"We are not amused."

Is Prince Andrew about to get the chop? The pressure is certainly mounting. Yesterday the Sunday Times published an article entitled 'The Lowlife World of His Royal Highness', while in Prime Minister's Questions last week, Chris Bryant, the former minister for Europe, demanded that Andrew be stripped of his role as a UK trade ambassador. He later described him to BBC Breakfast as a "national embarrassment". On the BBC news website, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has indicated that there will have to be "conversations" about Prince Andrew and 'Downing Street sources' have indicated that 'one more serious story could make the prince's role untenable'. 

A number of recent stories have brought Prince Andrew's judgement into question. In a 2009 court case, Paul Page, a royal bodyguard documented how the prince repeatedly broke Buckingham Palace security protocols in order to entertain late night female visitors. Page also recorded that when challenged on one breach of the rules, the prince, who was regarded as one of the rudest royals - any bets on who the rudest royal is - told Page, 'This is my f***ing house, I can go where I want. Now f*** off!' Nothing quite like the Queen's English is there?

According to the Sunday Times, a number of former diplomats have criticised his 'rude' manner and poor judgement. This was illustrated over the weekend by the revelation that he hosted a business lunch for Sakeher el-Materi, the son-in-law of Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali,  just three months before he was deposed. Such unsavoury associations, however, would seem to be in keeping with the prince's general tastes. The Sunday Times article discussed a number of unlikely friendships and speculated about 'Andrew's penchant for being around people who have access to pretty women.' 

On the whole, most of the story seems a bit thin. A rude royal. A man with a taste for pretty women. A member of an extremely wealthy family with a few dodgy social connections. Not particularly shocking is it? The business lunch? Certainly, it is embarrassing, especially, as the Daily Mail has discovered the meeting was not an official engagement but initiated by the prince. But whether public or private, the meeting was attended by dozens of British executives all looking to get their share of the same distasteful pie. Are the papers going to call for them to be sacked? Difficult to criticise the prince for having the same degree of foresight as the British intelligence services. They didn't see Tunisia coming either. Observe Mr Cameron - it is much easier to try and do the right thing after the event. 

Epstein

Most damaging of all are the photos published in the New York Post, showing Prince Andrew walking through Central Park with convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, the man who paid off the Duchess of York's personal debts. 'Prince and the Perv' ran the headline. He was convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution and received an 18 month prison sentence but only after a plea bargain. There were allegedly many more victims and according to FBI documents, a witness claimed on one occasion Epstein had three 12 year old girls flown over from France. 

According to the Sunday Times, Epstein has been a guest at Windsor and Sandringham, while Prince Andrew has stayed with Epstein at his homes in New York and Florida. However, that is not all the two men have shared. Both have been romantically linked with Robert Maxwell's daughter, Ghislaine Maxwell, although court papers indicated that she had developed a business relationship with Epstein. 

The article noted that one girl, Virginia Roberts, who was 'recruited' to work for Epstein and abused by him when she was 15 years old, was also introduced to Prince Andrew by Ghislaine. Roberts has not made any claims about Prince Andrew's conduct, however, Ghislaine is considering what action to take in relation to accusations about her role in the Epstein case made by two other women. 

It may be a collection of gossip and innuendo at the moment but what a terribly sordid world is emerging. Andrew's lifestyle is certainly a story. Dictators, prostitutes, paedophiles and our dear royal family all in the mix. After the news of of Kate and Will's wedding and the success of The King's Speech at the Oscars, "cor blimey gov'nor, don't yer just love Colin Firth", I-I-I am sure the palace was hoping for a run of more sympathetic coverage. Just why is it that a family that has risen to power through a history of violence, interbreeding, loveless marriages, luck and deceit, can't seem to stay out of trouble? Happily, for the Windsors, they are still very well protected and so far I find this aspect of the story just as disturbing. 

Roy Greenslade asked in his Guardian blog today, 'Why are so few newspapers carrying the Prince Andrew Story?'. He notes the majority of the mainstream newspapers have 'overlooked' it so far, including the Guardian. Isn't paedophilia and public figures meat and drink to papers, he asks? Only the Mail and Sunday Times have pursued the story. Why is it being ignored? Is it the same reason that the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, stated during Prime Minister's Questions, that all future references to royals were to be 'very rare, very sparing and very respectful'? I didn't realise that the Speaker had a constitutional role to define the breadth of a debate in the Commons?

Why the special treatment? Are papers worried about not getting good seats for the wedding? Surely the royal family's position requires the House of Commons and our newspapers to hold them, and their staff, to the very highest levels of scrutiny and standards of public behaviour. Yet, as the has reported today the prince's representatives gave the impression that the meeting with Sakher el-Materi had been organised by by the Government's Trade and Investment Bureau and the prince's press secretary, Ed Perkins, tried to patch up a deal with UKTI, ‘Am deploying the line that he (Materi) was vice chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Will UKTI stand behind him? We need some govt backing here . . .’ 

Rather embarrassingly, Perkins sent the email out to the media rather than the UKTI so that particular lie couldn't be fed through. No matter, the waters are being muddied. His followers are closing ranks. David  Cameron has offered Prince Andrew his 'full support' and William Hague has said he has 'done a jolly good job.' Hugo Vickers, a royal historian, told the BBC there had been a 'rather irresponsible harassment of Andrew by the press.' Accusations of close connections to a paedophile and it is described as 'irresponsible harrassment'. Would that be the case for any other public figure outside the royal family? No, but instead the focus of this story seems to be drifting to the rather irrelevant question of whether the prince remains a trade envoy. 

Hurrah for George VI

Vince Cable told the BBC "I think we need to remember he is doing this as a volunteer, he is not a government appointee, he is not somebody who is appointed and sacked." What wonderful logic -  so does that mean the Government can't get rid of him even if they wanted to? Perhaps doctors and nurses should pull the same trick and just claim 'expenses'. The BBC political correspondent, Gary O' Donaghue believes "It's unlikely the government would actually sack Prince Andrew but may choose in the long run gradually to downgrade his activities, avoiding a damaging and embarrassing row between ministers and the Royal Family." 

Embarrassing for whom? Damaging for whom? I think Minette Marrin, in the Sunday Times, yes a Murdoch paper, got it half right when she said this is a story about a prince corrupted by deference. Yes, I agree, but I think deference has also corrupted our media and politicians. 

It doesn't particularly bother me if he keeps the trade envoy job. His official engagements look like a tour of the 'axis of evil' + Germany - not sure if they are included or not. Compared to his friends, letting him hang out with tyrants would be less embarrassing to the country.

Is this the beginning of the end?

Dan Jarvis

A terrible night for the Coalition at the Barnsley Central by-election. While Labour retained the seat with an increased majority, the Conservatives were comfortably beaten into third place by UKIP and the Lib Dems scraped sixth place, behind the BNP but just beating the Monster Raving Looney Party. The result is particularly humiliating for the Lib Dems who were second in the May election. Liberal candidate, Dominic Carman, summed the night up by telling the BBC that his party had been given "a kicking".

The victorious Labour candidate, Dan Jarvis, a former major in the paratroop regiment and who served in Afghanistan, said the result sent:

"the strongest possible message to David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Your reckless policies, your broken promises and your unfair cuts are letting our country down." 

The Lib Dem president Tim Farron played down the result saying that it was no surprise, while on Twitter, Verity Harding, senior policy manager was stating, "Barnsley result painful but not terminal. People aren't voting Lib Dem as a protest against Labour anymore - not a surprise!" Not terminal? Many commentators are suggesting it could be. Just how bad is the situation?

Johann Hari, the Guardian columnist, is today predicting Nick Clegg to lose his seat (if he runs again) while Mark Ferguson, editor of Labour List, suggested that the Lib Dems could see support recede to their historically peripheral regions of the South-west and North of Scotland. Why? Ferguson argues that the Lib Dems can no longer be seen as a credible alternative to Labour in many regions and the old line that they are positioned to the left of Labour has been shattered. Without the reservoir of support from disgruntled Labour supporters where will they turn for votes?

The apocalyptic visions of decline are lent a little credibility by the Lib Dem spokespersons themselves. Less than a year into the Coalition Government and a decline in vote from 17.2% to 4.1% is seen as 'no surprise'. Expectations must be pretty low at headquarters, after all, Barnsley is not a hotbed of student radicalism. Harding's analysis of "Painful but not terminal", is probably closer to the mark, but the fact that the comment is being made suggests that, in digesting the result, senior Lib Dems have considered the possibility. Harding's comment, 'People aren't voting Lib Dem as a protest against Labour anymore' recognises Ferguson's point that the Lib Dems position as the credible party of protest has been dealt a severe blow.

So what will Clegg do? Another skiing holiday? Probably not, no matter how appealing it might seem at the moment.The only thing he can do to rescue his party is to start defining some space between the Lib Dems and Tories. So far he has failed in his attempts. As I noted in a previous post (http://bit.ly/guD5Jq) he was tying himself in knots trying to square the circle of higher university fees with fairer access. The stream of universities announcing they will charge the maximum £9000 fees is a continual embarrassment to Clegg who has argued that the maximum fee will be charged only in exceptional cases. Also, his insistence on fair access to the top universities, which brought strong criticism from the Tories, was dealt a blow this week by Oxford and Cambridge indicating they would not 'lower' standards to increase admissions for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Only a month ago Cameron condemned multiculturalism as a failure and laid out his vision of a 'muscular liberalism' defeating extremism. Yesterday, saw yet another attempt by Clegg to separate himself from Cameron. Giving a speech in Luton, Clegg stressed the importance of multiculturalism in an 'open and confident society'. Shadow communities secretary Caroline Flint said: "Nick Clegg's speech has exposed a lack of clarity at the top of government over its view of multiculturalism."

Is this true? Despite the soundbite headline, in the body of the speech reported on the BBC, Clegg was at pains to identify common ground with the Tories, "we come at some of these issues from different directions". But he added: "We completely agree that if multiculturalism means communities living in silos - separately from each other, never communicating, with no shared sense of belonging then we are both completely against it." It sums up the Lib Dem dilemma. Does Clegg want to project his own 'muscular liberalism' or does he want to maintain the coalition? Doing both is proving very destructive to the party's prospects.

Terminal? Not yet. We have a lot more twists and turns to come. To quote someone who served in both Liberal and Conservative governments, Winston Churchill,

"this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

A cu?t by any other name...

 Rupert Murdoch has been given the go-ahead to takeover BSkyB. After months of speculation and discussion, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt- I said Hunt- announced that News Corp has been given approval to buy the remaining 61% shares in a deal worth £9.1 billion. The news of the deal has inevitably brought criticism from the Labour Party and other media groups, but what does it actually mean to us?

From the moment that Vince Cable was caught in a Telegraph honey trap it was probably inevitable that an agreement would be reached. You may remember that Cable made a fool of himself by  bragging to young female reporters that he was "declaring war" on Murdoch. Cable was immediately replaced from the BSkyB decision-making process and authority was given to Jeremy Hunt and he was on record as stating that Murdoch had "probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person." Hunt has also been a strong critic of the BBC.

In December, Ofcom, the communications industry regulator, concluded that the proposed takeover would operate against the public interest 'since there may not be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises providing news and current affairs to UK-wide cross-media audiences.' In order to avoid the deal being referred to the Competition Commission, News Corp have offered to create a new company, Sky News, with an independent chairman and directors.

Hunt

How independent is the new company? News Corp will keep a 39% holding in Sky News and will not be allowed to increase its holding without the permission of the culture secretary for ten years. Sky has also agreed to provide a 'substantial revenue stream', in the shape of a ten year contract to buy Sky News services and to allow it use the 'Sky News' brand for the next seven years. So, News Corp will almost certainly remain the largest shareholder and it will also be the new company's biggest client. Not exactly a strong position from which to assert its editorial independence is it?

But independence and Murdoch are hardly synonymous. Andrew Neil, the former editor of the Sunday Times and founding chairman of Sky TV has spoken extensively about Murdoch's record for removing 'independent' directors and directing the editorial policy of his papers. In 2008 The Independent reported that Neil told a Lord's committee,

"If you want to know what Rupert Murdoch really thinks read the editorials in the Sun and the New York Post because he is editor-in-chief of these papers. There is no major geopolitical position that the Sun will take whether its attitude to the euro or to the current European treaty or to whom the paper will support in the upcoming general election. None of that can be decided without Rupert Murdoch's major input."

The BBC's Robert Peston stated that the deal meant "huge changes to the landscape of the British media industry." However, Peston noted that News Corp had been put under pressure to make greater concessions than they were originally willing to concede. All of the key documents have been published and Hunt's office should, I think, be applauded for that transparency. Both Ofcom and OFT agreed that referral to the Competition Commission was not necessary.

What is certainly worrying, however, as Peston points out, is the takeover will mean News Corp will have revenues that dwarf all of its competitors, even the BBC. Murdoch has not been averse to taking on his competitors in a series of price cutting wars strangling newspaper revenues. In 2002 the Murdoch controlled Sun saw its revenues fall by 50% in a price war with the Mirror, however, News Corp, owners of Fox TV and 20th Century Fox, in the USA, were able to cover those losses.

Meanwhile, a number of media groups, including the Guardian, Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph - who initially tried to cover up the Vince Cable gaffe - in a joint statement to the BBC said, "We shall be vigorously contesting this whitewash of a proposal during the consultation period, as well as examining all legal options."

What does it all mean? Firstly, the deal has yet to be completed. News Corp still have to buy BSky B and with the rising share price that is not a certainty. As a viewer, it won't make any difference. As someone concerned about the independence of news broadcasting, there are obvious concerns. However, given the concessions, Sky News is pretty much in the same position it always was, or, if there is any strength to the restrictions on News Corp, it will actually be in a much stronger position.

Of course, people tend to agree with political bias in reporting, if it agrees with their own views. The Telegraph, after all were only acting in a self-interested way by trying to hide the Cable gaff. The independence of our media can be over-stated. In the noise of the BSkyB announcement you may have missed a smaller but just as interesting story. After pressure from the Conservatives, BBC journalists have been told to stop referring to 'cuts' and instead use the word 'savings' to paint a more rosy picture of government announcements. Senior BBC management are reported to have said that 'cuts' made the news appear too negative. Even our cherished Auntie has to pay the piper.

Ultimately, the greatest threat will emerge from the financial muscle that News Corp has at its disposal and how it chooses to tackle its competition. How it will end is anyone's guess. One thing is for certain. Murdoch is nearly 80 and, although he increasingly resembles a Bond villain, I suspect that You only Live Twice, is still only true in spy fiction. 

Christian morality and a death in Pakistan

Eunice and Owen Johns

'Christian beliefs lose out to gay rights' exclaims the Daily Mail headline. 'All citizens of the UK are equal but some are more equal than others' says an angry Christian, paraphrasing Orwell. 'Once again the gay community does itself a disservice by showing only intolerance for others while demanding tolerance for themselves' writes Nick in Basingstoke. Finally, Tom Norton sums up the general tone of the 652 comments on the Daily Mail website when he says, 

'There is no moral basis for this ruling, and should be appealed. The law governing this area is wrong, and should be rewritten. The gays have no justification for arguing that their preference take precedence over traditional, Christian morality. The Gays are not in charge of this world. God is.'

What has provoked this storm? As you may have heard, an elderly Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, from Derby, have lost their battle to be allowed to foster children. In a landmark decision, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that the law protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation 'should take precedence' over the right not to be discriminated against because of religious beliefs.

The couple had previously fostered 15 children before taking a break from fostering. They had applied to Derby Council in 2007 to restart fostering but despite having been described by social workers as 'kind and hospitable people', during their previous experience, felt that their application was doomed because of their belief that homosexuality is against God's laws and morals would conflict with the regulations introduced by the 2007 Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.

In drafting the legislation the Government exempted organisations, that wished to 'practice, teach or advance' a religion. The rights of these groups were specifically protected by the legislation. Religious groups are allowed to organise their 'own affairs in accordance with the deeply held beliefs of their religion.' However, individuals alone and not acting under the auspices of a religious body were not exempt from the provisions.

In a just society individuals will be protected from the arbitrary expression of authority from governments or powerful groups in society. To a large extent an individual should be able to live their 'private' life as they wish as long as it does not compromise other peoples rights. The legislation attempts to balance the inalienable right of all people to be protected from discrimination due their race, religion or sexuality (among many things), guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights, with an individual's freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Reason protects faith. Of course, it's a compromise but the principle protects all of us.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan we can see what happens when a a religious morality gains power. Yesterday, yet another politician was killed. Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Minorities Minister and the only Christian Cabinet minister, was assassinated for urging reform of the country's blasphemy laws.The blasphemy laws in Pakistan carry a death sentence and are often used to attack minority groups, including let it be noted, Christians, who, as the lowest social class, generally have little political influence. 

As a previous post explained (bit.ly/eRQIHX), Pakistan's lower regional courts are often in the hands of powerful local interest groups and uphold the death sentences. However, despite operating within an Islamic State, Pakistan's higher Appeal Courts and its Supreme Court are still powerful enough to withstand the pressures of the extremists and provide justice by overturning the decisions of the lower courts.

There are many in Pakistan who do not want minority groups to have the same rights that they enjoy. They are not willing to compromise and are willing to use any means to impose their 'beliefs'. Defending the rights of Christians and other minorities has cost Governor Salman Taseer and now Shahbaz Bhatti their lives. In Pakistan, Christians are being sentenced to death and killed because the principles of justice and the rights of minorities are quickly being eroded. People like Tom Norton in the comfort of the UK, writing on the Daily Mail website might try and consider this before promoting the primacy of any religious morality.


I wonder what a Jedi would have to say? 

Are you a racist yet?

 Do you dislike immigrants? Do you agree with David Cameron and believe that multiculturalism has failed? Do you have a fear of 'other' cultures and religions, particularly Muslims? If there was a new right-wing political party that expressed these views without the fascist trappings of the British National Party, would you consider supporting them? If so, don't be shy, because according to a new report, Fear and Hope, your views are shared by a very large section of people in Britain. 


Some 34% of white Britons believe all immigration into the UK should be stopped permanently. 52% of Britons agree with the proposition "Muslims create problems in the UK", while 63% of white Britons agree with the proposition that "on the whole, immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". In addition, 48% of Britons say they would consider supporting a new far right-wing party, if it shunned violence and fascist imagery.


The statistics have emerged from a Searchlight Educational Trust (SET) poll to explore current attitudes to national identity, religion and race. It is one of the largest surveys to explore these themes with 5054 respondents being asked 91 questions to reveal the level of fear and hate within our society.  Formed in 1992 SET is a charity that aims to to provide organisations, groups and individuals with the knowledge and tools to tackle racial hatred. The results of the this report will form the basis for a new SET project Together, which will seek to address these findings.


The Guardian reported, 


'These findings will be shocking to many. They shatter many of our liberal preconceptions. And they demonstrate conclusively that when it comes to the narrative of migration and race, our politicians and our community leaders are now running far behind those they seek to represent.'


The report's authors, Nick Lowles and Antony Painter, argue that immigration is creating a new type of politics driven by race and identity. They conclude that Britain is now divided into six 'tribes': Confident Multiculturalists (eight per cent of the population); Mainstream Liberals (16%); Identity Ambivalents (28%); Cultural Integrationists (24%); Latent Hostiles (10%); and Active Enmity (13%). The centre ground, making up 52% of the population, is dominated by Cultural Integrationists who are motived by authority and order; and Identity Ambivalents who are concerned about their economic security and social change.


It seems the more pessimistic individuals are about their future economic prospects, the more inclined they will be to have negative attitudes to immigrants. The 'Identity ambivalents' are seen as the group most likely to be swayed towards the new far-right in the shape of the identity driven groups like the English Defence League. These are either traditional Labour supporters or unaligned voters who feel their concerns were ignored by the Labour Government and are now being further hit by the deep Conservative cuts.  


On a more positive note the poll suggested that there was an appetite for mainstream politicians to take on extremism of any kind, Muslim and the far-right were identified as being as bad as each other. However, it warned the mainstream parties that they will have to adjust to the new political culture or face pushing voters towards into the arms of those extremist organisations. Are they the only ones that need to adjust to the changing political culture?


Searchlight magazine was established in 1975 to confront the growth of fascist organisations and to expose racism and anti-semitism across the country. One of the interesting aspects of the poll is the number of minority groups who are also opposed to immigration. Some 39% of Asian Britons and 21% of black Britons now believe: 'all immigration into the UK should be stopped permanently, or at least until the UK's economic situation improves.' A remarkable 43% of Asian Britons and 17% of black Britons agree with the proposition that "on the whole, immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country".

Searchlight Educational Trust should be applauded for recognising the influence of economic security, rather than pure innate bigotry, as driving the results. Racism has not disappeared, far from it, but as The Guardian noted Tebbits's cricket test has been replaced by  Lowles and Painter's 'means' test. Although it is not expressed in these terms, the report recognises that the hostility to immigration is largely class based. Many people in the lower income groups are feeling the squeeze and immigration is adding to that uncertainty. 

Boston

A report by the Daily Mail, today, highlighted how New Labour suppressed a number of reports revealing the damaging effects of immigration, particularly on rural communities and to public services. These were issues I recognised after a visit back to my hometown, Boston in Lincolnshire.  (http://canthingsonlygetbetter.blogspot.com/2011/01/land-of-my-pilgrim-fathers-boston.html.) Between 2004 and 2008 Boston saw its population grow by 25% thanks largely to immigration from Eastern Europe and Portugal. The town has been left shell-shocked and it should be a warning to the mainstream parties who, as the Fear and Hope report highlights, not only misjudged the effects of immigration but also the appropriate response to the far-right. Of the 32 seats on Boston Council, 25 are currently held by a loosely connected group of independent councillors. There is one far-right councillor.


How many more will there be after the next elections?

Can I have some more?

Do we need more choice? I ask the question because David Cameron tells us that's what we want from our public services. According to Cameron, increasing choice is one of the key principles driving his reform of the public services. In a press release published by the Telegraph yesterday, he stated,

"We will soon publish a White Paper setting out our approach to public service reform. It will put in place principles that will signal the decisive end of the old-fashioned, top-down, take-what-you're-given model of public services. And it is a vital part of our mission to dismantle Big Government and build the Big Society in its place."

In principle, the idea of opening up public services to a range of providers from the private, voluntary and public sector sounds like a good idea. Even more attractive is the idea of having a range of services controlled by local people and responsive to the particular needs of the local population. We are told that competition will inevitably create efficiencies and innovation. We are told we will be able to pick and choose from a range of options and find the one that best suits us.  

I have already discussed efficiency in the public sector and the pitfalls of locally driven services, and will inevitably return to the subjects over the coming weeks, so I thought it would be interesting to explore the idea of choice. Choice, after all, is like fresh air and Australia losing test matches, we just can't get enough, can we? Well, there is a lot of research to suggest that is not the case. Professor George Lowenstein, a professor of Economics and Psychology, has investigated the cost/benefit of expanding choice within public services and has identified three main concerns: a 'time' cost, an 'error' cost and a 'psychic' cost.  

Lowenstein argues that since time, for most people, is a scarce commodity, the more time we spend making decisions means less time spent time doing things we enjoy. If you have ever spent time researching holidays or household purchases on the internet, you will know it can be incredibly time consuming and provoke a chilly atmosphere at home. Any techno-geek husband knows, you can pay a higher price for doing the research. The solution, if you have the right connections or you can afford it, may be to get expert advice, however, choosing an expert just adds to the complexity of the overall decision. Also, as Lowenstein argues, the often conflicting opinions reflects the 'inherent difficulty of complex decisions.'

Psychologists have also noted that consumers make a number of 'errors' when confronted with choice. For instance, when confronted with an expanding range of choices, individuals will actually consider a shrinking number of them. This 'decision overload' also results in consumers resorting to ever more simplistic decision making rules, such as: choosing the most expensive, because it should give the best quality, or the cheapest, because it is the best value. Heinz baked beans or the supermarket's own 'economy' version. Ultimately, the researchers have observed that consumers avoid complex decisions altogether, in effect, accepting what they are given,

"Buyers of auto insurance in New Jersey and Pennsylvania were given a choice of whether to pay lower insurance rates in exchange for a reduced right to sue for pain and suffering.  In Pennsylvania, the default was the full right to sue, with a rebate for accepting reduced rights.  In New Jersey, the default was a limited right to sue with a surcharge to get the full rights.  In both states, about 75-80 percent of drivers took the default option." (Johnson, Hershey, Meszaros and Kunreuther 1993). 

Professor Lowenstein also highlights what he calls 'psychic costs' associated with complex decision making. In effect, he argues that people are risk averse because they are driven by a 'desire to avoid regret and self-recrimination'. Therefore, any benefits they experience from 'good' decisions will be more than outweighed by the feelings of regret for 'poor' decision. The research also indicates that individuals also experience anxiety when they are confronted with decisions but lack the appropriate 'expertise' or there is a big trade-off between the possible options. Quite simply, we are not very good at making decisions and they are not very good for our health. 

  

What does this mean for Cameron's 'Big Society'? To try and put his vision into some context, my wife and I have recently spent many hours attending open-evenings at local secondary schools trying to decide which one will be best. As any parent will tell you, which school to send your wonderful children can be a very tricky decision. We are still more than a year away, the process has been reasonably time consuming and, even in a town like Bath where the schools are all good, it has provoked a lot of thought and discussion. 

At least my wife and I have both been to school. So did you. We all have a lot of personal experience that will inform our decisions. I don't think it makes it much easier. This is a decision that can shape our child's future, it's a lot of responsibility. Now make the decision about where your child's heart operation should take place. 'Heinz or economy'? Are you equipped to make that decision?

I subscribe to a satellite broadcaster. I have got literally hundreds of different TV channels to choose from 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Has competition driven prices down? I suppose you can argue it has. Hundreds of channels for less than a pound a day is pretty remarkable compared to the old days of four channels before we had this fantastic choice. OK, they were free but think about the choice. Lots of choice - but it's all rubbish. Unfortunately, it is lots of channels showing the same repeats over and over again. Any sign of innovation? I can watch Grand Designs repeats almost eight hours a day, does that count? To get any real entertainment, which is not already available on those original four channels, I have to pay extra.

Mr Cameron, please don't give me more choice. I just want some quality. 

Sorry, I've got to go it's the Grand Designs when Kevin visits Italy where they are renovating a castle, I've only seen it twenty times. 

NHS efficiency - 

http://canthingsonlygetbetter.blogspot.com/2011/01/nhs-iii-this-time-its-another-post.html

Localism -http://canthingsonlygetbetter.blogspot.com/2011/01/conservative-reform-and-baying-mob.html

A National Disgrace

         

There are 1.6 million children living in severe poverty in this country. According to Save the Children, there are 29 local authorities across the UK where more than one in five children are living in households with half the average income – for a family of four this would be pay of less than £12,500 – £34 a day to meet all essential needs. In Tower Hamlets and Manchester, the figure is 27%. 14% of children in Wales and 13% in England are living in these conditions. 

In an interview with the BBC, Sally Copley, Save the Children's Head of UK policy, explained the level of 'material deprivation': 

"Children up and down the country are going to sleep at night in homes with no heating, without eating a proper meal and without proper school uniforms to put on in the morning." 

According to a report by Save the Children in 2008, two-thirds of these households have to borrow money to meet utility bills, 1.3 million can't afford new clothes for their children, half of the households cannot afford to provide three meals a day for their children and a million children live in houses with rotting walls or floors.  

A report last year, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK by Professor John Hills of the London School of Economics, commissioned by the Labour government, concluded that being born into a disadvantaged social class had a profound, lifelong negative impact. These inequalities accumulate over the life cycle, the report concludes. Social class has a big impact on children's school readiness at the age of three, but continues to drag children back through school and beyond. With few exceptions, the children born into poverty will get fewer qualifications, lower paid jobs, suffer more health problems and die younger than their peers. 

In 1999 Tony Blair made a commitment to end child poverty in the UK by 2020. By 2008 Labour had pulled 600,000 children out of poverty thanks to tax credits and other initiatives. Yet, despite the Government's efforts, the UK still has one of the worst records on child poverty in the EU. We are the 6th biggest economy in the world and yet we rank 21st out of 27th in Europe on this crucial indicator. 

Meanwhile, the UK's present inequality in wealth distribution, the gap between rich and poor, is at its widest point since the 1920s. Professor Hills, indicated that the richest 10% of the UK's population was over 100 times richer than the poorest 10%. Researchers analysed the total wealth accrued by households over a lifetime. The top 10%, led by higher professionals, had amassed wealth of £2.2m, including property and pension assets, by the time they drew close to retirement (aged 55-64), while the bottom 10% of households, led by routine manual workers, had amassed less than £8,000. 


In this context, the Coalition has proposed switching the focus on tackling child poverty from traditional anti-poverty measures, based on income, to improving children's life chances. However, with the material deprivation described in the report it is not hard to understand why Save the Children are adamant that income plays such a crucial role. They have called on George Osborne to announce an emergency plan to create new jobs in the poorest areas and increase financial support for low-income families. This, of course, is unlikely to happen. The Coalition have replaced Labour's pledge to 'eradicate' with proposals to 'tackle' child poverty and Osborne has promised that cutting the deficit would not increase child poverty. 

In the light of rising unemployment, rising inflation, welfare cuts and the VAT increase, it would appear to be the sort of promise Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister might have described as 'courageous'. I can think of other words. Save the Children calls it a 'national disgrace.' 

I think they are right.