The Iron Lady Rides Again
I don’t think I saw Margaret Thatcher in a debate like last night’s, although I did hear her many times on the radio during Prime Minister’s Questions.
I was speaking to a Scot this morning, and we both felt that Nicola Sturgeon has a lot of Margaret Thatcher about her.
I’ll probably be sent to The Tower for treason or whatever the Scots do, for such a thought!
Last Night’s Mass Debate
The Times has a leader article entitled The SNP Challenge, where it discusses last night’s political debate between party leaders on the BBC.
It is very much a must-read and it sums the debate up like this.
There was a lot of discussion of what politicians will spend money on. There was very little on how money will be created.
I suppose that the parties, who took part last night will be borrowing it from foolish lenders!
Does Milband Want To Alienate Voters?
Ed Miliband today launched the Labour party’s manifesto in Manchester.
Knowing Liverpool as I do, I can imagine some of the chat in the pubs in that city. And probably in other cities like Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle. And certainly, London!
Certainly, this Londoner feels it was not a good idea to launch in Manchester and perhaps the only worse place would be Scotland.
I think that the only policy you’d launch in Manchester would be one that is specific to the area. Surely, that way if you launched specific policies all over the country, you’d get the most good coverage.
The Tories Will Aim To Cut Inheritance Tax
According to this article on the BBC, a future Tory government would end Inheritance Tax on family homes up to a million pounds.
I have form in opinions in this area and had a letter published in the Financial Times in 2006 about this tax, after an article in the paper on March 31st 2006 advocated the killing off of the tax. This is the first two paragraphs of the letter.
I have been against inheritance tax for years, not because I would benefit from its abolition or because I am getting to that age, when I should start to do something about it (“Inheritance tax should be killed off”, March 31). It is just that as a control engineer by training, I think it does untold secondary damage.
Consider: how many bright minds are employed on both sides of the inheritance tax war in avoiding and collecting the tax? Abolish it and they would have to do a proper wealth-creating job.
I still believe that the Inheritance Tax should be abolished, if not totally, but substantially! I don’t have current figures but in 2006, it only raised half as much as Air Passenger Duty in that year. I’m not alone on thinking this way as this article from the Telegraph in 2013 shows. This paragraph is from the article.
Yet the tax raises just £2.9bn a year, a mere 0.18pc of GDP, a tiny sum given all of the collateral damage caused and one which could easily be recouped by accelerating the Government’s savings programme.
David Cameron’s proposals are welcome, but pretty timid and will only have a limited positive effect on the economy compared to what full abolition will have.
The tax revenue would have to be replaced and as a BBC survey showed in 2006, that people would prefer a couple of pence on Income Tax. These days other and better options exist. The problems with abolishing Inheritance Tax are all political rather than economic, as if the Tories went for full abolition, the Labour Party would have a field day, saying they were looking after their friends.
They’ll probably do that with David Cameron’s announcement, even though probably nearly half of the beneficiaries of the tax reduction will be Labour voters.
Avoiding The Real Issues In The NHS
All the political parties seem to be promising more and more to the NHS in this election, be it money, drugs, doctors, nurses or midwives.
Money could be the least of the problems, as it will probably come from improvements to the economy or some tax-the-rich measure, depending on your political point of view.
As drugs are not really a drug problem, but usually a money one, we are left with where to we get the tens of thousands of staff we need to provide health-care.
The trouble is that being a health professional, is a skill you can use anywhere in the world, as all human beings are the same under the skin, even if they come in various colours, speak different languages and have certain different diseases governed by genetics or environment. So just as we can recruit paramedics from the Antipodes, nurses from the Philippines and doctors from virtually everywhere, other countries can entice our health professionals away.
We live in an increasingly global society, and working abroad for a few years is often in many peoples desired career profile, be it in health care or not. Healthcare like certain other professions is one of those that gives you a passport to a lot of interesting places.
All manpower planning in the NHS seems to believe that those trained here, will stay here. But all good training does is hand everybody that passport to travel.
To make matters worse, good training for some professions, is an excellent grounding to starting a business or working in the private sector.
So the first issue we must face, is this one of where do we get the staff. The NHS has shown itself to be not very innovative in this area.
Some have suggested in the past, that anybody trained in the NHS must contract to work for the service for so many years. This is just cloud-cuckoo thinking.
The one positive thing that can be done to help staff is to provide better working conditions and rewards for those working in the NHS. Most of the NHS buildings, I’ve seen in the last ten years have been pretty sound, with perhaps the odd exception, so we must look at the problems of staff with respect to organisation, management, pay and pensions.
What I do find interesting is that all of the Practice Nurses I’ve met in GPs surgeries seem to be so much happier in their work than those in hospitals. It’s only a small survey, but it does say something about the difference between GP’s surgeries and hospitals.
When I’ve spent time in hospital in the past few years, it has been been twice in good NHS hospitals and once in an expensive private one in Hong Kong. There was little difference in the equipment or methods used, but as an IT professional of some years experience, I don’t believe that hospital systems are what an engineer or manager would accept if they worked in say a modern car factory in the UK.
So we must get hospital and GP health systems to the levels that patients and staff expect in their personal life.
Where is an on-line copy of my health record, that I can read to get to the bottom of my problems, that seem to occur seasonally in the Spring?
But things are changing and we must create a health communication and information system, that is an order of magnitude better than what we have today.
No political party is saying they’ll fix this important gap in the NHS.
Everything in our lives is going on to our computers or phones, but healthcare in the NHS hasn’t changed that much since I was born in 1947.
Some people rightly worry about such a computer system. But at its best it would only be like an on-line shopping system, where if you don’t see what you need on-line at your favourite store, you go and look at a physical one.
In all the politicians posturing on health, they very much ignore the users of the NHS and what they can do to improve the service and its efficiency.
I would be interested to see an analysis of how much the average patient costs the NHS. I suspect that because of the lack of a fully joined-up computer system, if I had complete access and wanted to find out how much I cost the NHS last year, no accurate value could be calculated.
Many people calculate their motoring costs to the last penny, but even if they wanted to, it’s probably impossible with healthcare, even though all the data is there.
Eventually, everybody will have this figure, as it could be a powerful tool for a GP to classify and better treat their patients and as a motivator to patients to improve their lifestyle. You’ll never change some patients, but many could be nudged in the right direction.
We must also do more to ease our load on the NHS. On a personal level, I look after my INR, by doing my own tests. A Committee of MPs has stated that all NHS patients who can, should do their own testing to save the NHS a lot of money.
How many other measurements can be taken by patients to ease the load? And are we doing enough to encourage more and better devices?
In no political party’s pontifications on the NHS, can I find anything about bringing the patient more into his or her own healthcare. But many doctors and nurses have said to me that we should take more responsibility for our own health.
After all, many of us now carry a tablet or phone, that has more computing and information accessing capability than existed anywhere ten years ago. Is this being used to give us better healthcare? Not really!
Political parties are not tackling the problems caused by our poor diet, lifestyle and environment.
Where I live, there are more unhealthy takeaways than you need to try a new one every week of the year. Not one sells any gluten-free food, so their chances of seducing me with their crap is non-existent.
Even the Sainsburys Local that I use is not a store,where you can always get the staples you need to create a healthy meal. Yesterday, I needed a couple of haddock fillets for supper, but except for some very bedraggled and unappetising cod, there was no uncoated fish. So I had to take a bus to the Angel to get some from Waitrose. Does a lack of healthy food locally mean that many don’t eat as healthily as I do? I am out and about in London most days using my Freedom Pass, so it is not difficult for me to pick up what I need on the go. But a young mother with an infant in a buggy doesn’t have that luxury. It’s not the shops’ fault, as they only stock what the shop sells!
The only positive thing government can do in this area, is to give local authorities more power to decide what shops they allow in their area.
I haven’t seen anything like this in any manifesto.
We should also do things to curb air pollution, which can get bad at times. All city centre transport, should either be electric or very low emission vehicles.
But again, no-one wants to annoy people, except the Greens, who won’t win anyway.
I suppose smoking comes into this area. Any candidate for London Mayor, who decides to ban it in public parks, squares and in the vicinity of bus stops gets my vote next time.
Perhaps candidates for the election, should have to declare if they smoke or not and what car they drive on the ballot paper!
Do we also give our children an education that will help them get through the minefield that is health? We give sex education in schools, but surely health education is just as, if not more important!
We need to think radically, about how we deliver healthcare and before we throw money at it, we should sort out the details on how it is delivered, how it interacts with patients and the fasctors that affect it.
Conservative 1940s thinking has failed and we must bring the NHS into the twenty-first century.
The Oil Find That Will Settle The Result Of The Election
I’ve believed for some time, that which ever party wins the election in a few weeks time should win the next election in 2020.
This belief is based on the fact, that so many large rail and other transport projects are due for completion in the later years of this decade.
The report on the BBC of the large oil find at Horse Hill in Surrey, is one of many that describe the find as of national significance. This is said in the BBC’s report.
“We think we’ve found a very significant discovery here, probably the largest [onshore in the UK] in the last 30 years, and we think it has national significance,” Stephen Sanderson, UKOG’s chief executive told the BBC.
Many will worry that developing an oil field in rural Surrey could be an environmental disaster.
A friend of mine had a lot to do with the development of the last major onshore oilfield in the UK at Wytch Farm, which is the largest onshore oil-field in Western Europe. The new field could be bigger, but all reports get their millions and billions mixed up.
Wytch Farm is not your average oilfield, as it is in the heart of rural Dorset by Corfe Castle. Wikipedia says this about the environment of the field.
Most of the field is protected by various conservation laws, including the Jurassic Coast world heritage site, Purbeck Heritage Coast and a number of sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and nature reserves (including Studland and Brownsea Island), so the gathering centre and most of the well sites are small and well screened by trees. Directional drilling has also contributed to reducing the impact on the local environment, with extended reach drilling from the Goathorn Peninsula attaining distances in excess of 10 km.
But the field would appear to have been an impeccable neighbour, more conspicuous by its absence in the media.
So I think the UK has good form in the development of oilfields in sensitive areas and there is no reason to expect that the development of Horse Hill will be any more disruptive than that at Wytch Farm.
The field’s biggest effect will be on the UK economy, if as reports are saying, production will start in a few years time, it will be producing revenues and cutting imports by the next election in 2020.
Circumstances have left the incoming government with a very large dowry.
They will have to be really stupid to lose in 2020. But then that’s normal for politicians.
Two ‘eads Are Better Than One!
This is an old phrase, but it certainly doesn’t apply to the two Eds trying to think up Labour Party tax policies.
In this article on the BBC, about the taxing of ‘non-doms’, this is said.
Ed Miliband said the non-dom rules were “indefensible” and axing them would raise “hundreds of millions” in tax.
But shadow chancellor Ed Balls was forced to deny contradicting himself after saying in January that scrapping the rule “would cost Britain money”.
How many people will now take everything they say with an awfully large pinch of salt?
I think it illustrates the first law of politics, which is don’t go into it, if you can’t remember everything you’ve done and said, since you first drew breath.
Why Would A Well-Off Person Vote For This Labour Party?
I am 67, single and reasonably comfortably off, but with the exception of my house, pension pot and funds in Zopa, I have no substantial taxable assets. Quite frankly, purchases like expensive cars and art, a second house in the country, buy-to-let investments and vanity purchases like football clubs, just don’t interest me.
My house is probably just below any proposed Mansion Tax limit, but for how long, given the rate of the rise in property values in this area?
Over the years, I’ve acquired a few friends, who are now as financially secure as I am, for the rest of their lives.
What puzzles me, are some of these friends have been serious supporters of the Labour Party in the past. I wonder how many of them, are now less sure in their support, as every day, Miliband and Balls bring in more and more bash-the-rich policies?
The latest policy of abolishing the ‘non-dom’ status as reported on the BBC, may not worry me, but I suspect some of the people I know will be livid. I can think of someone, who is a Project Management professional, who works all the time outside of the UK, which probably gives them an interesting tax problem and being ‘non-dom’ may come into their affairs.
In fact, there are so many high-paid jobs of this type, which because of the Internet and air travel can be done from any reasonable base, so how many of these people would leave if a Labour government took power? In the past C and myself, thought about leaving, if the General Elections of the 1980s and early 1990s had gone the wrong way.
So what is going to be the next crazy bash-the-rich policy floated by this impractical Labour Party?
On the other hand there will be Newtonian reactions.
I think this lurch to the left, will hurt the Labour Party severely in the pocket, as so many of those who supported them in the past, won’t contribute this time.
They will become even more dependent on the Trade Unions for funds.
But I also feel, that anyone, who has a desire to be rich, will think twice about the way they are going to vote!
Luckily for me, what I consider my biggest asset, that has got me out of financial trouble several times in the past; my brain, is untaxable! Unless of course, a government brings in a higher rate of Income Tax for those with a University degree!
Newtonian Politics
Isaac Newton was a great man of many facets. To me though as an Control Engineer, his most important work is his three laws of motion.
The First Law states that every body continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted on by an external force.
In real life it is Newton’s version of the old maxim – If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The Second Law states that the rate of change of mass times velocity in a body is proportional to the force applied.
Basically, in real life this means that the harder you push something the more it moves the way you want it to.
The Third Law states every action on a body has an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton wrote his laws as they applied to mechanical systems, but they also can be applied to people systems in a philosophical way.
If you look at the British economy for the last fifty years, two of the worst times were the Oil Crisis of 1973 and the Banking Crisis of 2008. Massive external forces distorted a British economic system, that was sitting reasonably happily in a state of rest as defined by the First Law. The application of the external force was a superb example of Newton’s Second Law, which caused the economy to move fast in the wrong direction.
In recent years too, the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011
In some cases the reaction of politicians the world over to these and other crises only made things worse. If we take September 11th, the United States had the moral high-ground after the atrocities and could have applied sensible policies to make sure that such attacks never happened again. Instead they illustrated Newton’s Third Law brilliantly, by in revenge invading Afghanistan and Iraq, which of course provoked the opposite reaction of Islamic terrorism we now see all over the world. If you poke a hornets nest, you get stung. Or in the case of the September 11th attacks, the rest of the world does.
So how do Newton’s Laws affect British politics and in particular this coming election?
I’ll use two simple examples from London.
The London Fire Brigade has closed ten fire stations in order to save money to help the city recover from the recession of 2008. There have been protests and local objections, but there has not been one story in the past year, of destruction or even death caused by the cuts.
Transport for London over the last couple of years, have swiftly moved totally away from cash-based ticketing to one that relies on contactless cards of one sort or another with the closure of lots of ticket offices. Politicians protested loudly at the announcement but there have not been any stories since about passengers protesting because they couldn’t get home or something similar. In fact the only comment, I’ve had from staff, is one off-duty bus driver, who said he’s convinced attacks on staff have reduced significantly.
I think that Londoners, staff and eventually politicians have realised that although the changes are massive, most have only been affected in a small way, so their reaction to the changes has been proportionately small. Probably the worst affected group are firemen, who’ve been made redundant and I suspect, that London’s booming economy has allowed those who need a new job to get one, as protests have been surprising by their absence.
I think that these two examples illustrate a facet of the British people. We may moan a bit about something we don’t like, but when the new system beds in and it doesn’t effect us too much, we accept it as a sensible policy. On the other hand, if something is manifestly wrong, like the Second Gulf War, we protest until the end.
People may complain about the parties being too similar, but as most politicians are decent reasonable people, who see the bigger picture, the middle way is often chosen by everybody.
In this current election there has been a defining theme, that could determine who is the next Prime Minister.
In the seven-party television debate, Nicola Sturgeon, showed the English a face of Scots, that they don’t like. All of the thoughts from north of the border is worrying the English that any Labour dog, will be wagged by a Scottish Nationalist tail. So will this cause a drop in Labour’s vote in England?
The poll today in The Sunday Times shows that Tory support is hardening. So has Newton’s Third Law taken control?
If Labour is to get the most seats they have got to convince a large number of house-owning working middle-class voters to switch allegiance.
But will these floating votes go for a party that is saying it will use their ISAs and other measures to fund and ease more house building, which will depress the value of their own properties?
Labour policy makers obviously don’t know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, as many of their policies, as do those of UKIP and the Nationalists, only appeal to a very committed majority. Tony Blair’s strength in the polls, was that he mobilised the non-Labour voters to vote for Nulabor.
David Cameron on the other hand, generally kept out of the squabbles in the seven-party debate, which was a classic stance to give a message compatible with Newton’s First Law.
It is an interesting problem, which will only be solved in the very British way at the ballot box in a few weeks time.
You Can Always Rely On Boris For a Good Quote
This article in The Guardian has this quote from Boris Johnson.
Vote Tory and get broadband. Vote Ukip and get Miliband!
Is there another UK politician, who is as good with words as Boris?
The Anonymous Widower 