In Greenland's icy mountains

A posting on the US Senate website reports that "the July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings".

Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.

The report lists no fewer than ten scientific studies of Greenland, and concludes with the news that

The sampling of scientific studies and scientists are a sneak peak at a blockbuster U.S. Senate report set to be released in the Fall 2007 that will feature hundreds of scientists (many current and former UN scientists) who have spoken out recently against Gore, the UN, and the media driven climate “consensus.”

Police coddle crims

The excellent Inspector Gadget writes that "a Chief Inspector from another force explained on TV the other day that prisoners at his police station will be given Nicotine Patches by the Custody Staff".

You, the hard working, honest and decent citizen will pay for this.

Sorry to repeat the obvious, but this is another argument for local control of police forces. Professional bleeding hearts are more likely to be impressed by this than more robust local electorates who will wonder why they should foot the bill.

As Gadget concludes, "Being in custody is not supposed to be like checking in to the VIP lounge at Heathrow Airport. It should be a brisk, businesslike and not altogether pleasant experience."

More on recorded temperatures

I blogged before about surface recording stations. If urban growth has appeared around them over the years, the temperatures they record will become higher over time - hey, that's warming.

Now John Ray has picked up a report about Australia.

"Professor Lance Enderbee has published graphs of mean temperatures from 27 rural recording stations in Australia for 100 years from 1890 to 1990. The trend is horizontal, with mean temperature in 1990 below that for 1880. This has occurred during the century of the motor car, two world wars, and massive growth of coal burning for steel production and power generation. Rising carbon dioxide levels have had no effect on temperatures". "A similar data set for six Australian capital cities shows a generally rising trend in temperature since 1950 - that is, rising temperature in Australia is an urban effect, not a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

John has added another comment about the Lockwood paper.

The Lockwood paper was designed to rebut Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" film but it is in fact an absolute gift to climate atheists. What the paper says was of course all well-known already but the concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years really is invaluable. And the one fact that the paper documents so well -- that solar output is on the downturn -- is also hilarious, given its source. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that the sun's influence has not stopped and that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! Unprecedented July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even be the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards.

So - if you believe in the greenhouse gas effect - maybe we should be pumping greenhouse gases out for all we're worth, to counteract the dip in the sun's output.

The BBC on Baroness Young

The BBC carries a long profile of Baroness Young - Sarah Mukherjee again - with the biased summary on its front page "Baroness Young weathers the storm over flood defences".

It starts well enough, with her background in NHS management, but then, says Sarah, it came as a shock to her colleagues when she decided, in 1991, to move into the environmental sector, as chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Graham Wynn, now chief executive of the RSPB, says she admitted "right at the outset she knew very little about wildlife and the environment. But that didn't stop her from having strong opinions".

He adds that she has a "natural instinct in terms of the environment and as far as we are concerned in coming to intelligent conclusions". So that's all right then.

Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth says she has tamed the sprawling Environment Agency.

I think it's done what it needs to do now which is to be a champion of the environment carrying out statutory functions at the same time.

"A vote of confidence indeed", says our Sarah, ignoring his bias. Actually her job is not to be a champion of the environment, it's to do what she's paid to do.

She does then set out criticisms from the water industry and from MPs.

The baroness got a roasting from the public accounts committee when she gave evidence after the floods earlier this year.

Philip Dunne, the Conservative MP for Ludlow and a committee member, questions her ability.

"In 2001 she signed up to putting in place action plans for flood risk for the entire country - for all 68 areas designated under the EA's auspices, only four of which had been completed by the target date of April of this year," he says.

"And the fact that Lady Young did not insist on implementing the action plans for flood defence in sufficient time to have it completed in target, raises questions for me about her management style and prioritisation."

Criticism also came from Labour committee member Iain Wight MP, while committee chairman Edward Leigh MP asked if she should consider her position.

For all her critics, says Sarah, there are those, like Tony Juniper, who think the current criticism is unfair. (Er, why? name me another?) And with feminist solidarity Sarah quotes a female friend of Baroness Young talking approvingly of her.

You see, she's a woman in a man's world, even if she runs an organisation where senior bonuses are awarded on the basis of 42 (yes, 42) "key" priorities, which include improving the lot of eels, and doesn't deliver her objectives.

But hey, she's a woman and a champion of the environment. So that's all right then.

Press does the Opposition's job

The Sunday Times majors on bonuses paid to senior people at the Environment Agency. Unlike the Conservatives, the LibDems do have a visible environment spokesman. Chris Huhne said:

I very much hope they are not trying to sneak through large bonuses at a time when they would be very much in the firing line over some of the work that was not done in the run-up to the floods.

It is rather worrying the Environment Agency board signed off the accounts in perfectly good time to present them to parliament before the recess on Thursday, yet there seems to have been an unaccountable delay.

I thought this government said it would eschew news management, but I must have been mistaken.

The Sunday Times piece lists some of the agency's detailed targets, which do not seem to have been prioritised. That's the state sector for you.

More importantly:

In November 2006 the chairman wrote to Miliband to highlight “priority” projects that would not be delivered because of the budget cut. These included a programme to map areas at risk of flooding; cuts in channel clearing and maintenance; and reductions in studies and data collection that would “impact on future ability to warn and protect the right properties”.

On March 21, 2007 the board accepted it had not got enough money to respond adequately to floods: “We are still a long way short of where all the studies tell us we need to be to meet real needs for warning and protection against floods.”

The News of the World also weighs in, claiming that:

TWENTY-FIVE calls for Britain's flood defences to be urgently improved have been IGNORED by the Government in the last ten years.

They recall that flooding hit 8,000 homes in East Anglia, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire seven years ago, causing £500million damage.

Since then 25 reports from government agencies and parliamentary committees have sounded the alarm.

But flood defence budgets have been repeatedly CUT. In real terms the funding has fallen by 15 per cent since 2000.

Last year, the Environment Agency's flood defence budget was cut by £15million, a move their officials said would have "very serious impacts". And the Government has failed in its pledge to set up a single body to deal with floods.

The line now is that we will have to pay for the flood defences through higher water bills. Baroness Young, who clearly has a way with words, says:

Bills are going to have to go up, because of both drought and floods. Climate change is coming home to roost.

The News of the World is not impressed:

The water industry has already imposed above-inflation rises on users despite £2billion profits last year.

The firms were meant to spend £4.3billion on infrastructure in 2005-6, but only invested £3.4billion.

Shouldn't the Opposition be trumpeting this from the rooftops? Including the extra taxation we are going to pay through our water bills?

Paying for PR

Why does the Information Commissioner think it's all right to spend taxpayers' money on PR companies and consultants?

Over £300k in the year to March 2007. And wouldn't you know it, the cost has risen every year.

Poor bloody taxpayers again.

Education deformed

Of course course-work should be scrapped. Even teachers cheat.

Holding their hands out

The Swansea Evening Post reports that "a pregnant mum-of- four who pleaded with the council to end her overcrowding hell has hit back at critics who branded her family irresponsible spongers".

They are 23 and 21. "Their calls for help to find a more suitable council home for their three daughters, aged five, four and one, and son, aged three, have provoked a fierce backlash from indignant Post readers."

"I don't know how we're going to cope when the new baby arrives," says the unmarried mother.

There was some brisk reader reaction.

• Iain McCallum, from Gorseinon, wrote: "Sorry as I am about their plight, if you are unemployed and living in these circumstances, stop breeding."
  
  
• Another wrote: "I sympathise with Miss Leyman for having to give up work through ill health, but there is no excuse for her partner not to find a job."
  
  
• Richard Burkinshaw, from Swansea, said: "If you can't afford kids, don't have them. Why should my taxes bail you out?"
  
  
• Another reader added: "Stop forcing us to pay for your lack of responsibility and get jobs."

Would these views get a hearing on the BBC? Among the chattering classes? From Cameron's Conservatives? One suspects not.

Thus does the taxpayers' voice usually go unheard.

More fraud against taxpayers

icWales reports that a married woman managed to claim almost £24,000 in tax credits by pretending she was single, when she was in fact living with her husband. Because she was claiming as a single person, she received £25,500 in tax credits payments – £23,827 more than she was entitled to.

Thus does the state reward single parenthood. She gets a suspended sentence and community service.

How reliable are surface temperature readings?

John Ray picks up a post by John Brignell. Satellite data show the southern hemisphere is the same temperature as 28 years ago, while the northern hemisphere has warmed slightly. On the other hand, land surface readings show temperature rising.

So how reliable are the land surface readings? The siting of this station suggests its readings should be reliable:


But this one now has been encroached on, with air conditioning units and exhaust fans near it:


So there is now a study to photograph all the surface temperature monitoring units, to see how reliable their readings may be.

Problems in ratifying the EU constitution treaty

Euobserver reports a Brussels think tank's conclusion that ratification of the text may prove less easy than has been assumed so far.

The report discusses the process of parliamentary approval in France and other countries and then looks at possible referenda.

So far, only Ireland has officially announced that it will call a referendum, but other member states are facing pressure to do the same, including the UK, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Denmark, Spain and Luxembourg.

"Much could depend on which country is first to ratify the new treaty - and whether any other member state apart from Ireland decides to call a referendum at an early stage in the process," according to the report.

"If that happens it will be increasingly difficult for those governments which find themselves in the 'grey area' to avoid having one."

The Portuguese government will surely be particularly resistant to calls for a referendum as it currently holds the EU presidency. Spain approved the Constitution last time around, so their government can argue that the deed is already done.

On the other hand, the Netherlands voted No. Would their politicians really dare overrule their electorate by approving in Parliament a treaty almost the same as one the voters had rejected?

In the UK, even if the fight for a referendum can be won, it seems to me that a No vote would be far from a foregone conclusion. Though The Sun probably would vote No.

If the cost of food rises, what then?

There have been dire warnings that the price of food will rise because crops have been lost in the floods. Milk has been poured away because tankers couldn't reach farms, and animals are being slaughtered because there is nothing to feed them on.

Can't we just increase imports? Evidently not.

Normally, supermarkets and processors would look abroad to make up for a home-grown shortfall.

But bad weather in Europe - floods in the north and west and extreme heat in the south and east - means foreign substitutes aren't available.

Gaps on the shelves are inevitable.

That won't be great for people's feelgood factor in coming months (though the greenies should welcome it, since imports from the EU would presumably have a bigger carbon footprint than home grown produce).

As I blogged before, Asda at least thinks its customers' disposable income has been dropping sharply. If food prices rise, that will make the drop worse - and interest rates may rise again.

Even less feelgood factor. If the government wants to increase taxes again to pay for Brown's new dirigiste policies and the likely change in the PFI rules, will that be politically possible?

Maybe that strengthens the case for a snap election.

Bureaucrats' centralised control of farming doesn't work

As we know, the EU is now instructing that set-aside can be set aside because of a shortfall in cereal crops.

Now the NFU is suggesting that much of the flooding could have been prevented if farmers had been allowed to build dykes and ditches as they saw fit, rather than having to devote land to conservation instead.

Just maybe the people on the ground, whose livelihoods are at stake, know better than Margaret Beckett, David Miliband, Hilary Benn, or the bureaucrat in Whitehall or Brussels. They will certainly be quicker to adapt to changing circumstances.

Let's see if this heretical line of thought features among the "lessons to be learned". Even if it does, it won't be a lesson that can be applied unless the anonymous bureaucrats in Brussels allow it.

Crime pays

Carolyn Fernie swindled taxpayers out of £56,000 over 19 years by pretending to be unemployed tenant in a flat rather than its owner.

She was given council housing benefit to cover her “rent” of up to £270 a month — and used it to pay off the mortgage in eight years. She also used it for a £1,000 annual maintenance charge and was exempted from paying council tax.

Even after settling up the mortgage she went on claiming handouts for another 11 years. She bought the flat for £30,000 in 1987 and it is now worth £100,000, so she has made at £70,000 profit. But no application has been made for her to hand it over because she has repaid the money she cheated out of Bournemouth Borough Council — using her elderly parents’ savings.

She admitted 35 deception offences and asked for 213 others to be taken into consideration. The judge said she had “benefited enormously from fraudulent claims”. But he didn't send her to prison, after hearing she is her parents’ carer - he gave her a ten-month suspended sentence and 200 hours’ community service.

Dorset Police and the Department of Work and Pensions confirmed they would not be pursuing her for the flat. And the council said: “She has paid back what she owed.”

Why should "hard working families" respect the law if cheats can prosper? The profit is the proceeds of crime. Those public sector jobsworths should take her profit and use it for the good of the community. There are plenty of more deserving cases than her.

The state is careless of our money. Are these people fit to give our hard earned money away?

What's going on at The Sun?

The Sun calls for a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty.

FRANK Field often talks sense.

His radical ideas on pensions ten years ago were spot on. He got the boot as a minister because the Government couldn’t handle them.

But he’s hit the nail on the head again over the EU treaty.

Field rightly lambasts Gordon Brown for refusing to give us the referendum Labour promised.

And he correctly points out that it’s the one area where David Cameron can gain ground.

A relentless campaign for a referendum, and a pledge that a Conservative Government would grant one, will work wonders for Tory fortunes.

And show Cameron is in touch with voters.

That's four times in five days. Rupert Murdoch must at least condone this concentration on one unsexy political issue. Not convinced? Well lookee here, as Richard North points out, there's a long opinion piece in The Times.

The paper writes that "in terms of the sovereign powers transferred to Brussels, of expanded roles for the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament, of the potentially intrusive and legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, and of expanded majority voting in the EU Council, the “reform treaty” is indeed the old constitution revisited".

The details of the 277-page text on which officials are working (in French) follow the rejected constitutional treaty so closely that it is, to put it mildly, odd that neither Brussels nor the Government can produce an official English translation until deep into the parliamentary recess.

The paper says the biggest difference will be that, whereas the constitution had the (limited) clarity of a text, the end result of this exercise will be an impenetrable legalistic impasto.

So as Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the initial constitution’s architect, puts it: “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.” Welcome to democracy, as defined by self-serving grandees and bureaucrats.

What's astonishing is that they're prepared to say so quite openly.

The Times goes on:

What, for example, will MPs, let alone mere mortals, learn about the real powers of the new EU foreign minister (now the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) when they read in Article 19 that “the words ‘without prejudice to paragraph 1 and article 14 (3)’ are replaced by ‘in conformity with article [1-16, paragraph 2]’”? Will they read on to the telling third sub-paragraph, which states that when the Union has defined its position on an issue before the UN Security Council, Britain and France “shall” request that the High Representative speak for them? What does the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, really think about that? Or is he so weak that his opinion will not be sought by the Prime Minister?

The important constitutional innovations, it says, are intact -

• The President of the Commission will be elected by the European Parliament, not appointed by EU governments.
  
  
• EU foreign affairs councils will be chaired by a “minister” who is a vice-president of the Commission and runs his own diplomatic service.
  
  
• In justice and home affairs, as well as economic coordination and the environment, majority voting and co-decision with the European Parliament will become the general rule rather than the specified exception.
  
  
• The Union will acquire its own “legal personality”.

The paper points out the original claim was that the new clauses would clarify where power lay. "Insofar as this is so, it is in the EU’s favour. In the broad areas where responsibility is shared, governments will be able to act only “to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or decides to cease exercising, its own competence”. That turns subsidiarity on its head. What is not exclusively in the Union’s domain becomes so, if the Union so decides."

Why have the drafters have been instructed to produce a text in time for the European Council on October 18? "Such speed effectively cuts parliaments out of the loop. There is no pressing need for alacrity, given that the “urgent” treaty changes to make the EU work better, a new voting system will not now come into force until 2014. Democracy demands that the treaty be given detailed and thorough scrutiny."

The Prime Minister’s assertion that no new powers are being transferred to Brussels is difficult to reconcile with the mandate, or the draft text, or the firm belief in Germany, Spain and Italy that they have secured the constitution in all but name. He relies on a number of opt-ins and “emergency brakes”, and on a “declaration” that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not “create justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom, except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law”. These safeguards may not hold. They are open to interpretation by the European Court of Justice. Even if they do, the Commission’s involvement in judicial and home affairs falls foul, on its own, of the “transfer of powers” test. Mr Brown will incur displeasure in Europe if he reopens the debate. But if he does not, the case for a referendum on this document will be compelling.

More central spendng and control?

The think tank Reform argues that Gordon Brown's policies on the NHS, student finance, schools and housing represent "a significant retreat from reform".

The initial decisions will impose an upwards pressure on public sector costs. The new Government has announced new spending of £4.2 billion on housing, universities and schools. The UK has already seen the largest rise in public spending in Europe over the last decade with hugely disappointing results in terms of public service outcomes. Since 1999-00, public spending per household has already risen by 40 per cent, from £16,300 to £22,900, after inflation.

The Government has indicated that these extra costs will be funded by efficiency savings. But the recent record on efficiency savings is very weak. As a result the new spending commitments will almost certainly be funded by an increase in taxation.

Reform argues that the key policy challenges for the next decade are to reduce the tax burden, in order to meet the challenges of global competition and an ageing population; and to achieve high quality education and training, to enable all citizens to gain from the opportunities of advancing technology. "The new Government’s first decisions weaken the UK’s ability to meet these challenges."

Giving too much money to Scotland

The “Barnett Formula” means that people in Scotland receive £1,500 more government spending that people living in England.

“Britain is now suffering from a fiscal apartheid, where each English household gives £350 per year to Scotland for services they do not enjoy south of the border. This situation is unfair and unsustainable.” - Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance

That means my English household is subsidising Gordon Brown's constituents.

P.S. And every household pays £900 a year to cover bungled Government projects. This is starting to mount up.

Back for more on the constitutional treaty

The Sun calls for a referendum for the third day running (see here and here).

TORY leader David Cameron came out fighting yesterday after a bad week.

He blasted Gordon Brown for breaking his pledge of a referendum on the EU Constitution.

The PM claims this wretched document has been replaced by a harmless new treaty.

That won’t wash.

The new document is the old Constitution in all but name.

The Labour Party has no right to change the way we are governed without asking permission.

As Mr Cameron rightly asked the PM: “Why are you afraid to trust the people?”

Three days running? Can Mr Murdoch be unsympathetic? What next? Gorgeous pouting page 3 girls studying the text and organising demonstrations?

Brown avoids the Constitution question at PMQs

Richard North has the exchanges here.

What do Brown's responses tell us? That he knows he can't answer the question directly, so he has to talk round it. He knows he has broken the manifesto pledge.

It's not climate change, says John Kettley

"This year's apparently extraordinary weather is no more sinister than a typical British summer of old and a reminder of why Mediterranean holidays first became so attractive to us more than 40 years ago."

More here

Brown and the EU again

Open Europe is in good form today. Commenting on the promise by Brown on the front page of The Sun to deport foreign criminals, they write:

It is simply not true that, as Brown says, “if you commit a crime you will be deported.” This can only be true for non-EU criminals. The 2004 free movement directive explicitly rules out blanket deportation of EU nationals just because they have committed a crime. Under the directive the UK will only able to deport EU citizens on grounds of “serious” or “imperative” public security. It states that “Expulsion orders may not be issued by the host Member State as a penalty or legal consequence of a custodial penalty.”

Last year the then Home Secretary John Reid admitted that the Government had stopped trying to deport EU criminals because there were too many court cases (see Times 10 October 2006): “Mr Reid also disclosed that the Government will no longer try to deport foreign criminals from within the European Economic Area who have been convicted of low-level crimes. The courts have turned down every attempt to deport EEA foreign criminals.” On Newsnight last year then Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said, “It’s very difficult to deport people… it’s not impossible... It’s very difficult to deport people in a world of free movement and that’s why we’ve had to look at different ways of delivering justice if people are in breach of the rules.” (24 October 2006).

The directive also stops criminal convictions being used as grounds to deny entry: It states that “previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for denying entry to a national from another EEA state unless there are serious fears for public safety.” If Brown is serious about his pledge that “if you commit a crime you will be deported” he will need to amend the 2004 Directive.

The Sun calls the proposal "a vote-winner", without realising it's undeliverable.

The paper also reports that Gordon Brown said Britain would defend its 'red lines' in negotiations over the new treaty. Brown said, "We have to achieve our objectives. If our red lines are not being supported we could not support the treaty." He added, "If I thought I was doing something that needed a referendum I would say so."

The Sun's leader returns to the constitutional treaty for the second day running and is uncompromising.

In a desperate attempt to avoid a referendum, Mr Brown promises watertight safeguards for British sovereignty.

He will “walk away” at the first hint of a European superstate.

Well, if that’s the truth, our readers will be pleased. Because it means he will reject the blatant con-trick being played on the British people.

The new treaty is a stitch-up.

So-called “red lines” protecting our nation state are about as robust as Tewkesbury’s flood defences. When our EU “allies” see fit, they will sweep those safeguards into the sea.

Under the revamped Constitution we lose dozens of key vetoes, leaving us at the mercy of the majority.

Mr Brown is a clever man.

But he should not make the mistake of taking Sun readers for fools.

If Brown was trying to neutralise their comment yesterday, he's failed. Open Europe go on to comment themselves

The Government are storing up problems for themselves with their handling of the debate. Refusing to translate the text into English might make some kind of sense in terms of ultra short-term media management – but it confirms the (correct) impression in the media and among their own voters that this whole issue is being handled in a dishonest way. The Government do also seem to be shifting strategy – they have moved on from saying that this isn’t the same text (other EU leaders have killed that off) and are now saying that they have negotiated a special “UK version” (sic) which is literally different from the version signed by other countries (e.g. Jim Murphy on Today yesterday). Ultimately, because this isn’t true, it isn’t going to work that well as a defensive line. Journalists already regard it as a total joke, and we intend to repeat it as often as possible…

The damage this issue is doing to Brown and Labour is not immediately obvious because of the Brown surge - in fact at the moment is pretty much the only thing they are getting hurt on in the press. But it has stopped Brown making the “clean break with spin” which he needs - and wants - to make, and which is really important for Labour in the longer term. Brown has at least half a dozen more serious announcements to make which will buy credit with the Mail and the media in the short term. But their shifty handling of the Constitution is doing long term damage, and storing up problems for the future in an argument which is going to run for a long time.

Hey, that's our money they're wasting

The government continues to waste our money. Not its own money, our money. Your money and mine.

The government is paying above the market rate for employees from outside.

Taxpayers are set to get a £2m bill for removing the toll booths on the Forth Road Bridge - just a year after £5m of public cash was spent upgrading them.

And large businesses are subjected to an excessive number of tax investigations with only small sums of money at stake, according to a National Audit Office report. Almost 60% of the inquiries being pursued in February this year were expected collectively to produce less than 1% of the total tax yield generated by compliance checks. And the point of them is...?

The Taxpayers' Alliance highlights government waste every day. They are the only organisation campaigning for the government to stop wasting huge amounts of the money that you and I work for and never see because it's snaffled in tax.

Register your support for the Taxpayers' Alliance - it's free.

Jane Moore reports in The Sun that "Carl and Samantha Gillespie are enjoying the dry warmth and comfort of their new £500,000 detached home in a quiet, leafy suburb of Berkshire. Bought at your expense".

Carl and Samantha have 12 children between them and their last council house burnt down when one of the youngest ones played with a cigarette lighter. So West Berkshire Council spent £350,000 buying them a new home, plus a further £150,000 on renovations, including double glazing, furniture, carpets and central heating.

Pensioners being squeezed

The cost of living for elderly people is rising at more than twice the rate of other households, the Telegraph reports.

The steeper increase for older people was caused by a higher proportion of their income being spent on food and drink, the cost of which is rising at up to five times the rate of inflation, says the paper.

That's likely to get worse, as the floods are likely to lead to price rises. The report doesn't mention council tax, which has been highlighted in the past as a big issue for pensioners.

Furthermore, rises in the cost of living for pensioners are being made worse because average pensioner income is increasing by only 3% a year. The rise in income is limited. Rises in prices and council tax aren't.

Liam Halligan has highlighted the continuing scandal of the government's attitude to pensioners who lost their pensions. And the government is consulting about introducing driving restrictions on the elderly.

Life expectancy is increasing, and pensioners are more likely to vote than other age groups. Perhaps Mr Brown needs to be asked what the government is doing to improve the lot of the elderly.

So what are the economic benefits of immigration?

Over 2m foreign nationals have been issued with National Insurance numbers in the past four years, including 713,000 last year. By definition this excludes illegal immigrants, estimated at 500,000.

Illegal or not, they all need somewhere to live. Housing crisis, anyone?

It's about results, not process

Business is sceptical about the government drive to reduce red tape. Well well. They complain government is choosing the wrong regulations.

Lumbering forward on a broad front is a recipe for comfortable low achievement. If everything's a priority, nothing is.

Business bodies and government should each choose two areas of regulation and spearhead a high profile drive to cut red tape in those areas, to show it can be done and the benefits that flow.

Gore gets it wrong yet again

This time it's droughts. Gore told the US Senate in March that "droughts are becoming longer and more intense".

Er ...

The 30 major droughts of the 20th century were likely natural in all respects; and, hence, they are "indicative of what could also happen in the future," as Narisma et al. state in their concluding paragraph. And happen they will. Consequently, the next time a serious drought takes hold of some part of the world and the likes of Al Gore blame it on the "carbon footprints" of you and your family, ask them why just the opposite of what their hypothesis suggests actually occurred over the course of the 20th century, i.e., why, when the earth warmed - and at a rate and to a degree that they claim was unprecedented over thousands of years - the rate-of-occurrence of severe regional droughts actually declined.

Was this ignorance or a deliberate lie?

(htp John Ray)

David Cameron is a hypocrite

The question isn't should he have gone to Africa when part of his constituency was under water.

The question is, should he have gone at all? Jetting off to Africa for a couple of days? Come on, how green is that?

He lectures us with his wagging finger about carbon footprints, then jets off on a tawdry publicity stunt. It was a long distance stunt, which made it hypocritical as well as tawdry.

His defence was that if you go there yourself, you get a better idea of what is required. In two days? I think not. Especially if you spend some of the time making a speech to their parliament which presumably could have been delivered by video link.

And what of those Conservative "volunteers" heroically building a school? How misplaced that looks now, when they could have been heroically heaving sandbags in Tewksbury. That's bad luck. But might it not have been better value for Ruandans if the volunteers had donated their airfares to pay for locals to do the work? Then the local economy would have benefited twice over, rather than the airline boosting its profits.

But no, much rather a tawdry political stunt. Unfortunately for him, one which shines a light on the moral emptiness at the heart of David Cameron.

It IS the Constitution

Open Europe has produced the first English language translation of the new version of the Constitutional Treaty, and the first analysis of its contents - which suggests that it is almost exactly the same as the original European Constitution.

Open Europe says that only 10 out of 250 proposals in the new treaty are different from the proposals in the original EU Constitution. In other words, 96% of the text is the same as the rejected Constitution. Open Europe Director Neil O'Brien says

We never expected that they would simply bring back all the text from the old constitution. All they seem to have done is renumber the articles. From this point forward it's going to become absolutely impossible for Gordon Brown to resist a referendum, because this is almost exactly the same text that he promised a referendum on before.

If Brown now tries to carry on pretending that this is somehow a different document, it will be one of the most audacious political lies in the last couple of decades.

The Sun reports that

Gordon Brown last night refused to give people a say on the EU treaty – even though it is almost WORD FOR WORD the same as the hated EU Constitution.

The Premier ruled out a referendum on the pact, which means a huge surrender of power to Brussels.

He admitted our law-making rights will be handed over to foreign countries in dozens of areas.

Mr Brown insisted he has protected Britain in five key sectors and so there is no need for a poll.

But the first analysis of the treaty shows it IS the same as the Constitution on which Labour promised a referendum at the last election.

Mr Brown said in Downing Street yesterday: “We have set very clear ‘red lines’. If we can achieve these demands we have made in the negotiations then there will be no need for a referendum in the UK.”

But last night ministers admitted the treaty sees us lose our veto on over 60 areas.

A White Paper slipped out in the Commons said: “The treaty will streamline and speed up decision-making in a number of technical areas.

“The Government believes the package of decision-making as set out in the treaty is a good one for the UK.”

But Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, writing in today’s Sun, demands a vote on the issue. He said: “If Gordon Brown doesn’t trust the British people, why should the British people trust him?

“Now is the time to trust the people, and let them have their say on the future of our country.”

The draft text of the treaty was last night circulating in Brussels, although negotiations over its final content will last until December.

But it shows the main contents of the EU Constitution are included to the letter.

It will mean a permanent EU President with a civil service of 3,500 highly-paid bureaucrats.

And there will be an EU foreign minister who could speak for Britain on the world stage.

Critics say this could put Britain’s seat on the UN security council in jeopardy.

The Prime Minister last night published Britain’s position for the negotiations, and insisted he will fight to ensure:

# Our workplace laws are untouched;

# The police and courts systems are left alone;

# Foreign and defence policy cannot be dictated by Brussels;

# Social security and tax policy can never by set by foreigners;

# National security remains under UK control.

But critics point out that this won’t stand up to scrutiny as EU states and the Brussels Commission will find ways to get round them.

Their leading article says

GORDON BROWN hasn’t put a foot wrong since taking over as PM.

But yesterday he made the mistake of reneging on a promised vote on the EU Constitution.

Mr Brown denies the muddled new treaty is the original constitution dressed up in new clothes.

He insists deals struck by Tony Blair do NOT change relations between Britain and Europe.

“Red lines” will guard our sovereignty on foreign policy, terrorism, human rights and criminal justice.

This is unadulterated tosh.

The new document is designed to deceive. But clouds of waffle cannot conceal the truth.

We WILL play second fiddle to an EU foreign minister at the UN.

We WILL risk being outvoted on our own foreign policy.

We WILL be bound by EU human rights laws.

We WILL give up our veto over employment laws, energy and transport.

We WILL give unelected European judges power over our police and law courts.

Britain once warned ALL these measures were unacceptable.

Experts have yet to unravel the text, but every other EU leader admits this is the old constitution in all but name.

Ireland will hold a referendum. Holland and Denmark are certain to follow suit. Many Sun readers voted Labour in 2005 because Labour promised them a say.

They might not do so again if Gordon breaks the promise he made during his campaign for PM.

As Open Europe says, almost all other EU leaders have stressed that the “new” treaty is the same as the old Constitution.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that “The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.” The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen says that “The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.”

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero says that “A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties” The Czech President says that “Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.”

European Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has said simply that “It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.” Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has said that “they haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there”. Our new research suggests that even that was an underestimate…

Big majority for human rights opt-out over terror threat

This is the heading to a Migrationwatch post.

There is overwhelming public support for a much tougher line to be taken against terrorists and suspected terrorists including withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, they report, shown in a new poll.

'These results demonstrate that the British people are tired of seeing the interests of those intent on destroying our way of life being put before the safety of themselves and their families,' said Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch.

Most people find it totally incomprehensible that convicted terrorists are able to remain in Britain after they have completed their prison sentences. Our continued membership also means we have lost the ability to remove people from this country even when there is good intelligence that their presence here is a real or potential risk to public safety.

We accept that the ECHR was right for the time in which it was created, 50 years ago, but we are now in an entirely new situation and the public clearly believe that it is time that this new reality was recognised - and acted upon.

John Ray on that climate change paper

John Ray writes -

I think I now get where the Lockwood paper fits in to our understanding of climate and there is no doubt that it is an absolute gift to climate atheists. What it said was of course all well-known already but the concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years really is invaluable. And the one fact that the paper documents so well -- that solar output is on the downturn -- is also hilarious, given its source. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! This month's unprecedented cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even be the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards.

How irresponsible!

The BBC reports that the government is expected to announce today that it is rejecting calls to stop building houses on flood plains, despite the recent extensive flooding.

A draft of the Housing Green Paper, dated 18 July, was leaked to the BBC ahead of of its formal publication.

Of course government never comments on leaks but will hold an enquiry into the leak itself. A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said:

We asked the BBC to wait for the actual Green Paper's publication in Parliament, rather than reporting on an earlier draft.

What did they expect would happen? Did the department deliberately set out to make themselves look silly?

The minister is Yvette Cooper.

Global warming and BBC bias

Booker is on good form this week. He points out that politicians are causing us extra expense to alleviate global warming, just as questioning of the theory is intensifying.

What happened to the brains of all those panicking politicians who are now heaping on us an Everest of costs without bothering to check whether the simple little equation on which they are based actually corresponds with reality?

They are from the same school of politicians who took most of the EU into the euro - an idea whose time had not come, an arrangement which economists think is now unravelling.

Confront these people with a big, new and preferably simple idea, and they see themselves becoming important figures in history as they usher it along.

Never mind the inconvenient practical detail.

Booker also highlights persistent BBC bias in favour of windfarms.

We are right to worry about crime

The government is trying to reassure us that we needn't be worried about crime, because it's falling.

But three reasons why we should indeed be worried about crime have been in the news in the last few days.

1. Serious crime has risen

Wat Tyler has calculated from the crime survey numbers that since 1997 the recorded crime category of "most serious violence against the person" (including homicide and serious wounding) was up 35%. The category "most serious sexual crime" was up 40%. And robbery was up a staggering 61%*. "A straight average of these three categories says that serious crime- the crime we actually worry most about- is up by 45%."

2. The police are incompetent

PC David Copperfield (not his real name) is one of a number of blogging policemen. These blogs from people on the front line are a huge blow for democracy. Suddenly they can communicate directly with the public, and we can learn how frustrated they are without the politicians being able to stop them talking to us.

Now he has been able to air his concerns in The Telegraph. From the front line he can tell us that "the average PC now spends 75 per cent of each shift engaged in nonsense which has little to do with catching criminals or helping victims".

The police force, once trusted by the majority of decent folk, is fast becoming a joke. So why are we arresting people for throwing cucumber sandwiches or chalking on the pavement?

It's all about detections, and a big fraud that the Government is perpetrating on taxpayers. In our fast-moving society, people like simple headline figures; in 2005-6, the headline was that 27 per cent of crimes were detected.

Not much to brag about, but at least it's not absolutely pathetic. But look a little deeper.

We didn't detect 27 per cent of all burglaries, or 27 per cent of all assaults, or 27 per cent of all of the mindless acts of vandalism that went on - the kind where you wake up to find your car's wing mirror hanging on by its wires.

The actual burglary detection rate was 13 per cent (of which 40 per cent were "TICs" - offences "taken into consideration" - where an offender confesses to other crimes to get them off his slate).

See, they know how they're regarded.

The Home Office claims that 63.5 per cent of a police officer's time is spent "at the front line".

They don't say that the "front line" includes being in the station - waiting to book in, waiting for solicitors, appropriate adults and/or translators, interviewing, writing interminable reports and then getting the CPS to make a decision as to charge.

He believes change is in the air. "People want locally accountable chief officers, responding to local needs rather than central diktat." I agree that police chiefs should be elected locally. Tory policy is along those lines, so we probably won't be getting it any time soon.

Something big really needs to be done about our police forces, which are ineffective and bloated, and at the top are smug. Wat Tyler points out that between 1996-97 and 2006-07, police funding increased by 40% in real terms (about £300 per household in today's money). But since 1997 the number of police officers has increased by only 11%.

3. The punishment doesn't fit the crime

Examples from just the last two days.

• An incompetent bank robber - who doesn't seem to have been a danger to anyone - has got nine years. The first time, his scarf mask slipped from his mouth. The second time, the cashier activated the security screen, which trapped his bag. And the third time, he jabbed his finger at the cashier and left a fingerprint, which got him arrested.
  
  
• On the other hand, 19-year-old Rachel Begg used her phone nine times in a 15-minute journey before she smashed into a car being driven by 64-year-old Maureen Waites. It was 11.20pm on a dark, rainy night. She killed her. Originally Rachel denied using her mobile, but checks found she had made and received calls, as well as sent and read text messages as she drove. Sentence: four years' detention in a young offenders' institution. Her defence counsel said she was greatly remorseful for the crash, and referred the judge to submissions by her GP and psychiatric nurse which said she had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and nightmares. I don't care. If you kill someone while you're driving and using a mobile, you should go to prison for a long time.
  
  
• Lastly, there's a possibility that