she set out her reasons for opposing AV. Not surprised to hear she's a Tory.
Apparently Hunt is spending a day a week working 'on the floor' in NHS departments around the country. Whether this is a good idea or not depends very much on your outlook.
I can see both advantages and disadvantages to such an approach. However, I bet the Whitehall mandarins don't like it.
It might mean he is less likely to fall into the same trap as Tony Blair did with 48-hour appointments. It may be a good thing. We have NICE to spread good practice in treatment, so I don't see why there should not be the equivalent to share ways of making outpatients run on time.
On one of the recent fly-on-the-wall series following newly-qualified medics, one of the doctors was hunting through cupboards to see what was stored where in her new department. One could not help wondering if medical efficiency might be best aided by (a) having standard storage arrangements, (b) having transparent cupboard doors, or (c) labelling the doors. Perhaps Hunt will see and address that sort of problem.
But once he's spent a few months as a volunteer, maybe he should concentrate on the day job.
Aren't transparent fronts to the individual drawers pretty standard now? It might be a bit much to have transparent doors as well, but labelling shouldn't be daft...
Standardisation makes a high different. I'm a great fan of Procedure Paks as they can massively increase efficiency (even if they are more expensive) because they reduce the set-up/breakdown time so allow people to get 2 more operations a day in the facility.
Labour need to find a new meaningless topic to run with, a follow up to the phone hacking bore maybe. Whatever way they spin it, the economy won't be fertile ground for endless complaining and groaning about cuts of all kinds.
The economy is a rip-roaring success for the Tories is it?
Well I wish it was booming away French style, socialism works-just ask Hollande!
More importantly, I see Liverpool FC have adopted Ballseque spending plans for the new season, as usual. Shovelling infinite amounts of cash to buy below average unknowns from all corners of the earth so they can finish nowhere. Yet again! Is the club a testing ground for Labour policies or what? Who the hell lets Liverpool managers near the Black American Express card for crissakes?
LOL It must be. Guido has just made the point the public tends not to vote for baldies over politicians with full heads of hair (explaining Boris' new comb forward).
As I noted the other day and was rubbished for saying so:
"Consider: a Conservative health spokesman has used the word "rotten" about the NHS. Since he did so, the sky has not fallen on his head. He has not been pilloried, birched or put on trial on the BBC for his heresy against our national religion. l/
Lol. Kirkup is ever so slightly mistaking his own Rightwing fantasies for reality in that piece.
But you're right, it does seem the Tories have a deliberate strategy of trying to undermine the NHS purely for cynical party political reasons.
Given where public opinion is on the matter, that's a very - shall we say "bold" - move by your Party, Plato.
It's the narrative, Carl. Jeremy Hunt has been all over the papers of late and the NHS for various reasons, meanwhile, has been under scrutiny.
So here is that nice Mr Hunt spending quality time with the NHS.
The economy is a rip-roaring success for the Tories is it?
Bennie-boy:
George has generated more growth in three-years than Labour achieved between 2005 and 2010. Some "eejit" said he [Mr Osborne] would not be able to do that before 2015: I bet that [posited] fool feels slightly stupid now, don't you...?
God, I know people are getting stupider every year but why did the BMA choose Edinborough for their attack on Jeremy Hunt? Don't they understand the basics of devolved health-services...?
Seven-years at University and the BMA don't understand borders, priortities and political accountability. What a fecking bunch of twunts....
More interesting was that the article referred to the BMA as 'a union'. First time I've seen that
"A white Tory woman who went to a public school - tim will be in flame overdrive."
I always thought Karren Brady was relatively sane until I read that barking mad article in which she set out her reasons for opposing AV. Not surprised to hear she's a Tory.
The only thing that matters to patronising Dave is how many children she has
Maria Hutchings is a local mother, with four children. I don’t know whether that information means much to you, but David Cameron is convinced it does. Today he visited Eastleigh in Hampshire to urge people to vote for Mrs Hutchings in the by-election. And his message was clear. “Maria,” he told 1,300 staff at B&Q head office, “is a local mother.” She was “a mother of four children”, he added, a few minutes later. “A local mother, with four children,” he reminded them, a minute after that. “Local mum, four kids,” he summarised. “Thank you all very much indeed for coming this morning,” he said in conclusion, as if the staff wouldn’t normally have been there. “I just want Maria to have a chance to say something.” Mrs Hutchings rose. “I’m a local lady,” she said. “I’m a mother of four children…” The B&Q staff were invited to ask questions. I was hoping one of them would say, “Prime Minister, could you tell me whether Mrs Hutchings is a mother at all? And if so, how many children?” But they just asked about tax credits and the NHS and other trivia.
Ooh I think my point was proved lock stock and 2 smoking barrels
""He is at the forefront of a new political blame game, blaming frontline NHS staff for the predictable chaos resulting from his government's reforms and cuts," she said to applause."
As I noted the other day and was rubbished for saying so:
"Consider: a Conservative health spokesman has used the word "rotten" about the NHS. Since he did so, the sky has not fallen on his head. He has not been pilloried, birched or put on trial on the BBC for his heresy against our national religion. l/
Lol. Kirkup is ever so slightly mistaking his own Rightwing fantasies for reality in that piece.
But you're right, it does seem the Tories have a deliberate strategy of trying to undermine the NHS purely for cynical party political reasons.
Given where public opinion is on the matter, that's a very - shall we say "bold" - move by your Party, Plato.
It's the narrative, Carl. Jeremy Hunt has been all over the papers of late and the NHS for various reasons, meanwhile, has been under scrutiny.
So here is that nice Mr Hunt spending quality time with the NHS.
Will it work? It will help.
Well I understand why the Tories are doing it. They would have been better to give the impression of the NHS being safe in their hands but, as Tim says, Cameron broke his promises and that ship sailed.
So, they now need to drag Labour down to their level on the NHS best they can, and undermine the NHS itself so it's not as important as it might have been. Gloves are off.
But to me, looking at the polling which remains stubbornly emphatic, there are more dangers in this strategy than potential payoffs. That people might simply see their treasured NHS in trouble, and Tory fingerprints all over it.
Elana Baltacha loses: Ergo she is British. A few day - sans defeat - did they not call her Scottish? Consistency is not something that should be associated with Al-Beeb (otherwise they would be considered respected journalists), but it is funny how people like to "paste" nations regarding to their success.
So Wimbeldon is upon us: I must admit Andy Murray 'appears' to becoming a normal adult (at last). I still want Djokovic to win (as the Serbs are to "us Turks" as the Scots are to "us English").
Ultimately I want the best player to win - Serena is probably a cert* - and in no way should any authourity intervene to do otherwise.** If it is the [alleged] resident from Surrey then well-done: He is free to be what he wants to be; Scots, British or "Miserable-from-England"! I imagine that it is one of the few remaining pleasures of living in England....
* Buggah: I'm still married... ** Subsidies, nod-and-winks, betting-syndicates are all the same....
As I noted the other day and was rubbished for saying so:
"Consider: a Conservative health spokesman has used the word "rotten" about the NHS. Since he did so, the sky has not fallen on his head. He has not been pilloried, birched or put on trial on the BBC for his heresy against our national religion. l/
Lol. Kirkup is ever so slightly mistaking his own Rightwing fantasies for reality in that piece.
But you're right, it does seem the Tories have a deliberate strategy of trying to undermine the NHS purely for cynical party political reasons.
Given where public opinion is on the matter, that's a very - shall we say "bold" - move by your Party, Plato.
It's the narrative, Carl. Jeremy Hunt has been all over the papers of late and the NHS for various reasons, meanwhile, has been under scrutiny.
So here is that nice Mr Hunt spending quality time with the NHS.
Will it work? It will help.
Well I understand why the Tories are doing it. They would have been better to give the impression of the NHS being safe in their hands but, as Tim says, Cameron broke his promises and that ship sailed.
So, they now need to drag Labour down to their level on the NHS best they can, and undermine the NHS itself so it's not as important as it might have been. Gloves are off.
But to me, looking at the polling which remains stubbornly emphatic, there are more dangers in this strategy than potential payoffs. That people might simply see their treasured NHS in trouble, and Tory fingerprints all over it.
Bad things happened to the NHS and it doesn't take much creativity to explain the "no top-down" commitment in terms of "we never realised how bad it was" of course all the while emphasising how wonderful it is.
At some degree of consciousness the public are aware that those bad things happened a while ago. It will be easy enough to fold that into a spent-all-the-money narrative and Jeremy Hunt is the audit trail to show how much the Cons care.
This has at least 2 effects, one bad and one very bad. The bad is that borrowing will start to cost the government more putting even more pressure on the money the government needs for the rest of the year.
The very bad is that banks that have been bullied into buying government bonds will be nursing serious losses (because as the rate of interest goes up the value of current bonds with fixed rates of interest goes down). It really would not take too much of this for us to have a full blown EU banking crisis all over again.
You can see why Cameron wanted to be cautious about broadcasting a recovery.
The very bad is that banks that have been bullied into buying government bonds will be nursing serious losses (because as the rate of interest goes up the value of current bonds with fixed rates of interest goes down). It really would not take too much of this for us to have a full blown EU banking crisis all over again.
Unfortunately there are many "challenged" posters who really cannot see past dreams-of-yesterday: Unless handled well - further 'austerity' - there is no solution to the Gormless-and-Badger stupidity of "quantative-easing". Sadly most people lack the education to realise this.
'We went back on our word to leave the NHS alone because we didn't realise how much it was broken. And it's still broken, Labour did it, but we're busy trying to fix it with our massive re-organisation that we said we wouldn't do".
At best, I don't see that message being compelling to anyone but those already automatically receptive to a Tory / anti-NHS line.
At worst, it might make matters even worse for the Tories.
My prediction - the NHS will remain a huge net positive for Labour at the next election.
"And the strange thing is that this motion doesn’t seem to talk about patients at all. Forget whether Jeremy Hunt has shown evidence of mediocrity in his job: this motion is entirely about poor ‘hard-pressed NHS staff’ resenting being told that in many hospitals or individual specialties, the status quo is not good enough. It doesn’t even bother to critique this government’s reforms to the NHS." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/doctors-pass-motion-of-no-confidence-in-jeremy-hunt-good/
Boris scraped home against an opponent who was unelectable.
UKIP has become what Boris was last year - someone/something voters can use to project their dissatisfaction through.
When it comes down to it Boris is pretty lazy, as anyone reading his column in today's Telegraph can see. He has a poor grasp of policy and is a weak campaigner. The only way he'll become PM is if he is elected by Tory MPs to replace a Tory leader who already holds the job.
He would not make a good Conservative leader. As you say, he's lazy. He plays to the gallery, but has no real convictions. He can't keep his trousers up. And, those right wing Conservatives who think of him as their last best hope would be rapidly disappointed in practice.
Does Fluffy really not know how to spell the word Edinburgh, or is that yet more of his devastating 'satire'?
An Anglo-Saxon city should not be renamed to please "johnnie-come-lately" Oirish. History should have context, no...?
I thought that "burgh" was the original Anglo-Saxon form? According to this google book result, the spelling "borough" is a modern English form of the earlier spelling "burgh" that became obsolete in England in the 17th century.
As with some of the differences with our American cousins [eg center and centre] it appears that it is the English that have more recently meddled with the spelling of their language.
Does Fluffy really not know how to spell the word Edinburgh, or is that yet more of his devastating 'satire'?
An Anglo-Saxon city should not be renamed to please "johnnie-come-lately" Oirish. History should have context, no...?
I thought that "burgh" was the original Anglo-Saxon form? According to this google book result, the spelling "borough" is a modern English form of the earlier spelling "burgh" that became obsolete in England in the 17th century.
As with some of the differences with our American cousins [eg center and centre] it appears that it is the English that have more recently meddled with the spelling of their language.
Indeed, I recall that when the Anglo-Saxons came to settle within the Roman Walls of what had been Londinium, they decided to call the place Lundenburgh/Lundenburh. Nothing could be more Anglo-Saxon in spelling than Edinburgh.
Does Fluffy really not know how to spell the word Edinburgh, or is that yet more of his devastating 'satire'?
An Anglo-Saxon city should not be renamed to please "johnnie-come-lately" Oirish. History should have context, no...?
As with some of the differences with our American cousins [eg center and centre] it appears that it is the English that have more recently meddled with the spelling of their language.
I love it when people complain about Americans "bastardising" English - like "color" for example - when it truth we both used to spell it both ways, and the Americans standardised on the simpler version - us on the more complex - with irrelevant (and frequently wrong) etymology at the root of it....
"when it truth we both used to spell it both ways, and the Americans standardised on the simpler version"
But unfortunately on the less logical version. If 'honour' was to be spelled as it is pronounced it should be 'honur' not 'honor'. (Well, actually it should be 'onur').
Comments
The exceptions being subjects like science, engineering(?), medicine, mathematics etc. I'd also keep Classics for the civil service.
Wallanda crosses it on a tightrope http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-24/daredevil-completes-grand-canyon-challenge/
But who will build these renewables, as a matter of interest? Will it be the hordes of unemployed given non-jobs, digging holes with spades and mixing concrete by hand? Will we have a furnace in each home, making pig-iron in BenM's Great Leap Backwards?
Ofcourse Red-Ken's Lewisham lickspittles brushed-off my concerns (despite local businessmen backing my position). I went to another meeting (this time without the token female bint we had imposed upon our representation) and then gave up. No doubt things have got worse since.
* Sadly no fillies from Sydenham High....
The political class' energy policy of making energy so expensive people will use less of it results from the same cause.
No amount of number juggling outweighs the simple fact that the *specific aim* of making energy in this country as expensive as possible is economic suicide.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/409747/Don-t-believe-the-two-Mr-Eds-when-they-talk-tough
"Consider: a Conservative health spokesman has used the word "rotten" about the NHS. Since he did so, the sky has not fallen on his head. He has not been pilloried, birched or put on trial on the BBC for his heresy against our national religion. Nor have people on the Left popped up to accuse him of a callous and "nasty" attitude towards angelic nurses and saintly doctors. Once, not long ago, a Tory who offered such hard words about the NHS would be lucky to survive the day. Yet Dr Poulter remains in rude political health, his career prospects at least as good as ever.
Now, it helps that Dr Poulter is, in his spare time, a saintly doctor, the sort of too-good-to-be true politician who spends his holidays working in A&E departments. It also helps that he's continuing a process started by his boss, Jeremy Hunt.
Mr Hunt is trying to rewrite the job spec of health ministers. Once, they were the people who went on TV to defend and explain the NHS – even though they didn't really run it. Now, in the post-Lansley world where ministers really don't run the NHS, health ministers are the people who criticise and scrutinise the NHS on behalf of you, the patient.
I've written before about the political risks involved in this attempt to be the Michael Gove of health. I've also written about NHS scandals and the parallels to be drawn with the Hillsborough deaths and cover-up. Dr Poulter's oped, and the lack of furious backlash to it suggests that the Gove gambit is still working, and that political criticism of the NHS is no longer automatically fatal to Conservatives.
This is a significant plot twist, like the moment in a vampire movie that the garlic stops working and the vamps start walking in sunshine without frying. That's something for all parties to think about as the next general election approaches, and especially those who think the NHS is a magic bullet that kills Tories." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100223160/political-criticism-of-the-nhs-is-no-longer-fatal/
For example if i was looking into NHS cover-ups i'd look at maternity hospitals in inner London.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/409747/Don-t-believe-the-two-Mr-Eds-when-they-talk-tough
Looking at the photo I immediately thought the 'garden' in question must be something that is funded by North Tyneside council and unfortunately in these tough times they've had to pull the plug on the funding.
But then I read on, good old 'elf and safety brigade. So decided to check if this story was a Hamilton/Express wind-up - turns out it isn't ! Covered by the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22957953
What a nonsense ! Clearly a lot more fat to be trimmed off payrolls at council and Gov't level till we get down to the bone.
The point on the "naturally smart" is that those people (i.e. paid-for graduates) who have received more help from the government than others should contribute more than those who have not received that help.
http://www.best-news.us/news-4721922-US-Bitcoin-Foundation-was-injunction:-illegal-transfer-of-funds.html
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-councillor-jake-morrison-quits-4704016
"Wavertree councillor Jake Morrison is to quit the Labour Party to stand against its MP Luciana Berger at the next general election.
Cllr Morrison will stand as an independent, and will now have to sit as an independent on the council."
Of course you could trim the fat of the health and safety brigade and then have the minor expenditure of being sued regularly.
I'm not one of those people who makes a fuss about the sale of the gold - it's small beer in the scheme of things.
From a technical execution perspective it was badly handled though (WTF would you pre-announce a sale like that). Probably Brown could have got 10-15% more than he did.
I can;t remember the last time the conservatives had something meaningful to say to the electorate on health. Certainly not since 1979.
The notion that the labour aren;t actually that good at running the NHS is something that has yet to enter the nation's psyche however. The tories have a lot more work to do.
'Of course you could trim the fat of the health and safety brigade and then have the minor expenditure of being sued regularly.'
Not if they did something about the ambulance chasers.
Ken Clark recently said on QT that the BMA were by far the most militant union he ever had to negotiate with.
And he;s negotiated with a few....
I expect boris to be popular at first if he became conservative leader,then six months to a year into his reign,he will be up with IDS leadership,what the tories don't want as they next leader is another eton old boy,who acts and looks like a buffoon.
My own view of Hunt, at least this week, is that he'd be better deployed as a Tebbit-like Party Chairman in place of Shapps, although the latter's presumed expertise in social media as campaign tools will not be fully tested till 2015. Hunt seems to be better at political street-fighting than running the department, where he seems to be using the scandals and cover-ups to shout "look, squirrel" as waiting lists are creeping up, and A&Es are full to bursting. (Again, there are parallels with Michael Gove and increased class sizes and a shortage of school places.)
As an aside, it would be easier to respond to any substantive points you make if rather than pasting whole articles (and incidentally undermining the entire free market economy in journalism) you summarised it or at most copied only the relevant extract, with a link to the rest.
Don't fall into the left's trap of judging someone by their class.
It doesn't matter where Boris went to school as long as he makes a good Prime Minister. Which he would. The knockabout comedy stuff conceals a ferocious intelligence. He's handed Paxman his backside on more than one occasion.
10:12AM
Most university education is a waste of money. The country would be better off if 90% of them started work at 18 and worked their way up if they've got the brains.
The exceptions being subjects like science, engineering(?), medicine, mathematics etc. I'd also keep Classics for the civil service.
I couldn't agree more, there is a massive skills shortage in this country and just sending more & more people to University to do pointless degrees is not helping
LoL!
"....What precisely is Labour’s cunning plan? Two weeks ago it seemed strategists had finally decided to tackle the party’s lack of economic credibility. To do so they announced a cap on benefits and a commitment to match Tory spending limits. There was some talk of flexibility for a bit of spending on housing if the economy picked up. But it was hinted that even this commitment was likely to be watered down once the economy started to recover.
The message was clear. Labour would not borrow more and Labour would not spend more on welfare. Or it was clear, until Ed Miliband and Ed Ball’s popped up to announce they’d happily borrow more for everything from new houses to new railways to new access to Netflix.
Today in the Telegraph, we’ve got Liam Byrne announcing that Labour are planning an increase in benefits for those over 50. “We should be doing more for the people who have paid most in. That’s why Ed Miliband has already asked Labour’s Policy Review to look at higher rates of JSA for those who have paid more into the system”, he writes...A month ago Labour was going nowhere. But it at least held a position. Austerity was wrong, but there was an alternative, and that alternative was to spend for growth. Cuts in welfare were wrong, and Labour would defend them. The party was dug in.
Now Labour’s high command are wandering aimlessly amid the shell-holes and the corpses, waiting for the bullet with their name on. Labour won’t borrow more, apart from those areas where it will borrow more. Labour will cap benefits, except for those areas where it will increase benefits. Liam Byrne announces he will increase welfare for those over 50. But Ed Miliband refuses to say he will cut it for anyone else.
It’s right that Labour shifts its position from deficit denial to one of fiscal responsibility. It’s equally vital the party moves from its support for a blanket system of benefit to more targeted welfare.
But those changes of position have to be done swiftly and decisively. Otherwise – and we shall see this brutally demonstrated on Wednesday – Labour are sitting ducks." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100223178/labour-is-in-no-mans-land-milling-around-in-plain-view-of-george-osbornes-guns/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jul/11/how-austerity-has-failed/
I may have completely misunderstood the way that ROCs work, and so my numbers may be completely useless. £9 out of £52 is a lot more than I was expecting, though.
In which the tory high command duck shoot will proberly miss.
Yourself?
However that's irrelevant to the point. If this country aims to make energy as expensive as possible - regardless of the reason or whether the reason is correct or not - while everyone else in the world are doing the opposite, that's economic suicide - plainly.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/health-secretary-jeremy-hunt-goes-on-the-wards-to-make-a-handson-diagnosis-of-the-nhs-8613072.html
I can see both advantages and disadvantages to such an approach. However, I bet the Whitehall mandarins don't like it.
The number of ROCs you can issue depends on the type of energy you generate - offshore wind farms are allowed to issue 2 certificates per MWh, whereas onshore windfarms only 0.9 per MWh, for those accredited this year [presumably this acts to subsidise for the higher cost of building offshore, and to encourage offshore windfarms that are politically less problematic].
So, for an onshore windfarm built this year, you can expect about £39.77 per MWh from the ROC, which is a vast sum of money, if I have understood this correctly...
NB I am using information from here and here.
Since you are such an 'expert', can I have your calculations for what a non-carbon energy supply for the UK would be by 2030? For instance, what proportion of energy comes from each of wind, tide, wave, nuclear etc.
You must have thought all this through to be making such a statement.
On one of the recent fly-on-the-wall series following newly-qualified medics, one of the doctors was hunting through cupboards to see what was stored where in her new department. One could not help wondering if medical efficiency might be best aided by (a) having standard storage arrangements, (b) having transparent cupboard doors, or (c) labelling the doors. Perhaps Hunt will see and address that sort of problem.
But once he's spent a few months as a volunteer, maybe he should concentrate on the day job.
I can only assume he'd had a drink.
Surely its the policies that count, regardless of the accent they are delivered in. If the tories showed their core constituency is aspiring working and lower middle class people they might garner more votes in these areas.
I reckon a northern plebian tory would still receive short shrift if he championed windmills, was an EU apologist and introduced gay marriage.
I may have a problem with a cache/proxy interface: Can anyone tell me if they can find a BMA vote-of-confidence decision regarding Jeremy Hunt story on Al-Beeb? If so please provide a link (as it appears to no longer be a story on the Labour Party's propaganda-wing).
Chahs!
Isn't this a very risky re-branding of the last Labour Governments attempt to define their borrowing as Investments vs Tory Cuts? It would seem that the Labour party still hasn't accepted or learnt the lessons of their economic and political mistakes last time they were in Government. And this kind of political strategy seems to indicate that they are still banking on the UK not returning to any kind of sustainable growth in the next two years, or that they intend to face economic realities of their legacy any time soon. Those posters saying don't let Labour ruin our recovery by turning on the spending taps again will write themselves.
Labour spent the last three years really over egging Ed Balls not so clever 'too far too fast' cuts meme. And to the point that it will make his own strategy of borrowing more to fund investment look totally redundant by 2015, especially if the economy is already growing and the deficit is reducing at a steady trajectory. The electorates memories are still far too fresh on Labour's economic legacy, and their culpability for it
And today we have Ed Balls in the Evening Standard - Ed Balls: Fix the economy now, Chancellor — time is running out
"Demonstrations and instability in Brazil and Turkey. Economic slowdown in China. Continuing recession in the eurozone. These are nervous times for the world economy.
Here in Britain, with living standards and bank lending still falling and our national debt rising, our economy is ill-prepared for a further bout of instability. The International Monetary Fund says our recovery is expected to remain weak.
And yet on Wednesday, when George Osborne sets out budgets for government departments for 2015, all the evidence is that he will once again be putting party politics before the national economic interest. For months Osborne has been boasting about the political “game” he is playing by setting out spending totals for after the next election — a task that does not need to be done for at least another 15 months. This is the same Chancellor who, in recent weeks, has also been desperately trying to find a way to sell off the Government’s stakes in RBS before the election.
When the International Monetary Fund says our recovery is expected to remain weak, the country needs to know that our Chancellor has the national economic interest at the top of his agenda. After last week’s sharp falls in stock markets around the world, this is no time for complacency.
On banking, his plans for a political fire sale have been put to rest, following Labour’s warnings that selling those shares now would mean a huge loss to the taxpayer and the cack-handed departure of RBS chief executive Stephen Hester.
Still, all the evidence suggests that Osborne is spending more time on his part-time role as David Cameron’s political and election strategist than on his day job as Britain’s Chancellor. My fear is that our Chancellor is taking his eye off the ball. That is why I have said the focus of Wednesday’s Spending Review should be clear and decisive action to boost growth and living standards this year and next year — not simply setting out cuts for two years’ time.
The problem is that this would not fit the Chancellor’s political script. Because action on growth this week, as the IMF urged, would require the Chancellor to recognise that the past three years have not gone to his economic and political plan. And that is not an admission he wants to face up to.
Osborne wants desperately to claim that his plan has worked and things are getting better. But life is getting harder for ordinary families. Prices are rising much faster than wages, bank lending to businesses is down, and long-term unemployment is rising.
If, as expected, this week the Office for National Statistics makes a 0.1 percentage change to the growth figures for last year so that the double dip recession is technically revised away, Tory cheerleaders will try to claim it is good news for the Chancellor.
But it will not change the underlying reality that the economy has flatlined for three years and that this failure on growth and living standards has led to the Government’s failure on the deficit."
As I said there's an amusing level of hypocrisy by the Tories on the subject. John Major was "The boy from Brixton", Margaret Thatcher placed a lot of emphasis on herself as "The Grocer's daughter" and he normal background (she was very skilled at identity politics) to name a couple of obvious examples.
Cameron becomes leader and the record is hastily switched to "leader's backgrounds don't matter and mentioning them is wrong".
In the meantime, here's the Indy's take:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/british-medical-association-passes-vote-of-no-confidence-in-health-secretary-jeremy-hunt-8670808.html
And Sky's:
http://news.sky.com/story/1107332/doctors-condemn-hunt-in-no-confidence-vote
And the Guardian's:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/24/doctors-no-confidence-jeremy-hunt
Really poor timing on the part of the BMA.
Voters all over the wold have shown they're willing to elect people who they see as buffoons, for a laugh or a protest, especially for a semi-non-job like Mayor. But it's high-risk for a national party leader choice.
"The Apprentice star Karren Brady has revealed the scale of her political ambitions, claiming Britain would not be in such a mess with more people like her in power.
The businesswoman and West Ham vie-chairman suggested the country’s never-ending economic woes could have been avoided with more successful business leaders in the government.
And she burnished her credentials as a future Conservative high-flier, taking a swipe at Lib Dem Vince Cable who has grumbled about her smash hit TV show."
There's nothing on the forseeable horizon to give Labour a chance to offer better government. This is the beginning of the end of the Labour surge, the 'I hate the coalition so I'll say I'll vote for the other lot' syndrome is gonna collapse, leaving the Ed and Ed show floundering for an audience.
Labour screwed in 2015, nailed on.
Seven-years at University and the BMA don't understand borders, priortities and political accountability. What a fecking bunch of twunts....
But you're right, it does seem the Tories have a deliberate strategy of trying to undermine the NHS purely for cynical party political reasons.
Given where public opinion is on the matter, that's a very - shall we say "bold" - move by your Party, Plato.
Besides, it's Thursday...
Agreed. Shining a light on widespread cover-ups of evidence of serious wrong-doing by very highly paid civil servants.
Deeply cynical.
And what happened on labour's watch? Stafford, Morecombe et al? 81 suggestions for a public enquiry rejected?
Sorry pal, you ain;t in a position to lecture anybody on the NHS any more. Your hands are filthy dirty...
More to the point, the same will apply in 2015.
@davethecon Thanks, that one made me lol, definitely a keeper.
"Labour screwed in 2015, nailed on."
Yep Ed Balls nonchalantly trying to dismiss the possibility that the UK may be revised out of a double dip recession comes across as another churlish so what moment.
I always thought Karren Brady was relatively sane until I read that barking mad article in which she set out her reasons for opposing AV. Not surprised to hear she's a Tory.
Standardisation makes a high different. I'm a great fan of Procedure Paks as they can massively increase efficiency (even if they are more expensive) because they reduce the set-up/breakdown time so allow people to get 2 more operations a day in the facility.
More importantly, I see Liverpool FC have adopted Ballseque spending plans for the new season, as usual. Shovelling infinite amounts of cash to buy below average unknowns from all corners of the earth so they can finish nowhere. Yet again! Is the club a testing ground for Labour policies or what? Who the hell lets Liverpool managers near the Black American Express card for crissakes?
LOL It must be. Guido has just made the point the public tends not to vote for baldies over politicians with full heads of hair (explaining Boris' new comb forward).
So here is that nice Mr Hunt spending quality time with the NHS.
Will it work? It will help.
George has generated more growth in three-years than Labour achieved between 2005 and 2010. Some "eejit" said he [Mr Osborne] would not be able to do that before 2015: I bet that [posited] fool feels slightly stupid now, don't you...?
"Always be sincere. Even when you don't mean it"
Really?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/24/doctors-no-confidence-jeremy-hunt
Mid Staffs was a consequence of this "government's reforms and cuts"?
So, they now need to drag Labour down to their level on the NHS best they can, and undermine the NHS itself so it's not as important as it might have been. Gloves are off.
But to me, looking at the polling which remains stubbornly emphatic, there are more dangers in this strategy than potential payoffs. That people might simply see their treasured NHS in trouble, and Tory fingerprints all over it.
Elana Baltacha loses: Ergo she is British. A few day - sans defeat - did they not call her Scottish? Consistency is not something that should be associated with Al-Beeb (otherwise they would be considered respected journalists), but it is funny how people like to "paste" nations regarding to their success.
So Wimbeldon is upon us: I must admit Andy Murray 'appears' to becoming a normal adult (at last). I still want Djokovic to win (as the Serbs are to "us Turks" as the Scots are to "us English").
Ultimately I want the best player to win - Serena is probably a cert* - and in no way should any authourity intervene to do otherwise.** If it is the [alleged] resident from Surrey then well-done: He is free to be what he wants to be; Scots, British or "Miserable-from-England"! I imagine that it is one of the few remaining pleasures of living in England....
* Buggah: I'm still married...
** Subsidies, nod-and-winks, betting-syndicates are all the same....
At some degree of consciousness the public are aware that those bad things happened a while ago. It will be easy enough to fold that into a spent-all-the-money narrative and Jeremy Hunt is the audit trail to show how much the Cons care.
Or do you think the NHS was and is fine as it is?
The combined effect of the taper in the US and the instant credit crunch in China are potentially very serious. Bond rates are climbing across the board and the UK is not exempt: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/uk/
This has at least 2 effects, one bad and one very bad. The bad is that borrowing will start to cost the government more putting even more pressure on the money the government needs for the rest of the year.
The very bad is that banks that have been bullied into buying government bonds will be nursing serious losses (because as the rate of interest goes up the value of current bonds with fixed rates of interest goes down). It really would not take too much of this for us to have a full blown EU banking crisis all over again.
You can see why Cameron wanted to be cautious about broadcasting a recovery.
Does Fluffy really not know how to spell the word Edinburgh, or is that yet more of his devastating 'satire'?
Ed Balls questions if UK has “long-term affordability in pensions”: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10137427/Labour-could-borrow-more-to-build-homes-Ed-Balls-says.html … Stats show pensions more affordable for Scotland.
'We went back on our word to leave the NHS alone because we didn't realise how much it was broken. And it's still broken, Labour did it, but we're busy trying to fix it with our massive re-organisation that we said we wouldn't do".
At best, I don't see that message being compelling to anyone but those already automatically receptive to a Tory / anti-NHS line.
At worst, it might make matters even worse for the Tories.
My prediction - the NHS will remain a huge net positive for Labour at the next election.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/doctors-pass-motion-of-no-confidence-in-jeremy-hunt-good/
What are you wittering about, man?
As with some of the differences with our American cousins [eg center and centre] it appears that it is the English that have more recently meddled with the spelling of their language.
@James Kelly
I'm not sure its too wise to get excited about Scottish pensions being more affordable given its probably based on our poorer life expectancy
"People in Scotland will not live as long as their English neighbours, new statistics show.
The average Scottish man will live to the age of 75.9 while male Englishmen will live to 78.6."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/108449-scottish-life-expectancy-worst-in-uk-as-nhs-under-pressure-to-be-efficient/
Thankyou for identifying my absolute favourite of the 'union dividends'. How can the No campaign lose with a track record like that?
But unfortunately on the less logical version. If 'honour' was to be spelled as it is pronounced it should be 'honur' not 'honor'. (Well, actually it should be 'onur').