Imagine a family planning what they should get for their holidays for the next few years. Bikinis or climbing boots? Skis or malaria jabs?
What they have to do first is to decide where they want to go. Only then can they decide what they will need.
Similarly, as Richard North keeps pointing out (for instance here), you can only decide the shape of your armed forces in the light of foreign policy priorities. What have we heard about those in this debate?
Under previous governments, the defence establishment was out of control, repeatedly allowed to commission expensive programmes for bespoke weapons systems which they couldn't afford to complete - a basic failing of management control by ministers.
We lost in Southern Iraq and are now tossing lives and billions away on an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
Cameron intones at PMQs the names of dead soldiers whose names "will never be forgotten". But of course they will be. This false sentimentality must not be carried over into defence planning.
The overstaffed top brass do not deserve well of us. Their feeble brains have cost this country billions.
Nor can we financially afford another Iraq, another Afghanistan.
So the first question must be: what are our forces for?
I see no sign of that question being asked, let alone answered.
September 30, 2010
September 26, 2010
Yates of the Yard is a thief
Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates used some of the air miles accumulated on official tours for private flights. The police say he was "unaware" that his actions went against the force's policy:
It's just obvious.
So what does that make John Yates?
How many other senior policemen are on the fiddle too?
Or if they truly find that policy hard to grasp, what does it say about the senior ranks' ability?
He was unaware this is not in line with MPS policy and is clearly concerned. Should there be any tax implications arising from this then he will deal with these immediately.Rubbish. Anyone with any moral sense knows those air miles belong to the police, not to the individual.
This is a timely reminder of a policy that may not be obvious and we will be taking steps to reinforce it to all of our staff.
It's just obvious.
So what does that make John Yates?
How many other senior policemen are on the fiddle too?
Or if they truly find that policy hard to grasp, what does it say about the senior ranks' ability?
September 25, 2010
Red, said Ed?
All right, Ed Miliband did what he had to do in cosying up to the unions. It was enough to get him elected. Only just.
Much comment this evening assumes that this makes him the creature of the unions.
Is it beyond the imagination of journalists that Ed may have said what he had to say in order to get himself elected leader, and will now say what he has to say in order to get himself elected Prime Minister?
Brother David never was leadership material. He's a trimmer, who lacks the killer instinct.
By contrast, Ed grabbed this chance. We'll know fairly soon if he's a ruthless opportunist.
Perhaps the unions will be in for a shock. After all, Ed's now the only Labour leader they've got. If he starts to change his positions, they have nowhere else to go.
But that is what would get him elected as Prime Minister.
Much comment this evening assumes that this makes him the creature of the unions.
Is it beyond the imagination of journalists that Ed may have said what he had to say in order to get himself elected leader, and will now say what he has to say in order to get himself elected Prime Minister?
Brother David never was leadership material. He's a trimmer, who lacks the killer instinct.
By contrast, Ed grabbed this chance. We'll know fairly soon if he's a ruthless opportunist.
Perhaps the unions will be in for a shock. After all, Ed's now the only Labour leader they've got. If he starts to change his positions, they have nowhere else to go.
But that is what would get him elected as Prime Minister.
September 18, 2010
Global climate disruption
Out goes "global warming" - too often it's cold - and in comes 'global climate disruption'.
The climate has ALWAYS changed. So how do we tell natural change from anthropogenic disruption? What evidence could falsify this "theory"? - if it's any more than a slogan.
Is it only disruptive change that is anthropogenic? I seem to recall there were some quite sudden changes a few centuries back. I bet they felt disruptive at the time, when temperatures plunged in short order. Economies were not advanced, there was no global trade in food, crop yields could not be boosted, so people starved to death.
Anthropogenic change might even act in the opposite direction to natural change - if you had any way at all of telling them apart - so might that even be good?!
And how could you design mitigation policies when 'disruption' could apply in any direction? Is 'disruption' by its nature even predictable?
The world should laugh at these charlatans' last throw of the dice, and then ignore them.
Cameron, Huhne and Milibands, please note.
P.S. A commenter at watts up with that notes that CO2 was only supposed to produce long term warming. So what does the "theory" claim has been responsible for these (inherently unpredictable?) "disruptions"? Indeed, what were they?
The climate has ALWAYS changed. So how do we tell natural change from anthropogenic disruption? What evidence could falsify this "theory"? - if it's any more than a slogan.
Is it only disruptive change that is anthropogenic? I seem to recall there were some quite sudden changes a few centuries back. I bet they felt disruptive at the time, when temperatures plunged in short order. Economies were not advanced, there was no global trade in food, crop yields could not be boosted, so people starved to death.
Anthropogenic change might even act in the opposite direction to natural change - if you had any way at all of telling them apart - so might that even be good?!
And how could you design mitigation policies when 'disruption' could apply in any direction? Is 'disruption' by its nature even predictable?
The world should laugh at these charlatans' last throw of the dice, and then ignore them.
Cameron, Huhne and Milibands, please note.
P.S. A commenter at watts up with that notes that CO2 was only supposed to produce long term warming. So what does the "theory" claim has been responsible for these (inherently unpredictable?) "disruptions"? Indeed, what were they?
September 15, 2010
In this morning's papers
The Wall Street Journal puts the French burqa ban in context.
Mr Justice Eady is to be replaced as senior judge on libel and privacy - and about time too.
And Iain Martin has a nice piece about lessons of the banking crisis Gordon Brown is trumpeting, and others he has been unwilling to acknowledge.
Mr Justice Eady is to be replaced as senior judge on libel and privacy - and about time too.
And Iain Martin has a nice piece about lessons of the banking crisis Gordon Brown is trumpeting, and others he has been unwilling to acknowledge.
September 14, 2010
NHS kills more paying customers
How comfortable to sit somewhere in a big bureaucracy, invisible and therefore unaccountable.
The UK lags behind the US and the rest of Europe in introducing newer, more targeted types of radiotherapy, reported The Telegraph last week.
Today's page 2 news doesn't show up online yet, but reports that "tens of thousands of cancer patients are missing out on the latest radiotherapy treatments".
Radiotherapy centres had predicted that by this year 90% of patients would be receiving IMRT, but this is unlikely to be met. Prof Karol Sikora says that:
Patients on the continent are twice as likely as those in Britain to receive the newest treatments, and "the gap between the UK and leading EU countries such as France and Germany" is growing.
Prof Sir Mike Richards bleats that the NHS is "planning ways to boost services to meet the needs of future cancer patients". But he and the NHS are failing now.
Against this background, we can only hope that yesterday's report for the Southend Echo by Katy Islip is wrong: she says that Southend Hospital "is the first in the UK to use intensity modulated radiation therapy, known as IMRT". She adds that
Once again, the comfortable NHS is killing paying customers through neglect, without accountability.
A private provider wouldn't get away with this: if they don't offer the treatment they won't get paid for it. And they're certainly unlikely allow a manager to let an expensive new machine sit unused for lack of software or trained operators.
The UK lags behind the US and the rest of Europe in introducing newer, more targeted types of radiotherapy, reported The Telegraph last week.
Today's page 2 news doesn't show up online yet, but reports that "tens of thousands of cancer patients are missing out on the latest radiotherapy treatments".
Many centres have machines that can deliver the latest treatments but are using them to give radiotherapy that is considered old fashioned."Of 41,421 patients who would have benefited from intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) only 9,775 actually got it."
Radiotherapy centres had predicted that by this year 90% of patients would be receiving IMRT, but this is unlikely to be met. Prof Karol Sikora says that:
In many instances we have the technology but we don't have people who are trained to use it or there are other issues like the machine has not been equipped with the correct computer software.To avoid being killed by the health service they have paid for through their taxes, patients are being forced to go private or go abroad to be treated.
Patients on the continent are twice as likely as those in Britain to receive the newest treatments, and "the gap between the UK and leading EU countries such as France and Germany" is growing.
Prof Sir Mike Richards bleats that the NHS is "planning ways to boost services to meet the needs of future cancer patients". But he and the NHS are failing now.
Against this background, we can only hope that yesterday's report for the Southend Echo by Katy Islip is wrong: she says that Southend Hospital "is the first in the UK to use intensity modulated radiation therapy, known as IMRT". She adds that
The care offered is soon to get even more sophisticated after the hospital used charitable donations (my italics) to invest in volume moderated arc therapy, which allows the machine delivering treatment to rotate around the patient. This will shrink treatment time from 15 minutes to just two minutes.Meanwhile, does a hospital near you have such a machine, bought and paid for by you, which they aren't using properly?
Once again, the comfortable NHS is killing paying customers through neglect, without accountability.
A private provider wouldn't get away with this: if they don't offer the treatment they won't get paid for it. And they're certainly unlikely allow a manager to let an expensive new machine sit unused for lack of software or trained operators.
September 11, 2010
In Saturday's papers (updated)
The Telegraph's intellectually demanding front page has D Miliband attacking his brother, and Hague being photographed in public with his wife.
Online, the Wall Street Journal's front page includes the observation that
The New York Times carries an interesting piece about a newly confident Germany. Younger Germans are not burdened with guilt.
Germans, the report suggests, "are more disenchanted than ever with the financial demands of the European Union". A rising young politician has named "not France or Poland but China and its neighbors as the most important countries for Germany’s future".
An industrialist claims that Germany enjoys a stellar reputation among businessmen in growing markets like India, China or Brazil, which prize “made in Germany” and Beethoven but do not share Europe’s memories of the war. “When I’m overseas, I hear all the time that we should take more pride in our nation,” he said.
How long before German politicians cannot persuade their electorate to shoulder further EU burdens?
Online, the Wall Street Journal's front page includes the observation that
In Paris during the past couple of years, a new style of restaurant has emerged that is more attuned to the straightened financial circumstances in which many citizens find themselves.Restaurants catering to Parisians who are starting to go straight and pay their taxes? I doubt it. But they may be in straitened circumstances.
The New York Times carries an interesting piece about a newly confident Germany. Younger Germans are not burdened with guilt.
Germans, the report suggests, "are more disenchanted than ever with the financial demands of the European Union". A rising young politician has named "not France or Poland but China and its neighbors as the most important countries for Germany’s future".
An industrialist claims that Germany enjoys a stellar reputation among businessmen in growing markets like India, China or Brazil, which prize “made in Germany” and Beethoven but do not share Europe’s memories of the war. “When I’m overseas, I hear all the time that we should take more pride in our nation,” he said.
How long before German politicians cannot persuade their electorate to shoulder further EU burdens?
September 09, 2010
No Tories in Scotland, are there?
We keep hearing that Scotland is a no go area for Tories, certainly as far as Westminster is concerned.
But what's this? When we look at the Scottish parliament, we find that the Tories are the third largest party - just ahead of former members of the Scottish coalition, the Lib Dems.
And if the last election had been held using the new constituency boundaries, they might have got another three seats.
Tory desert north of the border? It seems not.
But what's this? When we look at the Scottish parliament, we find that the Tories are the third largest party - just ahead of former members of the Scottish coalition, the Lib Dems.
And if the last election had been held using the new constituency boundaries, they might have got another three seats.
Tory desert north of the border? It seems not.
September 08, 2010
So THAT's what the EU was for?
If the EU is incapable of organizing itself in a way that improves growth prospects, or at least doesn't hinder them, then it is perfectly legitimate to ask what the point of it is.Iain Martin in the Wall Street Journal
September 07, 2010
Trust in the EU
Richard North has highlighted the latest poll results for trust in the EU.
By and large, the proportion in each member country that tends to trust the EU hits a high of 68% and then declines gradually to a mere 37%.
But oh dear, look at France and Germany, the countries often described as the motor of the EU. In France the proportion trusting the EU is 39%, against 51% who don't. Of course the French probably don't trust any politicians at all (certainly not Sarkhozy).
The German result should worry the Commission even more. A mere 37% trust the EU, compared with 54% who don't. Maybe the Commission should be grateful that the numbers weren't even worse, after the enforced bank and sovereign bailouts (the bailout of Greece will be in vain). But Germany is, of course, the main paymaster. Richard North thinks that the EU will collapse from within, and clearly there are limits to what German voters will tolerate.
The other large founding member is also near the bottom in the trust stakes. In Italy only 42% tend to trust the EU. Mind you, only 41% don't. At 17%, Italy is joint top in the number of don't knows. Compared to colourful Italian politics, the EU must seem so drab as to be almost invisible.
At the end of the chart the proportion in one country who say they tend to trust the EU crashes from the German figure of 37% (the second lowest) to a mere 20%. 68% there don't. Yes, it's the UK.
Bad news for Mr Hague and Mr Cameron, who have designed a foreign policy which tries not to mention the EU at all; and an indictment of the puny efforts of UKIP. In the face of this public mistrust, their main achievement has been to line the pockets of their low quality, chancer MEPs.
By and large, the proportion in each member country that tends to trust the EU hits a high of 68% and then declines gradually to a mere 37%.
But oh dear, look at France and Germany, the countries often described as the motor of the EU. In France the proportion trusting the EU is 39%, against 51% who don't. Of course the French probably don't trust any politicians at all (certainly not Sarkhozy).
The German result should worry the Commission even more. A mere 37% trust the EU, compared with 54% who don't. Maybe the Commission should be grateful that the numbers weren't even worse, after the enforced bank and sovereign bailouts (the bailout of Greece will be in vain). But Germany is, of course, the main paymaster. Richard North thinks that the EU will collapse from within, and clearly there are limits to what German voters will tolerate.
The other large founding member is also near the bottom in the trust stakes. In Italy only 42% tend to trust the EU. Mind you, only 41% don't. At 17%, Italy is joint top in the number of don't knows. Compared to colourful Italian politics, the EU must seem so drab as to be almost invisible.
At the end of the chart the proportion in one country who say they tend to trust the EU crashes from the German figure of 37% (the second lowest) to a mere 20%. 68% there don't. Yes, it's the UK.
Bad news for Mr Hague and Mr Cameron, who have designed a foreign policy which tries not to mention the EU at all; and an indictment of the puny efforts of UKIP. In the face of this public mistrust, their main achievement has been to line the pockets of their low quality, chancer MEPs.
September 06, 2010
BBC shows its bias again
"Student immigration levels unsustainable, says minister". This is the BBC's headline to a report of a speech Damian Green is to make.
The BBC concludes its report:
Or does the BBC only want to hear from people who might be disadvantaged by a government measure?
The BBC concludes its report:
Are you a foreign student? What do you think of Damian Green's comments? Send us your thoughts using the form below.So the BBC is explicitly soliciting comments from foreign students. What about the rest of us?
Or does the BBC only want to hear from people who might be disadvantaged by a government measure?
Another family on huge benefits
A jobless couple rake in £95,000 in state benefits a year – and even have breakfast delivered to the door each morning, courtesy of the taxpayer, reports the Mail.
The money – five times the starting salary of a teacher – goes to unemployed Pete and Sam Smith and their ten children, who live in a rentfree four-bedroom house.
Last night critics said it was disgraceful that the family pocketed huge amounts of taxpayers' money and called for urgent reform to the benefits system.
The Smiths were moved last month by the local authority from a house in Bath, which the landlord accused them of wrecking, to the large house in the Bristol suburb of Kingswood.
But Mrs Smith, 36, complained that the house was too small, the breakfast portions too stingy and said she could afford to buy her brood only one Nintendo Wii games console between them.
She claims she is also forced to pay £100 a week to keep her five cats in a cattery.
'It's very cramped here,' she told the News of the World. 'We've been told we might not be given a new house for another nine months, which is ridiculous.
'The breakfast supplied by the council isn't like proper hot food. It's usually eggs, beans, tinned tomatoes and cereal, which isn't really enough for us all and we have to heat it up ourselves.'
The couple have not worked since Mr Smith, 40, resigned from the Army in 2001 to care for his wife, who has curvature of the spine, and their children.
At that time they had three. Mrs Smith receives up to £140-a-week child benefits for her children aged from four months to 14 years.
The family also get disability living allowance, carer's allowance, tax credits and income support.
The total with child benefits is £44,954. They then receive a £950-aweek bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home, which comes to £49,400 – a total of £94,354 a year.
Emma Boon of the TaxPayers' Alliance said it was 'disgraceful' that the family received state money after wrecking their last home.
'It cannot be right that there are so many cases where couples are getting a lot more than the average working family,' she said.
A spokesman for Bath and North East Somerset Council said it had a legal duty to rehouse the homeless children and that the breakfast delivery deal was a 'temporary' arrangement.
Unsurprisingly, commenters on the Daily Mail report have strong views on this.
It's a free ride for the out of work who keep producing children to be brought up at our expense.
Stop allowances for third or subsequent children born more than a year after a family goes onto benefits. If the family feel they deserve more, let them find a private charity which agrees with them.
The money – five times the starting salary of a teacher – goes to unemployed Pete and Sam Smith and their ten children, who live in a rentfree four-bedroom house.
Last night critics said it was disgraceful that the family pocketed huge amounts of taxpayers' money and called for urgent reform to the benefits system.
The Smiths were moved last month by the local authority from a house in Bath, which the landlord accused them of wrecking, to the large house in the Bristol suburb of Kingswood.
But Mrs Smith, 36, complained that the house was too small, the breakfast portions too stingy and said she could afford to buy her brood only one Nintendo Wii games console between them.
She claims she is also forced to pay £100 a week to keep her five cats in a cattery.
'It's very cramped here,' she told the News of the World. 'We've been told we might not be given a new house for another nine months, which is ridiculous.
'The breakfast supplied by the council isn't like proper hot food. It's usually eggs, beans, tinned tomatoes and cereal, which isn't really enough for us all and we have to heat it up ourselves.'
The couple have not worked since Mr Smith, 40, resigned from the Army in 2001 to care for his wife, who has curvature of the spine, and their children.
At that time they had three. Mrs Smith receives up to £140-a-week child benefits for her children aged from four months to 14 years.
The family also get disability living allowance, carer's allowance, tax credits and income support.
The total with child benefits is £44,954. They then receive a £950-aweek bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home, which comes to £49,400 – a total of £94,354 a year.
Emma Boon of the TaxPayers' Alliance said it was 'disgraceful' that the family received state money after wrecking their last home.
'It cannot be right that there are so many cases where couples are getting a lot more than the average working family,' she said.
A spokesman for Bath and North East Somerset Council said it had a legal duty to rehouse the homeless children and that the breakfast delivery deal was a 'temporary' arrangement.
Unsurprisingly, commenters on the Daily Mail report have strong views on this.
It's a free ride for the out of work who keep producing children to be brought up at our expense.
Stop allowances for third or subsequent children born more than a year after a family goes onto benefits. If the family feel they deserve more, let them find a private charity which agrees with them.
September 03, 2010
CPS ducks the phone hacking issue
The allegation is that the police didn't give the CPS all the information they had.
In response to this Kier Starmer says:
In response to this Kier Starmer says:
I have no reason to consider that there was anything inappropriate in the prosecutions that were undertaken in this case - not the allegation - a classic tactic of the avoider.This will only strengthen suspicions of a cover-up.
In the light of the fresh allegations that have been made, some preliminary enquiries have been undertaken and I have now ordered an urgent examination of the material that was supplied to the CPS by the police three years ago - but the allegations concern material allegedly NOT supplied.
I am taking this action to satisfy myself and assure the public that the appropriate actions were taken in relation to that material - when that is not the issue.
The phone hack story won't go away - good
Tom Watson has written to Nick Clegg about the resurrected phone hack story mentioned here yesterday - his letter's reproduced in Jack of Kent's legal blog.
Watson's main target is of course the government, through his pursuit of Andy Coulson. More importantly, it seems increasingly likely that Scotland Yard concealed the scale of the hacking - astonishingly, from the Crown Prosecution Service itself.
If this allegation is stood up, a lot of dirty secrets will tumble out. People will be swept away, and Andy Coulson will be just of them.
Watson's main target is of course the government, through his pursuit of Andy Coulson. More importantly, it seems increasingly likely that Scotland Yard concealed the scale of the hacking - astonishingly, from the Crown Prosecution Service itself.
If this allegation is stood up, a lot of dirty secrets will tumble out. People will be swept away, and Andy Coulson will be just of them.
Charities Commission threatens government
Allegations of fraud by charities will no longer be automatically investigated by the Charity Commission if the Government pushes ahead with funding cuts of up to 30%, says The Independent.
What a shame that would be, it says. Why, the public might lose faith in the charities sector and stop giving. So maintaining the Commission's funding must be vital, mustn't it.
What a shame that would be, it says. Why, the public might lose faith in the charities sector and stop giving. So maintaining the Commission's funding must be vital, mustn't it.
September 02, 2010
Andy Coulson, Scotland Yard, & phone hacking
Long piece in the New York Times, summarised in The Guardian. It claims to highlight Scotland Yard's shortcomings, and gives fresh examples of phone hacking behind News of the World stories. Coulson is characterised as a driving editor - yet claims he was unaware of any phone hacking.
Max Clifford also makes an entertaining cameo appearance.
A good read and a story which shouldn't be allowed to go away.
Max Clifford also makes an entertaining cameo appearance.
A good read and a story which shouldn't be allowed to go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)