The 'Coalition Document' issued today by the new UK Government has an intriguing line not so far commented on: "We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’."
Already voices have been heard in Scotland querying being ruled from England by Tories who were not voted for in Scotland. Welcome to our world! We in England are long used to being ruled by a Labour party voted on us by Scots.
I am intrigued at how this will be tackled: will it address the justice of the English getting the Government they vote for? Interesting times...
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
They Deserve our Goodwill
The last few amazing days have shown that that extraordinary thing, the "unwritten" British constitution, has worked. We now have what many said they wanted - politicians working together for the greater good.
Now is not the time for sniping and criticism from the wings - it is a time for us all to give the new Government room, and goodwill, to tackle the big issues. The massive deficit left by Labour must be sorted out, starting this morning.
Friday, 19 March 2010
The Golden "Blank Cheque" Award goes to...
Controlling public expenditure - what the Government does with our hard-earned taxes - is rightly much debated. I don't see very much public discussion, though, about the last great redoubt of the "blank cheque": in the clutches of grandees of the Law, especially in their favoured retirement roles of running eponymous "Inquiries".
I mentioned Legg a while back but at under £2 million, Legg was a relative paragon of restraint; The Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry cost £14 million, the BSE Inquiry around £27 million. There can be only one winner, though, and as I open the (24 carat gold) envelope, I see that the Golden Blank Cheque award goes to: The Rt Hon Lord Saville.
Tony Blair first gave Lord Saville his book of blank cheques in January 1998, saying that the Saville enquiry should take a more thorough look at this matter of "urgent importance" than the first Inquiry into "Bloody Sunday" (by Lord Widgery), which reported 11 weeks after the event. Lord Saville has duly taken more than 11 weeks, more than 11 months - in fact, more than 11 years and counting.
The sheer surreal black comedy of Lord Saville's sense of "urgency" justifies our award today: on his Inquiry website, under "What's New" [sic], there is a Press Release headed "Final Report" [sic]. This explains that the final report is "in preparation" and that it is "not possible to give any firm estimate of when the report is likely to be finished". This latest news item is dated 12th August 2005. Yes, 2005. I am not making this up.
But why hurry, when the blank cheques are being filled out at £44,000 a DAY (yes, a DAY), mostly in fees to lawyers. £44,000 a day, for 12 years and 1 month (so far, until the end of last month): that makes £190,300,000. At that rate, if his Lordship can keep going another 8 months he can break the £200 million mark. That would indeed be a spectacular achievement, I am sure we all agree.
Yes, truly wonderful for the lawyers - but may I spoil their party with a question about how the budgets for these enquiries are set, or controlled? Someone is clearly counting the money as it is handed over to the various chambers, temples and inns, but has anyone thought of controlling it?
To put it another way, why are the cheques blank?
I mentioned Legg a while back but at under £2 million, Legg was a relative paragon of restraint; The Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry cost £14 million, the BSE Inquiry around £27 million. There can be only one winner, though, and as I open the (24 carat gold) envelope, I see that the Golden Blank Cheque award goes to: The Rt Hon Lord Saville.
Tony Blair first gave Lord Saville his book of blank cheques in January 1998, saying that the Saville enquiry should take a more thorough look at this matter of "urgent importance" than the first Inquiry into "Bloody Sunday" (by Lord Widgery), which reported 11 weeks after the event. Lord Saville has duly taken more than 11 weeks, more than 11 months - in fact, more than 11 years and counting.
The sheer surreal black comedy of Lord Saville's sense of "urgency" justifies our award today: on his Inquiry website, under "What's New" [sic], there is a Press Release headed "Final Report" [sic]. This explains that the final report is "in preparation" and that it is "not possible to give any firm estimate of when the report is likely to be finished". This latest news item is dated 12th August 2005. Yes, 2005. I am not making this up.
But why hurry, when the blank cheques are being filled out at £44,000 a DAY (yes, a DAY), mostly in fees to lawyers. £44,000 a day, for 12 years and 1 month (so far, until the end of last month): that makes £190,300,000. At that rate, if his Lordship can keep going another 8 months he can break the £200 million mark. That would indeed be a spectacular achievement, I am sure we all agree.
Yes, truly wonderful for the lawyers - but may I spoil their party with a question about how the budgets for these enquiries are set, or controlled? Someone is clearly counting the money as it is handed over to the various chambers, temples and inns, but has anyone thought of controlling it?
To put it another way, why are the cheques blank?
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Legg is a symptom of the problem, not the solution
I am sure Sir Thomas Legg is a decent and honourable man. But nevertheless he illustrates a wider problem, and is guilty of some of what he criticises in MPs.
All my working life has been spent in small, usually family-owned private companies. The mindset I am used to is one of acute cost-consciousness, of always looking for the least expensive way of achieving the required ends. Of counting every penny.
Sir Thomas moves in the lofty world of the "great and good", where such a penny-pinching focus would be regarded with distain; in his world, his deliberations are of an importance far removed from the vulgar mundanities of mere cost. The cost is a blank cheque to be signed by others.
The Legg report declares that "Proportionate limits on [MPs'] expenditure must be taken to have been in force".
Is it too much to expect that, as Sir Thomas spent £1.16 million clawing back £1.12 million, he should have given a moment's thought himself to proportionality and restraint in the use of taxpayers' money?
All my working life has been spent in small, usually family-owned private companies. The mindset I am used to is one of acute cost-consciousness, of always looking for the least expensive way of achieving the required ends. Of counting every penny.
Sir Thomas moves in the lofty world of the "great and good", where such a penny-pinching focus would be regarded with distain; in his world, his deliberations are of an importance far removed from the vulgar mundanities of mere cost. The cost is a blank cheque to be signed by others.
The Legg report declares that "Proportionate limits on [MPs'] expenditure must be taken to have been in force".
But nobody should be above any thought of value, of what bill they are giving the public.
Is it too much to expect that, as Sir Thomas spent £1.16 million clawing back £1.12 million, he should have given a moment's thought himself to proportionality and restraint in the use of taxpayers' money?
Sunday, 27 September 2009
A pity Brown is miserly only with the truth
Who said "I was brought up in a family where I was taught not to attack people personally. I think it is a mistake if politics degenerate in that way"? Clue: the same person who hired and rehired Damien McBride, and repeatedly refused to sack him (until he had no other choice).
Who said, again and again, "the choice is between Labour investment and Tory cuts", and decried David Cameron as "Mr 10%"? Clue: the same person whose own Treasury was secretly planning 10% cuts.
Who kept using the word "prudence" in every sentence in his budgets? Clue: the same person who has splurged billions of taxpayers' money on public sector pay increases, non-jobs and scandalously expensive PFI schemes.
Who now is - most ludicrously of all - suddenly proclaiming himself the friend of the "squeezed middle class"? Clue: he has spent 11 years squeezing the middle classes - especially "middle England", for whom he seems to have a visceral contempt.
What word can best describe such a person? Clue: four letters, beginning with "L".
Who said, again and again, "the choice is between Labour investment and Tory cuts", and decried David Cameron as "Mr 10%"? Clue: the same person whose own Treasury was secretly planning 10% cuts.
Who kept using the word "prudence" in every sentence in his budgets? Clue: the same person who has splurged billions of taxpayers' money on public sector pay increases, non-jobs and scandalously expensive PFI schemes.
Who now is - most ludicrously of all - suddenly proclaiming himself the friend of the "squeezed middle class"? Clue: he has spent 11 years squeezing the middle classes - especially "middle England", for whom he seems to have a visceral contempt.
What word can best describe such a person? Clue: four letters, beginning with "L".
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Lady Scotland must resign
Was Lady Scotland's employment of her Tongan servant knowingly illegal? No, I am sure not. Should she resign? Yes.
Why should she resign? NOT because she inadvertently broke the letter of a law whilst acting reasonably and in good faith - but because she was a key player in this Government's deliberate imposition of (perhaps unreasonably) onerous requirements on ANYONE employing an immigrant. When this legislation was going through, small business representatives said that the strict requirements to check and copy all paperwork etc. were unnecessarily burdensome, and would be difficult for small businesses or individuals to comply with in practice. Lady Scotland's - the Government's - reply was clear: the onus was on the employer, they must comply and the mere burden of compliance was not an excuse. Ignorance of the detail of the law was not, of course, an excuse. Acting reasonably in good faith was not an excuse.
So the Government can take one of two honourable courses - (a) admit that such legislation imposed an unreasonable burden on individuals and small businesses, and amend it accordingly, OR (b) maintain their stance, and take the appropriate action against Lady Scotland, who must also, of course, resign.
What they cannot in honour do is maintain the strict rules for the rest of us with no excuses allowed, but excuse Lady Scotland. That is untenable. That is dishonest. That is wrong.
Why should she resign? NOT because she inadvertently broke the letter of a law whilst acting reasonably and in good faith - but because she was a key player in this Government's deliberate imposition of (perhaps unreasonably) onerous requirements on ANYONE employing an immigrant. When this legislation was going through, small business representatives said that the strict requirements to check and copy all paperwork etc. were unnecessarily burdensome, and would be difficult for small businesses or individuals to comply with in practice. Lady Scotland's - the Government's - reply was clear: the onus was on the employer, they must comply and the mere burden of compliance was not an excuse. Ignorance of the detail of the law was not, of course, an excuse. Acting reasonably in good faith was not an excuse.
So the Government can take one of two honourable courses - (a) admit that such legislation imposed an unreasonable burden on individuals and small businesses, and amend it accordingly, OR (b) maintain their stance, and take the appropriate action against Lady Scotland, who must also, of course, resign.
What they cannot in honour do is maintain the strict rules for the rest of us with no excuses allowed, but excuse Lady Scotland. That is untenable. That is dishonest. That is wrong.
Monday, 14 September 2009
Parliament is useless - and we all pay the price
It would be funny - if it wasn't so tragic, wasteful and stupid. The sight of Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the ludicrous new "Independent Safeguarding Authority" (ISA), faced with the storm of protest about the ridiculous new "vetting and barring" of everyone having anything to do with kids, plaintively asking on Channel 4 news where the critics were when all this went through parliament three years ago.
Poor, naive Sir Roger! Did you really think that your ISA had been very carefully thought through by a wise, scrutinising Parliament, weighing carefully the pros and cons? And did you really think that you would have the full support of the man responsible in government?
I'm afraid that's Balls. Ed: he has - of course - dumped you like a hot brick now the reality of these proposals has become widely known. You are now - like David Kelly - "chaff", a fall guy. Mr Balls may have been all smiles last time you met - now you won't see him for back-pedalling.
The legislation - needless to say - was a half-baked proposal rammed through a supine Parliament by an incompetent Government. It is typical: intrusive, illiberal, expensive, bureaucratic - yet totally ineffective, passed only so the Government could be seen to be "doing something" after Soham.
The appalling crass idiocy of our Goverment, and the total uselessness of our Parliament, is almost unbelievable. I despair.
Poor, naive Sir Roger! Did you really think that your ISA had been very carefully thought through by a wise, scrutinising Parliament, weighing carefully the pros and cons? And did you really think that you would have the full support of the man responsible in government?
I'm afraid that's Balls. Ed: he has - of course - dumped you like a hot brick now the reality of these proposals has become widely known. You are now - like David Kelly - "chaff", a fall guy. Mr Balls may have been all smiles last time you met - now you won't see him for back-pedalling.
The legislation - needless to say - was a half-baked proposal rammed through a supine Parliament by an incompetent Government. It is typical: intrusive, illiberal, expensive, bureaucratic - yet totally ineffective, passed only so the Government could be seen to be "doing something" after Soham.
The appalling crass idiocy of our Goverment, and the total uselessness of our Parliament, is almost unbelievable. I despair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
