Euro Disintegration

Reading Dan Hannan's post and the wonderful metaphor from the comments below it - 'We all want to be good neighbours, but see no need to knock through the adjoining walls of our houses and marry into the family in order to be considered good neighbours' - I realise that Cameron needs to be a little more honest with European partners.

Britain's position on the Euro is unequivocal, widely understood and correct. But Cameron should - at least in private - now be preparing his European partners for life beyond the Euro. All those countries in a fiscal mess should be actively planning for life outside the Euro. Leadership means setting out the economic and political imperatives needed for a stable and prosperous Euro area, whilst supporting those unable to commit to the financial prerequisites. I also note that Iceland, Norway & Switzerland participate in the Schengen Area despite being non-EU member states.

The disintegration of Euroland is going to be complicated, expensive and very messy. But Cameron, as a relative outsider and leader of Europe's primary financial hub, should now be suggesting at a level of some impartiality, the various routes out of this problem.

Treasury Questions

Managed to watch some of Treasury Questions this afternoon with George Osborne looking impressively in control of economic matters. But just how impressive were Justine Greening - on the front bench - and Margot James (who delivered her maiden speech yesterday) from the backbenches. What knowledge and confidence. Perhaps the Coalition should be thinking of an all women cabinet as well.

Harman for Labour leader

Matthew Parris is right on Harriet Harman. Labour needs a clean skin - someone unassociated with the more deceitful and incompetent (and largely economic) aspects of Gordon Brown and New Labour. Someone like Harriet Harman in fact. Big on equality; small on the economy.

She of course has suggested that half the shadow cabinet should be women. But as Chris Dillow points out in his excellent blog, '...women are only one group of many which is under-represented in government. So too are: single people; ethnic minorities; people without degrees; people educated at state school; the under-30s, the over-60s; and, of course, the 95% of people with lower incomes than MPs. Ms Harman is not calling for quotas for these groups. So why single out women?'

And while were on that agenda, why not go the whole nine yards? Since men have been unfairly over-represented for the last 50 years, why not introduce a women-only shadow cabinet for the next 50 years? That way Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott could both be leader. One after the other.

Christ preaching at Cookham regatta

The Welfare Revolution

Michael Meacher presents the old defeatist view of welfare reform, whilst Camilla Cavendish yet another symptom of social disfunction all around us. Meanwhile, Iain Duncan Smith sets out his stall. We'll have to wait a little longer for the solutions.

Complex and inter-dependent social forces are at work here. Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice describes the five pathways to poverty, but in truth there are more - mental health for example - which will require multi-layered solutions across several government departments. Did anyone mention prison reform? Why aren't all prisons adult education institutes? And why aren't all prisoners serving more than three years coming out able to read, write and be professionally qualified for work? You get the idea.

With the initial focus on ending welfare dependency and the lack of incentive for work inherently built-in to the welfare system, the coalition needs to look positively at raising the tax threshold not just to £10,000 - as the LibDems are demanding - but to the minimum wage - around £11,400.

A permanent link between these two would provide the greatest incentive for enterprise generally and getting back into work in particular. It would also enable dismantling of the overly-complex and widely abused Tax Credits system, as well as providing a fairer and more balanced tax system which benefits all taxpayers.

Paying for it - around £22bn I understand - will mean substantially increasing the level of redistribution within the tax system. Ending the cap on NI contributions for instance, could raise £8bn, CGT increases to income tax bands around £2bn, the scrapping of tax credits a further £4bn, with the balance paid for by lowering the 40% tax threshold for higher rate payers.

I realise the howls of protest from the Tory right will be both substantial and sustained. But they should understand the real goal in this package. Properly incentivising people off welfare and back into employment not only gives them a real stake in society (and with it at least partly mending some of the broken bits) but enables them to contribute - through the tax system - towards Labour's debts and future public spending.

It might also reduce those welfare payments by around £22bn. Now there's a thought.

Eurozone crisis

Great piece from Adrian Hamilton in today’s Independent suggesting we are now witnessing the second phase of the Credit Crunch - the unwinding of debt. This is as much a political issue as a financial one, demanding political decisions about expenditure, tax and investment.

“The trouble with the trillion dollar rescue package put together by the Eurozone governments was that it once again bailed out the commercial banks with taxpayer's money, this time at the cost to the public of dramatic and early expenditure cuts.”

What needs to happen now is the rescheduling of the debt along time frames “more realistic to the national fiscal positions and popular acceptance.”

liberalConservatism

What a sense of relief as we enter the bold world of liberalConservatism. Thankfully consigning the forces of anger, hatred and deceit to the opposition benches. And with them, right on cue, an extraordinary piece from Simon Heffer in todays Telegraph. Apparently he doesn't want to be demonised as 'right wing'. Bless.

In that case Mr Heffer, it might be an idea to stop your weekly abuse of mainstream politicians with names like 'Lord Rumba of Rio', 'call me Dave' or 'boy George'. We expect such tribal hatred from Labour and the rabid right. Not the reasonable mainstream.

And whilst you and your fans from UKIP are thinking about it, may I congratulate you for depriving Cameron of those last 20 MP's in the recent election. Didn't get you a single seat in parliament, but it had the desired effect of bringing into the coalition the most Euro-enthusiastic party in British politics. Well done. Hope you enjoy the results.

Labour's Vision

Mary Riddell, writing in today's Telegraph under the title Gordon Brown must now tell the voters why they deserve more of him, sets out Labour's vision for the next five years of government.

Her suggestions that would demand we vote for five more years of Gordon Brown? Freeze VAT, split the banks between retail & casino varieties and lower the age of voting to sixteen - because 41% of that age group, she explains, would vote Labour.

Underwhelming.

Public Sector Pensions

This really is a staggering graph of public sector pensions over the next 50 years. With thanks to Burning Our Money:

Orange : Armed Forces

Light Blue : Civil Service

Yellow : NHS

Dark Blue : Teachers

Grey : Others

Non Dom Status

Harriet Harman on this mornings Andrew Marr show was very keen to keep the spotlight on Lord Ashcroft. We now know that more than £10 million pounds has been donated to Labour coffers by Lords Paul, Noonan and others - all of whom appear to be non doms - as well as similar sources to the Lib Dems.

Harman argues that Ashcroft has broken 'assurances' given at his enoblement and misled his own party, calling Cameron's judgement into doubt. Yet both the Cabinet Office and Parliamentary authorities have given the peer a clean bill of health in this weeks report.

Leaving aside the fact that Cameron had no role in Ashcroft's peerage - it was well before his time - the question nobody has asked is why were such 'assurances' not obtained from Labour or Lib Dem peers prior to their appointment? Or is it that 'a future fair for all' applies only to those that vote Labour?

Harman also needs to explain why - after thirteen years in government - did it take the intervention of Cameron in proposing that all members of parliament - both commons and peers - should renounce their non dom status and pay full UK tax in order to stay members, before the government acted?

The Great Clunking Fist

‘Gordon Brown's rages are... deeply destructive to good governance, and are a key to understanding why this man's government has been so unco-ordinated, unhappy and ineffectual in so many ways’ writes Jenni Russell in the Guardian. It’s well worth reading.

But it goes a lot deeper than just the personal fear that paralyses good government. It creates a paranoid, inward-looking and self-important elite unable to gain true perspective. Groupthink is the result, where individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of a bunker mentality. All advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought disappear.

And then we wonder why they failed to foresee the financial meltdown caused by the credit crunch, the longest and deepest recession in eighty years, MP’s expenses, the 10p tax disaster, or the deeply de-humanising effects of centrally imposed, top-down targets that distort our public services. And all of these in just the last two years of Labour government.

Cameron on Family

Coming back from work today I expected to hear of a speech by Cameron on the family. All I got from the 24/7 news channels was one line about keeping Sure Start, sandwiched between Clegg withdrawing policy commitments and Gordon Brown promising - yet again - to be nicer to his PLP.

Reading the full speech, it really is a thorough, thoughtful and comprehensive piece. If you’re looking for a narrative on the Conservative themes of family, responsibility and mending our broken society, Cameron clearly explains it here. From individual responsibility, through early years intervention and community participation, right through to the fundamental importance of good education in building social responsibility. Cameron’s point is that ”…If you do the responsible thing, you will be rewarded. If you don’t, you won’t.”

He begins describing “a whole host of severe social problems… caused in part from the wrong personal choices” suggesting “…that the state continue(s) to treat the symptoms of these problems instead of the root causes” and asking “…how do we help build responsible character in people?”

Cameron begins by looking at the crucial influence of family on the value of personal responsibility which, he says provides “…the ability to stick at your commitments. The power to bounce back from bad times. The capacity to identify with other people.” He continues “…we all know what good parenting looks like... It means setting boundaries as well as providing love and offering security. These are things that help foster commitment, resilience, empathy – and everything else we associate with responsibility.”

Cameron then outlines findings from Demos research showing that “…the differences in child outcomes between a child born in poverty and a child born in wealth are no longer statistically significant when both have been raised by “confident and able” parents… what matters most to a child’s life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing but the warmth of their parenting. If we want to give children the best chance in life – whatever background they are from – the right structures need to be in place, strong and secure families, confident and able parents, an ethic of responsibility instilled from a young age.”

A tribute to Labour MP Frank Field follows for identifying this and suggesting that the welfare state should…“openly reward good behaviour and ... be used to enhance those roles which the country values”. He continues “…the research shows that while the style of responsible (parenting)… is more likely to occur in wealthier households, children in poor households who are raised with that style of parenting do just as well”

On reversing family breakdown Cameron is at his most emphatic. “It is essential to say loudly and proudly that commitment is a core value of a responsible society and that's why we will recognise marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man, in the tax system. And yes, that is a commitment.” He goes on to outline other policy commitments: “we’ll extend the right to request flexible working to all parents with a child under eighteen… we’ll introduce Flexible Parental Leave, meaning both parents can share the responsibilities of caring for a new baby...” and “…we will increase the number of Sure Start health visitors by 4,200, giving families a much greater level of personal, professional support in the home when they need it most.”

Turning to Sure Start, Cameron commits to “…taking it back to its original purpose - early intervention, increasing its focus on those who need its help most and better involving organisations with a proven track record in parenting interventions”, whilst anchoring these changes within the three principals which lie behind all Conservative policy - decentralisation, transparency & accountability. Cameron names the type of third sector organisations which he expects to lead such intervention, Lifeline, 4Children and Homestart saying a Conservative government will “…contract them to run children’s centres and reach out to dysfunctional and disadvantaged local families. They will then be paid – at least in part - according to the results they achieve” with funding coming from the current Early Years Support Team at DCSF.
On schools Cameron expects “…disciplined, ordered classrooms, where children understand what is acceptable behaviour and what isn’t… an ethos that elevates aspiration… (and) a respect for authority… a culture of mentoring… competitive sport that teaches children about team-work, training and applying yourself.” As well as “…giving head teachers the final say when it comes to excluding disruptive children.” He says “…our long-term reforms are about spreading freedom and parent-power across the state system so more schools provide the kind of education we need to help raise the kind of responsible citizens we want”.

But it is his final words on community participation that will prove the most difficult feat: “…we all have a duty to ensure that children and young people are absorbing influences that encourage responsibility. Clearly, that must begin from the very top. Government must expect responsibility from others... Our plan for National Citizen Service for Young People will be led by charities and community groups and will bring together sixteen year olds from across the country in a programme of social engagement. There they will learn what it means to be socially responsible, to serve their community, and to get on and get along with people from different backgrounds.” He finishes with a memorable quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury: “If we want to give children a chance of experiencing childhood as they should ... we have to face the demands of being adults ourselves” explaining that our “…culture of suspicion and paranoia is increasingly preventing adults from even interacting with young people. We can’t go on like this. It’s time we gave children back their childhood and get adults to behave like adults”.

Aspiration

Another brilliant piece in todays Sunday Telegraph by Janet Daley. Please read and lift your spirit Mr Cameron.

Happy New Year

Brilliantly insightful piece in today's Times by Rosemary Righter followed by a cartoon that Cameron should be using in every marginal in the country.

With thanks to Morten Moreland. Wonderful.

Whats the EU ever done for us?

Amusing film at Liberal Conspiracy called whats the eu ever done for us?

Apparently we need the EU - without any democratic mandate from the British people - to give us four weeks paid holidays, flexible working hours, cut price calls to mobiles, parental leave, protection for part-time workers and a response to the economic downturn. Strangely, I thought that was what Parliament was for.

The other two great achievements of the EU - a single market and tackling climate change internationally - might well be legitimate. But do they need a federal constitution, European President and monetary union? Or just a co-operative and trading organisation?

EU Referendum

Once ratified, a referendum on Lisbon would be ridiculous. Cameron should instead offer the British electorate a referendum that finally settles the European issue. It’s all about sovereignty - based on what direction the European Union should go. The British people should be offered three alternatives:

1. Britain should continue its membership of the European Union as a co-operative and trading organisation without losing any further British sovereignty to the EU.
   
2. Britain should continue its membership of the European Union accepting deeper integration towards a European federal state and the consequent further loss of British sovereignty to the EU.
   
3. Britain should withdraw from the European Union.

Lords Reform

The Tory leader will use his powers of patronage to break Labour's grip on public life writes Ben Brogan in today’s papers, whilst David Blackburn echoes his call - “The irony is that Cameron wants to decentralise and promote accountability and transparency, but to realise that ambition he will have to resort to the ‘old corruption’.” In other words, using prime ministerial patronage to stuff the lords with right-thinking placemen, cash for peerages, cronyism, cash for lord’s amendments and the extension of everything perceived to be privileged, corrupt and venal that has destroyed all trust in our political system.

But it doesn’t have to be like that. Cameron should use the opportunity to do exactly what he promises – to decentralise decision-making down to the people, promote accountability and transparency in parliament and most of all, put personal responsibility at the heart of government.

By all means reward excellence in public service with a life peerage, but make it no more than a title. A knighthood, if you like, with the right to attend the lords once a year in all their ermine finery to hear the queens speech at the opening of a parliamentary session. A thank you from a grateful nation for sustained and valuable service to its people. No more and no less.

Each party should then be allowed a small team of around 30 ‘working peers’ whose purpose is to present and debate - both for and against according to party affiliation - all new legislation that has been passed by MP’s in the commons. Their audience? 500 British citizens, one from each constituency in the country, chosen at random from the electoral register on a rolling basis, obliged by their rights of citizenship to attend for two weeks to vote in the house of lords. Thousands each year do exactly this in jury duty at local courts throughout the UK. And because they are chosen at random, these citizen jurists will fully reflect the makeup of British society – by gender, ethnicity, religion, values and age.

The practicalities? All transport costs and hotel bills (for those travelling more than 50 miles from Westminster and unable to commute) will need to be paid on production of receipts. The Lords already has a terrace cafe capable of catering for far more than 500 people. Working 10am to 4pm from Monday to Friday provides a great deal more time than needed to scrutinise – line by line – any legislation from the commons. So we can also include all legislation from the European Union. Questions from jurists can be entered through a keypad at each seat to be answered by working peers during the course of each debate. Obviously no legislation can be either initiated or wording changed. Divisions should take place throughout the day as clauses are completed and to allow concentration and bodily functions to be maintained.

And to those who assume ordinary people like me should not be trusted to decide whether or not laws should be passed, think carefully. We already vote on policy issues at local, national and European levels. We already deliberate and decide on the liberty of people who transgress our laws. And we are the people who have to live our daily lives affected by your laws.

The Best Disinfectant is Sunshine

"The last thing Sun readers want is to see their newspaper turned into a Tory fanzine. They want a newspaper, not a propaganda sheet" says Peter Mandelson. After 13 years of support for New Labour and its political policies - without any hint of so much as a thank you for years of loyal service - it’s change to endorsing Conservative policies now make it a ‘propaganda sheet’. Priceless.

Speed-limiters

What would save more than a thousand lives a year, billions of pounds in government spending, cut CO2 emissions, whilst making society generally a more calm and rational place – and cost the government absolutely nothing? Introduce a law requiring all new cars to be fitted with working GPS-based speed-limiters.

Government figures show that more than a thousand people are killed each year as a result of speeding drivers. Each death affects dozens of families – mothers, fathers, aunts and cousins – as well as friends and colleagues. Speed-limiters prevent cars exceeding the speed limit on all roads. They produce less aggressive and calmer drivers, able to take more rational decisions as unrealistic expectations over timing are lowered, whilst eliminating road-rage and lowering both energy usage and CO2 emissions.

Although this would cost the government nothing to introduce, it would mean adding around £500 to the price of a typical new car. But the benefits to government expenditure would be immense. Over the last few years the government – mostly through local authorities who wield major road budgets – has poured money into various traffic calming measures: road humps, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, chicanes and warning signs. All of these would no longer be necessary as drivers were unable to speed, whether in 20mph residential zones, 30mph urban environments or 70mph motorways. Billions of pounds would be saved.

And why stop there? Let’s take the opportunity to do away with all speed limit signage since they cannot be exceeded, all traffic cameras which would now be obsolete, and any other wavy-line clutter that currently ruins our environment. And whilst we’re thinking about it, how about doing away with all speedometers? They just became redundant. Instead, we can now look forward to drivers concentrating on the more important aspects of their task: other road users, pedestrians, cyclists and the road environment itself. Driving might even become more pleasurable, since drivers would now be forced to empathise with their fellow travellers.

Fiscal Stimulus

Interesting post on Greg Mankiw's blog showing the outcome of Obama's fiscal stimulus showing what was projected for the rate of unemployment back in January with and without the stimulus package. The graph comes from the presidents own economic team in a report from January 2009. The reality - shown by two red triangles for March & April 09 - should make Brown & Mandelson think very carefully before pronouncing that their stimulus package in the UK had 'saved' more than half a million jobs.

NHS v US Healthcare

So it seems that Michael Jackson's private physician would prescribe anything he wanted, so long as he paid the exorbitant fees - reported to be $100,000 per month. Can't really see that happening on the NHS. Probably something to do with medical ethics:

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism." (from The Hippocratic Oath)

If Michael Jackson had believed in an ethically-based healthcare system uninfluenced by money at the point of delivery, he would still be alive today.

Education spending

We really need to move the argument on government expenditure forward. Take education - specifically secondary education.

Using Dept for Children Schools and Families own statistics, £21,441m was spent on secondary education in 2007/8. This represents total expenditure of around £5360 per pupil. What we need to be asking is how much per pupil is actually spent in schools - at the sharp end of the business – on the resources that really matt

er: teacher salaries, books, stationary, computers, projectors, smartboards etc. This is the expenditure that really delivers education to the pupil. This is the important stuff. The expenditure we need to be protecting and ring-fencing, with an ambition to increase in real terms such expenditure over time.

I don’t know what exactly this figure comes to. If anyone knows where this kind of information can be seen, I would love to know. But I have a big hunch that the figure will come out at around £3500 per pupil – more than a third lower than the educational spending that is raised through taxation and allocated to secondary education. And it is the difference between these figures representing organisational running costs, publicity, centrally controlled initiatives and top down bureaucracy - whatever you want to call it - that needs to be examined in the cost cutting agenda.

If you want the electorate’s support, by all means guarantee this lower figure being spent on actually educating their children in schools. Pay such money in three tranches – at the beginning of each term – directly to the school. Make head teachers responsible for spending this money in running their schools efficiently and effectively. Judge them on outcomes and results. Not targets and processes.

Bonhoeffer

Wonderful piece in this week’s Spectator from Matthew Parris talking about the death of his father.

When my own father died a few months ago, I asked my daughter to read this letter at his funeral. It was written by the Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer to his family, before his execution by the Nazi’s in April 1945.

Nothing can fill the gap when we are separated from those we love and it would be wrong to try to find anything. That may sound very hard at first but at the same time a great consolation, since leaving the gap unfilled preserves the bond between us. It is nonsense to say that time, friends or indeed God Himself fills the gap. He does not fill it but keeps it empty so that our communion, each with the other, may be kept alive.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

NHS

My family has enthusiastically supported and used the NHS all our lives. We do not share Daniel Hannan’s views of the service, nor his advocacy for individual health accounts. Clinical need - not wealth - should be the determinant of healthcare. But however well intentioned, the NHS also has a darker side.

My grandmother - once a nurse in a TB hospital in Portsmouth during the 1930’s – died after a long and full life. Apart from the usual aches and pains of growing old, she had rarely been ill before suffering a stroke at the age of 97. I still remember that terrible moment when I first saw her as the GP - attempting to gauge some form of cognitive ability - asked her how many fingers he was showing, as if she were a three year old child. But mostly I remember the look on her face. A face that I had grown up with and loved, a face that had shared so many precious moments, now staring at me without recognition - vacant and distorted - as if someone had drained all emotion and warmth from her cheeks.

Rushed to Hospital, I was amazed at the quality of the care she received. St Peter’s, Chertsey, is a bright new hospital designed intelligently into a series of 10 – 12 bed wards off comfortably sofa’d corridors which soothed both patients and visitors. The ward bristled with specialist stroke equipment around each bed and bustled with serious, green-scrubbed clinical staff. This was modern medicine at its most impressive; spotless, high-tech and concentrated.

The stroke turned out to be minor and within two days she was able to get out of bed. That evening I had my last lucid conversation with her as she sat on a chair beside her bed talking comfortably about returning home.

Two days later, we heard she had been transferred to a general ward at Ashford Hospital - within the same NHS trust – and visited with relaxed expectations. I have never seen such a transformation. Listlessly fidgeting in and out of consciousness, she had been dressed in a tight-fitting, all-in romper suit because she was continually pushing back her bedclothes. High-sides had been attached to the bed in an effort to stop her desperately trying to get out. This was a seriously ill woman. When I visited the next day, she had been moved to a side room on her own. The ward sister explained that all visitors would have to wear gowns, gloves and masks. She had MRSA.

She lasted two more days. I knew she would. She died at a quarter past midnight on the morning of my birthday. I had spent two hours that evening sitting beside her, masked and gloved, unable to even kiss her. And just for the record, MRSA was not listed on her death certificate.

Speedometer

The speedometer cable on my bike broke two days ago.

Unable to know my speed, traffic cameras became unquantifiable and terrifying dangers. Red lights – where bikes routinely speed away before dozy car drivers have even cranked into first gear – became a pointless exercise in bravado. The world of driving to the speed limit completely disappeared. No longer could I know if I was even within the law. How strangely dependent we are in the comfort of rules.

And yet, what a feeling of liberation. Without the aspiration of speed and quite unable to compete, I became totally dependent upon my fellow travellers. The only gauge available was a measure of trust. Trust that they would act within the law. Every journey felt like a lumbering caravan travelling through the desert as we wound our way along lane, high street and dual carriageway – with cars continually peeling off to their destination, whilst others joining in an ever meandering ebb and flow of ordered chaos. No longer was pole position wanted. We had become a community. An inter-dependent whole, held together purely by human trust.

Even so, as each speed camera approached, my doubts emerged. I searched the faces of my fellow travellers looking for honesty and goodness. It’s a strange feeling. There are no moral chins, honest eyebrows or truthful noses – just the subtly-glimpsed mannerisms that might betray a lurking gambler’s streak or the just slightly too casual cornering of a Chardonnay mum.

I have to tell you now that my fellow travellers all passed the test. Sure, outsiders weaved their separate ways around and between us. But we continued, everyone an upright and decent member of our community. Each in their own cocooned little world, yet all travelling as one.

I tried rather unconvincingly to explain this to a mechanic called Miro at a local garage. He smiled awkwardly. “No worries – you’ll be straight back on pole today”.

Labour's Inequality

Directed by Rachel Joyce’s blog to excellent piece by Fraser Nelson in Coffee House blog which you can read here.

Five graphs illustrate the story:

Britain has never been more unequal

The poorest are getting poorer

The hidden unemployment of the Labour years

Average time spent out of work

The poor that Labour forgot

Foreign, not British workers benefitted

Its an horrific story we'll need to return to...

Many thanks to Fraser Nelson and The Spectator.