A summit stock-take
Wouldn't it have been easier to pick up the phone? It certainly would have been cheaper than the multimillion-pound jamboree that this gathering of the world's leaders of the world's eight richest countries has become.
On the other hand, at the end of his first summit, Gordon Brown believes it's been worthwhile. He's been in his element here, plotting the small steps necessary to reach the major deals that he hopes will be reached in the future.
In truth, on each of the areas that he's highlighted, the deals have yet to be done. On Zimbabwe, the G8 did agree to take tougher measures, but overnight the Russians are sounding deeply sceptical about the sanction proposals that Britain and America have tabled at the UN in New York.
On trade, the prime minister talks of us being a "minute from midnight", and a greater hope for a deal than there has been before, but the deal will be done, not in Japan, but, if it's ever done, in Geneva in 12 days time.
On climate change, the G8 talked of a new vision but it is a new American president, and the leaders of the emerging economies like China and India, who will decide whether a deal is in fact done in 2009.
And even on development aid, where the prime minister deserves some credit for stopping other countries from watering down their promises, many countries have yet, of course, to deliver their old ones.
Real business was done at the G8 and indeed at what were effectively two other summits, with the developing economies and with the African nations. There's no doubt some progress was made at this G8 summit but the real test of it will come in negotiations yet to be held.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~57~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
I won't beleive anything that comes from the G8 until I see it.
Complain about this comment
Nick the people who love these summits the most and have a great time are the press TV an their entourage.I'll bet you cant wait for the next one, and who could blame you.
Complain about this comment
Nick says "Real business was done at the G8", but if that's the case there has been a real problem reporting on it.
Mugabe condemned but no sanctions against AU leaders for doing nothing. No change, then.
Conditional promise that the US will think about carbon emissions by GWB who will be long gone anyway before it's properly discussed let alone implemented. No change, then.
No sign of aid to or trade with Africa being linked to good governance so that some of it might benefit the people instead of their rulers. No change, then.
To be fair, Brown was no worse than the rest for once so perhaps deserves a C- instead of his usual D.
Complain about this comment
The intentions as stressed by Brown are admirable.
But back at home he is still the "Crisis? What crisis?" leader who seems to be utterly out of touch.
Big black holes in funding next year. Glasgow East. Scottish 2010 referendum. Probable backlash if Obama wins and the Iraq sleaze surfaces. Similar if Maliki does not renew the UN mandate to expire in 2008. Party funding crisis. No activists after 10p and 42 days. We have already had one announcement that we will be pulling out of Iraq. When will the next one be? Housing crash.
I cannot believe he has survived this long and assume its only until the autumn.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown will no doubt use the opportunity to check the dustbins and find out how much food is being wasted. It doesn't bear thinking how much money is being wasted sending Brown to Tokyo. On the positive side, it's a good punishment for the whale killing Japanese to have GB inflicted upon them. Perhaps they can use him as another souce of raw meat for their dreadful sushi!
Complain about this comment
Nick asks "Wouldn't it have been easier to pick up the phone?"
Not only that, it would have bought The Supreme Leader just a little more credibility at home and a few more than "the usual suspect" might even have applauded his "Kitchen Prudence" routine instead of berating him further for saying one thing whilst doing the opposite.
Complain about this comment
Same as ever - only commit to doing something AFTER they have left office/politics or better still after counties, not represented, have taken action. A climate change CO2 target in 42 years time - how ridiculous!
Take steps NOW.
1. Get freight (back) onto the railways.
2. Make it far more expensive for employers to employ staff who live a long way from work.
3. Real incentives to buy low emission vehicles and penalties if you don't.
4. Encourage insulation of old and new houses.
5. Restart the nuclear energy programme.
But none of these will happen because they are all tiny little men and women and all afraid! So move to a hill top and learn to love gardening!
Complain about this comment
Gordon always thinks chucking a lot of money at a problem is worth while. So no change there then.
But now its back to the reality of beans on toast and a drizzly old London in a country full of people who want an election now.
I thought my post holiday blues were bad, wouldnt want his.
Complain about this comment
It must be a relief for Gordon Brown to escape the accursed Blighty and hob-nob it in his 'comfort zone' at the G8, Davos and other international settings.
But he has to return and all those pressing 'domestic' problems are crowding in.
In one sense, these senior politicians have the years of endurance and stamina to handle the unremitting pressure of that level.
But when you reads in the media of early morning phone-calls with lots of shouting and swearing, you do wonder when will Brown reach the tipping point and begin the short step to political oblivion.
Maybe sooner than we expect.
Complain about this comment
#7 John_from_Hendon:
A fascinating list of suggestions. But four of the five are already government policy, and #1 and #4 have been implemented for many years now.
I am intrigued by #2. In a free country, how exactly do you tax business in such a way as to penalise them for having an employee who chooses to live at some distance from their work?
Complain about this comment
It has been a very expensive away day for all the leaders. Yes - it is good for them to meet up - but the cost is astounding!
Gordon has now done a bit of playing the backroom international statesman - and has probably been quite good at that. His problem is his lack of ability as a domestic leader.
Once back in the UK there are no more imposing-statesman-on-the-lawn photo opportunities. It is back to forced smiles on GMTV, dodgy PM Questions performances and Glasgow East.
Complain about this comment
Re 7 John_from_Hendon
Some good points there.
Your point 2 re excessive commuting is good but should be balanced by incentives for employers and staff in favour of "home" working - something now perfectly practical for many current "office" workers.
I'd take issue with your nuclear strategy until/unless someone can properly address the waste issue.
Right now, I bet you would prefer to live next to a wind farm than another potential Chernobyl or a nuclear waste dump.
Complain about this comment
Re #8 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
Very True. Right now, I'd prescribe a short visit to the bracing air of the Clyde valley. I believe there are some friends of his on the eastern fringes of Glasgow who'd love to see him.
Complain about this comment
The value of face-to-face negotiation is incalculable (although the Russians do a good job of nodding and then forgetting) so travelling for one-to-one talks will never disappear.
What does grate is the sheer superiority of the suits constantly lining up to show they are "the most important people in the world". If they were, then I'm sure we would know that already... Q
Complain about this comment
Brown: Welcome to this week?s cabinet meeting everyone---
Darling: (interrupting) Absolutely no Tories allowed.
Brown: There aren?t any Tories here Alistair. Now, I hope you?ve all got your thinking caps on.
Blears: I?ve got my taxing cap on.
Brown: Excellent Hazel, that?s just what we need, because it has come to my attention that we are not taxing people enough.
Miliband: But the papers? They?re calling us thieves and liars! They say we?ve taken far too much in fuel duty alone!
Brown: But we have no money.
Miliband: But?
Brown: And since we have no money, how can we be taxing too much?
Hoon: HOOOOOOOOOON!
Brown: Stop that! Go and sit in the corner. (Hoon goes to the corner)
Blears: How about the window tax? We should bring that back. I like that one.
Brown: Ooh yes. I like that too. It?s cruel, but we can spin it like mad and say it?s to punish the rich.
Darling: Those damn Tories.
(A knock on door. Enter Ruth Kelly, wet and dishevelled)
Kelly: Sorry I?m late.
(Silence for a moment)
Kelly: Are we thinking up taxes again?
Brown: Aye.
Hoon: HOOOOOOOON!
Brown: For fu? Can someone get him out of here?
Miliband: What about a tax tax?
(Blears gasps)
Brown: Go on.
Miliband: Well, they pay us tax right? Why should that tax be tax-free?
Blears: It shouldn?t. Pass me the caviar Alistair.
Darling: (His mouth full) Mmf.
Kelly: I like it.
Brown: What should we call it?
Blears: Erm? Community support tax? We could tell the plebs we?ll spend it on community support officers.
Kelly: Hmm that?s too easily verifiable.
Brown: Have you learnt nothing from government? We can simply doctor the figures and tell them anything.
Darling: YES!
Miliband: Good stuff. I?ll order some more caviar.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I really think you're being over optimistic.... based upon progress made at previous summits, we can't feel to hopeful.
Of course, G Brown must have felt like he was in his element, but not because he was plotting small steps on the road to bigger ones. Here he got to eat good food with some kindred spirits (fellow lame-duck leaders - Bush, Bling-Bruni as he's essentially lost the support of the nation, Medvedev as he's already being over-ruled by those at home) eating good food and drinking good wine which he can't really be criticised for (he didn't lay on this pointless soiree).
Plus he got out of PMQs today, I'm sure he must hate being hammered week in week out and having to resort to the same old boring justifications of his existence.
Actually, it was great without him, Harman v Hague pt II + Harman v Dr Vince.
Complain about this comment
#10
jim
They may be policy but that is no there is no action!
It is also easy to implement taxation variation of of employers by how far employees live from work as all the data is already collected in the PAYE system - the employers and the employees post codes. From post codes you can determine a distance and hence a tax modification charge. No new data and no impact on 'freedom'.
(
I have written to the Treasury and various ministers several times over the years setting out the ideas as an effective and cheap to implement congestion charging alternative.
But because it can be done NOW they do not want to know!
)
Complain about this comment
Breaking News re my #13
Heartened by the possibility of his visit, a loyal cadre of comrades from the sleepy hamlet of Baillieston have been collecting past sell-by date eggs and tomatos from the fridges of the the enemies of the people. They hope to present these to The Supreme Leader in the traditional way as a token of their belief in his stirring address to the nation on the perils of wasting food.
Complain about this comment
PS - Hello, jimbrant, glad to see you're posting today.
I've noticed that your IMF justification for New Labour has been a theme for a while. So, for your inforamtion, the general consensus is that the IMF success record is perceived as limited. Whilst it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or reputedly most of the Fund's membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more.
This, of course, doesn't mean that the IMF are rubbish, it simply makes the point that the IMF is not the one and only reliable indicator available, and yes, they sometimes do get it very wrong.
Perhaps this is why the government have stopped using the May 08 report as an indicator of their success.
Complain about this comment
It all sounds boring and ineffectual, and as others have stated, great fun for those that could attend. Not really anything in their for the UK but just guarantees of more aid to a continent that seems to hold us in contempt and fully supports corruption, violence, vote rigging, dictatorships.
Not sure what the point of it is and wish things were looking rosier in Britain, as they most certainly look everything but!
Complain about this comment
15. power_to_the_ppl wrote...
Something very very funny
But scarily credible
Have you been eavesdroping on Cabinet meetings?
Naughty Naughty, only the government is allowed to spy on people!
Complain about this comment
As someone recently said, the G8 is just a business club. Why on earth should anyone believe any promises made by its members when they have little effective influence over the affairs they seem to think they should discuss (or, indeed, any particular desire to do anything other than make a few empty promises). After all, what do they care if Zimbabwe is in trouble, if climate change is a real threat now (not in 42 years time) or if the global economy is in serious trouble? So long as they can still make money in the midst of all this (and they can), they won't change anything. Perhaps we should just all stop listening to the G8. Ignoring a buffoon is usually the best way to deflate their oversized ego.
Complain about this comment
15 Power-to-the-ppl
Thanks to Spitting Image whenever I think of John Major, I think of a grey man who likes peas. Thanks to internet videos, when I think of Gordon Brown I can only think of the time he was caught picking his nose and eating it in parliament.
Now, however, thanks to you I can only think of Geoff Hoon shouting 'Hooooon!' in meetings! Classic image.....!
Complain about this comment
#19 extremesense:
I am using the IMF Report quotation as the equivalent of an expert witness to set against unevidenced statements to the effect that the past decade has been one of economic incompetence. Of course the IMF is not infallible, but their views are of significance.
Now, where is your evidence for your claim that they are wrong in this instance?
Complain about this comment
The Prime Minister talks about us being a "minute from midnight" on trade. I seem to remember someone else from his party saying something along the lines of "24 hours to save the NHS". GB's ego has probably reached overdrive as he struts around for photoshoots with all the other statesmen/women. This man has the substance and strength of a used tea-bag.
If our Ministers paid more attention to the appalling state of our economy and less to attending junkets and jolly's, we could probably save several million pounds.
Complain about this comment
Nick, are you extrcting the urine?
Can you imagine the field day you would have had ripping into GB if he had stayed at home and used the phone! Remember the fun you boys in the Tory press had when he didn't go to the signing of the ratification treaty!
Complain about this comment
Reading some of the comments here ("boring and ineffectual" #20; "same as ever" #7) and elsewhere makes me yawn. What do people expect? G8 states to recognise the error of their ways and devote their entire tax take to development assistance and environmental amelioration for the next decade?
The reality is that government - all government - is about making a balanced programme work where the spillovers and side benefits are taken into account. So, no, Greenies, we can't immediately adopt an 80% cut in carbon emissions and no, 'Sir' Bob Geldof, we can't immediately reduce poverty in Africa to zero. There are other demands on our time, money and will.
Complain about this comment
#17 John_from_Hendon:"They may be policy but that is no there is no action!"
But there is. Risking boring everybody, I point to:
Network Rail press release 05/09/06:
"Over the past five years, the level of freight traffic on the rail network has already
increased by 22%."(No doubt there is a more recent stat, but I haven't time to find it. They were forecasting a further 30% increase by 2016)
And from the YouGov site:
"Warm Front is a government-funded initiative that provides a package of home insulation and heating improvements.
If you're aged 60 or over and own your own home or rent it from a private landlord, you may get a maximum Warm Front Plus grant of £2,700 if you receive one of the qualifying income-related benefits. If you are installing an oil-fired central heating system you could receive a grant of up to £4,000."
I had cavity wall insulation and extra loft insulation installed at a subsidised price about five years ago.
Complain about this comment
Ridiculous to talk about picking up the phone rather than attending a summit.
As someone who spends a lot of time on trans Atlantic conference calls I can say with certainty that you only get a fraction of the benefit of meeting face to face.
Yes - spending a fortune on lavish banquets, etc may be slightly excessive but suggesting that this people should skimp on meeting in the same room for the sake of an airfare when the dicussions are about such important subjects is nonsense.
Complain about this comment
The only thing that is a 'minute from midnight' I think we can all agree, is Gordon Brown's career.
Complain about this comment
@28
Jim Jim Jim
£4000 for an oil fired central heating system, wow thats a bargain with the current low oil prices where do i sign up
And as for rail freight, 22% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
You fell into the Labour trap of using percentages instead of absolute numbers
Complain about this comment
I see they are back down to 9 people in the picture today. did they airbrush out puppet master barrosa
Complain about this comment
#12 Brown
Nuclear Energy produces very little greenhouse gas - if global warming is as risky as it is made out to be perhaps we need to balance the risks out.
I read that flat screen TVs are very risky too in that they produce NF3 gas in the production process and this is highly (30x CO2) damaging to the ozone layer. Life is a risk!
Wind is not reliable as a continuous source of energy and has to be part of a wider energy production scheme so cannot be taken on its own.
Complain about this comment
If they really want to help Africa why don't they start by looking at what they can control if they really wanted to? Find the tens of billions hidden by corrupt African leaders in western banks and give it back.
Whilst I am very sympathetic to the plight of many Africans I can see little point in Western Governments providing further billions to offset a different set of billions that have been and are still being syphoned off by corrupt administrations. All that effectively does is take money from western citizens and ends up with it being deposited in another western bank, the average African never sees any difference outside of a few projects for window dressing.
By all means sort out better trade arrangements if Mr Sarkozy will allow us to but start showing that corrupt African administrations can't get away with wholesale plunder of their own citizens, whom they then expect us to help.
Complain about this comment
# 24 (jimbrant) here's one from the FT:
Reputable forecasters such as the IMF accompany their forecasts with health warnings. In its World Economic Outlook, the IMF resorts to a fan chart to spell out the risks. The Bank of England has been using these fan charts since the 1990s to quantify the uncertainty inherent in inflation forecasts. They show us how uncertainty increases as time progresses and they attach probabilities to different scenarios. Unfortunately, fan charts imply that we have some degree of control over uncertainty ? which is not, in fact, the case.
Forecasting is especially hazardous at a time when an economy has gone past the peak of the business cycle. The magnitude of an economic slowdown will depend on factors the large models find difficult to predict. One of the clouds hanging over the global economy at the moment is the US housing market. The difference between the benign scenario of a soft landing and a collapse in house prices with a spillover to the financial sector is enormous.
If everything goes well, the forecast may stand a chance to be proved roughly right. If not, it will almost certainly turn out to be totally wrong.
-----------------------------------
Might I suggest that your 'expert witness' simply cannot be referred to in such a way simply because of the enormous conflict of interest - we're one of their main sponsors.
You may say that it's preposterous to suggest that the IMF are never going to say anything bad about us for that reason. However, there is certainly precedent of it happening where other similar conflicts of interest are involved (dodgy witnesses?).
Complain about this comment
#28
Jim
If here is such a large increase in rail freight why are there so many more more 40 ton lorries on the road? Like the one in-front of me now.
Warm-Front - nice scheme but keeps running out of money and the benefits are been reduced. I know a man who they came to and offered cavity wall insulation. He saw what they did to a neighbour and sent them packing. The pointing in the neighbour's walls was so badly shaken out by the drilling he is having to have his walls repointed at vast cost!
But I do take you point that they are making a start.
Complain about this comment
# 28 jimbrant, you quote Network Rail as your source?
Oh dear, another dodgy witness I think.
Complain about this comment
I get the impression that certain bloggers on this site are closely involved with the Government.
If I am right and they draw a salary paid for by the taxpayer I consider that a misuse of taxpayers money.
I don't pay my tax to NuLabour or the Conservative party.
Complain about this comment
#27 Wounded,
Re your comment about my "same as ever" summary.
I am not implying that is was at all likely that anything of substance was ever likely to emerge from the summit, but just comparing the rhetoric of our 'leaders' with the likely results.
I am no 'greener' that average I think but I do still have an optimistic view of the World and I hope that we can pass-on a World that still can support life in the way in which it supports us.
I am sorry if this makes you yawn.
Complain about this comment
#31 Pot_Kettle :
"And as for rail freight, 22% of next to nothing is still next to nothing"
I am sorry to keep upsetting your prejudices with evidence, but please see the facts as published by the (private) organisation Freight on Rail:
"In the past ten years rail freight has grown by 66 per cent; in the year 2005-06 rail freight moved 22.11 billion net tonne kilometres, a level of traffic not seen since 1977. Rail has 12% of the UK surface freight market (i.e. road + rail) with the industry's measurement of net tonne kilometres showing an increase of 7.5% in the year 2005/06 over the previous year."
Now 22.11 billion net tonne kilometers may be next to nothing to you, but I suspect that many would not agree. And you will note that it's not a percentage.
Why do you find it so hard (well, impossible) to recognise that progress has been made? Say that in your opinion it's not enough if you like;or that it costs too much; or that somebody else could do better. But don't just gainsay facts. It makes your whole position much weaker than it need be.
Complain about this comment
"Gordon Brown believes it's been worthwhile".
Well, thats one who thinks it's been worthwhile ...any advance on one? ..anybody?
Complain about this comment
Nick
Big issues but small steps. I suppose this is inevitable given the different interests of the G8. Mr Brown has done as much as any PM probably could.
Complain about this comment
#35 extremesense:
Your extract from the FT refers to forecasts, not judgements about what has already happened. I ask again, where is your counter opinion to that of the IMF that the performance of the UK since 1997 represents "an exceptional achievement"?
Your allegation about the IMF is unsubstantiated, and I recall that a previous report led to a Labour government having to devalue.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown needs to get an urgent grip on the notion that charity begins at home.
It's pointless grandstanding about global agreements that we cannot oblige anyone to stick to.
This is our country and we should act.
The reason that London is full of beautiful parks and plane trees is that our forebears had the foresight to plant them. I'm sure that the Victorians did not need a global summit to do something about the environment; they specifically chose plane trees for their robustness in the urban environment.
Less grandstanding more pragmatism.
He flies around the world eating copious banquets preaching a green wasteless agenda and sets the most awful example himself.
He raises the heat with Russia rather than find a solution, he promises a trade deal he can't hope to deliver and yes #38, I too get the distinct impression that certain posters here are either closely involved with government or government itself trying to defend indefesible policies and positions.
They take us for fools. Sadly, for them, we have the facts at our disposal.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought, but considering this was a meeting about biofuels, electric cars, enviroment, food, yadda yadda yadda.
Who's brilliant idea was it to hold this summit just about as far away as they possibly could from by far the majority of the member nations?
Had it been held in say Switzerland, they could have all gone by train (we'll forgive George Bush on this occasion).
A meeting to discuss resources while creating as big a carbon footprint as they can and making pigs of themselves.
Hardly leading by example one would say!
Complain about this comment
Re #33 John_from_Hendon
Life is indeed a risk and we certainly need to balance the risks out.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but to put all our efforts into it when we don't know how to dispose of its waste safely is exchanging one risk for another. Science will provide a solution sooner or later but until then we should proceed with caution.
I agree that the wind does not always blow but overall it was reliable enough to drain most of Holland and East Anglia at the same time as building a few overseas empires. Used in conjunction with tidal and wave energy it is stupid not to take advantage of it, but I agree it is only one piece of the jigsaw.
Incidentally, combined wave/wind scheme for the Severn and Thames Estuaries could not only provide energy but living and agricultural space too, as the Dutch Zuider Zee project has done and is still doing.
Complain about this comment
The increase is 7.5% of the 12% of the total so that is a 1.65 Billion tonne increase out of a total of 183 Billion tonnes. Its not a lot to shout about.
Sorry to call you selective as well but you didnt answer the sarcastic point about oil fired heating. But I will let you off that one as it isnt really a defendable scheme in the current climate. It would have been nice if you had acknowledged the point though
Complain about this comment
#36 John_from_Hendon: "If here is such a large increase in rail freight why are there so many more more 40 ton lorries on the road? Like the one in-front of me now."
Could it be to do with the signal (!) lack of investment in the 20-odd years up to 1997 do you think? After all this sort of large-scale infrastructure investment does't pay off over night, especially if you have decades of backlog to catch up on.
Complain about this comment
#43 (jimbrant), referring to #38 (skynine) and #44 (RobinJD), of course, I should have spotted that you're 'one of them'.
I can remember your vast experience of hospitals and your nothing but positive views of them. You described how this is all down to our wonderful government, now it just happens that you've had the free home insulation, as well as benefiting from so many other things that no one else could receive. Plus you've read the IMF report in great detail and stick by the first paragraph of its Executive Summary like a man possessed.
We get the same sort of thing from the Labour benches day in day out..... clinging to meaningless statistics not because they think we'll believe them but because we lose interest in arguing with them.
Oh by the way, I'm clean, I voted conservative in the council election (most commited candidate), Labour for London Mayor (most experienced candidate), Lib Dem for London Assembly (balance) and Lib Dem for Parliament (I like Vince Cable).
By the way, I think you're definitely scraping the 'expert witness' barrel by using Network Rail (ever tried travelling on a train at the weekend). I think this jury might just have some difficulty in taking them seriously!
Complain about this comment
#47 Pot_Kettle:
Right. So 1.65 billion tn kilometeres increase in a year is next to nothing. You will forgive me perhaps if I don't agree.
I didn't mention your snidish comment about oil fired central heating because it seemed to me to be comment enough. If you were an OAP living in a house without a gas supply (and there are many) you would not be so ready to rubbish a very valuable scheme. Oil fired CH is still a lot cheaper to run (especially with the subsidised insulation that YOU didn't mention) than an electric fire, and it keeps you warmer.
Complain about this comment
#47 Pot_Kettle, yes, I've found the approach somewhat selective too over the last few days and it's not just about 'snidish' comments (see #50).
Complain about this comment
#48
name ONE infrastructure project, road, rail, bridge or power station commissioned and completed in eleven years of NewLabour.
Not one exists. Every single road, bridge, power station, rail link that has happened under NewLabour was already in the pipeline or commissioned and agreed when they came to office.
All this grandstanding about nuclear and wind and not one proposal for the manner or method by which they will be built. All hot air. Ask any wind technology company and they laugh at the UK 'targets' for wind power as thereiosn't a sinlge planning approval.
Surprise, surprise we are already backtracking on runway three at Heathrow yet no support for Thames Gateway airport - so what is the plan? There isn't one except pay yet another consultant to come to a conclusion you'll conveniently ignore.
Incompetence and excess and intellectual arrogance. Not an attractive combination.
Complain about this comment
#49 extremesense: Yes indeed, I am "one of them".
An OAP who has seen his pension increase faster than earnings; who has experienced the NHS hospitals and primary care that you seem content to rubbish; has seen more police on the beat, more local policing, and less crime; who has been proud of my country's lead in trying to tackle the problems of international development and climate change; and who has lived through the longest period of sustained growth and improving living standards in my relatively long lifetime.
As for Network Rail, please see my response at #48, and my quote from Freight-on-Rail at #40. I'm still waiting for the evidence for your caims about the IMF, so I suppose it would be otiose to ask you for actual evidence to back up your refusal to accept the Network Rail figures.
Complain about this comment
Actually all governments since the war have focussed on roads rather than rail, its not just an issue of 20 years or so. There was a modest level of investment ( relative to the scale of the railways) in the 50's accompanying the move from steam to electric and diesel trains but also soon followed by Beeching's axe on the network as a whole.
Perversely I used to live at one end of the proposed Cross Rail when it was first mooted in the 1970's and now live close to its proposed other end. I think I'm the only bit that has made any progress in 30 or so years. Not only that but its still a half baked proposal focussed on London. It will pass within a mile or two of the ever expanding Heathrow and still will not provide a much needed direct public transport link for those who wish to get there from the west. Actually rather more than the population of London. And why have it finish at Maidenhead when just a few miles further along it could terminate at the by then newly rebuilt Reading station where it could integrate effectively into the four major lines which branch from there. But then of course integration mean joined up thinking , perhaps with a bit of vision. Have we seen that from any government since the war?
Complain about this comment
Has anybody got something of real import to say today, really this latest debate is rather stale.
Especialy from JIMBRANT
Complain about this comment
Be good to see Nick back blogging on more interesting issues.
(Just testing to see whether the moderater is having a blocking frenzy or just on a tea break. I've studied the rules and can't see that I've broken any, haven't been e-mailed either).
Complain about this comment
50 jimbrant, Their ganging up on you Jim but believe me your more than holding your own. your making some of them appear to be schoolboys perhaps they are, try to be patient with them, they dont want the truth no matter what the subject, they would be a little more credible if they just once admitted they were wrong but they wont there all disciples of the Daily Mail and Telegraph and follow the same mantra.
Complain about this comment
#50 Jim,
The warm front scheme and other schemes by energy providers have had minimal take up. This is mainly due to a lack of understanding by householders. Another issue is landlords are unlikely to uprate the insulation as they see no economic benefit in doing so. A worthy cause but without compulsion it will do little in its current form.
I have to take issue with the statement that oil fired CH is cheaper and warmer than electric. Electric heating can be cheaper, provided it is not resistance heating, than oiil heating and the issue of warmth is more to do with your heat emitters rather than an inherent problem with the fuel source.
On the issue of rail freight, my only question would be at what rate has freight grown over the same period for the figures you state? If total freight has doubled in the last 10 years but rail freight has only grown by 66% then it would have been a relative decline.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
My wife and I spent today looking after our 8-year-old grandson who is off school, ill.
I happened to look in on him watching CBBC at lunch-time, when he asked me to pass him the tv controller so that he could turn the programme off, with the words 'look at that food being wasted - African children could eat that'. At least there is a message getting through to them by us, as grandparents, when we ask our grandchildren to finish their meals.
He was right, the waste of food (baked beans as it happens) was horrendous. The food being wasted there could have fed a whole African township for a fortnight.
Now, BBC, get off your high horses, and practice what you have been trying to preach in Bottler's propaganda about food wastage.
How can you expect to be taken seriously when you see fit to present that as childrens' entertainment.
Complain about this comment
#46 Brown
I'm a bit of a Physicist myself and also worry about nuclear waste as I do with many other forms of environmental pollution.
I have myself done the sums for tidal power (and have been engaged in promoting it in the past) - I personally liked the idea of a Channel Barrage joining the UK and France as there is huge tidal energy from the North Sea and the Channel to be exploited (to say nothing of the tolls to be extracted from ships going to and from Hamburg and Europort! - Also the channel shipping trade hated it, but curiously the local MP quite liked the idea!)
But alas these are always downsides, such as the flooding of low lying areas (parts of Belgium and Kent etc.) and the destruction of habitat. And as I recall with the Channel Barrages solution the criticism of the Department of the Environment included - the 'increase in the turbidity of the water column' - yes that was one of their main comments. (The proposal used garbage as the barrage core instead of taking it to land fill.)
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Picking up the phone would indeed have been a good option.
Personally, I'd like to have seen the whole entourage congregated in Harare.
Give them all say 20 million Zim dollars each and the afternoon off to do their own food shopping, and whatever they can rustle up would be cooked for them in the evening.
It would certainly have been a reality check and a humbling experience, and who knows they may even have decided on something that went some way to justify their existance and expense. Well, perhaps not, hey.
KwH
Complain about this comment
The whole things been a complete waste of money. Oh and by the way cheese-me-too 29, Its bound to seem there are greater benefits from meeting 'face to face' than from doing it the digiway. All those lovely freebies tripping over to the USA, wink wink nudge nudge, if you know what I mean. Wonder what splendour's been handed out to the great and good at this meeting. What do you think? A nice DNKY goody bag a few ipods, a boots gift card, or maybe a free weekend to see the Blackpool lights. Perhaps even, given the price of food over here, a doggy bag laden with all that lovely top nosh (good even a second time around)? Licking my lips just thinking about it. Mmmmmmm.
Complain about this comment
54 yewlodge: "Actually all governments since the war have focussed on roads rather than rail"
Quite correct I think - until this one.
Complain about this comment
#63 ..........and perhaps 1945-51?
Complain about this comment
#53 (jimbrandt), good cover story, however, you ruined it with the spin.
Hmmmmm, remind me, when exactly did I rubbish the NHS, jimbrandt???????
Complain about this comment
Number 52
I think that Labour can claim the dome.
Complain about this comment
#58 sickofspin: I'm sure that what you say about the WarmFrontscheme is accurate. However, whatever scheme is funding it I know that almost all my friends have had cavity wall and loft insulation installed under a government subsidised arrangement.
Equally you are very probably right about oil v electric central heating. However I specified an electric fire, and I don't think that is anything like as efficient as either.
And for the hat trick you are of course right about the possibility that there has been a relative decline in rail freight. I don't have the stats to know. But in any event, even if true, it would not invalidate the fact that the relative decline would have been greater without the absolute increase in rail freight. If you see what I mean!
And apologies to flugart if this is all not exciting enough for him. I know he'd rather be brushing up on his aircraft recognition.
Complain about this comment
The G8 process has had some benefits in encouraging more pragmatic groupings and collaboration to help circumvent and undermine the blockages in the anachronistic wider UN system which remains stuck in old post-colonial and Cold War blocs and attitudes. However, the more it has expanded its ambit as it has been seized on by governments, NGOs and the media as the focus for campaigning and ambitions the less value it is adding. It has become characterised by over-ambitious and unrealistic ambitions across too wide an agenda. It has become an expensive platform for spin, rhetoric and grandstanding rather than a space for informal exchanges and relationship-building to help encourage cooperation and compromise.
Complain about this comment
re: 61
I like the sound of that! Should be a one-way ticket as well, the greedy little piggies!
Complain about this comment
Re: talking, decision making and action.
Just caught the end of an item on the evening news.
A family man who lost his legs in the London underground bombings a full three years ago asked for a ramp to his house. He was told that there was no money in the kitty in that financial year; any money would have to come from the following year.
A clear case where action was needed.
Complain about this comment
#65 extremesense: "when exactly did I rubbish the NHS, jimbrandt???????"
If you haven't I apologise.
Now, where's that evidence?
Complain about this comment
re: 66
I laughed so hard tea came out of my nose! Don't think even the Nu-Labour stooges jimbrant and grandantidote can defend that one!
Complain about this comment
jimbrant
63
I am not sure that not building roads is the same as focussing on other forms of transport.
Have they done anything else? - T5 and the high speed link to the Channel Tunnel spring to mind, but given the planning delays, perhaps they were started by the Conservatives.
Complain about this comment
#73 Wopitt: The high speed Channel link was given initial clearance by the government in 1996, though nothing was actually done until 1997 or 8 I think.
The focus has been on bringing the rail infrastructure up to scratch, rather than building new routes.
And your #66, for what it is worth it was the Tories who started the Dome - remember Hezeltine?
Complain about this comment
#57 grandantidote: Yes, I had noticed the increasingly strident assaults. But it has been a very wet afternoon, and I wanted a break from reading (biography of Richard III) so I have had a bit of fun.
As Corp Jones used to say, "They don't like it up 'em!".
Complain about this comment
re: 74
Maybe so, but I think you'll find that it was Nu-Labour that turned it into the devouring black hole it became
Complain about this comment
75. jimbrant
Just checked .. God Jim, do you get any sleep.
Im starting to think youre actually a team of 10 at labours central office.
If youre not I suggest you apply, just think of the salary, not to mention the expenses and I hear the food is rather good.
At least someones getting value for money out of this government.
Complain about this comment
#72 powertotheppl the one thing that Labour can definately not claim to have commissioned is the Dome I think you will find that the dome was a product of John Major And William Hague but was completed by labour,unfortunately they used Hague's asessment of how many visitors they would have on a daily basis, his figures were 50% out hence the failure of the Dome to succeed,since labour came to power they have built schools hospitals renovated many more they have rebuilt hundreds of thousands of homes that had been in need of repair for many years, I am sure that there are people much better qualified than I to tell you of all the progress in the London area. At this moment in time they are widening the M4 on the welsh side of the river the Tories were told that it wasnt wide enough,this improvement is probably as expensive to put right as the M4 cost to build.
Complain about this comment
# 71 (jimbrant), let me make it quite clear, THE NHS IS NOT RUBBISH.
In fact, under this government (New Labour), I think there has been a dramatic improvement.
Sorry don't have 'lies damned lies and statistics' to 'prove' my point, however, I have a great deal of experience as a patient (I've spent over a year of the last 8 in hospitals) and am truly greatful for the care I've received. I am currently hooked-up to machines at home and receive daily assistance from the NHS).
However, I hate PPP, in my experience it ultimately fails the end user (eg - Metronet for one). I also believe that as a result of PPP, the benefits to private companies have far exceeded those received by the end user (patients in the case of the NHS).
What's more, I think the government (in their actions not their words) do not show the staff the respect the deserve.
Complain about this comment
jimbrant
74
So who can claim them?
As this Government is so keen on "delivery" I guess they get to notch them up.
Complain about this comment
test
Complain about this comment
Hmmmm, so, jimbrant I'm guessing is New Labour's central office, grandantidote..... DUP's?????
Now, hasn't that happened before?
Complain about this comment
#60 John_from_Hendon: For some reason I can't understand the board won't let me respond to your very intersting post, especially the Channel barrage idea.
Is there anything on the web about it do you know?
Complain about this comment
#79 extremesense : OK - I have already apologised.
You will not be surprised that I very largely agree with you. The reason I have so much time to devote to this blog is because I also have a lot of experience of the NHS, though in my case it has been largely (but not exclusively) on account of my late son, and my wife. I concur entirely with your opinion that the system has been much improved, and is much better than is frequently claimed on here.
I am not yet decided about PPP. It clearly has its dangers, but in the end I think that it is the 'Service free at the point of delivery' that really matters, and to some extent it may not matter how that delivery is organised. But I also have a view that the commitment to public service that you find in the staff (most of them) of the public services like the NHS is never replicated when the service is provided by a private company.
If you want to read a horror story, look at this link to a Washington Post article about the collapse of private health care in New Jersey (if the board will let me post it)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602334.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Complain about this comment
#84 (jimbrant), thank you for that, I read it, yes, you're absolutely right, it's a horror story.
Yes, I also agree with your point that public service staff commitment is never replicated when the service is provided by a private company.... some years ago when I was first diagnosed, I had private health insurance through my company when still able to work and chose to have my surgery and some treatment at a highly respected private hospital (top 5 in the country). I found staff moral to be pretty rock-bottom and experienced two mistakes made by staff who weren't under pressure or learning the trade let's say - these both directly lead to the length of my stay increasing by several weeks.
Suffice, to say what little private treatment I had after that (the insurer decided I would no longer be eligible for cover as a 'chronic' patient') was carried out undeer an NHS roof albeit on a private ward - successfully.
Thank God for the NHS, and as you say, with its 'Service free at the point of delivery'.
Hope you enjoy the rest of your evening (are we allowed to be polite sometimes)?
Complain about this comment
If the NHS fired a bunch of managers and replaced them with the same number of janitorial staff the service would be significantly better and save money.
It is a monopolistic bureaucracy that happens to deal in medical services, the same way that airports are shopping malls with aeroplane parked outside, or Railtrack was a property management company with trains running on their property.
This is not a criticism of all the good people that work in the NHS, nor of the NHS in concept. Can we all agree that issue is the implementation that is the issue.
Complain about this comment
#42 has it about right.
People have to have realistic expectations about what is likely to be announced directly after a G8 meeting.
Seems pretty obvious that Brown has conducted himself well also.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#86 Wopitt: I don't agree. If anything my experience is that there are too few managers in the NHS, not too many. However, that is only my opinion.
There is some objective independent evidence to support my view, though. The leading US independent health system research organisation, the Commonwealth Foundation, recently (2007) did a large-scale study of the health care systems in the USA, Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. The NHS came out as the best system overall, and in particular as the most efficient. Yes, the most efficient. It was also ranked best for quality, coordination, and equity of care.
So comparing like with like, the NHS managers (who represent only 3.6% of the workforce remember) have to be doing a lot right.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re: 89
You said: "I don't agree. If anything my experience is that there are too few managers in the NHS, not too many. However, that is only my opinion."
I presume you don't work in the NHS then!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
jimbrant
I think that we are going to have to agree to differ on this one. I wouldn't trust an audit over my own experiences, but reading your previous posts I know how much store you put on reports such as the one you mention, which I fully admit I have no intention of looking at.
Audits can say whatever you want them to say, it all depends on who you ask, what questions you ask and how you weight the results. The US has the best medical care in the world, but equitable it aint. Fortunately I was one of the lucky ones with good medical insurance, but the paperwork was killing. I forgive the NHS many sins just for not asking me to fill in a form every 5 minutes. The Australian medical services were pretty competent, but my vote has to go the NZ service.
That said, the audit process in each of the countries was probably equally flawed, so it tells us something as just as a relative measure.
There is a theoretical level of efficiency that is impossible to achieve and overheads always grow unless ruthlessly controlled.
Theoretical dilemma: Hospital contracted infections.
Scenario -
The cleaning is sub-contracted to a supplier who pays minimum wage, and proves what a good job it does by producing reams of audit and checksheets. Employ a contract manager to manage sub-contractor. People get ill.
Do you:
A. Have a series of meetings with the sub-contractor who promises whatever it takes. Then purchase additional services from the contract for deep cleans. Then hire a few more infection specialists to provide a focus for infection control, hold press conferences announcing targets, deadlines for delivery and a media campaign telling people to wash their hands.
or
B. Fire the lot of them and appoint a janitor for each ward who is responsible for hygiene, minor maintenance and providing direct assistance to the medical staff.
A will cost a lot more than B
B will give better results quicker than A
but you will have to fire yourself if you choose B.
Complain about this comment
Another half-blown passion play is played out.
They deliver according to their scripts, you report according to yours.
The public see your report of the play and some like to beleive that it is real; others continue to live their real lives.
Complain about this comment
89 Jimbrant
Too few managers in the NHS!?
NHS staff have increased by 20% since 1997 (good). The number of managers, however, during the same period doubled from 20,000 to 40,000.
That means between 1997 to 2007 - we have gone from 12 NHS beds per manager to less than 5 NHS beds per manager.
The 'NHS confederation' in 2007 said that this balance was value for money since they actually needed 195,000 managers - which luckily nobody took up because that would have meant we had more managers than NHS beds.
(Source: David Craig's book)
"When I grow up I want to be a manager of 5 beds" - made up quote.... by me.
........ even you Jimbrant...... even you (I know you are a decent guy at heart)... must wish that a large chunk of the money spent on 'managers' was invested directly into hospital infrastructure, nurses, doctors, medicine, research.......... anything but wasting our taxes on 'middle management'........
Complain about this comment
The quality of the NHS is irrelevant.
I am force to pay for it regardless.
If it were accepted to be rubbish would it be shutdown, or would more money be thrown at it (to sort itself out)?
If it were accepted that it was good woud its budget be pinned, or would more money be thown at it (to extend its good works)?
OK, so in practice there is no circumstance underwhich the NHS would receive less funding or be disbanded - hardly an incentive for it to bother to do anything worthwhile ...
Complain about this comment
20,000 managers on an average of £25,000 = £500,000,000 a year.
You could build a Scottish Parliament for that.
If this figure is even close to accurate, then we really have no hope.
Even if we reduce it to £100,000,000 it is still impossible for there to have been a corresponding increase in productivity to offset it.
Complain about this comment
The Kings Fund ( on Newsnight) came up with the comment that most of the money spent of the NHS in the last 10 years was wasted and productivity was down.
Thousands killed every year by MRSA and C Dif. most of them pensioners.
But then I suppose I could put my rose coloured glasses on and find something positive about that.
Complain about this comment
Re 63 Jim Brandt
Whilst this government may have put a tiny bit more emphasis on rail than most predecessors since the war they are still doing it in a very short sighted way, saving a little bit of the total expenditure and getting half the potential value as my Cross Rail Example (54) illustrates.
Here we have a government screaming "get out of your cars and switch to public transport", allowing a huge expansion of Heathrow and yet making no provision for public transport for the 10 million or so who live to the west of Heathrow ( nothing meaningful currently exists) even though they are proposing to build a new railway which goes right past Heathrow. There is no planned direct connection from the west , nor will the new railway integrate into the main railway hub west of London, Reading Station , for which a major rebuild is currently planned.
I'm sorry Jim but in some respects this government is even worse than many, it spends loads but fails to properly join up the thinking so it delivers very poor value and extremely large bills.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that The Kings Fund should own up to the fact that most of the money spent in the last ten years on the NHS has been wasted and productivity is down.
That's 97 billion pounds a year wasted vs a budget they inherited in 1997 of 33 billion.
So if 64 billion has been wasted that 64 billion of tory cuts we can look forward to saving when NewLabour is finally ejected from power.
Then there's the billions we can save on useless climate change initiatives when actuall the evidence has started to go into reverse - there's been no increase in global temperatures since 2000 despite substantial rises in CO2 and in fact, the northern hemisphere has recorded some record cold winters.
That will mean we can address the urgent need to build power stations as at current rates of nuclear and cola fired decommissioning the UK will lose 40% of it's generting capacity by 2015. Gordon Brown has done nothing whatsoever about this jsut like NewLabour have done nothing about the decaying infrastrucure of this country for eleven years.
For the record, the high speed rail link, the dome, terminal five and all the other things that have been completed under NEwLove-in were all commisioned by the tories.
NewLabour has not comissioned and signed off a single infrastructure project in eleven years. Not one.
So if NewLabour are not interested in maintaining the fabris of the country how exactly are they proposing we go about doing business on a daily basis?
Complain about this comment
98 Skynine
Yes - the number of hospital acquired infections is on the increase. According to the Health Commissioner there are about 34,000 avoidable deaths in the NHS each year
Contrast that to the United Nations assessment that 35,000 people died a violent death in on year in an 'Iraqi Civil War'.
The number of CDiff and MRSA deaths has been increasing since 1997. I don't have the full set of figures from 1997 at hand but this highlights the rise:
CDiff - 1,214 deaths in 2001 to 3,807 deaths in 2005
MRSA - 1,211 deaths in 2001 to 2,083 deaths n 2005.
Figures for more recent years show that there is some slow down in MRSA deaths, but less charitable observers say that is because the more lethal CDiff is killing these people first.
We have had CDiff and MRSA in our hospitals for years. The growth in deaths is down to 2 reasons:
1. Poor cleaning - contract cleaning probably is not up to scratch
2. We no longer separate MRSA and CDiff patients in isolation wards due to bed pressure.
Thankfully we do have an increasing number of people working in health focused Quangos. ............
Complain about this comment
100. RobinJD wrote:
"So if 64 billion has been wasted that 64 billion of tory cuts we can look forward to saving when NewLabour is finally ejected from power."
Unfortunately, the tories won't cut the waste introduced by Labour, but will close wards and cut staff or start charging as most of that waste is in contracts to large consultancy firms.
They won't give up their gravy train without a fight.
Complain about this comment
Unlike yesterday I don't have time today to respond in detail to all the comments here, particularly on the NHS.
I will therefore just make three points:
1) Infections - certainly reports of MRSA/CDif increased from 1997. The reasons are complex, and not necessarily to do very much with how hospitals are cleaned. Of course we don't know what was happening pre-1997 because the last government didn't even bother to collect the information, let alone do anything about a growing problem. The Dutch have much better figures than us, at least partly because they took action in 1992.
2) King's Fund - I'm not sure that I saw the Newsnight programme being referred to. I did see one which commented on the apparent decline in 'productivity' (whatever that may mean in a health system), with an interview with Appleby from the Fund. I didn't hear him say that most of the money invested has been wasted, but I may have missed it. It is difficult to see how that can be so from first principles, in view of the fact that so much has gone into extra staff, staff pay (retention), a bigger drugs bill, and new equipment. In any case, please read this :
Commenting on the NHS? 60th anniversary on 5 July, The King's Fund's Chief Executive Niall Dickson said: 'Sixty years on from its inauguration our NHS, funded through general taxation, is still the fairest and most cost-effective health system in the world. "
Note 'cost effective'.
3) The NHS employs just 3.6% of its staff as managers. That is bette (or at least lower) than most organisations with which I am familiar.
And I don't work in the NHS, and never have.
Complain about this comment
103 Jimbrant
Ref your comment on MRSA / CDiff. I didn't believe it myself when I read that CDiff and MRSA patients are no longer housed in an isolation ward due to demand for beds.
I asked a 'Modern matron' who works in our nearest hospital if this was true and she told me that it was.
It seems a simple thing to fix to me and could save more lives than speed cameras (is it circa 3,000 road deaths per annum?).
Another insight - award of cleaning contracts to commerical contractor firms is a bad thing. This concept was introduced by the Tories - but I think it is wrong. Contract cleaners rotate from working in a hospital hospital, to warehouse, to office block and are not ingrained in the levels of standards that hospitals require.
Nurses used to be able to direct permanent cleaning staff to clear up mess imediately. Now a nurse has to report that something needs cleaning to the contractors help desk. Then the help desk task the cleaner. Mess should be cleared immediately - otherwise diseases spread.
Cleaning should be another simple fix for the government.
Complain about this comment
#103 jimbrant
what on earth do the Dutch have to do with our NHS?
This is typical NewLabour distraction technique. Let's talk about someone else's best practise.
All I would like to see is NewLabour address the problem and get rid of hospital superbugs. Or do they need even more money.
You are providing three times the amount of money to the NHS than in 1997. Are we getting three times the quality, treatments, service or staff levels? Of course not.
that's why 'productivity' has observably dropped. Chuck moey at someone and they won't work so hard.
I'm still waiting for someone to refute my suggestion that NewLabour NewLove-in have'nt commissioned a single infrastructure project in eleven years. And it's because they haven't. A shameful waste of eleven years of non stop spending and not a penny of it to imporve the long term nfrasturcture of the country.
NewLabour have been on an RMI holiday.
Complain about this comment
105 RobinJd
Using your figures of 3 times more money. In your simple world you expect 3 times improvement?
Health service needs and expectations have changed beyond recognition since 1997. If spending levels had remained the same in real terms the NHS decline would have been catastrophic.
Money does not solve every problem of course not but the Government's job surely is to provide sufficient resources (finance) to NHS professionals to carry out their role. the government have more than kept their side of this "contract"
are you advocating cutting the NHS budget? Patient Passports anyone?
Complain about this comment
105#
Infrastrcture?
You saying no roads, rail investment, hospitals, schools (whats your definition of infrastucture?
A new by-pass just been put past my town (awaited but not delivered since god was a lad but there now.
so there i've refuted, you can go back to your Daily Mail now.
Complain about this comment
#107
what do you think infrastructure is? It's roads, railways, power stations, bridges, tunnels all the things business needs to keep working.
Nothing new commissioned by NewLabour. Not one thing. Your by-pass....'awaited since god was a lad'....so not commissioned by NewLabour then as I believe he's been quite grown up these last eleven years.
Read the Daily Mail? Don't make me laugh. I read Polly Tuscanybee to make sure I know what grand tax and spending splurge she's hoping for next.
Adnd yes, in my simple world I'm afraid if I pay three times as much for something I do expect to get three times as much. If, however, you'd like to pay me three times market value for my house, I'd be delighted to let you you have it right now.
Let me know.
Complain about this comment
108#
Well I include schools, hospitals, rail improvements in my definition and I've seen plenty. In any case doesn't "delivery" rather than just commissioning as in my example count for something in your book?
If you really do feel that spending three times more (on the NHS) over the last 11 years should deliver three times as much then "simple" is an apt description I'm afraid. doubt even a right wing Tory would support the view.
Most people (clearly not you) acknowledg the increased costs associated with an ageing population, advances in expensive technologies and treatments, and the cost of correcting previous under-investments.
If you really want to stick to your guns, more fool you.
Complain about this comment
So what baout people leaving hospital faster than previously, people having better diets, stopping smoking...all these are easing pressure on the NHS not increasing.
But of course ou only see one side of the story - 'we spent more'
As for delivering - you won't be delivering anything in the way of wind farms because there isn't a single planning approval for the Great Ditherer's big wind project. It's all ht air. And no nuclear either.
And commissioning does matter because it should include the manner and method of delivery. unfortunatelthis is not the NewLabour way - it's to make lots of announcements and then never do anything.
'Troops home by Christmas' er, maybe not.
'3 million new homes' ..er, already being questioned as unworkable just today.
amd on and on and on... all mouth and trousers.
Complain about this comment
110#
If you want to maintain that literally nothing has been built /commissioned in the last 11 years and that the NHS funding could have stayed at 1997 levels then you stick to it. Usually when people express views like that on here they get loads of support to bolster to delusion.
Complain about this comment
here's a good one for you:
The government's own carbon reduction agency has attacked the climate plan agreed at the G8 summit as not doing "a single thing" to reduce emissions, and accused leaders - including the UK prime minister, Gordon Brown - of "an abrogation of responsibility".
A headline from one of today's papers, not the Mail, not the Telegraph but the Guardian.
So Gordon Brown hasn't even landed back in the UK and people are already questioning another non-policy without the manner or method of delivery.
So many years of making empty promises and people now aren't even giving them chance for the ink to dry before saying this means nothing.
All mouth and trousers.
Complain about this comment
Emmm, while our attention is diverted to the G8 we are missing an excellent chance to see politics at local home doorstep with the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. It seems the the BBC is not covering this apart from the result tomorrow, when I hope D.Davis is return with a great majority win. Labour has ran away from a fight and does not want to be given a "Bloody" nose over the 42 day issue. As once again the main stream media has complied to the ruling establishment and not reported on it.
We will see how it is reported tomorrow. I just hope that Mr D. Davis comes back into Parliment and the Labour party is put to shame. I think it was cowardly of them to not put up a candindate.
Complain about this comment
Is there no end to Gordon Brown's ability to put his foot in it?
Now he's likened himself to Heathcliffe - from Dithering hights. A character who is both brooding and vindictive and dies broken and tormented.
Sounds like he's finally got something right for a change.
Complain about this comment
Taken in the round, Gordon patently is not doing the business for us English.
Nevertheless, I do commend him for getting the G8 onside re: Zimbabwe via some gruesome photos of a murdered MDC supporter.
It is all too easy for these leaders to become totally detached from the reality of the people, so this was necessary.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, one of Dave's people is looking for n*ggers-in-the-woodpile.
Dave must try much harder to keep the truly nasty party hidden under his beaming moon-glow.
Complain about this comment
#113 MU51CGB: "It seems the the BBC is not covering this"
Because it's a non-event, and they are quite right not to waste licence fee money on covering it. If Davis wants to pull a farcical stunt at taxpayers' expense there is no requirement for the rest of us to be interested.
Complain about this comment
116 Jimbrant
What do you make of former MI5 head -Dame Manningham-Buller recent comments on 42 days?
Complain about this comment
that's right #116 he should be locked up for 42 days on the charge of 'Tory toff'.
Once you get the hang of NewLabour thinking it's easy; the answer to everything is spend more money and call the opposition simple.
Debate? Don't be silly, NewLabour have done away with debate. They have all the answers already.
Complain about this comment
#117 jonathan_cook: "What do you make of former MI5 head -Dame Manningham-Buller recent comments on 42 days?"
Interesting comment, but not as conclusive as some would have us think IMO. MI5 is not responsible for gathering the evidence to bring a prosecution - that's the job of the police, though obviously MI5 are involved, and it is the police who say they are likely to need more than 28 days at some point.
I can understand the argument that it is better to put legislation in place in advance of a panic, rather than when there is a real problem. Certainly better than the Con/Lib/Liberty proposal to declare a state of emergency and give suspects much fewer rights.
What I don't understand is the argument that this is some 'point of principle'. As I understand it, everyone agrees that >28 days may be necessary, it's just a matter of how you allow it and what protections for civil liberties there are.
Complain about this comment
Jimbrant 119
Yes - I agree on the point that MI5 are not responsible for the actual prosecution side - which made me wonder where she was coming from on this. I don't think she has a vindicitive agenda to torpedo Gordon - I think she just feels strongly on libertarian grounds.
I think the whole debate on 42 days got lost in party politics. IMO Gordon kicked this off mainly because he was trying to look tough on terror and latterly that he needed to appear in control of his party - so had to win the vote at any costs.
David Davis on the other hand - I think he was probably right oppose 42 days - because the evidence for it seemed inconclusive and the operational mechanisms half baked. Although I admire a politician to take a principaled stand - I think emotion got the better of him as as he saw deals being done to force the vote. He should have taken time to reflect as I think he would have served his cause better as Shadow Home Secretary.
On the whole I'm sure there are more efficient ways of dealing with the terrorist threat than the policy that has been tabelled - we have to work hard to protect civil liberties for the wider public.
On balance I hope the Lords throw the legislation out.
However - I'll be keeping an eye out for Dame Manningham-B to see if her apparent motives change.
Complain about this comment
#120 jonathan_cook:
I certainly don't question the motives of anyone in this - not her, and not the two former law officers who are against.
As I said above, I just don't understand how there can be a principle involved if all sides recognise that they may want to hold a suspect for >28 days (or whatever). If they were saying "We would never under any circumstances take away somebody's liberty for more than 28 days without charging them within that period", then I could see the principle that some claim they are standing for. But they are not; and the protections offered by the existing 'emergency' legislation does not seem to me to be as good as those proposed in the new legislation.
I am sure the Lords will throw the Bill out, and that will allow the government to claim that it is the only party standing up for the protection of the citizen from attack, and the other parties to claim that they are preventing a wicked government from taking away hallowed liberties. I won't believe either of them, of course.
Complain about this comment
America seems to manage alright with 2 days.
Complain about this comment
122 power_to_the_ppl:
"America seems to manage alright with 2 days."
......and Guantanamo Bay. And extraordinary rendition. If you're willing to accept them for the UK, then I'm sure that 2 days would be ample time to hold a terror suspect.
Both your comment and mine are, IMO, 'flip' (to use a term from my middle age). It is very difficult I think to compare in this area between different jurisdictions, different judicial traditions, and different circumstances. I think it's only 2 days in Italy as well, but weren't a group of people brought to court a few weeks ago over a year after being arrested?
Complain about this comment
Just wondering why postings here don't get through, but I can post to Robert Peston.
Moderator pre-selection software? Couldn't be that. (And nothing rude included anyway!)
But if it works for Peston's blog, why doesn't it work for Robinson's?
Complain about this comment
what I don't understand is the argument that the additional time from 28 to 42 days will protect us from an attack.
I understand that it might give the police more time to interrogate a subject, but not to prevent an attack - unless there is the very real risk that a suspect who was released after 28 days then went out and committed an attack. But in surely the police would have a suspect under surveilance if they had to release someone after 28 days, while still having serious concerns about them.
In any event, I suggest that the Government could have extended the time and protecting Habeus Corpus by changing the rules regarding the criteria for detention rather than giving the police to detain someone at their discretion. If after the usual 7 days or so, the police wished more time to interrogate a subject, then would it not be possible to bring the arrested person, their defence council and the evidence amassed so far in front of a panel of judges. They could reveiw the situation, and then authorise a further period of detention as they saw fit. This process could be repeated as many times as necessary up to a maximum allowed by Parliament.
We used to do this in the Army when a soldier had been arrested and awaiting trail.
the criteria for retaining someone in detention were as follows:
1. The evidence amassed thus far was likely to support a charge.
2. If found guilty, the award (sentance) was likely to be greater than the period of detention while awaiting a disciplinary hearing.
3. It was judged that the soldier was likely to abscond while awaiting a disciplinary hearing.
The process was repeated every 72 days and the decision subject to higher authority for approval until the hearing.
Simple, effective and fair.
Complain about this comment
#125 Wopitt: I think your first point is a good one, but it depends on you being certain that surveilance can be perfectly effective, or almost so. And there may be others involved who do not come to light until you have completed your invesigation - which could conceivably take longer than 28 days.
The second suggestion is surely almost exactly what the government is proposing? - suspects aren't held at the discretion of the police, but only if a judge, the DoPP, and the independent 'overseer' (currently the Liberal Lord Carlyle) can be satisfied that it's necessary. Isn't that right?
Complain about this comment
125 Wopitt
Whilst the exact steps the Army use to justify detention won't work for terrorists - I agree - there should be a very simple set of rules like these to allow detention.
- A blanket 42 days is stupid
- The concessions the government have made about recalling parliament are unwieldy and won't work
- What is needed is something simple, transparent and that requires auditable authorisation.
One of the prime responsibilities of government is to defend the freedoms of society.
Complain about this comment
re: 123
For once I agree with you jimbrant, I wasn't trying to suggest that it should be 2 days here. And Guantanamo Bay is truly awful, you're right. But part of me sympathises with those that say the police should gather evidence before making an arrest rather than arresting first and gathering evidence later. And if there is no evidence, even if they think there might be, tough luck. Why? Because one thing is certain: we simply can't trust the government not to abuse these laws. Walter Wolfgang anyone?
re: 124
It does seem to differ a lot. I tried to make a few posts last night, the first was strongly worded but I toned it down considerably and it still didn't get through. Perhaps with this blog being a little more popular than the rest Aunty Beeb feels she ought to be a little stricter with us, smacking our bottoms and sending us to bed with no supper if we're too noisy.
Complain about this comment
#127 jonathan_cook:
But it's not a 'blanket' 42 days is it? The period of detention is extended 7 days at a time to a maximum of 42 days, and only with the consent of a judge, the DoPP, and the Law Lord doing the independent oversight job (currently Lord Carlyle). I tend to agree with you about the parliamentary procedure, but your third requirement is otherwise exactly what is being proposed isn't it? It would be simple (well, as simple as these things ever could be), controlled by the judiciary and a Law Lord among others, and would therefore have to be transparent.
What is it about that procedure that you don't think is adequate?
Complain about this comment
I may well be a new contributor to this blog forum, but as an avid reader, reasonably intelligent and with well defined political allegiances, I hope my maiden effort, and for sure, definitely not my last, is worthy of the many illustrious authors who grace this space. From memory, Jim Brant immediately springs to mind. Whether or not you agree with his sentiments, the art of debate appears to live on. The trick is to make your point eloquently and without denigrating opinions with which you disagree. Greetings everyone, long may your honestly held opinions give your opponents food for thought and provoke educated debate. Enough of that, I'll cut to the chase.
Gordon Brown appeared to me, to be the powerhouse behind the previous Blair administration, in point of fact, Blair at times, appeared to be running scared to a degree. How is it, GB, with his obviously enormous experience of government appears to have alienated the electorate since his elevation, to such a degree, the likelihood of an election mauling seems cast in stone.
Complain about this comment
I have read what has been posted on the issue of the "42 days" and it seems as if the general consensus is that there is no significant preventative element to the the governments proposals. By which I mean that the extension from 28 days to 42 will not reduce the chance of an attack, but might increase the chance of a conviction for an attack that has already occured.
I would be interested if anyone thinks that the main aim of this legislation is to retain someone in custody to gather the evidence to convict them for a crime that has yet to be convicted AND that detention is the only way to ensure that the alleged crime will not occur.
As regards the proposed procedure, on reflection, I think that the crucial point is not the role of the judicary (not to diminish it) but that the arrested party and their representative to be in court and be involved in the process - which I believe to be the essential element of Habeas Corpus.
I do not claim to be expert an any sense, so please correct me if I am mistaken.
Complain about this comment
A crucial correction to my post 125.
The process of review was carried out every 72 HOURS not every 72 days.
Sorry.
Complain about this comment
WHEN WILL NICK TALK ABOUT DAVID DAVIS WINNING THE BY ELECTION??? SERIOUSLY MAN, GET OFF THE LABOUR SPIN MACHINE AND TELL THE PUBLIC AS IT IS. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Complain about this comment
#116
What I find astonishing about jimbrant is that at 4.11pm he declares the David Davies byelection a non event - not worthy of discussion. Yet seven hours later he's still arguing about 42 day detention.
Not such a non event then?
This is NewLabour all over and why the centre left is now dead as a dodo; you knew how to win power but had no idea what to do with it. And you simply don't want to accept that there's another side to the argument because you've done all the thinking for me.
There is absolutley no clue how to take this country forward for the next ten years. We just think we're the right people for it.
All 'policy' is just reannouncement. Even the farmers are up in arms about Hilary Ben's "brand new £20m" investment in bovine vaccination. £10m had already been announced and it's a farcical amount of money.
Quit while you're behind.
Complain about this comment
I do believe David Davis was mistaken to resign, but I think he did the right thing in trying to trigger a debate on the issue. It's typical of Nu-Labour to try to devalue an issue they know they will lose on. I don't think anyone can fail to agree that the issue needs to be publicly debated. I'm surprised how little coverage the H and H byelection received.
Just a point regarding the Glasgow East byelection: isn't the Labour candidate (Margaret Curran) already an MSP? And if so how can she be an MP as well? And if she can be both, doesn't that mean that neither is a full-time job? And if that's the case, what does this mean for other issues, such as salary and expenses claims?
Complain about this comment
135 power to the ppl you mean in the same way Boris Johnson was.
Complain about this comment
re 136
Yes it's the same thing. But Boris made his mind up eventually (not that that's an excuse). I was under the impression that Margaret Curran intended to keep on doing both permanently. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know.
Complain about this comment
128. power_to_the_ppl
To be fair it isnt the government misusing legislation it will always be the police and security services on the ground poor old Walter was a prime example of this. So were the Nat West 3.
The fact is we want a bulldog on the gate, said bull dog needs to be on a lead, but how long should that lead be.
The police will always argue for stronger powers, you never ever hear them saying no thanks we don?t need the power to do that. From their perspective having everyones DNA of file and a tag around your ankle makes crime fighting a doddle.
The crazy thing about 42 days was that the only strong voice in favour of it was government, security services and police were either dismissive or remained neutral. I like the description one commentator used ?political willy waving? it was about Brown looking tougher on terror than Blair.
Baroness Manningham-Buller told the Lords the plans were not workable and not needed. Who do you believe.
Looks like the House of Lords will come to our rescue.
Watch this funny as an example of how our police force has changed under NuLabour.
These are the people we trust to implement new legislation on the streets.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yPGUrjRBhjo
Ask yourself who you need protecting from. Im much more worried about an over zealous state and police force.
Complain about this comment
#131 Wopitt: "I would be interested if anyone thinks that the main aim of this legislation is to retain someone in custody to gather the evidence to convict them for a crime that has yet to be convicted "
Yes, I do.
One of the main planks of the argument for any extension beyond 7 days is that some crimes are simply too horrendous for the police to be able to wait until they are sure they have all the evidence with which to charge somebody. Normally they are prepared to risk the crime being committed before they act, even in cases of murder (Some of you may be old enough to remember the Hancock threatening letter episode, where Kenneth Williams as the policeman 'reassures' Tony with the line "We'll wait until he strikes, then we'll 'ave 'im, Sir!").
However, if you had some evidence that the equivalent of 9/11 was being plotted, I
don' t think anyone would want to risk the 'strike' going ahead just because there was insufficient evidence at that point to lay charges that would stand up in court.
The argument that even after an atack you might want longer than 7/14/28 days to gather evidence is important, but I think it is secondary to the prevention argument.
Complain about this comment
136 Grandantidote
We Londoners like Boris, at least he a laugh.
What you see is what you see is what you get.
Complain about this comment
#135 power_to_the_ppl: "I do believe David Davis was mistaken to resign, but I think he did the right thing in trying to trigger a debate on the issue"
How much debate do you want, and how much extra do you think Davis's stunt has generated? There has been a vast amount of discussion of the issue, and there will be much more when it gets to the Lords.
What has the 'election' proved? Absolutely nothing, except that there are a lot of Tories in that part of Yorkshire. I think most of us knew that already.
As for the MSP point, you might be aware that the SNP leader in the Scottish Parliament is also an MP at Westminster, and has been for some time. Similarly many of the NI MP's. So it's nothing new, though maybe tou're right that it should be stopped.
Complain about this comment
re: 138
That video is frightening.
Yeah I agree with what you say, but there is certainly the possibility that, if they wanted to, the government could lean on the police and security services in order to arrest who they want to ie. back-room deals we'll never know about. If they wanted to arrest you or me they could easily trump up a charge. The only way to prevent this possibility of abuse is to not have laws that can be abused in the first place. What if a future government turned out to be like North Korea's?
Complain about this comment
re: 141
What it has proved is that Brown would rather dodge an issue than defend his point of view. If Labour are so sure they are right, and they know what the public want, why then were they afraid to put up a candidate? Rather than dismissing it as a waste of time, surely it would've been better for Labour to take a stand and fight for what they believe? To me it just looks like Labour either (1) don't know what they believe, (2) don't care/can't be bothered, (3) know they will lose. Regardless of what you think of Davis, Labour ought to have tried to improve their terrible position by fighting for a constituency, surely.
Complain about this comment
141. jimbrant
You can never have too much debate on the erosion of civil liberties, they have cost to much to win.
The debate should never end.
Complain about this comment
#142 power_to_the_ppl: "What if a future government turned out to be like North Korea's?"
Then it wouldn't matter a damn whether we had stuck to 2 days, or gone with 90 days. They would just keep people in for good.
As for the video, the guy is not (I think) a policeman - is that a police cap badge? May be in London I suppose. Even if he is, he's hardly typical. His initial objection was to being filmed himself - a lot of people feel like that - and he then loses it. Not exactly evidence that we are living in a police state.
Complain about this comment
" Labour ought to have tried to improve their terrible position by fighting for a constituency, surely."
Not at all IMO. The labour vote in that constituency is always small, and the LIb Dems were not standing. So Davis would have been handed a victory that would mean nothing, and would have meant even less in terms of the 42 day legislation.
There is a difference between reckless stupidity and bravery. My view is that Davis was on an ego trip, and it was right to ignore him.
Complain about this comment
re: 145, paragraph 3
Just like Nu-Labour and the Iraqi 'no tanks here' Information Minister you're denying what's plain to see. How much evidence do you need?
Complain about this comment
#144 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2 :
Agreed.
But since you obviously agree with Davis on this, could you explain to me why holding somebody for 4 weeks without charge is OK, but for 6 weeks is a fundamental blow at our freedoms? What is the difference of principle that Davis was standing on, when he voted to detain people for 4 weeks?
Complain about this comment
re: 146
Yes, Labour would've lost anyway, but perhaps if they had put up a candidate they would've been sowing seeds of success later because it would've at least looked AS IF THEY CARED ABOUT THE ISSUE. Labour have tried to trivialise a very serious issue for political point-scoring and that is what is unforgivable. I personally think Davis has tried to do the opposite, though I agree he has failed.
Complain about this comment
#147 power_to_the_ppl:
"you're denying what's plain to see"
No, I'm questioning what I am told I am seeing. If somebody can confirm that that is indeed a policeman I will accept it. But it looks to me as if he could be a security guard. Any idea where it was shot, and whether police in that area have those cap badges?
Complain about this comment
#149 power_to_the_ppl:
"Labour have tried to trivialise a very serious issue for political point-scoring and that is what is unforgivable. I personally think Davis has tried to do the opposite,"
Well we disagree. I think it is Davis who has trivialised a very important issue, but I am obviously never going to convince you of that. And vice versa, of course.
Complain about this comment
148. jimbrant
Its not really that black or white is it. You have to accept some degree of detention before charge the question is how much. You can only answer that question when you examine the evidence for the term at any point in time. The day may come when 90 days is vital.
If there was a growing number of cases where terrorists had actually either gone on to commit atrocities or who had fled before evidence had been located then you have a good argument to extend the period of detention.
As I am aware there is not even one situation where that has been the case. Governments key argument is that it is likely to be needed in the future due to the growing complexity of cases and evidence gathering.
That is simply not good enough in my eyes. Many from the business of lawn enforcement
Baroness Manningham-Buller for one told the Lords the plans were not workable and not needed and were a step too far. Who would you believe her or Brown.
However, I am happy with the safeguards negotiated, many at the last moment though.
But it looks like the Lords are going to delay this for ages and possibly kick it out altogether.
On the issue of DD. He misjudged the situation, if he had a massive turnout then he would have made a point, simply winning in a Tory stronghold was a waste of time and money.
The video was an example of how the quality of law enforcement at street level has deteriorated, I live in London, these guys are everywhere now while the real police are stuck in stations filling out paperwork. The caliber of many of these newly trained individuals is shocking, many cant even dress properly. I actually followed one in the West End this week who clearly was under 20 and was wearing his belt like a gun slinger. Sadly no video recorder on me.
Complain about this comment
148. jimbrant
Oh yes just on a point of order the guy in the video is a PCSO
Watch it again, he does not object to being filmed himself, he accuses the cameraman of ?filming around? and says that this is suspicious and goes on to tell him that he cant do it.
A more controlled response would be to politely enquire as to why he was filming, observe his reactions and go from there or walk on by.
Its not a police state yet, if you want to see that you have to head over the pond.
Complain about this comment
All attempts to claim David Davies has trivialised a very important issue are as hollow as the Newlabour defence of their, albeit small, vote in Haltemprice and Howden.
If this is what it will be like at the next general election - NewLabour unable to defend a single policy initiative - then it will be a shoe-in for the tories.
But then I think in the hearts and on the terraces of the House of Commons they know the NewLabour experiment is falling to pieces.
NewLabour won elections but didn't know what to do with power. Blair then made the tragic error of admiting as much and Brown has shown himself to be a man of straw without a clue how to govern.
The bright new dawn that awaits is the death of centre left politics, triangulation and spin.
Bring it on, in the words of an ex-NewLabour leaderenne.
Complain about this comment
#152 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
Thanks for that. You have confirmed that for you the period of detention is not a matter of principle, but of paragmatism, and that's fine. I agree that it's a matter of judgement, and for what it's worth we don't seem very far apart.
I would still like somebody to explain the basis on which Davis can argue that he's standing on principle, when he supported 28 days without charge.
Thanks also for confirming (I think) that the video does not show policemen in action. And again for what it is worth I agree that the powers of these private security people need much stricter control. I am a bit surprised that those in the video aren't being charged with impersonating a policeman, since their uniforms are obviously intended to mislead.
Complain about this comment
Jimbrandt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7501052.stm
Complain about this comment
148. jimbrant
Not sure why 153 is stuck.
On on a point of order the guy in the video is a PCSO
Watch it again, he does not object to being filmed himself, he accuses the cameraman of ?filming around? and says that this is suspicious and goes on to tell him that he cant do it
A more controlled response would be to politely ask the cameraman why he was filming, observe his reactions and go from there or walk on by.
Its not a police state yet , if you want to see that you have to head over the pond.
Complain about this comment
Carrots..@138
Watched your video.
Why was he pointing the camera in his face?
Whats the difference between a right on student activists and a hooligan. The student can pretend its for a cause.
Those were Police community support officers. Not proper police you might say. Its in the title PCSOs. They are doing a job and don't need to be harrased by people who ideas resemble Rick from The Young Ones Or Wolfie Smith.
Complain about this comment
155. jimbrant
Of course its pragmatism. Its never ever been about whether the principle to detain without charge is right it a case of how long the term of detention is.
The state has always had the ability to detain before it makes a charge.
Complain about this comment
155. jimbrant
Ref: I would still like somebody to explain the basis on which Davis can argue that he's standing on principle, when he supported 28 days without charge
His stand (judgment) was that 28 days was ok, 42 days was not needed.
You have to make stand somewhere.
If not then why not 90 days, nay 190 Oh make it a year or two. These things take time.
Even you must accept that there is a limit.
Where do you draw the line and why?
Whos evidence and what examples are you using to draw this conclusion.
This is interesting, Ignor the Eulogy to DD, Its a bit sickening, but read the reasoning behind the Eulogy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/25/daviddavis.civilliberties
Complain about this comment
#156 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
Sorry, I don't quite see how that interview advances the debate. Davis makes exaggerated claims for the effect of 'his' by-election, and says that he is defending a 'massive point of principle'. But what is it? He voted for 28 days, so he has abandoned any point of principle in my view. As for surveillance cameras, DNA, and ID cards I think he is largely wrong and that a great majority of people disagree with him on at least the first two of those issues.
In the end, if you wanted to test public opinion and get a rational debate about a point of principle the last thing you would do would be to have a by-election in a very unrepresentative part of the country at a time when the electorate will take every opportunity to express their unhappiness with the governing party. It is IMO just meaningless.
Complain about this comment
158. dhwilkinson
Since when has filming a police officer or a PCSO walking down the street amounted to harrasment.
Listen carefully to the camermans voice..
Does he sound like a student activist to you. Sounds like a middle aged bloke to me.
You think the PCSO thought this guy was a hooligan.. No way. Watch it again.
Complain about this comment
#160 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
I agree it's a judgement about where to draw the line; it's not a principle as Davis constantly claims. You could allow 2 days detention and still hold to the principle of 'no detention without charge' because of the simple practicalities. Once you go much beyond that then I think you have abandoned the principle, and are just making a judgement about what the balance is between public safety and civil liberties.
I support '42 days' because the people who are given the job of assembling the evidence tell me that they can foresee a time when 28 days would not be enough; they have in fact already had one case where they went to 27 days, and another 28 days. There is always the long-stop of the Civil Contingencies legislation, which would allow detention for at least 56 days and maybe indefinitely, but it seems to me to be better to have specific legislation in place designed in a period of relative calm rather than having to introduce emergency powers in a time of possible panic. The 42 day limit, with all the extra safeguards I have already talked about above, seems to me to be a reasonable judgement of the right balance.
I agree with about 10% of the Grauniad article. Most of it seems to me to be well over the top though, and it ignores completely the civil liberties of those who stand to be protected by CCTV/DNA/ID Cards.
Complain about this comment
#163
what jimbrant misses so blatantly is that the Brits love a maverick with something to say.
They are bored to tears with the droning intellectual superiority of NewLabour with its targets and initiatives.
Your cause is dead and nearly buried. Get used to it.
Complain about this comment
Nick lets face the truth this guy is happy to keep people in jail for 28 days but not 42, why is he happy to keep them in jail for 28 days, I cant understand that. he is also happy with the death penalty that would mean being detained for a lot longer than 42 days and the end result hanging from the end of a rope and yet in the last twenty years there have been many that would have been executed that were later released because they were innocent, so he would have been quite happy about that.
No 42 days but hanging is Ok.
The guys a chancer not a hero or a brave man he was just so full of his own ego that he thought that every one would back him up in his pursuit of fame but it never happened Labour was not going to be drawn into his ego trip if he had of been in a marginal seat he would never have done it.
David Davis was in my opinion one of the stalwarts of the Tory party but after making this stupid exhibition of his self then he needs to retire gracefully, and I think Cameron wishes that he would.
Complain about this comment
163. jimbrant
I support '42 days' because the people who are given the job of assembling the evidence tell me that they can foresee a time when 28 days would not be enough
That is actually very scary.
But your going to have to do a lot better than that, you want to considerably diminish a right given to me 1215. one that was hard fought for and cost a whole lot of life.
Who says this and why and why did they come close to the 28 day limit. I know Ann Widdecombe is with you though.
Against it are The Director of Public Prosecutions, The former Labour Attorney General, Former Head of MI5, Lord Falconer, The former Lord Chancellor
Even the current head of MI5 stays neutral on the subjet.
If the DPP and a head of MI5 say they dont need it and the current head of MI5 stays neutral. Then I remain seriously unconvinced.
Any way laws should not be made in case they are needed in the future, lord where will that take us.
Did you know the governement actually lost a disc containing DNA records for over a year.
How do you feel about your DNA records being kept and perhaps sent abroad. Perhaps to the US after another air attack, just to speed up the processing of arrivals at airports of course, nothing too sinister.
We have to stick em on a disc of course and post them off, just as the Dutch did with their information to the UK.
Sorry its all going too far for my likeing
I guess its lucky Ive done nothing wrong and have nothing to fear.
Complain about this comment
Jimbrandt
Ref: It ignores completely the civil liberties of those who stand to be protected by CCTV/DNA/ID Cards
You can use that arguement to justify any law enforcement measure.
How about a tag implanted at birth and DNA taken. We can track everyones locations and find them at any moment and you wont even know that it is there. That would pretty much eradicate crime. think of the money we would save, you wouldnt even need to lock your front door and we could cut the police force by 90%
After all there is nothing to worry about if you havent done anything wrong.
Complain about this comment
jimbrant
Have a read of this.
http://www.californiacriminallawyerblog.com/2008/04/dna_tests_may_offer_deper_exam.html
Complain about this comment
#166 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
it looks as if the tide has gone out, and everybody is on the next blog. So just a quick response, because I think I've covered most of the points.
"Who says this " - the police, who are the ones who have to get the evidence.
"Any way laws should not be made in case they are needed in the future, lord where will that take us." - of course we do. The Civil Contingencies Act that the Tories and Liberty are so fond of is exactly that.
"How do you feel about your DNA records being kept" - why should I object? It would rule me out as a suspect if it ever came to it, for a start. And if my daughter was raped or killed I would want the perpetrator found.
"You can use that arguement to justify any law enforcement measure" - well surely it is the only reason for any law?
Complain about this comment
Jimbrandt
Sorry its from the Grauniad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jul/16/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy
Complain about this comment
162 carrots... about the video carrots...@138
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yPGUrjRBhjo
I saw it what was he filming exactly?. The trouble is we only see the part the sender wants us to see. he could have been hanging around for a while pointing the camera at the PCSO. Why did he start to follow the PCSO? when he came into shot? He sounded like an older political activist. Trying to stir up some trouble. Maybe he should grow up. Davis' political stunt was a farce habeus corpous is not 28 days its none he voted for 28days, he wants to bring back hanging and wants to get rid of the surveilance society probably hoping to gain support from keen motorists who don't like speed cameras. Good luck with the leadership challenge David Davis.
Complain about this comment
Jim
Im sory Im getting off point,
I m not really a big fan of DD he just happens to hve taken a stand on Civil Libs.
Cant say if hes helped or not, but he has brought it forward and by acting in the way he did a few more will have at least woken up to the issues.
Many dont even follwo them and just side with the party they have always supported.
I can get that with general politics, after all its very dull.
Civil Libs for me go way beyond that.
Complain about this comment
re: 167
Let's hope Brown isn't reading this, he may well do it!
Complain about this comment
165. grandantidote
The death penalty thing is odd, I dont follow the guy much so I am surpised to hear that.
The right to life is the first human right, and I would never vote for a politician that stood for that.
But the point is that the public seem to disagree with all the political comment from the likes of Nick.
I suspect he will go a long way on this.
He has struck a chord.
A bit like Boris
Complain about this comment
171. dhwilkinson
You may well be right on the motives of the cameraman. It may well have been grandantidotes opposite number just out to cause trouble.
The reason that I added it to the blog was to show how police action can materialise on the streets, and that the legislation that gets passed has to be interpreted by these guys.
I accept this guy is not typical, but I have seen many on the streets of London who are of a similar caliber. Im not being too hysterical about the sate of things. I merely wish to point out that situations have a habit of creeping off in sadly the wrong direction and there are many unintended consequences. Ones sadly that our esteemed leaders are not too smart at spotting.
For example PCSOs were only supposed to be supporting professional officers on patrol. Now I hear that 2 forces are trialing them as first response for 999 calls.
Imagine dialing 999 and having those 2 show up. If you don?t get what I mean watch it again and watch them both carefully.
Are you happy with this level of law enforcement. Especially given all the tax you/ we/I pay.
Final note on DD Im not here to defend the man. Im not his supporter, I am merely grateful for the fact he has brought attention to an issue I have a great deal of time and passion for.
Complain about this comment
(me)@171
"...Good luck with the leadership challenge David Davis."
I didn't me that "Carrots..." was David Davis. Sorry!.
The public seem to disagree according to "Carrots..." with Nick when he is using his mischievous style with the Conservatives. He is with public opinion when he is using it against Gordon Brown though. Public opinion being what is represented on here and on the other site. Where some of us are more people than others in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
If knife crime was such an important issue to Gordon Brown and the Political Class, can anyone explain to me why only 16 MPs were in the House of Commons to debate this 'serious' problem.
Complain about this comment
177 Buckie6741
Maybe they were all afraid of the metaphorical knife in the back.
Complain about this comment
176. dhwilkinson
I dont know if youve noticed the polls but the public arnt with Brown any longer.
They want an election.
Complain about this comment
Oh you principled, intrepid, gladatorial, cleaner than clean exemplar of free journalism Nick!
You predicted this, you predicted that! It's a shame that what you and most your colleagues report or predict about the fantasy life within Westminster and Mother of all Parliaments these days, and how New Labour and the Tories react towards each other isn't really of any great relevence to the actual political needs of this country.
This whole sham of a bi-election over whether 28 days or 42 represented liberty or tyranny respectively was all part of wider right-wing conspiracy to ensure that any debate within Parliament about the real issue, the cause of terrorism excluded any contribution or analysis from the left.
Davis resigned no doubt with the consent of the Tory leadership to exploit voter apathy which engenders from time to time a public craving for the odd political maverick to supposedly brighten things up!
This whole farce of a bi-election would have had a modicum of resonance if Davis had actually quit the Tory Party and stood as an
Independent candidate against a candidate who woul;d have exposed this Tory agenda to the electorate. This of course never happened because if it had Davis would have had to campaign on wider political issues which would have precipitated a wider crisis not just for the political economy but the lives of you journalists in the media!
Complain about this comment
180 Nick Vinehill I agree with almost everything you say, but may I add that labour have been absurdly accused of cowardice in this farce, in my opinion the cowards in this farce was his constitunency party, they should have told him you resigned on your own part left us without a MP and now you think that you should top the list, there are many young budding prospective MPs that should have been given the opportunity before someone who without say so resigns without consulting his leader and incurs a bill of £120,000 they are the ones that showed no backbone, had they have ,as they should have, put up a prospective candidate, then both Labour and the liberals would have contested the seat, and the Tories would probably still have won but with reputation intact.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS