Plan B - The Defamation of George Osborne

New Spin Doctor: Corporal Jones

Don't panic, don't panic! The Institute of Fiscal Studies has endorsed George Osborne's strategy to cut the deficit. The endorsement comes in the shape of the IFS's 'Green Budget' in collaboration with Barclays Wealth and Barclays Capital, an assessment of the government's underlying assumptions about the economy before the Chancellor presents his real budget on 23rd March. They insist that George should press on with his fiscal strategy. Stop the marches! Endure the cuts! Were we wrong to complain?

Well, no. The report is reminiscent of a crew of a sinking ship, reassuring the passengers, while causally edging closer to the last lifeboat. Why? Because Osborne's whole strategy to sort out the public finances rests upon strong economic growth, but as the 0.5% reduction in GDP during the last quarter showed, that recovery should not be taken for granted. We can't rely on it not snowing again, can we?

The IFS looked at five key 'demand drivers' to test the robustness of the recovery. The first indicator was the 'impact of fiscal tightening'. This measures the reduction in GDP in relation to government cuts and tax rises. In normal circumstances, for an economy the size of the UK,  it would be assumed that a £1 reduction in government spending would result in a reduction in demand between 50p and £1, a 'multiplier of somewhere between 0.5 and 1. Meanwhile, it is assumed, a 1% tax reduction would reduce GDP by 0.25%-0.5%.

According to the IMF these assumptions only apply where the central bank can ease the process by reducing interest rates. In circumstances, like ours, where that is not an option - the overall reduction on GDP can be much larger. More worrying is when fiscal tightening occurs alongside other trading partners going through the same process, the 'multiplier' in GDP reduction can be double the government cuts or tax increases. The IFS concludes that the likely 'multiplier will be 1.5, much higher than the government has forecast. It means they think the cuts will bite much deeper than has been anticipated.

The IFS have a similarly pessimistic outlook for 'household income growth'. Having grown 1% in 2010, the government has assumed a similar growth rate in 2011. However, the IFS confirm that rising inflation means that household purchasing power is dropping in real terms and will not reach a healthy growth rate until 2015.  They also predict that their will not be a substantial increase in employment to drive demand. Confidence is low:

"psychologically speaking, most households are feeling vulnerable: many feel that they have yet to join in the supposed economic recovery that they have read about in the papers."  

As a consequence they foresee the VAT increase having a stronger effect on spending than would usually be the case. Ironically, the level of consumer spending as a proportion of income is well above historical levels already, but it is predicted to fall substantially before rising to even higher levels. It seems that we can't wait to restart of shopping spree. In the long run our insatiable desire for the latest patio furniture might just drag us out of the mire, what a happy thought. In the short term we can assume that the recovery will not emerge from consumer spending.

What about an industrial recovery? The government made a lot out of the 9% increase in business investment in the third quarter of 2010. However, the IFS suggest this was a response to the 'unprecedented' collapse of 19% in 2009 and warn against seeing the growth as an indicator of future growth. In fact, they conclude that the lack of confidence undermining consumer expenditure is reflected in the prospects for British industry:

"Recent surveys of business confidence suggest firms are concerned about the uncertainty over both consumption at home and export performance, in light of weakness in some of the UK's major export markets."

Quite simply firms will not invest if the prospects for domestic sales and exports are poor. The IFS also notes that in previous recessions, business investment has not driven recovery but has lagged behind other 'drivers'. Finally, they point out that following the previous four recessions business investment has declined. That doesn't bode well for long-term competitiveness, as we shall see.

The one note of optimism is that the UK may regain lost market share. This 'rebalancing', it is suggested, will result naturally from the devaluation of the pound against other currencies, making British exports relatively cheaper. However, the cloud on that horizon is the possibility that UK exports will not recover. It appears that despite a very competitive pound (16% below its 2007 average), exports have not recovered at the expected rate. The concern is that this is not a blip but part of a structural decline as Britain loses market share to other countries. The overall reduction in business investment following the last four recessions may be coming back to bite the UK.

The final ''driver' is the labour market. Again the outlook appears bleak. The recession has been characterised by firms' reluctance to reduce their workforce. However, this high employment has inevitably resulted in a sharp decline in productivity, 8% lower than pre-recession levels. The IFS speculate that with growth not returning as quickly as expected, firms may embark on a US style reduction in workforce in order to regain a higher productivity level. In this worst case scenario, unemployment could rise as high as 12% with the relative decline in household demand. 

The more likely outcome is that firms 'hold steady'. However, with inflation above the level of wage increases this will also squeeze demand. The IFS also point out the number of people employed includes an increasing number of people who work part-time but would prefer to work full-time. This under- employer may be disguising some of the real pain that unemployment figures don't fully reflect. The excess capacity ensures that there will be little pressure for wage growth for the foreseeable future.

The final point I wish to highlight is, by the standards of other governments, Osborne has taken a particularly sharp axe to the public sector. As Stephanie Flanders said in her blog,

"the report gives the lie to the suggestion that the government's cuts are similar to the consolidation plans of other countries. Out of 29 industrialised countries, only Greece is planning a sharper decline in structural borrowing between 2010 and 2015. And only Ireland and Iceland are planning a larger reduction over this period in public spending as a share of GDP."

The government's justification was that the debt was so large that the country may not be able to refinance it, like Ireland and Greece. There is no doubt that our debt is very large. Only the USA and Ireland, those free market miracles, have higher debt as a % of GDP. However, 'crisis, what crisis?' Britain ranks 4th overall, in the ability of the government to raise finance and service the debt. The report states that investor demand for UK debt has remained strong. However, it should be recognised that some of that confidence from the markets is in response to the Tory strategy. Whether we like it or not, that is important, but, the UK currently sits 32nd out of 60 industrialised countries in the Barclays Capital Fiscal Vulnerability Index, and with the governments ability to raise finance, there seems little doubt that the case for the cuts has been overstated. 

The IFS's 'endorsement' comes in the shape of them confirming the government's assumptions. However, as I have attempted to illustrate, the IFS believes there are some serious 'downside' risks to the government strategy. They believe that there is a significant threat from high inflation and without 'roaring' growth it will be virtually impossible to control because it won't raise interest rates without damaging the economy.  

No u-turns?

Their conclusion? The BBC reported that at the press conference launching the report, Carl Emmerson, the IFS director, made it clear that the IFS believes that the Chancellor needs a Plan B. Both Barclays and the IFS, believe that this would boost market confidence. Only Mr Osborne disagrees. Even the US have delayed making cuts for another year. US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, warned that premature cuts could damage the recovery. 

It is rare that you can get a consensus, but what commentators from all sides agree, is Osborne's position has more to do with protecting his own credibility rather than doing what is right for the UK economy. 

Should rapists get the vote?

After a hard day in court...  

What has the power to unite MPs from all parties in a chorus of disapproval? Opposition to NHS reforms? Join the waiting list and think again. Support for Egyptian protesters? Wipe the tear gas from your eyes and have another go. A rethink on the public sector cuts? Of course not, they would have to give up their place on company boards. No, the only thing guaranteed to unite our politicians in opposition is when a European Court of Human Rights decision goes against British courts. Political correctness gone mad is the cry as Johnny Van der Foreigner imposes another crazy rule (to be said in the manner of a stereotypical Dutchman) before, inevitably, retiring to the nearest hottub with some young friends. 


As you may know, back in November, the Coalition agreed to remove the ban on voting from 70,000 inmates. This followed a legal case brought by convicted murderer, John Hirst, who fought a ten year battle to get the ban overturned whilst serving a 25 year sentence for manslaughter. In an interview with the BBC Mr Hirst stated that once he decided to 'reform' himself, he recognised that the rights of prisoners needed reforming also:


"I was reading a piece in a book where it said that there are no votes in prison… it inspired me to find out why and I started studying the suffragette movement, things like that and I thought there's no valid reason why prisoners shouldn't have the vote. So once the Human Rights Act came in I decided to go for it. I really believe in [this campaign] and someone has got to protect vulnerable people in society and prisoners are very vulnerable. They've got no vote so therefore no voice in parliament. All they can do is riot."

Mr Hirst

In 2005 the British government lost their appeal after Mr Hirst won a landmark decision in 2004. After failing to comply, in 2010 the ECHR gave the government a three month deadline to apply the ruling. Why the government dragged its feet on the issue was made immediately clear by 'Ian Huntley gets the vote' style headlines, which have provoked Jack Straw and David Davies to force a vote on the issue. In the current climate it is unlikely that the Commons will pass a proposal that could grant 1700 sex offenders and 6,000 violent criminals the vote. David Cameron has said that the prospect makes him feel "physically ill". So there is a silver lining. 


It's interesting that amongst all the rather distasteful policies being pushed through, the thing that really gets our MPs exercised is a civil liberties issue. To put the matter in some perspective, we should consider that only Romania, Bulgaria and Armenia, those 'lands of the free', also impose a 'blanket ban' on prisoners voting. Germany, France and Italy all allow most prisoners to vote. If you look beyond the headlines, the issue is not really about stopping prisoners voting, it is about imposing an arbitrary rule upon all prisoners and not addressing them as individuals. It's a pretty important principle. Not long ago our courts assumed that every Irishman was a terrorist. Now they assume that only a few of them may be. It has improved the quality of justice in our courts no end. Perspective is a powerful thing. 


Prisoner voting has been banned since the Forfeiture Act 1870. At that time there was no attempt to reform prisoners, they were simply removed from society. I'm sure many would approve of that logic but nowadays only a handful of prisoners will remain in jail for life. Juliet Lyon, from the Prison Reform Trust, has commented that, 'alienation from mainstream life and the reluctance to take responsibility are major springboards for crime, therefore, whatever can be done to encourage prisoners to become participating members of the wider society should be.' Judges have speculated that the solution will probably be for judges to make a ban on voting part of the sentence, or give all prisoners the vote when they become eligible for parole.  


David Davies has claimed we are in a 'constitutional crisis' and has said, "I yield to no one in my defence of human rights, but giving rapists the vote is not human rights." Well, technically, it is human rights but I know wheat he means. In terms of the 'constitutional crisis', is the EHRC staging a coup and riding roughshod over our ancient democratic institutions? Given that the two Governments have had six years to bring this matter to a vote and have refused until being given a deadline by the ECHR, it is a bit rich to talk in 'crisis' terms. 

Two world wars, one world cup and one
European Court of Human Rights decision

We are a long way off having a fat central European Monarch being imposed on us as a new Head of State (again). However, if the MPs vote against the proposal then it may come to that because the Government really don't have many options. Especially since the Tories' rabble rousing manifesto promise, to amend the Human Rights Act, seems to have slipped off the campaign table into the box marked, 'Gullible Tory Voters.' Yes, you lot have been lied to as well, so don't be so smug. Also, given the dire economic circumstances, Tories everywhere should support the change. After all, it has been estimated that not implementing the appropriate legislation will provoke £160 million of damages to prisoners. 


Can you imagine the Daily Mail headlines? 

The green shoots of recovery

As part of my continuing programme to occasionally look on the Mr Brightside: Things Can Only Get Better.

Somebody grab Osborne! The first green shoots of recovery are visible and becoming stronger every day. Missed by the national press and ignored locally - I am able to confirm evidence of growth against the current gloomy backdrop. Hope! It counts for a lot and when things look particularly bleak, you have to hold on to any sign of regeneration, no matter how unpalatable. That is joy of rhubarb.

What can rhubarb teach us? One of the many pleasant aspects of having an allotment is that during the worst part of the year, when the cold is as bitter as the Christmas credit card bills, without fail, the rhubarb provides a gentle counterpoint to the general decay and desolation. Spring may still be months away and the Bathavonton growing season, on the dark side of the valley, even further away, but my rhubarb provides just enough encouragement to get me out and start preparing our vegetable plot for another year.

Ironic that it's rhubarb. Not the most fashionable vegetable. Yes, vegetable. Only in New York - thanks to a legal case that was fought to uphold a tax dodge, is rhubarb legally a fruit. But surely a fruit in all but name - Laura Ingall Wilder of Little House on the Prairie fame called it the "pie plant" - how else do we eat it, if not accompanied by a ton of sugar and preferably with a crumble topping? But it's not everybody's first choice.

I remember being completely shocked to be offered a rhubarb dessert only minutes after my older cousins had explained that it was the most poisonous thing in the garden...and my parents were encouraging me to eat it! After this close shave with death I made it a policy for the next twenty years or so to avoid all contact with rhubarb. Unless you are from the 'Rhubarb Triangle' of Leeds, Morley and Wakefield - where rhubarb,  grown in dark sheds, grows so fast you can hear it and they pick it by candlelight - it's unlikely the thought of rhubarb provokes too many strong feelings, apart from a slight sense of guilt.

Unlike everything else, which needs regular love and attention, my two rhubarb plants seem to thrive with no help from me at all. They die with the first frosts, completely disappear, and then break out again each year with renewed vigour despite me devoting no time at all to their care. And that first crumble tastes so good. Especially because you have done nothing to deserve it. It's like a payment on account for all those more needy crops you'll lose to pests and diseases.

What an advance it is. By April, when hardly anything else is growing out of the greenhouse, you will be completely overwhelmed. I admit, the children can become mutinous. Even I have a limit. Thank goodness, therefore, that friends and family love being given rhubarb (as long as they don't have their own rhubarb plants, of course). They love it and, if you check out the price in the supermarkets, they think they are getting a bargain too. Only the slight twitch and relief on my face would give the game away. Oh, and writing a post about it.

I don't pretend to have any great aspirations for my allotment, beyond moments like these. Despite my regular Felicity Kendal fantasies, we'll never be self-sufficient, I don't really understand the technicalities of organic growing, although I try not to use any chemicals and I would really love to learn to just grow vaguely recognisable produce. We ate the last of our Savoy cabbage, leeks and parsnips last week and, given my time, seeds and a few bits kit, I suspect that they were not much cheaper than the supermarket.

I'm not sure that is the point. Those veggies gave the family and I a lot of pleasure; from planting to my four year old washing the last of the rather deformed looking parsnips, it beat watching the TV or any of the indulgences to which I am far too easily prone. There was quite a lot of work involved and hope this doesn't sound too trite but it felt like there was something human about the process. Why? Because whether it is growing veggies, making a pot of jam of some produce or simply having a chat with the other plotholders, I felt like we were creating and not consuming. These days that is possibly one of the biggest political statements you can make.

Got to go, that nice down to earth Old Etonian, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, has made a new TV series based on his latest book about his exploits about buying a farm in Dorset.

The News of the World hacking scandal

Scotland Yard have announced that they will reopen the investigation into the News of the World telephone hacking scandal. The Metropolitan Police were forced into the decision after evidence was passed to them by the NotW owners, News International (a subsidiary of Murdoch's News Corp), following the sacking of assistant news editor, Ian Edmondson last week. Edmondson was sacked after communications were uncovered in his emails between him and Glenn Mulcaire, the private detective jailed for the original phone hacking allegations.

The sacking represents a change of course for News International, who, since the imprisonment of former Royal Editor, Clive Goodman, have relied on the 'rogue reporter' defence. In other other words, Goodman acted alone and Mulcaire's activities were unknown to other senior staff despite being on a pretty hefty £105,000 a year contract. In the 2007 court hearing, Mr Justice Gross, the judge who sentenced Mulcaire concluded that from the evidence before him, he was satisfied that Mulcaire had dealt with "others at News International."According to the Independent, both Mulcaire and Goodman were paid money by the NotW after their convictions and neither has subsequently spoken out.

The coverage has already forced Andy Coulson, the editor of the NotW at the time to resign from the paper and on 21st January from his post as David Cameron's communications director. In December, the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned an investigation into allegations that Mr Coulson was personally involved in phone hacking as editor of the News of the World. But the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, announced this month that the CPS was conducting "a comprehensive assessment of the material in the possession of the Met... following developments in the civil courts". Ian Edmondson was described by ex-Times editor, Andew Neil, as being very close Coulson. Mr Coulson continues to deny any knowledge of the phone hacking.

Those 'developments' are the 20 alleged hacking victims, including comedian Steve Coogan and former deputy prime minister John Prescott – bringing proceedings in the High Court. News International have already reached a £700,000 settlement with Professional Footballers Association boss, Gordon Taylor and £1 million with publicist Max Clifford. Mulcaire, alone, confirmed that he tapped 91 people and the latest evidence has revealed that tapping continued into 2010, with actress Sienna Miller and her step-mother taking action.

On the whole it is a pretty seedy story. Privacy has been violated and at the moment it appears it was all to feed our hunger for gossip. I understand that what gave the game away was a report that said Prince William had pulled a tendon. The headlines may  may have been inconsequential but the story refuses to die. On Tuesday, Jeremy Hunt, I said Hunt, the Culture Secretary said that he was postponing his decision over referring Murdoch's News Corp takeover of BSkyB to the Competition Commission, despite the Ofcom advising that it would be harmful to the plurality of media in the UK. Murdoch, is in town and won't be enjoying having this bad publicity. Murdoch already owns four British newspapers, which have been engaged in a battle to undermine Ofcom's recommendation. There is a lot at stake. How far up the News International ladder can this story go? In an interview with the BBC, Andrew Neil said that, given his experience and knowledge of the culture of News International, the suggestion that no senior execs knew what was going on was, "incredible"

The settlements to Taylor and Clifford were very large and the parties have agreed not to disclose the evidence that forced News International's hand. On Monday the Guardian asked:

"who at News International (or indeed at parent company News Corporation) agreed to make settlement payments to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford to end phone-hacking cases? More to the point, when they did so, what legal advice did they receive? After all, it would be an incurious board member who agreed to write out a six-figure settlement cheque, but who did not ask why. Was the person authorising the payment told that there were references to the potential involvement of other News of the World reporters in alleged phone hacking? Or is there another reason why six-figure settlements are appropriate?"

Whilst Murdoch battles to extend his empire, the Metropolitan Police are struggling to maintain some credibility, thanks to their inadequate investigation of the original allegations. How often have you heard senior politicians say that the police can't be trusted to carry out a proper inquiry? Lord Prescott has called for a judicial review. The original investigation was carried out by counter-terrorism officers under the command of acting deputy commissioner John Yates. However, the Met announced that the new investigation would be handled by deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers from the specialist crime directorate. The counter-terrorist officers are now "too busy".

Back in September the Guardian speculated about the Met's close relationship with News International. Tamson Allen, who is representing some of the victims and is calling for judicial review said, "If there was no conspiracy, the police handling so far, has made it look very like one." She argues that the police have consistently limited the release of evidence and through legal 'semantics' have reduced the number of victims. The Today programme suggested that real number could be in the thousands. Most importantly, why did the police only pursue Goodman and Mulcaire, when other people were named in Mulcaire's notebooks? They didn't even interview those named, one of whom was Edmondson.

Where will it end? It's not Watergate yet, but, according to the Independent, both Alastair Campbell and Gordon Brown have asked the Met to investigate whether they were victims.

Will the story lead to Downing Street? ... Again?

Andy Gray, Pepsi and does 'No' mean 'Yes?'

A young 'office' type in a bar is rebuffed by a beautiful woman. She is not interested in him, but at that moment her attention is attracted by a news broadcast on the TV warning of the earth's imminent collision with an asteroid and the "end of life as we know it." By now everyone's attention is on the TV reporter who advises that the collision will occur in less than 10 minutes. The bar is stunned until the silence is broken by the bartender. He leaps across the bar smashing glasses and pushes his way out screaming, "we're goin' to die!" Immediately, the rest of the customers descend into panic and follow the bartender out of the door.

Only the original man and young woman are left behind. Their attention is again drawn to the reporter who is saying, "...reach out to someone, anyone who is near, I don't know exactly how much time we have, but show someone you love them, don't be alone." The woman catches the eye of the man, smiles shyly, lunges, kisses him and they fall to the floor.

We cut to the man walking into an apartment. The 'reporter' from the TV is there alongside the 'bartender', "And?", says the 'reporter', "Thank you guys, I love you." replies the 'office' type. The whole thing was a scam and we can infer that the man got what he wanted from the woman. But this is not, the beginning of a gritty drama, it is a Pepsi ad. The whole thing was a scam to get into the girl's knickers. Is that too crude? Well not as crude as the advert, which seemed like a form of rape.

Rape is a strong term and, of course, sexual lying is at the heart of some of the worlds oldest stories. Waking up to find that the person you think you went to bed with is somebody else, plays a role in Shakespeare, Greek myths, Arthurian legend and even Bible stories. In a 1996 paper, Wendy Doniger from the New School for Social Research, argued that there was an element of 'self-deception' for all of the 'victims' in these stories. They let themselves be deceived or took steps so they could not discover the truth. In other words: they were asking for it. Of course, those stories were written hundreds of years ago. We've moved on since then haven't we?

On a basic level, rape is a type of sexual assault, involving sexual intercourse, against another person without consent. Consent is generally the key point to prove. But what if that consent is given because of deception by one of the parties? In a case that drew worldwide attention last year a man was convicted of raping an Israeli woman despite her giving consent after it was revealed that he was not Jewish but Palestinian. The man was convicted of 'rape by deception' because the woman would never have consented to sex have sex with a Muslim.

In summing up the case the court concluded that:

"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price, the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims--actual and potential--to protect their well-being. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price." 

In the USA, a number of recent cases have questioned whether deception can challenge the traditional view of rape as simply involving force. In 2008 Raymond Mitchell, was convicted in Tennessee of rape despite having the consent of his three victims. Following other cases where the element of force could not be proved, Massachusetts debated introducing a crime of 'rape by fraud'. Of course, it would be a rather difficult crime to police, would a push-up bra represent misrepresentation. Would women have to stop wearing make-up? 

Viewers complained to the Advertising Standards Agency that the advert condoned rape, sexual assault or deception as a means of obtaining sex. Given the current debate going on in courts around the world this seems a fair criticism. The fact that it isn't technically rape doesn't make it any less distasteful. Pepsi said the theme of men attempting to gain the attention of attractive women was universal in storytelling and frequently featured in broadcast content. It's a revealing comment.

'Gain the attention'? He did that in the first moments of the ad but she didn't seem interested. The scam is quite clearly designed to gain more than just attention. However, the Pepsi response seems to imply that, like the 'victims' of those old tales, the woman from then on allows herself to be deceived. She could leave after she rebuffs his first advance, she could leave with everyone else in the bar but instead she stays, listens to the TV and then becomes the protagonist of the ensuing sexual activity. Her little smile before she lunges is the clue. What Pepsi are telling us, is that she wanted him all along some. 'No' means 'yes'.

Now I'm not a feminist theorist or particularly politically correct. In fact, if the subject is raised, there is a very good chance that, as long as I'm not 'on air' (a remote possibility) and with consideration to how well I knew my audience, I would make some disparaging comment about female referees. Most of the men I know I think would agree; but it would be for social rather than intellectual reasons. Breaking taboos can be a powerful form of male bonding. It is certainly part of the football ritual and of, course, expresses itself in a variety of ways, some of which are even less palatable.

So what has this got to do with Pepsi? I first noticed the advert over Christmas and I only ever saw it on Sky Sports. My initial thought, like many who complained, was that it was condoning a form of rape. However, many complainants believed the ad was sexist, demeaned women and portrayed men as sexual predators. The ASA investigated all the complaints but ruled that no further action should be taken, arguing that the ad presented a “fantastical” scenario and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Compared to Andy Gray it has hardly become a cause celebre. It received only 49 complaints.

Pepsi said they "did not believe that it contained concepts which offended against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards or offended public feeling". Rape, sexual assault and sexism? I found it much more offensive than Andy Gray's comments. He and his colleagues are a handful of idiots or football fans if you like, but Pepsi is a huge corporation. Their advert was developed and refined to capture a particular audience. On one hand, the ad is suggesting that what women really want is to have sex with a stranger on the floor of public bar, and, on the other, it is saying that it is ok for men to 'con' women into bed. The fact is that Pepsi were targeting Sky Sports viewers with this advert. This is how one of the world's major corporations see British sports fans. Are they wrong?

Now, while my Mrs is cooking the tea, putting the kids to bed and doing the washing: are there any women out there who can explain the LBW law to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDH7IaNG6E

God help us?

Does David Cameron know something we don't? Historical evidence says only a fool would cut public spending in a recession, so the government cut spending. Healthcare systems around the world dominated by the private sector are less, not more, efficient, so they decide to break up the NHS and bring in the private sector. There are hardly any jobs, youth unemployment is a massive problem so why not make it prohibitively expensive to go to university. I have heard of thinking outside the box but we are, it appears, being led by a government that is not tied by any of the philosophical structures of logic or enlightenment thinking.

I must admit, I was confused. After all, these Tory chaps are very well educated. Their parents did not send them to the local comp. No, they wanted them further away than that, so the little Tories were taken from home to be educated. Safely far from home and completely unable to interfere with their parents' busy social lives and careers, all responsibility for their upbringing fell upon the staff of the cleverly spun, public school. You could say that the private sector became mum and dad. Does that explain the strong attachment?

However, by the 1980s times were changing and even absent parents were uncomfortable with the idea of staff  lavishing their children with love and tenderness. Anyway, it was a very expensive extra. Instead the boys were left to learn the importance of relationship building themselves. It was a vital lesson, otherwise they would get beaten up everyday. I'm sure they learnt quickly and it was whilst at school they were able to make friends with whom they would go to Oxford and then work with in forming the government. With such a warm, caring and broad experience of life, it seems utterly baffling that they would pursue such a reckless, uncaring and divisive series of reforms. It's as if these privileged millionaires don't really know what it is like to be out in the real world. Or may be they just need a hug?

Then, it all fell into place. The appointment of Dr Hans-Christian  Raabe to sit on the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), was the final piece of the jigsaw. Dr Raabe, a GP, is a member of the Maranatha Community and is medical co-ordinator for the Council for Health and Wholeness (CHW). He also stood for the European Parliament in 2009 for the Christian People's Alliance. The Maranatha Community is a cross denominational movement of Christians,

'We hold fast to the central truths of the Christian faith and strongly affirm the Lordship of Christ and his radical gospel. We are called to bear witness to the truth. Crime, violence, vandalism, corruption, drug abuse, family and marriage collapse, pornography, promiscuity, fear and intolerance are all causing serious fissures in communities across Europe and the West. 

What are the chances that they would disapprove of all of my hobbies? Maranatha means "Our lord has come!" and the Community aims to heal the divisions within Christianity. It appears that they aim to do this by by attacking other religions and minorities within society. I find that there is nothing like hating other people and creating an atmosphere of fear to forge strong bonds. Briefing documents for MPs written on behalf of the CHW have expressed fierce homophobia and suggest that there is an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.

  

Raabe's appointment has brought yet more controversy to the ACMD following the resignation of the Chair, Professor David Nutt in 2009. Nutt dared to weigh up the evidence and came up with the wrong answer for the, then, Labour government. Happily, those sort of practices will be a thing of the past. I am very confident that Raabe will not be anything less than subjective. 'Over the past 40 years our culture has embraced post-modernism, which rejects absolute values and standards of truth and promotes the objective of self-gratification.' They're even attacking literary theory and self-gratification. How will I fill my day? A 2005 submission to the government for the CHW, expressed concern that the young were particularly prone to grossly misleading messages - but how else will Churches recruit new members? 

Another group that is campaigning to reassert 'Christian values', is the BNP. Out on the campaign trail and on Question Time, Nick Griffin, has said he represents 'Christian Britain.' "We believe that nations are ordained by God and that they will be there at the end of times, so logically from that all nations have the right to ensure they survive and are not simply swamped by an endless flood from elsewhere." Christian TV has defended its right to provide Griffin with a platform because "The BNP are the only party that would stop abortions in this country. Many Christians abhor abortion." Well, better support the BNP then. Mr Raabe has commented to the Observer, "this is an appointment regarding drug policy and what views I may or may not have on homosexuality are irrelevant." In that case, I look forward to Cameron appointing Griffin to a whole range of government committees that do not deal directly with race.

The appointment got me thinking. Perhaps, David Cameron is better connected than we thought? Why would a Tory appoint someone who opposed his party in an election last year? Why would he think it was such a good idea to appoint a Christian fundamentalist? Obviously, God really is an Englishman, probably an Etonian, and with western civilisation on the brink of collapse, HE, has finally chosen to reveal the true path to financial stability and social coherence. Who'd have ever thought that George Osborne would turn out to be a prophet? Well, the Lord moves in mysterious ways. Was it something written in the stars? Did Cameron have a vision, perhaps he heard voices? Does number ten have a hotline to the Holy Spirit? 

Despite the profound political, social and cultural ramifications that would accompany unarguable proof of the existence of God; at the moment this solution seems more palatable than the alternative; that the Tories are just making it up as they go along and keeping their fingers crossed. So George Michael was right all along, 'You gotta have faith!' Unfortunately, for George, there is a good chance, if the Maranatha and Raabe are correct, Cameron will have to get 'medieval on his ass' - and not in a way that would threaten western civilisation. Think that's funny? Well, they laughed at Joan of Arc, and look where listening to God got her.

We can only hope...

NHS III - this time it's another post about the NHS

Why do we need to modernise? According to the Prime Minister, the NHS is "second best". The Government's white paper states that they aim to 'once again make the NHS the envy of the world' and 'success will be measured, not through bureaucratic process targets, but against results that really matter to patients ' It is very difficult to find recent data, but given that the last World Health Organisation (WHO) report comparing data was 2007, well into the New Labour government it seems reasonable to use it. I have also used data from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports (OECD), which also only provide data up to 2007. So, given these provisos, how second rate is the NHS? 

In 2007, WHO* ranked the UK as having the 18th best health care in the world. Top was France, and second was Italy. Also above the UK were a number of small countries such as Andorra, Malta, Singapore and Oman, which don't really bear much comparison. 18th place was achieved at a cost of 8.2% of Britain's GDP. This was the 41st highest amount and compared to France's 11.2% and Italy's 8.9%. All of the developed countries that were higher in the league spent a far larger percentage on health than the UK, with the exception of Japan and Spain, who spent the same as the UK. Notably, the UK performed much better than many developed countries with much higher spending. Switzerland's 11.4% got it 20th place, Germany's 10.7% brought in at 25th place and most  damning of all, The USA's 15.2% got it placed 37th, just behind Costa Rica and Dominica. 

If we look at the expenditure on health per head of the population the NHS again comes out of the stats very well. Britain, spent $2990, the 18th highest amount, on health per person. Top placed France spent $3593, 20% more,  German (25th) $3619, 21% more, Switzerland (20th) spent $4469, 95% more and the USA (37th) spent $7285, an astonishing 144% more. Once again Spain (7th) out performed the NHS with expenditure of $2658 per person, 12% lower and Italy $2701 (2nd) also had a 10% lower. However, if we take into account the cost of living in each country, according to the OECD stats, it would make Spain the same as the NHS and Italy more expensive. All of the other countries would remain relatively more expensive than the NHS for a worse ranking. 

So what about outcomes? Once again it is difficult to get good data. The last OECD report  on what are known as 'preventable deaths' was 2004. In the developed world, these are the sort of thing that are often associated with risk-taking such as smoking, drug abuse and daring to cross a road. I suppose there is a strong cultural quality to this indicator but I would argue it demonstrates how well the broader aspects of health care, such as education, are working. In 2004 we were in 12th place. Once again the USA was lagging behind and so was Austria, who the Prime Minister has been held up as a shining example of good practice recently. We also beat the WHO's top ranked country, France. No country, spending less per head, when cost of living is taken into account, had a better ranking. 

The Coalition have said that there will be 'a relentless focus on clinical outcomes. Success will be measured, not through bureaucratic process targets, but against results that really matter to patients – such as improving cancer and stroke survival rates.' In 2009 some alarming statistics from an OECD report were widely reported in the British press. 'The sick man of Europe' - said The Telegraph, who stated that, 'heart and cancer survival rates were amongst the worst in the developed word.' A WHO bulletin, published soon afterwards, argued that these results were an example of 'non-transparent framing' which was explained as data provided as a 'deliberate tactic to manipulate or persuade people.' 

These are the same stats that the Coalition have been throwing around to prove that the NHS is 'second best'. It certainly sheds a new light upon the white paper when it says, 'Patients will have access to the information they want, to make choices about their care'. In the bulletin, Gerd Gigerenzer. an expert in 'risk literacy' from the Max Planck Institute in Berlin examined the apparent chasm between UK (35%) and US (60%) survival rates of 5 years after being diagnosed with colon cancer. In fact as, Gigerenzer demonstrates, the mortality rate is 'roughly' the same. The difference in so called 'survival rates' is actually largely explained by the widespread screening in the US which leads to massive over diagnosis of non-progressive cancers. For those categories reported by the press, the UK was placed 12th overall, once again ahead of the curve in relation to our relative funding.

The Coalition continue to stress that Britain is not getting the appropriate results in return for the increased spending over the last thirteen years. After years of under-investment there has been a massive increase in spending, from 6.6% to 8.8% of GDP, which the government has repeatedly told us is in line with the EC average. That might be the case, but if we compare spending with the older, more developed EC members or those from Scandinavia, from my reading of the information, Britain still spends less (%) than all the other countries. According to the OECD, even Spain overtook us in 2008. 

Is the NHS 'second best'? Well, it probably is. But, I hope, that this post has demonstrated that it is more to do with continued under-funding rather than with the structures or productivity of the staff. Even with the limitations of the data it seems safe to conclude that we are getting excellent value for money from the NHS. The dedicated staff punches above its weight across a range of indicators. These are staff who  regularly put in that little bit more because they feel valued by their employers and the community and recognise that health is more than a job. These are the staff who will shortly be sold down the river in exchange for higher share dividends. 

Philosopher George Santayana defined fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your goal." It seems apt, in these circumstances because if there is one firm conclusion I can draw from my reading; it is that the involvement of the private sector does not guarantee any great leaps in productivity or quality of outcomes. As we have seen over the last couple of years, the private sector is not even that good at making money. Outcomes are obviously important but the NHS is important for other reasons. It is a glue that binds our society and can't be measured in perecentage points. Sadly, the Tories are too blind to see that these rather intangible qualities mean that the NHS is still the envy of the world. 

So how to modernise? Well, if we want to knock France off the top of that league - we'll have to spend a lot more money, but I suspect, not as much as France. 

*WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).