Skip to main content

Groundhog Day

For those who are not aware of the Film the plot is basically that someone continues living the same day time after time (34 times in the film).

With the ejection of Ken Clarke from the Tory leadership contest we are essentially at the same position. Even pseudo wet David Cameron goes on about reducing taxes.

The problem is that, although the Labour Party have made a mess of running public services, a substantial majority of people - particularly those living in urban areas - depend on public services. Public services do need revenue to run.

The Conservatives, therefore, are guaranteed to continue to issue a message that they are not a political party aiming to represent the interests of the financially weaker members of society.

There is also a difficulty in developing a type of politics which is not in any way dependent upon convictions and beliefs. There is always the difficulty that politics is a bit like an ocean where some ships drift aimlessly, others steam purposely in a direction and have others following in their wake.

A leader needs to lead. David Davis, give him his due, is likely to lead - off a cliff, but he will lead. David Cameron is likely to drift aimlessly and leave the tory party becalmed.

Blair's real problem is an almost total inability to actually deliver. There is constitutional change which was politically driven. The war in Iraq was started to keep George's big donors happy. However, the rest of his agenda tends to be driven by the Civil Service.

The Civil Service tend to get obsessed with managerialism. Well meaning, bright, but inexperienced people in Whitehall sit down and write a load of rules that others throughout the country are forced to follow. Things still happen, but it all ends up rather chaotic.

Labour were in part lucky that they came into office with a strong economic position (mainly caused by the low price of oil). They then stuck to very tight financial controls. Then they turned the throttle of public spending from idle to full blast.

In the mean time some really silly deals were done. If people want to look at an effective Trades Union they should look at the BMA. The BMA have done some amazing deals with the government which is part of the reason why the health service is creaking. Bright young things in Whitehall have also changed the financial relationships in the health services such that it is teetering on a financial brink. Labour's failing in all of this is that they have not actually kept an eye on what the Civil Servants have been doing.

This has put them into an unsustainable situation. The overall government finances are in a mess. They are refusing to provide the assumptions behind the budget. I am pleased that the Information Commissioner has taken this issue and put it to the top of his pile of investigations. I can understand that they feel that they can cope with a large deficit as the national debt is relatively low. However, there is a big problem if they don't start looking at the issues seriously.

What happens when there is a lot of free resources available is that they start being wasted. I can identify tens of millions of pounds of money that the government have basically spent on froth. The mass of resources that go into ineffectual strategies and paperwork is another aspect as are the vast consultancy bills.

The problem when we hit famine rather than glut is that there tends to be a cut overall. Rather than cut out the candyfloss, core services get cuts as well. Gershon is being implemented almost without a debate - which in itself shows the flaws in the way parliament has been operating.

Governments tend to lose elections rather than opposition parties winning them. That is because it is the actions of governments that make people vote against them. The tory leadership election yesterday is saying that the Conservatives will not offer a mainstream alternative to Labour. That, of course, is our opportunity.


Nosemonkey said…
Sorry this is off-topic, but I was just wondering where you were for the ID Cards vote yesterday? You know - the one the government only won by 25 votes. The one your party (rightly) opposes.

Any indication of more important commitments than protecting individual liberty against the encroaching power of the state would be much appreciated. Ta.
Sam said…
What he said.

You managed a blog post yesterday, but not a vote on perhaps one of the most significant pieces of legislation for a goodly while.
john said…
At the time I was in hospital.
john said…
Incidentally I did attend all the votes at the second reading and will (health issues permitting) attend all subsequent votes.
Nosemonkey said…
In which case please accept my apologies and best wishes for a speedy recovery. Nothing too serious, I hope?
Bob Piper said…
"...the Conservatives will not offer a mainstream alternative to Labour. That, of course, is our opportunity."

That is, unless you are in coalition with them, of course, in which case you will suck up to them and offer no criticism at all.
Sam said…
Hehe. That's quite funny. Not that you were in hospital, but that we just made arses of ourselves.

Keep it up.
Bob Piper said…
Sam, Nosemonkey, John didn't say he was ill. Perhaps he would like to explain what he was doing at the hospital.
john said…
It was, after all, in the Mail on Sunday today and quite a few people guessed.

I was at the birth of my 4th child.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…