Turn right, one way only

Cut down on the number of road signs, says Eric Pickles alliteratively:

We are being overrun by scruffy signs, bossy bollards, patchwork paving and railed off roads wasting taxpayers’ money that could be better spent on fixing potholes or keeping council tax down. We need to “cut the clutter”.

Thus Porker Pickles.

But does Porker not believe in community control, low-level localism? The LGA puts the view that

Councils should be left to make their own decisions about what signs and railings are needed, taking into account the opinions of people who live there.

That reads well - but I don't recall our council telling residents that they were proposing to put up a new sign and asking for their views.

Hypocrisy all round. Porker's signal is: Turn right, one way only.

Balls can't be shadow chancellor

Under anodyne questioning on WATO from stand-in Brian Hanrahan, Balls has just disqualified himself as a credible shadow chancellor.

He ducked questions about when deficit reduction should start and how long the phasing of it should be, by saying that even discussion of that should wait for two years to see how the economy performed.

So he'd be content to see state debt continue to shoot up. Surely not a credible position.

Can't have done the useless Mrs Balls' aspirations much good either.

Who governs Britain?

That's a phrase with a political history. Is it relevant today?

Fraser Nelson notes how the NUT is trying to stop schools becoming academies.

We have the NUT undemocratically setting out to sabotage government policy on schools, and Unite seeking judicial review of the proposed reorganisation of the NHS, while Harriet Harman's EHRC seems to think it has the right to call in any government policy for review.

So who does govern Britain?

MPs bullying IPSA employees

We're shocked, I tell you, shocked. Name the names.

Hm. Isn't this just what they did to the Commons functionaries when expenses were their job?

MPs deserve not one jot of sympathy. They voted effectively to outsource authorisation of their expenses at uncapped cost. Was it put out to tender? No, because they were desperate for a quick fix.

Will MPs learn from this? No, they're too self-important.

Name the names.

Dominic Grieve makes a mess

It should all have been so simple. Blair government stitches up Kelly enquiry by appointing Lord Hutton, who not only decides he's competent to hold an inquest too, but into the bargain bans the release of papers relating to Dr Kelly's death for 70 years. New government by contrast arranges for proper inquest, showing its commitment to openness and due legal process.

It's Dominic Grieve who is messing this up. He will consider reopening the enquiry into Dr Kelly's death - if people bring him new evidence. Of course there might be some in the papers that Hutton sealed, but Grieve won't look.

Today The Mail explains that

The power to release the papers resides with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, though Mr Grieve has the legal right to demand access.

Ministers want to publish details of Dr David Kelly's post-mortem examination online to end speculation about the weapons inspector's death, we are told. But "ministers would prefer to release the papers without an inquest, out of concern for the scientist's family". All clear so far?

Officials say Mr Grieve is determined to find a way to 'draw a line' under the affair that avoids upsetting Dr Kelly's widow Janice, which presumably explains his pedantic and very public dithering.

Now the pathologist who conducted the post mortem has called for an inquest.

A Government source said Dr Hunt's intervention could give ministers 'a dignified way out' of the controversy over the findings of the Hutton Report.

That wouldn't upset the family? Because the pathologist has called for it?

Grieve is showing that he's a liability. Goodness knows how he would handle something tricky.

Open ended welfare

The Sun has been covering the case of Gary Bateman, whose partner is pregnant with their twelfth child.

The £1,200-a-month rent on their imposing detached home comes out of more than £30,000 a year they claim from the State, says the paper.

Today they suggest he has made a single mother pregnant. She's also on benefits, and was pictured smoking. His partner has banned him from his other hobby, motocross.

Doubtless some working couples would like a large family but can't afford it. They might also like spare money for motocross.

One proposal to the government for saving money was that there should be no additional benefits for more than four children.

Additional benefits should undoubtedly taper. They should also be subject to community service.

That's not a full answer. But open ended welfare payments are certainly unacceptable.

Governments should not give aid to Pakistan

The generosity of the British public in helping Pakistan's flood victims is "shaming politicians around the world", the head of the Disasters Emergency Committee says according to the BBC.

No. In a democracy, people give what they want to give as individuals. They can also choose whether to pass it through government bureaucracy, or through charities.

It is not for governments to spend taxpayers' money this way. We can make up our own minds.

Govt tests the reaction on incapacity reforms

The Daily Mail reports that 889,000 people have been out of work on sick benefits for at least a decade, costing us £81m a week, or over £4.2bn a year.

In all there are over two million claimants of incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance.

The line, of course, is that these are people who have been failed by the system. So the tone of the pilot scheme starting in October in Aberdeen and Burnley is that incapacity benefit claimants will be reassessed "to see whether they can start looking for work straight away or if they need help first through the employment and Support allowance".

Ministers believe that as many as a million of those who are currently claiming to be unfit for work could actually make a contribution in the workplace.

My italics.

There will be a stick too - if you turn a job down, your benefits will be cut.

Clearly flying a kite, the paper reports that the government "is likely to end the perverse incentive which sees those longest on sick handouts getting more money".

Claimants take home £68.95 for the first 28 weeks, with the rate rising to £81.60 for the rest of the first year, at which point the payout increases to £91.40.

The pilots should be worth watching.

A good welfare proposal

The lovies are out after news that the Home Office is considering whether people dependent on drugs and alcohol who refuse treatment could have their welfare benefits withdrawn. Under the plans, addicts who failed to attend a treatment awareness programme would lose welfare benefits.

Seems fair enough. Welfare is intended as a hand up, not a cushion.

In May, reports the BBC, the Social Security Advisory Committee - an independent statutory body - said withdrawing benefits from drug users would lead them into crime and prostitution. And now

Martin Barnes, chief executive of charity DrugScope, said he "seriously questioned" whether linking benefit sanctions to a requirement to undergo medical treatment was fair and effective.

He told the BBC's Radio 4's Today programme there was no evidence that such an approach would for work for a "particularly vulnerable and marginalised group".

"Also, we have to bear in mind that under the principles that are enshrined in the NHS Constitution, medical intervention should be therapeutic, consensual, confidential - and I just don't see that's compatible with using the benefits system to require people to undergo a complex form of drug treatment intervention," he added.

But taxpayers' money should not be available indefinitely to drug and alcohol abusers.

People who live on our money must be prepared to let the state check on them.

Brittan takes trade role

Lord Brittan is to be the government’s trade minister, notes Iain Martin:

The post shouldn’t take up too much of his time. As a former EU trade commissioner he is well placed to understand that the U.K. has no control over its own trade policy, it being a matter for the EU.

A small light on government spending

Eric Pickles' department has listed all expenditure over £500 for last year. That wasn't very difficult, was it?

While we wait for other departments, anyone can look at the spreadsheet. Or check the Taxpayers' Alliance blog post, being updated as they pull out more plums.

There can be no going back after this. I wonder why the People's Party didn't do it?

Global warming in perspective - Lawson again

Good to see Lord Lawson being invited to speak at the annual conference of the Local Government Association. Councils in the UK should do "absolutely nothing" to tackle climate change, he said, unless a stringent global deal on reducing carbon emissions was reached through the United Nations.

He pointed out that northern Europe would actually greatly benefit from continued warming. More extreme warming periods occurred during Medieval and Roman times and sea levels are not rising rapidly any more:

There has certainly been skulduggery with the science; it's totally one-sided - ignoring the benefits of global warming and exaggerating the downsides. Climate change is like a new religion and there are some people who see it as a way to undermine capitalism.

Police old guard retreat to new ground

Sir Hugh Orde promised to resign if the government kept its manifesto promise to introduce elected police commissioners.

Sadly for him, this imperious challenge has for some inexplicable reason failed to divert the government from its course. So he and his senior police cohorts have retreated to new ground.

They now accept that there will inevitably be elected police commissioners. The new aim will be to neuter them.

Expect to hear repeated cries that Chief Constables must keep their "operational independence". This motto will be drummed into us over coming months.

But how much "operational independence" do they deserve? Not much, according to Inspector Gadget - see recently here, and particularly here, where he quotes Theresa May:

When times are tight, when we are removing red tape imposed by the Home Office, it simply cannot be right that this bureaucracy is reinstated at a local level.

Police commissioners are going to need to be able to stop such waste. Chief Constables will use obstructive guerilla tactics unless Nick Herbert lays out the new commissioners' powers very clearly in the enabling bill.

P.S. Essex police are spending time on noisy frogs rather than noise nuisance from teenagers zooming around on motorbikes. Police say the frogs - which have been there for 25 years and are found in at least three other counties - are not native (or "non-native" in the jargon) and therefore have to be removed. Surely a police commissioner would have something to say.

Autocutie trips herself up

Katie Derham, the television presenter, has rubbished the idea that female newsreaders are dim "autocuties", reports The Telegraph.

It's arrant nonsense and tiresome because women do exactly the same as male colleagues. No-one should underestimate how short a time we'd last if we were so dim," she told the Radio Times.

Oh dear, Katie, you probably meant "overestimate".

Point made, I think.

Oh no it's Jacqui Smith again

Jacqui Smith has applied to become vice-chairman of the BBC Trust, reports The Mail.

Two issues arise. First, the position pays a ludicrous £77,000 a year for a two-and-a-half-day week as well as offering generous perks. Hey, it's the BBC.

Second, Jacqui Smith's abuse of her expenses showed she was unfit to hold public office. It's not the sleazy 'adult' films; she cynically designated her sister's bedroom as her main home and then claimed hard for expenses on the family house in Redditch.

Happily she should be a non starter for a job which is bound to involve schmoozing Jeremy Hunt.

Asked whether she thought her bid was likely to succeed, she said: ‘I have made an application, that’s all I know’, before adding ‘f*** off’ and terminating the conversation.

F*** off out of public life, Jacqui. You've bled the taxpayers enough.