Blogs

Sharp as always, Wat Tyler at Burning Our Money has posted today about the Waste Resources Action Programme or WRAP (how clever - I wonder what came first, the name or the acronym... mmm, I wonder?). Now, as you will have probably guessed already WRAP is a Quango, but what makes them particularly special is they are challenging the British Potato Council for the most pointless use of public money. Indeed, the Quango that gave us National Chip Week is now being challenged by the Quango that gives us its research in to household food waste. Yes it does happen, folks - we throw away 6.7m tonnes of food every year. Incredible. What are we thinking throwing away all that perfectly good food? Well half of it is not perfectly good food, it's waste. Potato peelings, teabags, bones, that sort of thing. Why did they include old bones in this total, the overpaid bunch of clueless goons (see Wat's picture). That 6.7m tonnes statistic is probably the most pointless, meaningless stat of the year so far. And it costs us £80m a year to receive these nuggets of information. Great find Wat - if it wasn't true I'd probably be laughing even more.

So it was finally announced yesterday how much the Olympics is really going to cost us (at least until it is re-calculated in a year or so when they realise they still haven't got it right). After conning the British public and the rest of the world by promising to deliver the Olympics on a budget of £3bn, we're now told its going to be £9bn. I could go on about whether we should have bid in the first place but I think the real issue here is how it has risen so much. Is this another case of the government financial advisers' complete incompetence when it comes to valuing the cost of a project or was it a calculated piece of misinformation to try and get the public onside when the bidding process was in full swing? I fear it is a little of both.

Government

• The government was accused yesterday of losing control of the finances of the London Olympics after it revealed the total budget for the 2012 games has nearly trebled to £9.3bn. There was fury from National Lottery distributors, who will have to contribute £675m - on top of their initial £1.5bn commitment - towards the cost of the Olympics, and a warning that an enduring sporting legacy from the games will be endangered by a £223m reduction in funding for grassroots sport. http://www.guardian.co.uk/olympics2012/story/0,,2035503,00.html
• Private midwives may be forced out of business next year when changes to the medical insurance rules come into effect.
  

In a move that is almost beyond parody, Sir Hayden Phillips - the man who thinks our political parties would be cheap at £25,000,000 a year - thinks £13.50 is good value to tell us what good value the parties are. That's what a copy of his report costs. 45p a page. Of drivel. That's a report we've already paid for, by the way.

To be fair, though, it's been hard work for him. 12 months to produce a 30-page report was a tough ask. Nor can it have been easy to arrive at the conclusion that the big parties should get lots of money, but had better sit down and sort out the details between themselves.

At least we can be sure that the process will have our best interests at heart. After all, the parties are the best people to decide how much of our money we ought to give them. Who else would appreciate the great contribution they make to our democratic process? And lest we suspect them of self-interest, Sir Hayden has guaranteed their honesty by recommending that their private discussions be subject to "independent oversight". Not that this be debated openly, mind you, because too much openness is a dangerous thing.

Perhaps I should try Sir Hayden's magical technique for discovering best value in my business life. When it comes to negotiating new prices with our suppliers, I shall invite them to get together to work out what is the right amount for us to pay them. Our employees will be instructed to put their heads together to work out how much they should get in this year's pay deal. And I have the advantage that our suppliers and employees know that pushing for too much will lead to unfortunate consequences, like taking less of their product, making some of them unemployed, or simply going out of business. If it works for us consumers of the services of political parties, who could take us for all they like so long as they stick together, it is bound to work for me.

Getting a few hits from Boris Johnson's site after JG posted a comment there. I feel we ought to reciprocate and put Boris in one of our blogrolls. But here's my dilemma: should I put him in with the individualists or with the interventionists? It's not easy to decipher the philosophical basis of Boris's views.

Perhaps we should have a vote on it.

Government  

With the budget coming up next week, it is that time of year where Gordon Brown lays it on thick that this country has never had it so good and that we have seen ten consecutive years of growth and he has been the longest serving chancellor in history and then he says something else, but I'm always asleep by this point. You would have thought that all this meant that we have more money in our pockets than ever before. Of course, things are not always what they seem.

The Centre for Policy Studies think tank has reported that we are virtually no better off than we were six years ago. In fact, in real terms, households have an extra £9 disposable income in our pockets. This is a growth rate of just 0.35 per cent a year - I bet Gordon doesn't bore us with that statistic next Wednesday. Tax lawyer Charlie Elphicke, who led the study, uses the example of Ronald Reagan when he asked the question in the 1980 US Presidential debates - "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" As Elphicke points out "For the average voter, the answer to Ronald Reagan's question is likely to be a resounding no." The report also concludes that the lowest income households in Britain are paying a higher share of tax - and receiving a lower share of benefits - than they were in 1996/7. The Treasury have countered the report with claims that disposable income has increased since 1997. For a government that came to power promising that income tax will not rise only for it raise just about every other tax possible and create a few more on top of that, it is hard to believe a word they say.

Who are these people in Government who simply can not make a decent estimate? It seems every single Government major investment project runs vastly over budget. Where on Earth do they find them - it's not like it's one department or the odd project, but every single department and every single project. If this was the private sector these goons would have been sacked years ago. The latest piece of Government over spend has been revealed by the National Audit Office to be from the Department for Transport's road schemes - 200 of them! You'd have thought after the first 50 or so they might be able to spot a trend and start making better estimates.

Government

• Gordon Brown will raise billions of pounds to put education at the centre of next week's Budget with a privatisation of the student loans system. The chancellor will make the announcement of extra billions for education the centrepiece of what seems sure to be his last Budget. The book value of student loans at the end of March last year was £16bn and the Treasury is planning to sell a large chunk of this to a private sector that has an almost insatiable appetite for assets bearing a steady stream of income. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3b60aba4-d29b-11db-a7c0-000b5df10621.html
• Rail passengers face annual inflation-busting fare rises into the next decade after the government announced a £1bn investment in carriages to ease overcrowding.
  

I'm feeling rather pleased with a comment I posted to a thread on the Samizdata.net website, so I'm going to post it here too.

Jonathan Pearce had posted a thoughtful piece to Samizdata on the merits of David Cameron's announcement on rationing air travel, in the course of which he allowed that DC might genuinely have the interests of the poor at heart, but pointed out those interests were in the future, and asked "Why should a politician, answerable to an electorate, sacrifice or ask to sacrifice its interests for the interests of people in such a long time to come, and over a theory or set of theories that are, at best, not proven to the standards of a court of law?" Sounds like a good libertarian perspective, and many had agreed with him in more colourful language, accusing DC and his ilk of being fascists. Such exaggeration is often a good sign that people are thinking more with their guts than their heads, a habit discussed in my "Post-rational" post.

Government

• Peers have voted for the House of Lords to be fully appointed, setting the scene for a parliamentary battle over reform with MPs. In a series of Commons votes last week there were majorities for either an 80 or 100 per cent elected upper house, with the fully elected option receiving the largest majority. But backing in the Lords for an all-appointed second chamber by 361 votes to 121 (a majority of 240) will lead to a struggle between the two houses.
• Rail commuters have been promised an extra 1,000 train carriages by 2014 in a bid to tackle overcrowding.
  

NHS shocker: "Reorganisation of NHS services for patients needing medical attention outside normal working hours was shambolic and ran hugely over budget." This is according to a cross-party committee report on one of the government's key health reforms. That headline could be shortened to describe the NHS really - "NHS shambolic and ran hugely over budget." The NHS had been getting off quite lightly from me this week given the focus on the environment, but true to form not a week goes by without some ridiculous tale of waste and poor performance comes out.

The current government has taken the nanny state to new levels in the UK and now it is taking the term quite literally. Its latest piece of interfering is with the development of our young children - after all nanny knows best. The Guardian reports that every nursery, child minder and reception class in Britain will have to monitor children's progress towards a set of 69 government-set "early learning goals", recording them against more than 500 development milestones as they go. 500 milestones!?

Government  

• A reorganisation of NHS services for patients needing medical attention outside normal working hours was shambolic and ran hugely over budget, a cross-party committee of MPs says today in a caustic report on one of the government's key health reforms. GPs in England were allowed three years ago to opt out of responsibility for looking after patients during evenings, nights and weekends. But arrangements for primary care trusts to organise alternative medical cover were poorly prepared and cost £70m more than forecast, the Commons public accounts committee found. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2033165,00.html  
• An increase in council tax banding to ensure that expensive homes attract a fairer share of the tax burden is likely to be included in a package of measures to be unveiled following next week's budget, it was confirmed last night. But Sir Michael Lyons, in his report on local government finance, is expected to make his proposal for an extra band - possibly two - on top of the existing eight conditional upon the government agreeing to a wider revaluation of English property. Both main parties have ducked this issue as politically explosive. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2033425,00.html  
• Douglas Alexander, transport secretary, warned MPs yesterday of "serious consequences" for the UK if it refused to ratify a liberalised air-services accord between the US and the European Union. EU transport ministers are to vote on the controversial draft "open-skies" treaty on Thursday next week. Mr Alexander told the House of Commons transport committee that there was "significant support" for the accord among other member states. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fc105c30-d1d0-11db-b921-000b5df10621.html  
• Tony Blair has effectively sacked Sir Alistair Graham, a trenchant critic of the Government's ethical standards, as head of the sleaze watchdog. Sir Alistair will step down as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when his contract ends in April after the Prime Minister personally intervened to ensure that he left as soon as possible, leaving the body without a successor. The move has heightened fears about the future of the committee. The Government has not left enough time to appoint a new chairman before Sir Alistair's departure, and the committee fears that it will not be able to operate effectively until a replacement is chosen. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1512099.ece  
• Tourism business leaders are offering £20m to promote the industry in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics if the amount is matched by the government. The offer mirrors the match-funding scheme agreed between ministers and the industry to revive tourism in the wake of foot and mouth disease and the attacks of September 11 2001. Tourism leaders fear the government, far from in-creasing the £47m budget of VisitBritain, its tourism agency, intends to cut its 2007-11 allocation by 7 per cent. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61ca77ae-d1d1-11db-b921-000b5df10621.html  
• Babies will be assessed on their gurgling, babbling and toe-playing abilities when they are a few months old under a legally enforced national curriculum for children from birth to five published by the government yesterday. Every nursery, childminder and reception class in Britain will have to monitor children's progress towards a set of 69 government-set "early learning goals", recording them against more than 500 development milestones as they go. http://education.guardian.co.uk/earlyyears/story/0,,2033356,00.html   

Conservatives  

Government 

• The Government's blueprint for tackling climate change was today set out by Environment Secretary David Miliband. The draft Climate Change Bill set out a framework for moving the UK to a low-carbon economy. Key points of the draft bill, published today, include:
• A series of clear targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions - including making the UK's targets for a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 and a 26 to 32 per cent reduction by 2020 legally binding. 
• A new system of legally binding five year "carbon budgets", set at least 15 years ahead, to provide clarity on the UK's pathway towards its key targets and increase the certainty that businesses and individuals need to invest in low-carbon technologies. 
• A new statutory body, the Committee on Climate Change, to provide independent expert advice and guidance to Government on achieving its targets and staying within its carbon budgets. 
• New powers to enable the Government to more easily implement policies to cut emissions. 
• A new system of annual open and transparent reporting to Parliament. The Committee on Climate Change will provide an independent progress report to which the Government must respond. This will ensure the Government is held to account every year on its progress towards each five year carbon budget and the 2020 and 2050 targets. 
• A requirement for Government to report at least every five years on current and predicted impacts of climate change and on its proposals and policy for adapting to climate change.
• A consultation document on the proposals for enforcement of the REACH Regulation in the UK was published today. REACH, (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) was agreed by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on 18 December 2006. The Regulation will come into force on 1 June this year. It will form the EU's framework legislation for the management, control and use of chemicals, replacing much of the current patchwork of over 40 pieces of legislation. The UK is required to have an enforcement and penalties regime in place no later than 1 December 2008. REACH will apply not only to chemicals manufacturers or suppliers, but to any business which uses chemicals - so a wide range of businesses will be affected by the enforcement arrangements proposed.

Conservatives  

And so to the Government and their use of the environment as a way of screwing over the taxpayer. In an attempt to out-green Green Dave, the government has gone in a radically different direction. Instead of aiming to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050, they are going to cut them by 60% by 2050. See the difference? And instead of reviewing the progress yearly as Cameron has suggested, they will review every five years. The Government claims that the five-year model is a more intelligent and flexible policy. Which may well be technically true, but it's not really saying much, is it? They have attacked the Tories for placing so much emphasis on aviation, yet their own policy review document published in January warns of the critical importance of cutting aviation emissions.

Can someone please inject some common sense in to the Environment debate? It is really starting to get out of hand and I fear will bankrupt us all! It seems that the major parties can justify doing anything just by linking it to the doomsday apocalypse that is climate change. It is more effective at getting policies accepted by the electorate than the cold war or the war on terror ever was. And it is David Cameron who is really leading the field at the moment.

After promising that his brilliant new idea to tax the frequent (and not so frequent) flier would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere, we now know what he meant. It means that he is going to tax the hell of us and then use the money to interfere with our lives. The Independent reports "Money that a Conservative government would raise from taxing air travel will be used on schemes such as tax breaks for married couples, David Cameron has promised." It goes on "His aim is to offer a double whammy to encourage people to behave in ways that the Tory leader thinks are good for society." In a BBC interview yesterday he incredibably called it "taxing the bad and rewarding the good". Who does he think he is? Is he some sort of modern day twisted Robin Hood? Since when was he crowned the moral judge of what is right and what is wrong? I do not not need this buffoon guiding me through the moral maze. I just hope for his sake that one day something isn't revealed to show him up not to be the righteous, moralistic, perfect man that he likes to portray - but I think that day will come and we all know what it's going to be. If Dave has indulged in activities of an shady nature in the past, then that is his business as far as I'm concerned, but I won't be defending him if he thinks that he has some sort of right to interfere and comment on my private life.

Government 

What is it with David Cameron? He is obsessed with taxation and the environment. Or is it he is obsessed with taxation and excuses for raising taxes whilst sounding like a kind and caring new Tory? Forget the comparisons with Tony Blair, Cameron is the new Gordon Brown (though slightly less dour) - or at least his old pal George Osborne is. The latest value (not policy) is to issue passengers with a 'green miles' allowance and forced to pay more if they took extra flights.

One of the most ill conceived and un-needed policies from the current government is coming back to haunt all of us. The revised 1970 equal pay legislation is just beginning to show its impact - and guess what, women aren't getting pay rises and those on higher salaries are being forced in to getting pay cuts (even higher paid women).