Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech

Home » Uncategorized (Page 3)

@Ed_Miliband's #budget #budget2013 response in full



Ed Miliband’s 2013 Budget response was as follows:

Mr Deputy Speaker.

This is the Chancellor’s fourth Budget, but one thing unites them all.

Every Budget he comes to this house and things are worse not better for the country.

Compared to last year’s Budget

Growth last year, down.

Growth this year, down.

Growth next year, down.

They don’t think growth matters, but people in this country do.

And all he offers is more of the same.

A more of the same Budget from a downgraded Chancellor.

Britain deserves better than this.

I do have to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he almost need not have bother coming to the House because the whole Budget, including the market-sensitive fiscal forecast was in the Standard before he rose to his feet.

To be fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I sure he didn’t intend the whole of the Budget to be in the Standard before he rose to his feet and I hope he will investigate and report back to the House.

Now, what did the Prime Minister declare late last year, and I quote:

“The good news will keep coming”.

And what did the Chancellor tell us today?

Under this Government the bad news just doesn’t stop.

Back in June 2010 the Chancellor promised:

“a steady and sustained recovery…”

He was wrong.

We’ve had the slowest recovery for 100 years.

Last year he said in the Budget there would be no double dip recession.

He was wrong, there was.

He told us a year ago that growth would be 2% this year.

He was wrong.

Now he says it will be just 0.6%.

He told us that next year, growth would be 2.7%.

Wrong again.

Now just 1.8%.

Wait for tomorrow the Chancellor says, and I will be vindicated.

But with this Chancellor tomorrow never comes.

He’s the wrong man.

In the wrong place.

At the worst possible time for the country.

It’s a downgraded budget from a downgraded Chancellor.

He has secured one upgrade this year.

Travelling first class on a second class ticket from Crewe to London.

And the only time the country’s felt all in it together, was when he got booed by 80,000 people at the Paralympics.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I’ve got some advice for the Chancellor.

Stay away from the cup final, even if Chelsea get there.

And, who is paying the price for the Chancellor’s failure?

Britain’s families.

In his first Budget he predicted that living standards would rise over the Parliament.

But wages are flat.

Prices are rising.

And Britain’s families are squeezed.

And what the Chancellor didn’t tell us, is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed the British people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010.

It’s official: you’re worse off under the Tories.

Worse off, year after year after year. And wasn’t there an extraordinary omission from his speech, no mention of the AAA rating.

What the Prime Minister called the “mark of trust”.

Which he told us had been “secured”.

The Chancellor said it would be a humiliation for Britain to be downgraded.

So not just a downgraded Chancellor.

A humiliated Chancellor too.

And what about borrowing?

The Chancellor made the extraordinary claim in his speech that he was “on course”.

Mr Deputy Speaker, even he can’t believe this nonsense.

Debt is higher in every year of this Parliament than he forecast at the last Budget.

He is going to borrow £200 billion more than he planned.

And what did he say in his June 2010 Budget:

He set two very clear benchmarks, and I quote, “We are on track to have debt falling and a balanced structural current budget” by 2014/15.

Or as he called it “our four-year plan”.

This was the deal he offered the British people.

These were the terms.

Four years of pain, tax rises ….

The Prime Minister says from a sedentary position, borrow more, you are borrowing more.

And he just needs to look down the road, because the Business Secretary was asked and he said: “We are borrowing more”. From his own Business Secretary.

So these were the terms: four years, tax rises, and spending cuts, and the public finances would be sorted.

So today he should have been telling us:

Just one more year of sacrifice.

In twelve months the good times will roll.

Job done.

Mission accomplished.

Election plan underway.

But three years on, what does he say?

Exactly what he said three years ago.

We still need four more years of pain, tax rises and spending cuts.

In other words, after all the misery, all the harsh medicine, all the suffering by the British people:

Three years.

No progress.

Deal broken.

Same old Tories.

And all he offers is more of the same.

It’s as if they really do believe their own propaganda.

That the failure is nothing to do with them.

We’ve heard all the excuses:

The snow, the royal wedding, the Jubilee, the eurozone.

And now they’re turning on each other.

The Prime Minister said last weekend, and I quote:

“Let the message go out from this hall and this party: We are here to fight”.

Mr Deputy Speaker, they’re certainly doing that.

The Business Secretary’s turned on the Chancellor.

The Home Secretary’s turned on the Prime Minister.

And the Education Secretary’s turned on her.

The whole country can see that’s what’s going on.

The blame game has begun in the Cabinet.

The truth is the Chancellor is lashed to the mast, not because of his judgement, but because of pride.

Not because of the facts, but because of ideology.

And why does he stay in his job?

Not because the country want him.

Not because his party want him.

But because he is the Prime Minister’s last line of defence.

The Bullingdon boys really are both in it together.

And they don’t understand, you need a recovery made by the many not just a few at the top.

It’s a year now since the omnishambles Budget.

We’ve had u-turns on charities, on churches, on caravans.

And yes, on pasties.

But there is one policy they are absolutely committed to.

The top rate tax cut.

John the banker, remember him?

He’s had a tough year, earning just £1m.

What does he get? He gets a tax cut of £42,500 next year.

£42,500, double the average wage.

His colleague, let’s call him George, his colleague has done a little better, bringing home £5 million. What does he get in a tax cut?

I know the Prime Minister doesn’t like to hear what he agreed to, what does he get? A tax cut of nearly £250,000.

And at the same time everyone else is paying the price.

The Chancellor is giving with one hand, and taking far more away with the other.

Hard working families hit by the strivers tax.

Pensioners hit by the granny tax.

Disabled people hit by the bedroom tax.

Millions paying more so millionaires can pay less.

Now the Chancellor mentioned childcare.

He wants a round of applause for cutting £7bn in help for families this Parliament, and offering £700m of help in the next.

But what are the families who are waiting for that childcare help told? They’ve got to wait over two years for help to arrive.

But for the richest in society, they just have to wait two weeks for the millionaires tax cut to kick in.

This is David Cameron’s Britain.

And still the Prime Minister refuses to tell us – despite repeated questions – whether he is getting the 50p tax cut.

Oh he’s getting embarrassed now, you can see.

He’s had a year to think about it.

He must have done the maths.

Even he should have worked it out by now.

So come on.

Nod your head if you are getting the 50p tax rate.

They ask am I?

No I am not getting the 50p tax rate, I am asking whether the PM is.

Come on answer.

After all, he is the person that said sunlight is the best disinfectant, let transparency win the day.

Now let’s try something else. What about the rest of the Cabinet, are they getting the 50p tax rate?

OK, hands up if you are not getting the 50p tax cut?

Come on, hands up.

Just put your hand up if you are not getting the 50p tax cut. They are obviously … they don’t like it do they?

At last the Cabinet are united, with a simple message:

Thanks George.

He’s cutting taxes for them, while raising them for everyone else.

Now the Chancellor announced some measures today that he said would boost growth.

Just like he does every year.

And every year they fail.

I could mention the “national loan guarantee scheme”, he trumpeted that last year.

And then he abolished just four months later.

The Funding for Lending scheme, that he said would transform the prospects for small business.

The work programme that is worse than doing nothing.

And today he talked a lot about housing.

And the Prime Minister said this in 2011. He launched his so-called housing strategy, and in his own understated way he labelled it “a radical and unashamedly ambitious strategy”. He said it would give the housing industry a shot in the arm, enable 100,000 people to buy their own home.

18 months later, how many families have been helped?

Not 100,000.

Not even 10,000.

Just fifteen hundred out of 100,000 promised

That’s 98,500 broken promises.

For all the launches, strategies and plans, housing completions are now at the lowest level since the 1920s.

And 130,000 jobs lost in construction because of their failing economic plan.

It’s a failing economic plan from a failing Chancellor.

The Chancellor has failed the tests of the British people:

Growth, living standards and hope.

But he has not just failed their tests. He has failed on his own as well.

All he has to offer is this more of the same Budget.

Today the Chancellor joined twitter.

He could have got it all into 140 characters.

Growth down. Borrowing up. Families hit. And millionaires laughing all the way to the bank. #downgradedChancellor.

Mr Deputy Speaker, more of the same is not the answer to the last three years.

More of the same is the answer of a downgraded Chancellor, in a downgraded Government.

Britain deserves better than this.

Ed Miliband speech in Bedford on the economy: 10p tax rate and mansion tax (full text)



It is great to be here in Bedford.

In 1957, the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave a speech just across the river here, to celebrate Britain’s economic success.

New jobs, higher wages, greater opportunities for people to make something better for themselves and for their families.

It became known as the speech where he declared “you’ve never had it so good”.

Today in Bedford, in Britain as a whole, things are very different.

Small business-people are working harder than ever before.

People are working harder than ever before.

But for far too many, wages are falling and prices are rising. They’re getting worse off.

Far from feeling they have never had it so good, millions across Britain today fear they will never have it so good again. Life for them, and for their children.

The question that people ask me the most is “how do we turn this round?”

That’s why I have come to Bedford today.

Because I think it starts with a truth that we have forgotten as a country:

That economic recovery will be made by the many, not just by a few at the top.

Britain needs great, successful big business leaders.

It needs them to feel rewarded and supported.

But they know better than anyone that they can’t succeed alone.

It is only when working people have confidence and security.

When everyone’s sons and daughters have chances to work and learn new skills.

When enterprising small businesses can flourish and succeed.

And when together we build world-class services – from childcare for our kids to new roads and rail – that we will succeed again as a nation.

That’s not a Labour idea or a Conservative idea.

It is a British idea.

And it is what I want to talk to you about today.

Previous generations knew the truth: Our economic success depends on the success of all working people.

In the industrial revolution, it wasn’t just the mill owners and the factory bosses who drove our economy forward.

It was the people who went down the mines, spun the cotton, built the ships, and constructed the bridges.

Many of our world-leading engineers and inventors came from ordinary families, people like the great engineer, Thomas Telford, and the inventor of the railway, Robert Stephenson.

And in the 19th century, Britain improved housing, built proper sanitation, ensured good working conditions, not just because it was fair, but because it was essential for our economy to succeed.

Our country knew that economic success was made by the many, not just by a few at the top.

You know that here in Bedford better than anyone.

From the industrial revolution to well into the twentieth century, the Stewartby brick works, just down the road, gave jobs to thousands of people.

The bricks the people of Bedford made constructed the houses that they and so many others lived in.

And it was the good wages they earned that made it possible for them to afford those homes.

Economic success was built with the hands of working people.

But could only be sustained through the pockets of working people.

And Britain knew this lesson too after the Second World War.

We built great new public services to improve people’s lives.

But the NHS and free education didn’t just do that, they strengthened our economy as well.

I think of my dad, who came to Britain as an immigrant, was able to learn English at Technical College, went on to join the Royal Navy, and saw the new post-war economy built.

It was only possible, because Britain knew that only a healthy, better educated workforce could compete with the best in the world.

An economy made by the many not by the few.

And you know somewhere along the way we forgot that lesson as a country. We need to relearn that lesson.

People in Britain are putting in the hours – doing the shifts – as never before.

But something has changed in the last few years.

There’s less chance of promotion.

Less chance of a pay rise.

And prices just go up and up and up.

Petrol for the car. Tickets for the train.

Childcare for the kids. Deposits for a first home.

The “squeezed middle” has never been so squeezed.

And if we carry on as we are it will be like that for years to come.

It’s no wonder our economy isn’t growing when people can’t afford to buy the things that British businesses try to sell.

And then think too about the skills of working people that we need for our economy to succeed.

Young people here in this training centre are getting the help, but so many young people across Britain aren’t.

Every time a young person with ambition and talent can’t get on, it isn’t just bad for them. It is bad for our economy.

Some of you here today run small businesses.

Your businesses are vital to our economy.

But today, many small businesses across Britain just don’t have the orders to keep them growing, hiring and investing.

And all they hear from the banks are promises about how things will get better tomorrow.

But tomorrow never seems to come.

You know better than anyone that every time someone with a great idea for a business is knocked back, it isn’t just bad for them. Britain’s economy is weakened too.

So today, Britain’s economy is just not working for working people.

And that’s why it isn’t working for Britain. It’s no mystery as to why we’re in the trouble we’re in.

The squeeze on working people has deep roots.

Hard as it is to believe, over the last three decades or so, less than 15 pence of every additional pound Britain has made has gone to an entire half of the population

While 24 pence in every pound has gone to the top 1 per cent of earners.

The last Labour government took action to change this.

Labour helped families with the minimum wage and tax credits.

It made a difference.

But it wasn’t enough.

The problem now is that things are getting worse not better.

This Government promised change. But change isn’t coming.

They are cutting taxes for one group this year.

The very richest in society.

This April, people earning over a million pounds a year will get an average tax cut of £100,000.

Now, we need very successful entrepreneurs in Britain.

Making profits. Being rewarded.

But we can’t succeed as a country just by hoping wealth will trickle down from those at the top to everyone else.

Our economy won’t turn around that way.

That’s why it’s not right to be cutting taxes for the very richest when everyone else is just seeing their living standards squeezed.

You know, somebody said to me recently: this Government seems to be the first in our history to believe that you can base a whole economic strategy on the misery rather than the success of the working people of the country.

They cut the tax credits that make work pay for millions.

They take the side of the train companies, the energy companies and the petrol companies while we pay more for train tickets, energy bills and the fuel for the car.

David Cameron talks about a global race.

And it is essential that we can compete with China and India and others.

But I have to tell you, Britain won’t win a race to the bottom.

By competing in the world as a low skill, low wage economy.

You know this here, which is why you are working so hard, providing the training.

So all we are offered at the moment is the promise of wealth trickling down from the top, squeezing the middle further and a race to the bottom.

It doesn’t work.

And that’s been shown over the last two and half years.

We were promised that we could have growth and a lower deficit.

In fact, we’ve had almost no growth and the deficit is rising again. That’s because people aren’t in work paying taxes.

Too many are out of work and on benefits.

And, what’s worse, this approach can’t work.

Because we will only build prosperity, when everyone plays their part.

To do that we need a new One Nation strategy for the British economy.

The starting point is that the recovery will be made by the many not just by a few at the top.

We cannot go on with an approach that simply promises more of the same: year after year of squeezed living standards for the majority of working people.

It’s wrong for them and it’s wrong for our economy.

We have said we should start with a temporary cut in VAT as part of our 5-point plan, cancelling the millionaire’s tax cut, and not cutting tax credits this April.

The approach we need is not just different from this Government; it is also different from the last.

After the next election, there will be less money around.

We know that we will inherit a high deficit and we will face difficult choices.

But we have also learnt from this government that without a plan for growth, a plan to tackle the deficit will fail.

And it is different choices and new priorities that will turn our economy around.

That means starting by protecting the incomes of working people with new priorities in taxation.

The One Nation Labour government led by me will put a fairer tax system at the heart of its new priorities.

It is a crucial part of how we build an economy where everyone can play their part.

A One Nation Labour budget next month would lay the foundations for a recovery made by the many, not just a few at the top.

Let me tell you about one crucial choice we would make, which is different from this government.

We would tax houses worth over £2 million.

And we would use the money to cut taxes for working people.

We would put right a mistake made by Gordon Brown and the last Labour government.

We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower 10 pence starting rate of tax, with the size of the band depending on the amount raised.

This would benefit 25 million basic rate taxpayers.

Moving Labour on from the past and putting Labour where it should always have been, on the side of working people.

Showing our priority to do everything we can to make a difference to people’s living standards.

Sending a message about how Britain is going to succeed in the years ahead:

That when you play your part, when you make your contribution to the economy, you will be rewarded.

And that Britain’s economic success will be built by the many, not just by a few at the top.

That is why Ed Balls and I want a 10 pence tax rate and a mansion tax in government.

We’ve rightly said that we will only set out our tax and spending commitments at the next general election.

That is the way a responsible opposition should conduct itself.

However this is a clear signal about the priority we attach to a fairer tax system and the living standards of working people.

We would also be making different choices between the most powerful in our society and ordinary working people.

Working people are paying more than they should, from energy to credit, and we would take action to

Break the stranglehold of the big six energy suppliers.

Stop the train company price rip-offs on the most popular routes.

Introduce new rules to stop unfair bank charges.

And cap interest on payday loans.

But this is only a beginning of a plan to build a One Nation economy.

The biggest changes Britain needs will come from economic reform. Let’s start with skills.

As you all know, Britain needs to have the best skilled workforce in the world if we are going to compete.

The industrial revolution was built on the skills of the best workers in the world.

In more recent decades, Britain’s Universities have given us some of the world’s greatest scientists and innovators.

Today, however, we still lag well behind our competitors in productivity. Not because we don’t work hard.

We do.

We work longer hours than many of our competitors.

It is because we’re not doing enough to get the best out of everyone, in particular the 50% of young people who don’t go to University.

That is where the next wave of productivity and growth must come from in an economy made by the many not just a few at the top.

We need a revolution in vocational education and apprenticeships.

Of course, I want young people from all backgrounds to aspire to go to University.

But I also want young people who are awarded an apprenticeship to know that Britain values you.

That means our country has to change.

We must end the culture which says University is always best and vocational education is second-best.

It simply isn’t true.

That’s why One Nation Labour will create a new technical baccalaureate, to complement A-levels.

So a 14-year old knows the qualifications they should be aiming for at 18.

It will give employers the control of the money for training for the first time so that young people are trained in the skills they need for the future.

And we will demand that Britain’s employers step up and offer real apprenticeships and training right across the country.

I know that so many great British companies want to play their part in leading this revolution: training our workforce and investing in our future.

But we can’t just provide people with the skills and then sit back and expect the right jobs to be there for them automatically.

We must also work together to ensure that better jobs are being created in our economy.

Today, we are increasingly two nations: with high skill, high paying jobs for those at the very top but low-skill, low paid, long hours jobs for too many people.

That’s because over the last three decades, we have seen fewer and fewer middle-income jobs in Britain.

That’s fewer jobs in skilled trades and more jobs paying less, with greater insecurity.

We must turn this round.

So a One Nation economy needs to support businesses that create sustainable, middle-income jobs.

That means a modern industrial policy that supports the sectors that will create those jobs of the future like the green industries that are so important for our country.

And an end to the short-termism which prevents many businesses investing.

Let me give you an example. We will stop takeovers that are waved through on the votes of speculators and hedge funds who flood in to buy shares once a takeover bid has been announced.

Because when that happens it can destroy great British companies and the good jobs that go with them.

One Nation Labour will also work with companies and workers to encourage a living wage across our country.

We also need to understand another big change in our economy.

That many new jobs in the future will come not from a small number of large businesses, but from a large number of small businesses.

So we need a new One Nation strategy for small business.

There are more than 3.5 million single person businesses in Britain right now.

People with new skills and new ideas starting out.

Trying to make a difference.

Like many of you here today.

These small businesses need a government that is on their side.

A government willing to take on the vested interests, wherever they find them, in the private or the public sector.

One Nation Labour will be that government.

That’s why it is One Nation Labour that is leading the way on banking reform.

Following Labour’s call last year for real separation between casino and high street banking, the Chancellor has moved.

But not far enough.

He still refuses to put in place a comprehensive power to split the banks by law.

We need that in legislation so if the banking system does not change its culture, we can break the banks up.

And new small businesses need something else too.

They need opportunities to work together.

So a One Nation Labour government would change the way Regional Growth funds work.

Because at the moment they all too often prioritise the interests of big businesses.

We’d make them work for small businesses across the country too.

So that we could find new ways for businesses to build shared facilities and develop deeper connections with each other.

Enabling them to start to overcome the challenges they face.

Finally, businesses and working people need a whole nation that supports them.

In the 19th century, people argued for clean air and sanitation. That allowed people to move to the cities for work and the great new industries to prosper.

In the course of the 20th century, the school leaving age went from 11 at the beginning of the century to 16 by the end. This enabled people to do the jobs they couldn’t have dreamed of before and allowed Britain to compete on the global stage.

Now in the 21st century, we must remember those lessons.

Today, too often, Britain just leaves people on their own.

That means too many parents can’t work, even though they want to work because they can’t get the childcare they need.

Too many people have to drop out of work when their parents become old or ill, because they can’t get the social care they need.

Too many young people just don’t have enough money for a deposit on a first home. That is bad for them and bad for our economy because they can’t move to the jobs they need.

And too many businesses find they can’t succeed because we haven’t built the roads, rail and infrastructure that we need.

They all know that we can’t solve these problems on our own.

None of us on our own are going to build the roads we need, the railways we need, the housing we need.

It is only by acting together.

And that is the idea at the heart of a One Nation economy: that our recovery will be built by the many – by all of us working together – and not just by a few at the top.

And that is what we will fight for between now and the General Election.

There is a big choice that will dominate that election.

It is a choice between two different visions of our economy.

The Conservative vision of a race to the bottom in wages and skills, rewarding those at the very top but leaving everyone else squeezed as never before.

Or the One Nation Labour vision.

Our economy will only prosper when the vast majority of the people of this country prosper too.

When working families have confidence and security; when they can invest in their future; and when they can start businesses of their own.

Britain is at a fork in the road. We can carry on as we are: falling wages, low growth, failure to tackle the deficit.

Or Britain can take the path I have outlined: a recovery made by the many, tackling low growth and reducing the deficit, building not squeezing the middle, all of us playing our part in turning this economy around.

One Nation.

Not just a better way to live, but the only way to prosper.

It is how Britain has flourished in the past.

It is what the Labour government understood in 1945.

It’s what Harold MacMillan understood when he spoke here in Bedford more than half a century ago.

We can rebuild this country.

We can offer people hope.

We can make an economy that works for working people.

It’s a goal worth fighting for.

It’s what One Nation Labour will do.

The key to success in "Business Law and Practice" of the Legal Practice Course



 

So another cohort at @BPPLawSchool has just started, I think doing the “accelerated LPC”. LPC means “Legal Practice Course”.

This is where law students cover all the material of the standard LPC at a faster rate, but students have to prove the same level of competence in the final assessment.

The “BLP” module is one of the core practice areas of the Legal Practice Course.  Like litigation (civil and criminal) and property it is pivotal for completion of ‘Stage 1′ of the LPC.

Having witnesses various diets of this course, and chatting with students who’ve done the final assessment, you can see that BLP does require more work than litigation and property. It has substantially more small group sessions (SGSs).

It’s likely that all of the ‘zones’ will be covered somehow. The 1 hour multiple-choice paper is not to be dismissed, as the marks can be very helpful in determining whether someone achieves 50%, 60% or 70% or above. Looking at informal feedback of this assessment over the last year, I think it’s more likely the questions involve the following:

  • procedure plan (this can be in the region of 20-30 marks; might not even be incredibly complicated like a ‘buyback’, but could be allotting shares or appointing a director)
  • corporate insolvency (e.g. transactions at an undervalue, wrongful trading)
  • corporate taxation (particularly relief for corporate taxation)
  • drafting (this is necessary for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and will be stated clearly as “the drafting question”): it is well worth looking at examiners’ reports to see what the examiners are looking for. Normally, half of the ten marks will go towards spotting typos, spelling errors, badly numbered clauses, missing definitions, etc., and half of the ten marks may be to suggest something in line with your client’s general purpose or instructions.
  • business accounts (normally no more than a few marks; possibly involving a template e.g. for accruals, bad debts, prepayments, doubtful debts, etc., which will be given to you anyway)
  • conduct (this is a requirement of the Solicitors Regulation Authority to be assessed pervasively in all the core modules; could be something like financial assistance in acquisitions, or FMSA issue – be mindful that there is unlikely to be overlap with the separate examination in professional conduct and professional regulation which is a standalone paper)
  • difference between debt and equity finance

Best of luck! At the end of the day, I’m afraid, you have to know everything quite well.

 

I have consulted a few people – but this is a totally independent blogpost.

David Cameron's PMQs are nothing short of a disaster, but provide useful clues about Tory Britain



 

I went to Lady Thatcher’s last ever Prime Minister’s Questions in 1990. I remember the experience well, and of course I didn’t actually know it was her last ever PMQs at the time. The thing that struck me was the House of Commons debating chamber is like a TV studio, or film set, or at least seems that way from the public gallery. In a sense it is, as it is a set-piece spectacle for the media, almost as firm a ritual as Coronation St. or EastEnders. That it is supposed to hold the Government to account is not really what most of us are interested in. It’s a barometer of the important issue of the day, whether Ed Miliband can deliver an effective punch, and whether David Cameron will be ‘on the ropes’ or respond with a counter-hook of his own.

From the perspective of the media managers such as Craig Oliver and Nick Robinson, a concern will be how the exchange will be reported on the 6 o’clock news or the 10 o’clock news. There will have been some of us who witness the ex change live, and we will happily provide instantaneous feedback with our hashtag #PMQs. Media commentators will usually give a decisive result, such as “Miliband triumphant” or, rarely these days, “Cameron floored that”. For all his quips about how Ed Miliband “practises” in front of a mirror – and David, the one olds aren’t really your best – Cameron is neurotic that his Party comes across well in the whole performance. Conservatives are, it is reported, even sent memoranda reminding them of the need for barracking and heckling the opposition.

The advantage of Prime Minister’s Questions is of course that questions can be asked of the Prime Minister under parliamentary privilege. Lord Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and President-Elect of the Supreme Court, and Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, are rightly keen that parliamentary privilege is not abused in the House of Commons. However, it is perhaps worth noting that the content of the answers often are poor in comparison to the question being asked. For example, Debbie Abrahams in her question asks simply, “Can the Prime Minister explain the relationship between Virgin Care donations to the Tory party, the number of Virgin Care shareholders on clinical commissioning group boards and the number of NHS contracts that have been awarded to Virgin Care?” In science, there is often no relationship. That is indeed the null hypothesis for all experiments ever conducted in scientific research, so, strictly speaking, all that David Cameron had to do was provide that there wasn’t significant evidence that there wasn’t no link to support his thesis (if you pardon the double negative). Ian Lavery MP’s question provides another interesting example.

You will notice the sombre mood of the House, as is indeed fitting as this precise theoretically could have happened to any sitting MP of the House of Commons. This is where it is more fitting to think of ‘grading’ PMQs not as a “knockout boxing match”, but a Finals exam script. The default option is a II.1, unless a really good answer merits a First, and a really appalling answer merits a Third. Cameron’s answers are normally in the safe II.1/II.2 category, although he sometimes fails to answer the question altogether. Here the answer is a II.2 really in all honesty, because, while he uses the opportunity to praise a policy which is on the ropes, i.e. the large number of benefit claimants having their original (adverse) decisions overturned on appeal, he in no way addresses the main point. The issue is, of course, put in a strong way that, “austerity kills”, as serious academics address the point in peer-reviewed medical journals whether the austerity agenda of countries including the UK has had an adverse effect on citizens. Take for example this excellent paper from Prof Martin McKee’s laboratory here in London on the “failed experiment” of austerity, in the peer-reviewed ‘Clinical Medicine’, the official journal of the Royal College of Physicians.

Unfortunately, we have all become accustomed to the non-answers given by the Prime Minister during PMQs, but this, in all fairness, is not drastically different from other Prime Ministers in the past, arguably. If the answers do not provide much detail about fine detail, they can possibly throw some light onto the operational smoothness of the running of the Government, and the degree to which they have insight into how seriously the public take their policies seriously. The “Big Society” has had more relaunches than most PR people would like to contemplate, and here is David Cameron trying to shoehorn the relevance and importance of the Big Society into the Tory Britain of David Cameron.

Whilst in no doubt well intentioned, the problem with this answer encapsulates the whole thrust of the main criticism of the Big Society. People have discussed how the Big Society is merely “a cover for cuts”, and it exposes in all its glory how David Cameron has simply has no answer for the failure of market economics. Ed Miliband wishes to advance the notion of a ‘responsible State’ working for the greater ‘public good’, so is able to provide a rebuttal of Cameron’s answer mocking how voluntereeism is not a solution for child malnutrition. This of course plays right into the hands of Labour MPs, and many Labour activists, who feel that Cameron’s Tory Britain has seen a return to Victorian values, in extreme painted as a picture of workhouses and poverty. The implementation of workfare has lent some support to the idea of people being taken advantage of, and the subtext here is that there are some people who have drawn substantial benefit from this culture of ‘using’ labour. The problem with David Cameron’s “something for nothing” jibe is that it can be easily answered with the chaos over workfare, and reports of issues such as George Osborne’s paddock. That large corporates have more of a say in David Cameron’s Britain is a picture which is easy to paint without any effort, such as McKinsey’s being chief “players” in the NHS restructuring (ahead of the BMA, RCN or medical Royal Colleges, for example), or Serco “winning big” for the National Citizen Service contracts. The idea of ‘flexible labour’, i.e. a workforce where job security is nil, could go a long way to explain the record levels of people seemingly in employment (and a equally comparable record number of people with little job security). The problem is that, when Cameron makes another gaffe, legions of Labour activists respond by saying on Twitter, “that’s what he really meant”.

That was the natural conclusion, for example, of this gaffe:

We do not get much of a chance to enter the mindset of David Cameron and his Tory-led Cabinet, and we equally do not have an accurate picture of what is reported from the Tory-led BBC and others, many believe. However, hearing certain things ‘from the horses mouth’ is indeed revealing. If David Cameron had answered his final scripts in the Final Honour School of Philosophy, Psychology and Economics for Brasenose College Oxford, he would have erred into II.2 territory, not because of his lack of preparation and well-researched material, but his simple failure to answer the question. The answers, however, do offer clues for me as to how he thinks about what sort of Society he wants, and what sort of people he values in Society.

Patient choice (yet again)



patient choice - a delusion?

In a brief blogpost on ‘patient choice’, it’s hard to do anything really innovative like adding 2 and 2 to make 5. ‘Patient choice’ has been a game of ping-pong for the Conservatives and Labour, as this hot potato has been thrown around by Andy Burnham, Pat Hewitt, Alan Milburn, Andrew Lansley, and many others. They won’t be the first or the last.

Often the Annual Report is a dry statement of a state of affairs. Used creatively, it can be an ambitious marketing document. For example, in their Annual Report (downloadable here), Circle of Hinchinbrooke fame, refers to “significant gains in the number of patients being offered choice, …”, and then, “Firstly, we referred the issue of consultants’ contracted hours to the NHS Co-operation and Competition Panel (‘CCP’) which accepted our argument that consultants should have the freedom to practice at the location of their patients’ choice.” And then – “Secondly, we referred Primary Care Trusts (‘PCT’s) that were restricting NHS patients’ choice to the CCP, which again ruled in favour of patient choice.” Circle quickly pop it in then in the context of “Extended Choice Network”. Andy Burnham, back in 2006, in an extensive report on choice, explained that, for the public, “patients want and value choice: evidence from pilots, patient and public surveys and focus groups has shown this. Indeed, in 2007, Patricia Hewitt unveiled, “[a] new Choice website will allow members of the public and clinicians to access a range of information through one super site that will act as a one-stop gateway to navigate NHS services.”

There is a backdrop of Labour, through Alan Milburn, rejecting an ‘overcentralised  State’, and Andy Burnham, while being fundamentally proud of NHS values, advocating de-centralised Foundation Hospitals. Given that this concept is being used by all parties, socialists have a different political definition of ‘choice’ compared to others such as libertarians. Socialists believe in sharing risks in society, where there aren’t winners or losers; this is why philosophically libertarianism is so difficult to reconcile with utilitiarianism (maximum benefit for all, amongst other things).

Having started with marketing and philosophy above, there are critical other aspects to this ‘choice’ debate from different academic disciplines, I feel:

1. Economics. (a) Patricia Hewitt’s website only works on complete, high-quality information. With people not disclosing full information because of patchy coverage nationally, ‘moral hazard‘ may occur where one party carries the risk for another party’s lack of provision of information. Corporates will have to be mandated to disclose all their results, including less impressive health outcomes. (b) The market will be oligopolistic, with some suppliers preferring not to participate in certain unprofitable markets, like dementia, meaning the ability to maximise shareholder dividend, with venture capital backing, in an uncompetitive market quite likely.

2. Accounting. The cost of collecting statistics, many of which can be irrelevant, needs resources, and can be expensive. This is for example the reason why some  companies, unless they are large, do not collect metrics about activity in costing their business activities (“activity based costing”, as this is far too costly potentially) Who’s going to decide what information to collect and who’s going to collect this information in a small GP surgery or DGH?

3. Medicine. Quality healthcare depends not only on systems being in place for healthcare such as patient safety, but fundamentally depends on the quality of the physician and GP. For example, a provisional diagnosis of pneumocystis carinii can be made in A&E by a simple device that measures oxygen plummeting on somebody climbing a flight-of-stairs. It doesn’t need a multi-million £ CT machine, with costs transferred to the patient aka customer, and even the chest x-ray might be unhelpful.

4. Law. Choice is well known to the lawyers in the guise of competition. The regulatory mechanism is clearly inadequate in the new Health and Social Care Act. Agreements between competitors setting their prices collectively, price-fixing or abuse of dominant position would be clearly illegal under UK or European Competition Law, thankfully.

5. Ability of a patient to act on the information. Ultimately the patient is not specialist enough to choose between hospital suppliers anyway, and may not be able to implement his/her choice easily (unless the Government chooses to allow more ill patients greater personalised budgets, or travel expenses for travelling to distant units).

Either way, the NHS has now embarked on an experiment which it seems it cannot reverse, and which has not been mandated by any voter. It has been entirely enabled by the Liberal Democrats. The Socialist Health Association should explain why the socialist model does not throw up these problems, because ultimately we want an excellent service for everyone, irrespective of state-of-health or ability-to-pay.

 

Legal proposals on the repeal of the Health and Social Services Act [2012]



 

Andy Burnham MP, currently Shadow Secretary of State for Health, will repeal the Act, but is due to establish Labour’s official position at Conference later this week. Burnham answered my straightforward question about the Health and Social Care Act (2012) with a simple answer, at the Fabian Society Question Time this evening, hosted by Alison McGovern MP, and a panel also including Owen Jones, Dan Hodges, and Polly Toynbee. I had a very nice chat with Andy at the end, and Andy seemed to be quite impressed that I had read the entire Act carefully ‘from cover to cover’.

Andy reinforced his belief that the Act would be repealed, but he wanted the NHS to further a spirit of collaboration. There’s been a question about, even if the Act is repealed, there are genuine questions about which policy planks might go into reverse. I feel it is unlikely that NHS Foundation Trusts will be revised, and I don’t think commissioning will be done away with, though I am uncertain about the future of ‘clinical commissioning groups’ (“CCGs”). Andy’s indication that existing structures might be asked to do different things gives Andy a bit of lee-way as to the working relationship between NHS Foundation Trusts, or CCGs (or whatever they turn out to be).

Part 3 will be first in the firing line, the Act will be repealed, and the NHS will go back to a system based on collaboration consistent with its founding principles. Critically, this Part of the Act establishes the legislative framework for the sector-regulatory body and its functions, “Monitor”, competition and licensing. My guess is that Andy Burnham MP will find a way for the NHS not to be a free-for-all in an unfettered market. My impression is a lot depends on escaping the EU definition of “undertaking” in EU competition law.

Dr Kailash Chand OBE (@KailashChandOBE), who is the Deputy Chair of the BMA, has this morning voiced in an article in the Guardian grave concerns about CCGs:

“Unfortunately, this proposed new dawn has already been tarnished by the protracted passage of the health bill and the ongoing financial squeeze that could mean there are fewer services available for CCGs to commission. Many GPs are concerned that they could become the administrators of NHS cuts as they are handed responsibility for decimated budgets. The NHS Act 2012 gives CCGs the authority to decide to whom they will provide a service, and what service they will provide. They will be under no obligation to ensure that a whole range of services are available to their catchment population. (There is already rationing of services such as hernia, cataracts and hip or knee replacements). The NHS Act also enables CCGs to enter into joint ventures with private companies to outsource most work to private companies with vested interests, beyond the scope of full public scrutiny.”

The NHS prior to this Act had been immune from a discussion of competition in that the NHS had from this previously is that a regulatory authority for competition, the Office for Fair Trading (“OFT”) did not consider that any public bodies involved in the purchasing or supply of goods or services within the NHS were “undertakings”, and therefore were not subject to action under the Competition Act. In other words, any involvement of these bodies was for “non-economic purposes”. This was reinforced by the EU in relation to a Spanish healthcare case FENIN v Commission in 2006, on the basis that the system concerned operated on the principle of ‘solidarity’. They have therefore exposed some services (which previously would have been provided in-house) to a scenario where they will be considered for competitive tendering. The extension of Any Qualified Provider (albeit with a more limited, phased implementation from 2012) to a wider range of services, and the distancing of the state from acute sector provision in the form of foundation trusts could conceivably weaken the argument against healthcare provision being for “non-economic purposes”, particularly when individual service lines are considered.

This is a highly significant development, I feel, that Andy Burnham could be steering the NHS away from being run for ‘economic purposes’, and this could be the passport for Andy for not becoming enmeshed in lots of complicated domestic and EU law. As it happens, I have a real feeling that European lawyers would prefer not to enmeshed in a complicated discussion about private provision in healthcare, as they feel that competition law is best applied to pure private or commercial entities not involved in social/healthcare policy.

As it stands, the Health and Social Care Act (2012) is a complex interplay of domestic and EU law in the disciplines of company law (including mergers, financial assistance), commercial law, procurement law (including public contracts), regulatory law, insolvency law (particularly administration). However, the law, albeit at nearly 500 pages, does have some notable omissions, such as what happens if a CCG ‘trades’ while going insolvent. Law would have to clarify consider, in its capacity as a ‘body corporate’, whether the CCG were still capable of wrongful or even fraudulent trading.

 

Why pre-distribution matters to both me and Ed



The City has always felt that it can get away with State bailouts, run this country into the ground, and still award itself large bonuses. That Ed Miliband gave a detailed speech for the ‘Policy Network’ which was wonkish is of course acceptable. No doubt if he were presenting the idea for Daybreak, he would have taken a different tack. I am bound to be warm to the idea as I am a wonk, although I am not really in any think-tank properly. Prof. James Heckman is a big proponent of it – in case you worry that he is, of course, not a household name like Balls, Miliband, or Brown – he won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2000. Swoon. This was the year before Prof. Joe Stigliz, for information asymmetry in 2001. Double swoon. Why does Stiglitz’s work matter? It matters as it clearly explains why an insurance-based system for a privatised NHS would explosively fail. In wonkish terms, ‘pre-distribution’ marks a departure from a Crossland-Blairite approach. In the real world, it’s about making “all people matter” and feel wanted. It’s about a Society which has a changed emphasis from changing problems after they’ve happened – e.g. paying unemployment benefit long-term to some individuals – to a priority of preventing problems before they happen, e.g. trying to enhance a person’s first ever job in meaningful employment or stopping in its tracks excessive pay of a CEO of a utility-company when the service has not improved or a banker with a bank making a loss of millions.

‘Pre-distribution’ can be tackled at a number of different levels. It is essentially about Labour being a ‘government being fit for purpose’, addressing the needs of Society. When I asked a Comrade of mine to take this photograph of Ed Miliband at Haverstock Hill at Ed’s last ever hustings, at Haverstock Hill Comprehensive School, Chalk Farm, I said to Ed, ‘I’ll tell you something which will make you smile’. Ed said, ‘Go on, surprise me!’. I then told Miliband that, in Tony Blair’s autobiography entitled ‘The Journey’, the word ‘inequality’ does not even appear in the index. Ed simply said, ‘You’re joking’, and burst into this smile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This policy, which is well formulated elsewhere (see, for example, the recent description in the New Statesman by George Eaton in the New Statesman, which cites the seminal work of Prof. Joseph Hacker from Yale), is about tackling this inequality, in doing something which both the main parties which to do at present – redistribute the UK economy. George’s description of it is helpful:

“To this end, it should legislate for policies such as a living wage and introduce curbs on predatory energy and rail companies, pursuing what Miliband’s consigliere, Stewart Wood, has called a “supply-side revolution from the left”. As he wrote in a piece earlier this year:

We will need different kinds of banks and stronger competition in the banking industry; corporate governance reforms to incentivise good ownership models and longer-term business strategies; ensuring that companies see the continuing upskilling of their workers as an obligation and not simply a luxury; and the courage to challenge vested interests in the economy that charge excessive prices for energy or train fares and squeeze families’ living standards.

In his speech to today’s Policy Network conference, Miliband will elaborate on this theme, stating that while redistribution will remain a “key aim of the next Labour government”, a greater focus on predistribution is needed. He will advance two main arguments for this claim. Firstly, that the failure of the last Labour government to reduce inequality proves that while redistribution is “necessary” it is “not sufficient”, and secondly, that the fiscal constraints a Labour administration will face (based on current forecasts, it would inherit a deficit of £96.1bn or 5.8% of GDP) mean that it will be not able to increase tax credits (the last Labour government’s primary redistributive instrument) in the manner that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did.”

Ed should think very carefully about how he wishes to present this policy to our Party next month at Conference.  The policy is relevant to people who find themselves unfairly treated by Society. Of course, Miliband is unwise to use the word ‘fair’ given its exhaustive overuse atrophy by Clegg, but it is ensuring that people at the low end of the income scale get adequately paid, for example, through the Minimum Wage. It also ensures that private utility companies are not able to make excessive profits at the expense of the quality of the service for the customer. The economic narrative of failed competition in private (or public) limited companies, ranging from banks to utility companies to exam boards, is well known. Also well known are political stigmata of this such as Brown’s bold claim to ‘abolish boom-and-bust’, meaning that due to over-confident growth Brown had been the first person ever to abolish the cyclical demands in economy. Economists on the left wish an inclusive, accessible, sustainable economy; leaving Wonkland for a moment, it’s fundamentally about making all people matter.

Critically, pre-distribution is not a ‘tax-and-spend’ policy, though it has to be said that the redistributive attempts of the final days of the Labour administration might have been more successful than first appeared. It is not anything to do with following targets meticulously such that it involves losing the ‘big picture’. Voters will of course be concerned whether the policy will cost money. Any laws are costly, but the UK produces a huge volume of them, and ultimately voters, whilst finding some laws prohibitive and restrictive, might find some statutory instruments there for a good reason and protecting the public (i.e. preventing advertising of harmful products on children on TV, or the safety of ‘clean air’).

In a way, it is a bit like ‘responsible capitalism’. It is very hard to see why corporates would wish to be ‘responsible’, when ultimately the function of a company in law is to promote its success by making profit. However, many companies, and many charities in the third sector, use their ‘responsible capitalism’ credentials, otherwise known as ‘corporate social responsibility’, as a way to distinguish themselves in a crowded market with customers. Law students apparently ‘like’ law firms with a strong pro bono output, and so on. Even ‘responsible capitalism’ might be a good way to make money.

That strikes at the heart at another fundamental principle of Ed Miliband and Labour. There is no need for Ed to embrace corporate strategies which achieve their ends through potentially achieving misery like taking disabled people off the benefits register through improperly delivered benefits assessment mechanisms or allegedly phone hacking to sell copy in newspapers. The City might find itself at the receiving end of ‘irresponsible capitalism’, if international markets perceive London as a more dangerous ‘light touch regulation’ place to do business (where allegations of fraud have recently arisen.)

The idea of pre-distribution has also a strong undercurrent. It displaces the primacy of the market, over the State. However, because of the language and genuine concerns of abuse of power of the State, this pre-distribution of the UK economy will be a redistribution of political power. This is highly significant, as low-paid workers and members of the Unions will feel valued. There is a way to legislate for this, in giving tax breaks for teachers and nursing workers in the public sector. The advantage is that these ‘tax credits’ would be to a deserving group of people, and, if employment and disability support allowance were properly administered, the value of people working in the public sector would be enhanced. Miliband has often criticised how the economy of the UK is too factional, and this is of course part of the need to ‘rebalance’ the economy; the City can of course play part by ensuring that even their most badly paid workers are given a ‘living wage’, which would not be a problem for them given their recent revenues even despite the recession, but it would reinforce that we are all contributing to the economy. That Miliband should wish to ‘reward’ skills should be an extension of the better successes of the Blairite knowledge-based economy, and would not even be objectionable from the Right. However, it would be impossible to run this economy without the public sector, and that is simply a fact.

Ed’s message next month must therefore be ‘clean and simple’. Nobody wants to hear the word ‘pre-distribution’, and even the Keynesian word ‘investment’ has been a word which the Tories desired to toxify. The Tories are of course wrong on this, as their failure to invest in schools led directly to the implosion of the construction industry in September-October 2010 onwards, with a rapid expansion of conservatories in September 2012 regarded as ‘too little too late’. The word ‘fair’ has been toxified by Nick Clegg (ironically, given that the name of the 2010 Labour manifesto written by Ed Miliband chiefly was ‘A future fair for all’.)

What about ‘Making people matter’?

The commercialisation of public services, by @GrahameMorris



A foreword by Shibley – This, I believe, is a beautiful piece of writing by @GrahameMorris, MP for Easington. I not only believe that the economic arguments are cogent, accurate and compelling, but I also feel that it sets out the case accurately for this major flaw in policy which the Conservatives and Labour have been pursuing now for decades. I reproduce it below entirely in keeping with the original source ‘The Red Book’.

Foreword to the Red Book:

This book has been produced by Labour Left -a Labour Party campaign grouping within the UK Labour Party. For any queries please email the chief editor DrEoinClarke@LabourLeft.co.uk. The book is free of charge and can be reproduced without permission. Each author retains sole responsibility for their work, and full intellectual property rights accordingly. You can find out more about Labour Left by visiting www.LabourLeft.co.uk.

Link: here.

You can follow @DrEoinClarke here.

(c) Grahame Morris MP 2011

Grahame Morris MP is the Chairperson of Labour Left as well as the Labour MP for Easington, an area blighted by the Tory misgovernment of the 1980s. Having spent his early career in the NHS, Grahame began working with John Cummings, MP, in 1987 and has served as a Labour Member of Easington District Council for fifteen years. Grahame is a member of the Health Select Committee, and he writes for the Morning Star on matters related to the NHS. Grahame’s passion lies in narrowing the health inequality gaps brought about by the unequal society in which we live.

The Left should Champion Dynamic Responsive Public Services

We need a dynamic, responsive, publicly funded and publicly provided model for the UK?s public services. We must be bold and reclaim our public services for the sake of our people, our economy and our country.

The recent trend in delivering public services in the UK has seen a move away from the large centrally driven publicly provided service model which characterised the welfare state in the immediate post-war period. Across the public sector we have seen the introduction of competition as well as large sections of services passed over to the private sector. The drive behind this commercialisation has been from right wing critics of the old-style monolithic services who believed that it would be impossible to achieve improved outcomes, greater efficiencies and a consumer focus without such significant reform.

The desire of governments to reform key public services and extend the commercialisation agenda as they seek further efficiencies has entered a new phase under this Coalition. While New Labour brought competition into the NHS, the Coalition is seeking to break it up and remove any distinction between public and private providers of health services. The Health and Social Care Bill will turn the NHS into little more than an insurance fund. There were those in the Labour Party who warned that the split between commissioners and providers, the introduction of competition, commercial practices and the incorporation of the private sector into public service delivery would risk opening the floodgates to further ideological change in the future. While Margaret Thatcher would have struggled to pass current Tory-led reforms to the NHS back in the 1980s, once the private sector had a foot in the door and the public service ideology was broken down under a Labour government, these policies became a Trojan horse for privatisation.

At the last election, all three main political parties seem to have lost faith in the ability of public service workers to improve public services from within. “Reform” itself had become almost entirely associated with further marketisation, the extension of competition or a greater role for the private sector at the heart of our public services. The ideological drive behind reform of this nature has also deepened. The extension of commercial practices into public services is now pursued regardless of the impact o  assessment of how its implementation will affect the costs, accessibility or quality of service delivery. The government?s own impact assessment of the Health and Social Care Bill suggested that “the majority of quantifiable [financial] distortions work in favour of NHS organisations?, i.e. NHS providers have a lower cost base than the private sector even before taking into account the latter?s need to make a profit.

The evidence suggests that the contracting out of public services to the private sector has a poor record. There is often a negative impact for employees with the prevalence of short-term contacts and the increasing use of employment agencies. UNISON commissioned a report on the rise of the multi billion pound Private Public Services Industry raising significant concerns about the increased dependency on private firms. Public services have become a huge industry from which the private sector receives more than £80 billion of taxpayers’ money every year. Yet private sector delivery of services has become characterised by increased cost, deteriorating quality, the loss of accountability and greater risk of service failure. The Southern Cross Care Homes debacle has brought just these sorts of issues to the fore once again.

More and more services are being transferred to the private sector, leading to a situation where there is a danger that we lose control over our public services altogether. In 2007 the Local Government Association warned that because of the amount of local authority spending on external private sector contracts, the ability to make efficiency savings without damaging services was not realistic. It should be even more evident at a time of financial restraint how important it is that we retain control over our public services. The central argument in favour of the increased commercialisation and privatisation of public services rests on the importance of consumer choice as a driver of increased efficiency, accountability and value for money. Yet there are serious limitations to the idea of the “well-informed consumer? as examples show.

While there were many faults with the nationalised rail services provided by British Rail, privatisation has not resulted in increased efficiency or competitive ticket pricing. On the contrary, disruptions to rail services remain, commuters suffer from chronic overcrowding on rush hour trains and prices have increased dramatically year-on-year. In fact, privatisation has not resulted in increased choice for consumers at all: in the case of the railways it is not possible to make a choice about which rail company to use. High fares and poor conditions have to be accepted. This is not a “free market?. It is the result of the State granting a licence to specific companies to make money through market domination. We must be very wary indeed of allowing this situation to develop in the provision of healthcare and other welfare services.

One area which it is argued does feature genuine consumer choice is the provision of utilities. In most parts of the United Kingdom, it is possible to choose a provider of gas and electricity from a handful of companies. Yet here too prices have increased above inflation and the profits of the energy companies have soared, to the extent that during the autumn of 2011, Labour Leader Ed Miliband looked to hold the „big six? energy companies to account for their excessive price increases. Of course, energy companies claim that they are only reflecting the vagaries of the international markets in coal, oil and gas. However, their increased profits and continued price increases suggest that not only have they made no attempt to insulate people from any increased costs but that they are making money rather than working in the best interests of their customers. The reason is that the energy companies are well aware that the idea of the well informed consumer is largely a myth. People are often confused by the proliferation of similar sounding deals or are reluctant to get involved in changing supplier.

Similarly, people are traditionally very reluctant to change the bank which provides their current account, even when there are tangible financial benefits from doing so. That is why banks create incentives to those who do switch their current accounts. It is also why there are so many attractive add-ons to opening a student account. Banks know full well that once a person has opened an account with a bank as a student, they will most likely use the same bank for the rest of their life.

There are very few people indeed, irrespective of income or education, who sit down every month, work out which energy company or bank account offers best value, and, crucially, act by changing their utility provider or switching their current account. And even if they want to do so, there are usually financial tie-ins and penalties for leaving their existing deal. It seems that the “big six? energy companies know these things, hence the steep increase in fuel bills and their reluctance (as evidenced by their increase in profits) to insulate their customers from the increase in the market prices of fuels. It is worth remembering that left politicians at the end of the nineteenth century argued for municipalisation on the grounds of efficiency, in that it enabled councils to run utilities at a lower cost to ratepayers and to avoid the wastefulness and high costs incurred through the use of private companies. There are certain services which it seems natural for the state to provide – no one would seriously suggest replacing police forces with private security firms – and the increasing consumerisation of public services not only undermines our welfare state, but also the health of our economy and society.

Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek did not advocate a “small state?, as many commentators on both the right and the left have mistakenly argued. On the contrary, they saw the state as vital for securing private property, protecting the market and incentivising trade. They recognised that for a nation to succeed economically it was not simply a matter of low taxation and regulation. They did not believe the simplistic argument that capital and human resources simply move from an area of high taxation to one of low taxation, as though through osmosis – but rather that security and infrastructure needed to be provided and the only institution able to provide this was the state.

As a nation, we cannot expect to attract leading industries without leading excellent state education. We cannot expect to have a motivated, healthy and happy workforce without comprehensive welfare provision; and we cannot expect our innovators and entrepreneurs to take risks with borrowed capital if their main concern is whether they can afford treatment should they be ill. Given that the vast majority of start-up companies fail within the first twelve months, and given that many small businessmen and women build up large amounts of debts while starting up businesses, they are less likely to take these risks if they are liable for ruinous healthcare or welfare payments should they be ill, pregnant, or unable to work.

Essentially, if we are to have a vibrant and vital economy which can attract the most innovative industries and keep the brightest people in the United Kingdom, we need robust public services. There are certain areas which benefit from consumerisation – the welfare state is not one of them. For the health of our people, our economy and our society we need to keep it in the public sphere. The welfare state has a proud history and has embedded itself into the British psyche. The NHS has perhaps been one of the most robust drivers behind the welfare state with its guiding principles and values which are supported wholeheartedly by the public at large. We do not need to protect the welfare state merely for ideological reasons, nor do we need to resist the consumerisation of the NHS and other public services simply out of a suspicion of change and a desire to protect the status quo. Indeed, the last Labour Government sought to use the private sector in the NHS to increase capacity, for instance in reducing waiting times for cataract and hip operations. However, once the distinction between our public services and the private sector was blurred by the centre-left it was clear that this would be abused once those on the political right took power. While this government denies its motives are to privatise NHS services, there is growing evidence that NHS providers and social enterprises are continuing to lose out to commercial companies for major NHS contracts. Private healthcare firms have on numerous occasions beaten social enterprise projects even where these projects reinvest profits into the local community. The direction of travel that of this government, forcing new commissioning groups and hospitals to operate in the private sector, is certain to lead to much more of this privatisation of our NHS services. Aneurin Bevan argued that abuse in the health service occurred when the incompatible principles of private acquisitiveness and public service were married together. This is true throughout the welfare state. The scale of the privatisation in public services receives little or no attention in the media and often goes unnoticed apart from by those that it directly affects – such as the cleaner or cook that loses their job. Yet around 20-30% of government spending on public services goes to the private sector – almost a third. It is not that we should simply oppose any money going to the private sector from the public purse. What should be opposed is the direction of travel and rapid growth of the private sector within public services. The benefits of good public services are clear for all to see. They should be characterised by:

  • Reliable employment practices;
  • Greater democratic control over service delivery; and
  • Greater accountability.

However the most basic benefit of public services should always be the ability to deliver an effective service for better value for money than private competitors. We must set out an agenda which puts confidence back into public services and the public sector workforce and which can fashion change and improvements from within. There have been clear failures in the state-owned public services model which must be addressed if those of us who support this model are to win the arguments over future reform. Slow moving monolithic bureaucracies at local and national level need to become more responsive and we must recognise that the move towards the private sector was in part inspired by the refusal of some services to adapt and change. Trade unions and staff associations must become part of the solution to improving services – indeed there are examples where unions have worked with local authorities to redesign services for the benefit of staff and services users, such as in my own area, in commercial vehicle maintenance and refuse collection. As we look to thefuture, we must consider today how we will respond to creeping privatisation and outline a clear plan to reclaim our public services. There are many powerful, pragmatic arguments for robust public services. Any attempt to undermine the social provision of these services is a grave mistake – for our economy, for our society and for our country. We on the left should be bold and we should not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked by the falseness of the „choice? argument. Nor should we be taken in by the neo-liberal consensus of recent years that reform of public services must inevitably lead to commercialisation. A dynamic, responsive, publically funded and provided model can deliver services more efficiently and with greater accountability than the private sector.

Does the new Microsoft logo use the same font as the BPP brand?



In my postgraduate studies, I spent a few months on branding as part of my MBA economics and marketing course at BPP Business School. The brilliant Christy Traore taught me amongst many people. I have subsequently done the BPP Law School LPC special elective on intellectual property (and commercial law) which was utterly brilliant. I also did the course for the College of Law in intellectual property. I have a rather unique multi-dimensional perspective on how corporates tackle branding, from both a client-perspective and a lawyer-perspective, but as I am a person I am hugely biased towards the stakeholder. Any reader of my twitter thread or this blog will safely know that.

The BPP ‘brand’ was launched earlier this year. On the popular BPP blog, a background to the launch of this new brand was given, earlier this year:

“As our offering continues to expand, we felt it was a good time to move towards a logo that better reflects the diversity of our student and customer base, which can range from UK school leavers to senior business professionals. We believe our new logo achieves this, combining as it does the gravitas of a heraldic shield with the modernity of a relative newcomer in the higher education sector.”

 

Font nerds like me will have spotted that the font of the BPP lettering is ‘Whitney’, by fontographer Hoefler and Frere-Jones. I was always surprised that BPP had not decided to use a bespoke font especially for its branding.

However, I am now wondering whether this is the same font as the new Microsoft logo – in which case Microsoft have not designed a special font either. The ‘i’ and ‘t’ on this particular font are distinctive, many font experts feel.

Either way, the logos of BPP and Microsoft are clearly distinctive because of the picture (the words are clearly different), and such logos put side-by-side would be most unlikely to cause confusion.

'A nation of independent contractors' easily explains our employment statistics



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s no mystery to the employment figures. Anyone can view the figures from the Office for National Statistics here.

Missing from the captions below are the time headings ranging from August – June 2010 to August 2012, but you can easily get the picture from them anyway.

 

 

Somehow, the UK economy is faltering and yet the unemployment figure is falling. Our growth has stopped – it’s often been said, rather disparagingly perhaps, we’ve gone from producing coal to producing Cheryl Cole CDs. We have trouble selling our stuff abroad. Perhaps we should switch measures, and measure happiness instead of Gross National Product – just don’t include the disabled citizens who’ve had their DLA stopped without notice, explanation or notification, and who are unable to protest about it as their local law centre as shut down.

The number of people in people in employment appears to be rising gradually, but the most noticeable aspect is that while the number in full-time employment appears to be largely the same, the number of people in part-time employment or self-employment is rising. That is a significant development.

This means that whilst the economy is not growing some people have given up looking for full-time employment, and tried to establish themselves independently. This will come as no surprise as many have good GCSEs and A levels, and at least a II.1 at University, but cannot get selected for an interview. These people, whilst banks are not lending, are unable to have sufficient income to set up their own private limited company, so become independent contractors instead. They do work as or when they can find it, and overall it’s better than being unemployed. The employers rate this as having a ‘flexible workforce’, and of course avoid the risk of unfair dismissal claims as they are not employees. Of course, it can be argued that some job is better than no job, but these people have no employment rights, and any protection by the Unions as workers or employers becomes out-of-the-question.

So, there you have it. We are simply becoming a nation of independent contractors – armed with our own website, Twitter, or Facebook, we’re not actually producing much, but enough to keep others in some money. We are no longer a nation of shopkeepers, and it’s an unusual situation for sure.

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech