They have too much power over you

Labour thinks it and its managers are better than the rest of us, and know better than the rest of us. Local authority bureaucrats will decide where your children go to school, NHS managers who aren't even public figures, let alone elected, will decide the health priorities for your amorphous catchment area.

And when something goes wrong? Tereza Tosbell's ward was so filthy that she got out of bed and cleaned it herself. And what do the hospital say?

A Colchester Hospital University NHS spokesman said: 'In the annual health check ratings for 2007-2008 we scored maximum marks for safety and cleanliness and we have also been praised for our very low levels of infections such as C. difficile and MRSA.'

This isn't even a non-denial denial. They're more interested in the marks they got from their fellow bureaucrats than they are in the state of their wards. They won't soil their lips with comments about Ms Tosbell's ward. They don't need to. She pays taxes which pay their salaries, but they're not accountable to her.

For the record, the Patients' Association said what Miss Tosbell had experienced was 'nothing unusual'.

Are Ms Tosbell and other patients to have an 'entitlement' for their ward to be clean? In the unlikely event that they do, how will it be enforced? Gordon Brown had to admit that the government has announced the headline without knowing how the policy will work.

It's not as if we know the bureaucrats are doing an outstanding job. As the Burning Our Money blog points out,

We are spending many tens - possibly hundreds - of millions on patient safety programmes and monitoring systems: the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) alone costs us £30m pa. Yet the reams of figures they produce are virtually useless.

The bureaucrats also have far too much power over the elderly. They can refuse to let a patient go home to his wife.

Serfs, rise up. They don't know best. Even if they did, you are supposedly free people. We don't need a monolithic health provider - we just need a powerful purchaser working on our behalf to procure a range of facilities we can choose from. We shouldn't be instructed by an official where our children are required to go to school - as Tory MP Douglas Carswell writes:

It's disgraceful that we have this system of rationing in the first place. We wouldn't put up with the state rationing jobs or houses, so why do we tolerate them telling us where and how to educate our kids?

Rather than use the law against mums and dads, parents need a legal right to control their child's share of local authority funding if they're not happy with what's on offer from the council.

Margaret Thatcher enabled many people to opt out from local authorities controlling their accommodation. They wanted to take responsibility for it themselves. The next step is to extend freedom of choice to education and health - not by people losing free provision at the point of use, but by having a real and effective choice of where they go to get the free healthcare for their family, and the free education for their children.

The present state apparatus is oppressive and unaccountable. And that's not an accident. It's an inevitable result of how the system has been designed.

Update on Irish benefit fraud

Recently I highlighted the role which cutting benefit fraud is to play in reducing the unsustainable deficit in Ireland. In support of this initiative, their government is now publicising the extent of benefit fraud practised by non-Irish nationals. The story is here.

The UK economy and benefits bill are, of course, considerably larger. But the problem for the UK government is that a large number for overseas benefit fraud would make their published pseudo-totals for UK benefit fraud look even sillier.

Local homes policy wrongly focused

A comment on the new headline policy of 'local homes for local people' suggests that a crackdown on illegal sub-letting of social housing could have an impact on housing queues - a policy suggested by the National Fraud Initiative, which proposed a change to the law.

The Brown regime disintegrates

Famously Brown referred today to a 0% rise in spending over a period. But it's worse than that. Fraser Nelson points out it's a 0% fall!

At PMQs today his worst answer was about the disabled college facing funding problems, where all he could do was rattle off general budget numbers and - as an afterthought - grant a meeting with a junior minister. Paul Waugh has the right assessment of Brown's general PMQs performance today, as well as the comment from the head of the audit commission that the NHS (& education) shouldn't be protected from cuts.

Meanwhile "entitlements" and the new housing project collapse before our eyes, with no one knowing where the money for the houses is coming from.

Frank Field tracks the disintegration of the Parliamentary Standards Bill.

Brown seems to have no concept of how to do politics or policy right. Amazing. You couldn't make it up.

"Cut IVF on the NHS" - and fake charities

"Fury as NHS trust says only women between 39.5 and 40 years old can have IVF", reports the Daily Mail.

The 'cruel and bizarre' restrictions were put in place by NHS managers in North Yorkshire struggling to deal with a huge deficit at their health trust.

Guidance from NICE we are told, says that women should be offered three cycles of IVF treatment free on the NHS, if they have had fertility problems for three years, are aged between 23 and 39, are obese and do not smoke. Quite what expertise NICE brings to the table in comparing the joy of an IVF baby with the value of a life saved is a mystery.

In fact there is no mystery. It is a straight value judgement, but one taken by unaccountable quangocrats behind closed doors. One which the equally unaccountable managers of several NHS can't afford to implement for their serfs.

Commenters on the Daily Mail's site are having none of this "fury". Many say roundly that there should be no IVF treatment on the NHS at all. The NHS is for curing illnesses, and shouldn't be taking their money to spend it on anything else.

One who does disapprove of the restriction is Susan Seenan, from Infertility Network UK. Who they? The accounts on their site are draft accounts for the year to 31 March 2008. Out of their total income of £197,909, a whopping £164,527 came from "grants receivable for charitable activities". £30,000 represented the Department of Health core grant. The remaining £134,527 of grants is shown as "restricted funds". Mark Wadsworth points out that most of that also came from taxpayers (see note 11 in the accounts, summarised in his comment to this post). They also received over £60,000 of sponsorship, presumably from their corporate partners.

In 2008 this charity spent £261,763. £217,636 went on charitable activities, the remaining £44,127 (16.8%) on governance costs. What are they up to? Their pseudo-charity status is revealed by their latest news announcement:

Infertility Network UK working with the Department of Health has produced access criteria to help local NHS provide equal services for fertility patients. Public Health Minister Gillian Merron endorsed the access criteria with its key points including smoking, weight and children from previous relationships. The Department of Health also announced the results of a survey of PCTs which shows that the number of PCTs offering three cycles of IVF treatment has increased.

Yes, they are a pressure group for more taxpayer spending on IVF and an arm of the bureaucracy in helping to draw up policy. Wholly without accountability. Almost wholly without accounts. (The CEO has been given an MBE, which is jolly nice.)

Looks like another fake charity. "They've got a little list ...". It's actually a growing list. Fake charities are a fraud. We the taxpayers pay for them. They are unaccountable. They are designed to look independent, as if voicing concerns of the public. But they're not.

Fake charities are a distortion of governance. Certainly one we shouldn't have to pay for in straitened times.

Those comments about IVF on the NHS suggest there may be a bigger appetite for cutting programmes than fearful politicians care to contemplate. Vince Cable repeatedly calls for discussion of which whole programmes should be cut. Here's one for debate.

This is what happens when you borrow too much

One of today's most interesting news items is hidden away in the business section on the Guardian's site. Yes, it does have one. It's for articles with numbers in them. But this is about far more than numbers. It is about hard choices to be made in government, a core concern of politics.

Picking up a Reuters report, the Guardian tells us that "the Irish government is finalising measures to cut its 21 billion euro social welfare expenditure and bring the overall fiscal deficit closer to the EU's threshold".

The International Monetary Fund on Wednesday urged spending cuts in the "sensitive" areas of public sector wages and social welfare programmes, to maintain the confidence of overseas investors who finance Ireland's rapidly rising debt.

This is what happens when you borrow lots of money from the markets - you surrender some of your freedom of choice, otherwise known as sovereignty. Lenders are only willing lenders if they are sure that they will get their money back.

Against the economic background summarised in the report, the government's choice is restricted to the micro level of which cuts to make - the macroeconomics being dictated by events and lenders.

In Ireland tax revenue has been hit by the contraction in the economy just as unemployment has caused welfare payments to rise. Sound familiar? The Telegraph reported only yesterday that in the UK welfare payments will exceed income tax receipts by almost £25 billion this year. Normally, income tax receipts comfortably cover the benefits bill.

The Irish government is to "crack down" on benefit fraud (always a good slogan), especially by foreign nationals (ditto), and it will introduce taxation or means testing of child benefit (another soft option).

According to Reuters, The Sunday Tribune newspaper said a government task force was expected to propose cutting public sector staff numbers by 10% and reducing the social welfare budget by 1.5 billion euros (out of 21 billion - see above; that'll take more than marginal measures). Proposals would include closing up to half of Ireland's rural police stations, cutting defence force numbers by up to 1,000, reducing the budget of the two houses of parliament and restructuring government departments.

Without the numbers this sounds like pretty small beer, even though Ireland's economy has contracted by more than ours.

But this is what happens when you borrow a lot of money. You lose your freedom of movement.

If we face the same strictures in the UK, expect economically illiterate backbench Labour MPs (the majority) to rail against international moneylenders. But it will have been their government that borrowed the money.

Accountable transparency

Ben Bradshaw, the new Culture Secretary, has said that the BBC, and all other institutions, needed to "defend every penny" of money spent during the economic downturn:

Transparency and openness is the best and the only policy if institutions that are funded by the public...want to retain the trust of the public they have to be open accountable as to how they spend money.

So far so good. But he refers to this as "public money".

No ... it's taxpayers' money. It's our money. The state took our money from us. That money belongs to the people.

And Mr Bradshaw is correct when he calls for accountable transparency.

Another interesting proposal floated today is that all state employees with salaries greater than the prime minister's should have to publish their expenses.

That would only be a start - partly because sensitive expenses would then get pushed down the chain to more junior employees where disclosure didn't apply. So yes, start there ... and then lower the threshold each year.

Accountable transparency shouldn't cost much to implement - certainly compared to the potential savings.

Gordon Brown a defective politician

Richard North points to a report in The Sunday Times telling us that "Gordon Brown's plans to create a legally enforceable “code of conduct” for MPs are in turmoil as MPs and peers prepare to reject the scheme".

Richard and others have covered the constitutional implications of this rushed bill.

What does it tell us about our prime minister? After two years at number 10, he still thinks he can sit at his desk and issue dictats. This even after the recent fiasco of his proposals for the Iraq enquiry.

Commentators continue to insist that Gordon Brown is highly intelligent. Really? Repeating such an obvious mistake so soon reeks of stupidity and unpuncturable arrogance.

Would I as an undergraduate cared to have been taught by such a man with no patience, no tolerance for others' views, and with such an addiction to casually bending the truth? Even as an academic debating colleague he would be hopeless.

If Gordon Brown goes into some sort of teaching job, I am sorry for his students.

What sanctions does John Bercow have?

Parents of unruly pupils could be taken to court by teachers under plans to be announced by ministers, says the BBC. Mr Balls has been announcing the proposals to The Sunday Mirror.

Deliberately testing Mr Speaker Bercow. Will we all be laughing at him after just a few days in his role?

MPs' second jobs

Being an MP is a full-time job, the argument goes. So you can't have a second job and be a 'proper' MP.

What about being a minister? Isn't that a pretty full-time job in itself?

Just wondering where the 'second job' argument takes us....

Hurrah. Tories promise to repeal a Labour law

The Tories should be promising to repeal unpopular and expensive Labour laws. And now they've started.

A survey by a firm of estate agents suggests that half of home sales may be going through without a home information pack available and completed. Sellers have been required since April to have a full HIP in place before marketing their home.

Councils aren't enforcing the rule. They think they have higher priorities.

Well done, Grant Shapps, Conservative housing spokesman and my local MP:

It was the height of Labour incompetence and arrogance for the Government to impose even more red tape on the housing market during the middle of a recession.

We should not be surprised that half of all house sales are now disregarding this pointless and expensive red tape. This widespread derision and evasion of the regulations proves how HIPs are deeply flawed.

We don't condone breaking the law. But rather than feebly attempt to enforce this bad law, these regulations should just be scrapped.

Town hall trading standards rightly have more important priorities than persecuting struggling home owners during a recession.

Conservatives will scrap Home Information Packs outright. If ministers really wanted to help homeowners, they would use their emergency powers to suspend HIPs and provide a shot in the arm to the ailing market.

More of this, please.

Rather than worry that HIPs incorporate EU rules, let's take a leaf out of the Italians' book.

Pictured is the minister who introduced HIPs. Step forward, useless Yvette Balls. Yvette Balls introduced HIPs, proclaiming that she would not apologise for 'greenplating'.

Yvette Balls, Yvette Balls
We do not want your silly laws
Greenplate your own life if you must
Do not force these costs on us.

Warning: nanny wants to infantilise you again

There's a heatwave coming, we're told. It will last ... ooh, a good few days.

The Chief Medical Officer has warned of an increase in deaths in times of hot weather. (Actually very cold weather kills more people than very hot weather, but let that pass.)

Baffled by heat? Here's some official advice:

Keeping the home as cool as possible during hot weather and remembering the needs of friends, relatives and neighbours who could be at risk is essential.

The elderly and those who are ill, are particularly vulnerable during hot weather and the most oppressive conditions occur in our towns and cities.

Windows should be kept shaded and closed when the temperature is hotter outside than inside.

People with respiratory problems should stay inside during the hottest part of the day.

And if anyone is worried that their home or that of a relative or neighbour is too hot they should contact their local environmental health officer!

Other advice in the government's heatwave plan (sic), the BBC tells us, includes to drink cold drinks like water or fruit juice regularly and avoid tea, coffee and alcohol.

Don't forget to breathe. And don't fulminate about money wasted on infantile guidance, it can be bad for your blood pressure, so keep those statins at hand. Get some nice fresh air, but don't expose yourself to the sun. A burka is particularly recommended for screening yourself from the sun.

I made that last paragraph up. Unbelievably, all the rest is true.

Bercow will have to censure Balls

Balls has been on The World At One talking about his new policy to push some power out to head teachers.

Come on, Bercow, why haven't you summoned Balls to the Commons yet?

Brown on another planet

We're short of money ... in a recession ... all but two people agree our state spending will have to be cut, and cut heavily.

On planet earth there is no global warming. There's climate change and always has been. Recent falls in temperature bear no clear relation to the rising amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Far away on planet Brown, global warming is gathering pace, and there is plenty of money to throw at this problem which everyone understands. So it's a good time to "set up a £60bn annual fund to help poor countries deal with climate change".

Back on planet earth this is the proposal of a man madly denying reality. Yes really, Brown increasingly seems clinically insane. What other explanation could there be?

Bumptious Bercow has a death wish

Does Bercow understand nothing about neutrality?

“I confess for somebody who’s historically and perhaps even legendarily independent-minded that that is frankly something of a relief,” Bercow told a gathering of venture capital investors last night on Parliament’s terrace overlooking the River Thames.

It's just inappropriate for a Speaker to belittle any of the parties in the House, let alone one whose members gave him little support in his election as Speaker.

Is it just mere stupidity, or something else? Does he really think he's invulnerable now?