CentreRight: November 2009

« October 2009 | Main | December 2009 »

November 2009

November 30, 2009

Do we now require voluntary taxes from candidates?

I'm no fan of Zac Goldsmith's policies, and I'm not convinced it was wise for Cameron's team to give him such prominence. But I'm dead against Cameron's requiring of him to abandon his non-dom status.

As I understand matters, Zac Goldsmith is legally entitled to non-dom status. Now, that may be silly, and non-dom status may have become a ridiculous scheme for those entitled to multiple passports to get a tax break, but if so then change the law. Currently, the law is as it is, and all Zac Goldsmith has done is to organise his matters in a tax-efficient manner. For him not to do so - for him to abandon his non-dom status - would be a quite straightforward case of his volunteering to pay extra tax.

If we think Zac Goldsmith should volunteer to pay extra tax, then we should just ask him to do so. How much voluntary tax is a continued Conservative candidacy going for these days? Will £0.5m or so suffice? Or is it a percentage of his total wealth? How about 0.25%? How much excess tax is Mr Cameron volunteering to pay? What's 0.25% of £30m? Will £75,000 cover it? How generous is William Hague feeling?

Continue reading "Do we now require voluntary taxes from candidates?" »

Posted by Melanchthon at 20:35 | Permalink | Comments (43)

What's your favourite political slogan?

Eric Pickles has just Twittered this:

It is a reminder how many words commonly appear in electioneering slogans. A few words are exhausted by politicians. There's Fresh. New. Change. Britain. Hope. Future. Tomorrow. Time.

My favourite of recent times was Margaret Thatcher's 1987 slogan, 'The Next Moves Forward'. I hated 'New Labour, New Danger'... but it proved to be right.

The old and simplest ones are probably still the best. 'Time for a change' remains the most potent.

Posted by Tim Montgomerie at 14:34 | Permalink | Comments (96)

November 29, 2009

How many billions are we about to give away to developing nations to spend on climate change?

Andrew Bolt is asking the question in Australia.

The National Post is asking the question in Canada.

Commonwealth leaders have signed up to a $10bn annual fund to help developing nations address climate change.

It's not clear who will be paying what share.

It's not clear if this will be instead of aid spending that is currently combating hunger and disease or if it is new money?

And, given recent history, it's also possible that the promise of money is dishonest.

We can add this to Matt Sinclair's worry that action on climate change (without wider benefits) is going to be very expensive... especially for the poor in Britain.

Posted by Tim Montgomerie at 16:07 | Permalink | Comments (45)

Exit polls say Swiss have voted to ban the building of minarets in Switzerland

So say exit polls in what will be the biggest sign yet of Europe's fears at 'Islamification'. Minarets have been likened to missiles in a distasteful and inflammatory poster campaign:

ITN produced this background report earlier before the vote was known:

Posted by Tim Montgomerie at 13:08 | Permalink | Comments (173)

The Conservatives can't avoid the big issues on climate change policy

I share Tim's objective of a "realist" policy on climate change. But, I'm far less sanguine about Conservative policy on this issue. Unfortunately, it looks like they're ducking the big issues. Tim highlights one area in which their policy might help achieve important objectives like cutting energy bills and cutting emissions: energy efficiency measures at home.

What that misses is that the public are already making pretty rapid progress in improving the energy efficiency of their homes. Nearly 95 per cent of suitable households have loft insulation, and most of those at a thickness of 4 inches or more. 85 per cent of households have double glazing, and most of those have it in 80 per cent or more of their rooms. Nearly 95 per cent of households with a hot water tank have it insulated, and yet again most of those have thick 3 inch insulation. The only major efficiency measure that isn't installed by the majority of suitable households is cavity wall insulation, at just over 40 per cent of suitable households, but even there steady progress is being made. All those figures are from official domestic energy consumption (XLS) statistics.

Exciting estimates of potential savings through energy efficiency gains tend to be premised on entirely redesigning the housing stock, which isn't going to happen with the long lifetimes of houses in Britain. The low hanging fruit has already been picked.

In light of all that, I'm a bit worried that too much focus on improving home energy efficiency is a bit like callous calls for people to "put a sweater on" when tens of thousands of elderly people are dying from the winter cold each year, an unintended case of blaming the victim for their suffering when energy prices rise.

Continue reading "The Conservatives can't avoid the big issues on climate change policy" »

Posted by Matthew Sinclair at 12:00 | Permalink | Comments (39)

November 28, 2009

This is what we've come to

A few days ago I was having coffee with an acquaintance - a very nice man that I've known for a couple of years - at a well-known coffee chain store, whilst our children played. His small son was with him, and started behaving badly. He told me that his son was being naughty in this way in public more and more regularly. He said that what he thought he ought to do was to smack him, but he feared that if he did so his son would mention in school that he had been smacked and social workers would be sent round.

On the way home, we were walking along a road in the dark, with cars passing regularly. My son suddenly started to run ahead, veering slightly towards the road side of the pavement, and my acquaintance leapt ahead to intercept him, grabbing him gently as he approached the edge and steering him back towards the centre of the pavement. He then apologized to me for touching my son, but said he was rather paranoid about roads.

Continue reading "This is what we've come to" »

Posted by Melanchthon at 18:09 | Permalink | Comments (22)

Philip Blond fails the Thatcher test

By Roger Helmer MEP.

Two stories in yesterday's news (Nov 27th) caught my eye. First, someone called Phillip Blond (sic), and described as a "Tory Guru", has come up with a series of way-out policy proposals. He is said to have the ear of David Cameron (though an un-named front-bencher was reported as saying "I've no idea what he thinks and I couldn't care less. He'll be gone in three months and someone else will be in fashion"). Mr. Blond (sic) is described as a "Red Tory", and runs a new think-tank called ResPublica.

So what gems of wisdom is the Red Tory offering us? He challenges the "neo-liberal account" of free markets, saying that Margaret Thatcher's 1980s reforms had "failed to produce the right results". This will come as a surprise to most Conservatives. He says we should "Break up the big-box retailers" -- he seems to be thinking of the big supermarket groups -- and return to the idea of taxing supermarket car-parks.

The Party floated the idea of taxes or charges for supermarket car parks a couple of years ago, and met such a firestorm of protest that it backed off pretty smartish. Now Mr. Blond (sic) wants to start the same hare running again.

He should pause and reflect that supermarket groups have achieved success because we, the consumers, choose to shop there. We find an enormous range of choice, that would have bewildered our grandmothers. We find ease and convenience. And we find highly competitive pricing (though prices would be even lower if we could get out from under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy). Of course there are risks with supermarket dominance, but that is what the planning process is there to control, to give local authorities and local voters a say in development. As localists, we Conservatives should be giving more say to local people, but we should not presume to have the right to go to successful businesses and to "break them up".

Continue reading "Philip Blond fails the Thatcher test" »

Posted by ConservativeHome at 14:27 | Permalink | Comments (85)

Aliens 'Already Exist on Earth'. No kidding.

Munching some Super High Fibre Dorset cereal this morning (it takes an hour to eat a bowl, thus reducing daily calorific intake, because by the time you've finished one, you're ready to go back to bed for a rest), flicking through the web, I came across this - surely Earth-shattering - story in The Telegraph: Aliens 'Already Exist On Earth', a claim made by Bulgarian scientists.

Who could they mean? There are some clues in the commentary supplied by Lachezar Filipov, who is the deputy director of the Bulgarian Space Research Institute. He opined: Aliens are currently all around us, and are watching us all the time.

He goes on to warn: Extraterrestrials are critical of the people's amoral behavio[u]r.

Continue reading "Aliens 'Already Exist on Earth'. No kidding." »

Posted by Graeme Archer at 09:20 | Permalink | Comments (14)

November 27, 2009

Why we should not extradite Gary McKinnon

There aren't many times I diverge from the ConservativeHome stance - my support for increased NHS spending being the main occassion - but I feel the decision by Alan Johnson to extradite computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the US is another such case.

Many are critical of the decision due to anti-Americanism, so I feel that I should address this first. I do not oppose the extradition because I am anti-American, because I'm not, nor because of the one-sided nature of the extradition treaty. I do so because the whole situation is wrong and, as supportive of the US as I am, there are times when they need a firm rebuke. Margaret Thatcher thought nothing of telephoning Reagan to give him a piece of her mind, and America and Reagan loved her for it. America does not want a lap dog ally, and it certainly doesn't benefit from having one. The US needs a strong and good friend which is honest with it, and good friends don't let friends behave like this.

Gary McKinnon has Aspergers Syndrome, whereby he does not understand the consequences of his actions. In many ways he is like a child in this regard, would we extradite a child? Although he is incredibly intelligent in certain ways, he does not understand things which seem obvious to us, and so the grounds of diminished responsibility can fairly be invoked.

Continue reading "Why we should not extradite Gary McKinnon" »

Posted by David T Breaker at 15:46 | Permalink | Comments (24)

When branding goes bad

Rebranding, and the commissioning of shiny logos, by public sector bodies always attracts controversy. At best, even when the logo that results is ok, it is really an exercise in indulgence and managerial egotism. At its worst, you end up spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on something that is actively embarassing.

It's safe to say that your rebranding has gone pretty badly when you find yourself cooking up absurd explanations of why you always thought it would be a good idea for your civic logo to look like a sperm.

$Ilfracombe_logo$

Ellen Vernon, economic regeneration officer at North Devon Council, which helped to develop the branding project with £5,000 funding, said: "To many, the 'swirl' represents Fore Street, the Harbour, a fish, an ice-cream and even waves. To others it may look like a sperm, which makes it vibrant and life-affirming."

Oh dear.

Posted by Mark Wallace at 14:22 | Permalink | Comments (17)

Gary McKinnon should stand trial in the USA for the serious crimes he is alleged to have committed

David Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, is a good friend from university days and he has been a tireless champion of his constituent, the computer hacker Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome. The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, has today decided that McKinnon's extradition to the US should go ahead. The US authorities want to try Mr McKinnon for hacking into military computer systems, apparently in search of information on UFOs. David Burrowes issued this statement in response:

"It is extremely disappointing that the repeated calls for compassion and justice for Gary have been ignored by the Home Secretary. Despite substantial medical grounds giving Alan Johnson the opportunity to stop the extradition he has washed his hands of Gary. I will continue to challenge the decision in Parliament and Gary's lawyers will be seeking a judicial review of a seemingly unreasonable and unfair decision".

From previous discussions of this topic I know that most ConHome readers are on the side of David Burrowes and Mr McKinnon. Although I respect David's compassion and seriousness of purpose I point you to an excellent post by Labour MP Tom Harris on the subject today. As Tom writes: "[Computer hacking] causes millions of pounds of damage every year. People who hack into other people’s computers should be charged and tried. If convicted, the sentences should be severe."

And to the idea that "Asperger’s sufferers shouldn’t be extradited", Tom continues: "Would this argument be made in favour of an Asperger’s Syndrome sufferer who had committed a less “acceptable” crime, like murder or child abuse?"

We do need more balanced extradition arrangements between Britain and America but we should also extradite Mr McKinnon for the alleged crimes he has committed.

Posted by Tim Montgomerie at 11:54 | Permalink | Comments (86)

November 26, 2009

Spinning Balls

On the back of one David Cameron error, the Government has done its very best to create the impression that there’s nothing to see here with regards to the recent revelations surrounding the funding of schools linked to Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT).

Cameron got a single detail wrong at PMQs. The money for these schools does not come from ‘Pathfinder’ PVE funds but, as the CSC report upon which Cameron based his questions states, from the 'Free Entitlement' and 'Pathfinder' educational funds. This slight mis-step by Cameron has been used by Ed Balls to quite disgracefully divert attention that government money is still going from his department to HT schools.

The Government also tried to make an issue of the DCSF registration number issue. The fact is that Michael Gove wrote to Ed Balls on 18th November asking Balls to provide him with the DCSF registration number and the Ofsted inspection report for the ISF as neither was available on the Ofsted website. Balls only provided the information yesterday after it was raised in PMQs. This is a pretty blatant diversionary attempt by the Government to get away from the core issue.

Continue reading "Spinning Balls" »

Posted by Robin Simcox at 18:39 | Permalink | Comments (25)

November 25, 2009

The Conservatives may need to rethink their policy on Hizb ut-Tahrir

David Cameron used Centre for Social Cohesion research to give the Prime Minister a pretty effective going over at PMQs today on the government's confused and ineffective policies on countering Islamic extremism.

The basis for Cameron's line of questioning was the CSC's recent report into Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). HT are a revolutionary party devoted to creating an Islamic caliphate which, once established, would be prepared to commit the mass murder of civilians. The report exposed that the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation (ISF), a charity run by HT members that manages two primary schools and a nursery in London, has received over £113,000 in government grants.

When confronted with the facts, Gordon Brown seemed suitably embarrassed; as anyone would be upon discovering that their government was funding the ideology it was meant to be combatting. However what was also interesting about today's PMQs was that it brought the 'to ban or not to ban' issue front and centre once again. Cameron and Chris Grayling have both publicly promised to ban HT - then again, so did Tony Blair, with zero success. Brown claimed today that 'in the case of Hizb ut-Tahrir, we have investigated and looked at it. It is not a proscribed organisation and if the right hon. Gentleman has new evidence that should make us proscribe it, we shall look at it again.'

Continue reading "The Conservatives may need to rethink their policy on Hizb ut-Tahrir" »

Posted by Robin Simcox at 19:15 | Permalink | Comments (52)

Paul Goodman MP: If Civil Partnerships aren’t gay marriage, why should a heterosexual couple be denied one?

By Paul Goodman MP.

The Government insisted at the time of the Civil Partnerships Bill that state-licensed civil partnerships, publicly entered into at a registry office or elsewhere, wouldn’t be state-licensed gay marriage (which it opposes). Rightly or wrongly, I believed that, in effect, they would be.

For this reason, I reluctantly, and perhaps mistakenly, voted against the Bill. I was all for equality in relation to life assurance, tax exemptions and so forth. But I was also against the state compromising an institution which is an integral feature of our social ecology. If this view seems eccentric, please remember that I’m far from isolated in holding it – since it is, after all, the position of the Government which (as I say) is opposed to gay marriage.

A couple called Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle want a civil partnership. They “feel alienated from the patriarchal traditions of marriage”. They also “don’t want to take advantage of civil marriage when it is an option that is denied to our lesbian and gay friends”. They’ve been refused their wish, on the ground that under law civil partnership “is a relationship between two people of the same sex”.

Backed by Peter Tatchell, they say that they’re prepared “to go to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary”. I’m not a lawyer, but suspect that the Court, if the couple eventually reach it, may take a different view. There’s no international legal consensus at present that a gay couple has a human right to be married, so it’s not obvious that the Court would decide that a straight couple has a human right to a civil partnership.

Continue reading "Paul Goodman MP: If Civil Partnerships aren’t gay marriage, why should a heterosexual couple be denied one?" »

Posted by ConservativeHome at 15:12 | Permalink | Comments (43)

Ipsos-MORI's new poll on public spending

Ipsos-MORI have an interesting opinion poll out today that is partly focused on public spending.

The headline on the Today Programme was that the poll shows public support for higher taxes rather than cuts in public spending, which would be astonishing given the state of the economy, the high tax burden and the evidence from almost every opinion poll in recent years to the contrary.

The interpretation put on this by Ben Page of Ipsos-MORI was that while politicians are bravely facing up to the disastrous state of the public finances, the people are still lagging behind and refusing to face up to the truth.

In reality, we know that the public are actually consistently more realistic than Westminster - both because they have day to day experience of waste and inefficiency in public services and because they have been economising and cutting back in their household spending, and want to see the public sector do the same.

So why the odd poll findings?

Well, for a start there is the framing of the questions. Anyone who has ever commissioned a poll will tell you that the language and phrasing of the questions asked is crucial. Indeed, normally polling companies themselves are very firm with clients when a poll is drawn up to avoid biased questions. In this case, though, there are clearly weighted questions.

Every time the issue of public spending is discussed, Ipsos-MORI have used the phrase "spending on public services" and even in one instance "spending on key public services", which provides a clear bias towards the idea that the spending they are asking about is schools, hospitals and other frontline activities rather than back office operations, quangos, senior staff, the civil service etc etc.

Take, for example, the question that is used as a basis for the headline finding that people want higher taxes:

Continue reading "Ipsos-MORI's new poll on public spending" »

Posted by Mark Wallace at 10:41 | Permalink | Comments (14)

Tools we can do without: a response to the authoritarian argument from the Times

I am concerned by the extent of state surveillance in our society. That concern is at the core of what I do and I think that having that concern is reasonable. And yet, over at the Times, in a piece I urge you to read before ploughing through this response, Crime and Security Editor Sean O’Neill says that I and those who feel like me are “mad-eyed” and “paranoid”. Ignoring cheap ad hominems, let us consider his arguments in turn.

He begins with a robust defence of the rapid expansion of the DNA database. Well, if those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear, then I await with interest the instruction to all police officers to give their DNA to the database, and the ensuing stampede of obedient PCs lining up to do so. Of course, in reality, said officers would no doubt refuse to do so, probably on the grounds that they are often at crime scenes and false positives could easily arise from their samples. They would be afraid of the results the surrender of their samples might have, regardless of their innocence. Which is how the rest of us are entitled to feel.

In the meantime, if Mr O’Neill and those with views like his wish voluntarily to surrender their details, they ought to be able to do so.

Continue reading "Tools we can do without: a response to the authoritarian argument from the Times" »

Posted by Alex Deane at 09:57 | Permalink | Comments (27)

Celebrating 75 years of Party Political Broadcasts

Believe it or not, Party Political Broadcasts were first shown 75 years ago. Who said the age of spin was something new?!

That said, I would suggest that it is only over the last couple of decades or so that the format has become especially sophisticated; prior to that it was often simply a case of sitting a politician in a studio and having them talk awkwardly straight into the camera and address the nation.

I'm looking forward to attending Hanover's celebration of the anniversary tonight and they have put together this compilation video to give a taster of a longer commemorative film which will be available to download from their website shortly.

Do readers have memories of favourite PPBs from years gone by?

I fondly recall the one produced for the 1987 election which was basically footage of nothing but Margaret Thatcher meeting every President and Prime Minister going - simply seeking to highlight her dominant position on the world stage...

Posted by Jonathan Isaby at 07:10 | Permalink | Comments (8)

November 24, 2009

An Iranian education

The merits of Columbia University hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007 have always been somewhat dubious. So it is interesting that it has now emerged that the university was paid $100,000 by the Alavi Foundation, an alleged Iranian front group, two months before agreeing to host the dictator.

The Alavi Foundation - an organisation based in the United States which declares itself 'devoted to the promotion and support of Islamic culture and Persian language, literature and civilization' - is accused by the US government of funnelling money to Iranian spies based in Europe and Islamic schools backed by the Iranian government. Federal prosecutors are currently attempting to seize up to $650m in assets from the foundation, with Adam Kaufmann, investigations chief at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, saying that they have 'found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation'. Alavi also regularly donated to Harvard, Portland State and Rutgers. The latter received $351,600 from the foundation between 2005-2007 to fund its Persian Studies Program.

The concept that top US universities are being funded by an Iranian front is troubling enough. However the possibility that Iranian money is influencing academia is not only restricted to America, but is a problem in the UK as well.

The Iranian government announced last year that it was in talks with 'several British universities' in order to fund Islamic studies programmes which would 'train and educate experts on Islam'. It barely needs pointing out that the Iranian government's understandings of Islam have not been working out too well for those being forced to live under it.

Continue reading "An Iranian education" »

Posted by Robin Simcox at 13:29 | Permalink | Comments (9)

Optimum Population Trust: seeing what they want to see

The Optimum Population Trust, for those of you who haven't yet come across them, are an odd bunch. Bluntly, they believe the best way to save the planet is to get rid of as many human beings as possible.

On the plus side, at least they are being more honest than most greens in their open contempt for human beings. The reality of many in the environmentalist movement is at core a deep anti-humanism, an arrogant dislike for people who are somehow too stupid to see the problem with their pursuit of a happy life and a healthy family.

On the down side, the OPT's aims are actually pretty worrying - verging on sinister, even. Buried in their website is a detailed spreadsheet [Excel link] laying out their ideal "sustainable" populations for each country. And those "ideal" populations are a little worrying, if you try to imagine the reality of them.

For example, the UK should shrink to 29 million people, from the 60 million we currently have. We are of course a small island, but ask yourself which half of your friends you would rather did not exist?

And we get things comparatively easy in the OPT's dystopian vision of the future.

Only one in six of the current Algerian population should really be allowed. Bosnians are unlikely to be overjoyed that 3 million of their 4 million people are, in the OPT's eyes, an inconvenience. Rwanda should apparently go from 7 million people to only 2 million.

Continue reading "Optimum Population Trust: seeing what they want to see" »

Posted by Mark Wallace at 13:25 | Permalink | Comments (48)

Reflections on the appointments of the EU's two top jobs

When I first heard the news that EU leaders had appointed Herman van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton to the two top jobs (semi-permanent EU President and High Representative) created by the Lisbon treaty, I was both astonished and angry. The EU has been pressing for the creation of these posts for the best part of a decade. They were the centrepiece of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessor, the European constitution. We have been browbeaten into accepting the Lisbon treaty and denied the referendum we were promised. And what do EU leaders do? They choose what might be described, to borrow Trotsky’s description of Stalin, two ‘outstanding mediocrities’.

But after some more consideration, I reflected that this may be quite good for the kind of EU we want to help create. For a start, these appointments do nothing to convince me that the EU is serious about enhancing its role on the world stage, which is of course perhaps the key raison d’être of the Lisbon treaty. If there really was a collective will to give the EU serious political clout in foreign affairs and global geo-politics then surely we would have ended up with a heavyweight candidate like Tony Blair, or someone of similar profile and experience, as President of the European Council.

Similarly, there were many vastly more experienced and charismatic candidates than Baroness Ashton but she was considered someone who would not develop an independent power base. Javier Solana, her predecessor who on paper had a much weaker role, had a PhD in physics from a US university i.e. he had studied abroad, was a long-serving Spanish MP and Foreign Minister and finally NATO Secretary-General before he was deemed ready to become High Representative. Baroness Ashton has nothing remotely comparable in terms of her CV!

Continue reading "Reflections on the appointments of the EU's two top jobs" »

Posted by Charles Tannock MEP at 12:35 | Permalink | Comments (85)

George Osborne proudly declares that the party is giving FOUR speeches on the environment this week

We haven't had FOUR speeches on immigration all year.

Posted by Ridley Grove at 12:14 | Permalink | Comments (27)

You have a right not to be married

On the Palace Pier in Brighton, in East Sussex's finest amusement arcade, there is a game, which I have played only once, but which has gripped my ability to form metaphor so completely that I think I must write it down in an effort to exorcise its hold. In the game, you are the holder of a hammer. On a board in front of you are perhaps a dozen holes, out of which, and in random order, protrude animatronic heads fashioned into simulacra of a common garden rodent. Your task in the game is to bash the heads of the "rodents" with the hammer, as soon as possible after they emerge from their lair, in order to prevent them from taking over your "garden". If you pride yourself on a phlegmatic approach to life, it can be a little disconcerting to find yourself, 45 seconds into the game, banging at the board with a frenzy which in most other circumstances would lead to an ambulance journey and a nice dark room.

Well. Life may not always imitate art; but it seems that politics may often imitate pier-end amusement arcade games. Because back in the news, again, is a proposal about which I'm quite sure I've written here at boring length in the past: the Law Society is again campaigning to give property rights to cohabiting couples, as though those couples were married. Worse, our party spokesman, Henry Bellingham, first of all welcomed these proposals, though David Cameron has stepped in and apparently ruled this out. Good.

Continue reading "You have a right not to be married" »

Posted by Graeme Archer at 08:41 | Permalink | Comments (20)

November 23, 2009

The government has questions to answer about flood defence

In 1947 the UK suffered devastating floods – caused by a combination of heavy snowfall and deep freeze, followed by warmer weather melting the snow at the same time as torrential rains slowly moved across the country. The ensuing floods left large parts of the UK paralysed for several weeks. Two years ago an analysis was made of the likely impact if floods of a similar magnitude, however caused, were to occur today. In theory, there should have been a significantly reduced impact – as the Conservative governments of Eden and Macmillan invested heavily in flood defences following the 1947 floods and subsequent 1953 North Sea floods. However, the authors found great difficulty in assessing how different the impact of modern flooding would be compared to that of 1947. The reason for their difficulty was quite astonishing. The government does not keep a national record of where flood defences exist.

"No national database is available which contains the type, height,design level, and maintenance conditions of U.K. river flood defenses even for main rivers."

(1947 UK Floods: 60 Year perspective p8)

If there is no national database of flood defences it also follows that the government has no national record of the state of repair of those flood defences. Although given the wholly inadequate levels of funding there are certainly some issues there, particularly in rural areas.

Most significantly however, it is clear that if the government has no national record of either where flood defences exist or their state of repair – then any claim by the government that they have a credible flood defence strategy is clearly nonsense.

Continue reading "The government has questions to answer about flood defence" »

Posted by Martin Parsons at 22:13 | Permalink | Comments (12)

A richer destiny

David Cameron's speech to the CBI starts to set out how we can build a richer future for our country. This is incredibly important. As reported yesterday, our real pay packets have been pretty much flat for the seven years since 2002. Rescuing the nation's finances is only half the story. Building a greater future so that our nation is a richer and more fun place to be is essential too.

It is important that David Cameron debunked the idea that deficit spending is somehow a good thing. It's not. It's a fools errand. Recovery can only be built on sound public finances, not by Government sucking up all available credit to fund reckless defict spending. We need to spend less. And we saw clear measures set out to control spending. The Conservatives have also set out an important and positive agenda for growth. Strongly pro enterprise. Lower corporation tax rates, on which the Conservatives want to go further, lower NICs for smaller businesses, getting business the credit it needs and upskilling workers.

This was a really important speech. It starts to move beyond how bad things are now to how good they could be. The richer destiny our nation could have with the Conservatives. People tell me constantly on the doorstep how they want to hear more about our plans for more jobs and money. Today's speech sets out that positive agenda. And it's essential, because after seven years of tiny pay rises. . . we rather need seven (ideally more) years of more plentiful pay!

Posted by Charlie Elphicke at 15:55 | Permalink | Comments (66)

Meg Hillier: spot the difference...

Between the point of the question, and the point of the answer:

2:09

Meg Hillier:

Yes you can use it like a passport - only in the EU. The first ones have already been used successfully for EU travel.

Monday November 23, 2009 2:09 Meg Hillier

2:08

[Comment From Mike Mike : ]

Is the data you need from me for an ID card the same as for a passport?

That's Meg Hillier, Home Office Under-Secretary of State for Identity, "answering" a question in a webchat over at the Manchester Evening News website. We in the Big Brother Watch office are gripped..! If you hurry, you, too, might see such quality responses as they are unveiled!

**UPDATES**

Quote:

Most people I speak to are not concerned about the security of the passport database

Yes. Your Mum, your Dad, Alan Johnson...

Quote:

The databases will be very secure - think Police National Computer.

Sure - like in this case, sentenced only this month, for someone misusing the PNC over a period of 18 months before being caught.

Quote:

polling tells us that many people will take up cards.

Really? Like the poll running on your webchat, currently saying 94% of your audience wouldn't..?

Posted by Alex Deane at 14:16 | Permalink | Comments (28)

November 2009

November 30, 2009

November 29, 2009

November 28, 2009

November 27, 2009

November 26, 2009

November 25, 2009

November 24, 2009

November 23, 2009

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

International centre-right organisations

UK centre-right organisations

Tory organisations

Contributors