Back to the Future - Don't Call me Dave, it's Lord Dave

 Yesterday, I was a bit slow to rise. I got a text from my brother, one I was not expecting, asking if I thought Rishi Sunak had been reading my blog. I was mystified. When I put on the radio, I realised he was referring to last Thursdays blog about Suella Bravermans comments about homelessness and recalling the efforts of Samantha Cameron at The Passage Homeless day centre. I don't think I was the only one who was surprised (to say the least), to find David Cameron back in the cabinet. My Whatsapp feeds lit up. What did I think? I told them all to read my blog today, once I'd thought about it.

So here goes. I think Sunak has played a blinder here and pulled a masterstroke. Whatever you may think about Cameron, it has taken Braverman off the front pages. He's surrounded himself with grown up politicians, not given to showboating and embarrassing him. Cameron has vital experience of turning the Tories around and detoxifying the brand. It's not clear to me who hates Cameron more, the hard right of the Tories or the hard left of Labour. It is interesting to note how few people I've spoken to across the spectrum actually like Cameron, but just about everyone seems to think that he's a price worth paying to see the back of Braverman. 

I suspect he'll be a decent foreign secretary. He strikes me as a born diplomat and he has a degree of gravitas that the UK needs on the world stage right now. As an ex PM, he will know many of the movers and shakers. I suspect that Sunak wanted a team that won't continually embarrass him. It will make it very hard to claim that he's a 'new broom' and a 'break from the past', but I doubt Cameron will generate a torrent of dodgy headlines as Braverman seemed to enjoy. 

Braverman has been replaced by James Cleverly at the Home Office. As an ex military man, I suspect he'll behave himself and build bridges which Braverman burned with the Police. With the Rwanda verdict due, he is on a win/win. If the Judges ban it, he can quietly dump it and say "nuffink to do wiv me mate". If it's declared legal, he can pacify his own backwoodsmen by implementing it. The Home Secretary job is a poison chalice. Things always seemto go wrong, but I doubt Cleverly will actively look for rows as Braverman has been doing. 

If you look at the top jobs, Hunt, Cleverley and Cameron. Steady hands, men who conversations won't get too heated with for Sunak. There seems to be a natural consensus amongst them. I am sure that Cameron will be doing his best to persuade Sunak to make policies that are as inclusive as possible for a Tory PM. He will be backed up by Hunt, a natural ally. Although Cleverley is a Brexiteer, he is not stupid and I think he knows which way the wind is blowing. Cameron knows that elections are not won by pacifying the hard right of the Tory Party (unless your opponent is Jeremy Corbyn). 

It seems to be pretty clear now that Braverman knew she was getting the chop and so got booted out on her own terms. I suspect she is playing a longer game. Let the Tories crash and burn and become the next leader of the opposition. As parties often do, when they lose an election badly, they indulge in a period of navel gazing and decide they were not hard line left/right enough. That is how they end up with leaders like Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Howard. Invariably the result is the same, another stuffing at the polls. 

The problem with most politicians is that they live in bubbles, where they don't talk to ordinary people. They just hear an echo chamber of their own views. They convince themselves that because all their mates are saying it, everyone is. It comes as a nasty shock when the general election educates them otherwise. Will Dave, sorry Lord Dave make a difference? It is impossible to know. I suspect that the election will be in a years time and that is a very long time. My best guess is that the Tories will lose badly, but less badly than would otherwise have been they case, although they won't see it like that.  Sunak's big challenge after 13 years, is to persuade us that there is something we still need them to do, that they have something fresh to say to the electorate. I don't seriously see David Cameron helping that. If the answer to Britains problems are to give a discredited PM a peerage and bring them back, Lord help us. 

Lynton Crosby leading the Tories off the edge of the cliff

I was speaking to an economist who works for a large financial organisation in the pub during the week. I happened to ask him what he thought would be the best possible outcome for the UK in the forthcoming election. His response was interesting. He said that as a human being with a family, an outright Labour victory would be the only outcome that would be likely to benefit him and the vast majority of citizens of the UK, but in terms of the UK economy and the economic health of the country, undoubtedly the best outcome would be exactly the same outcome as the last election - ie  a strong coalition between the Tories and the Lib Dems.

I asked him to explain and he said it was quite simple. In economic terms, even though the economy is likely to do less well under Labour, the vast majority of people benefit more. The big losers are those at the very top, who have been the beneficiaries of the current economic boom. They have seen a massive increase in wealth as share dividends, exective salaries and bonus and executive pay has mushroomed. In the UK the top 25% own 90% of the wealth and these have been the main beneficiaries of the economic improvement.

As for the economy, he said that only a Tory/Lib Dem coalition would offer the continuity necessary for business to flourish and grow. My friend observed that both a Tory/LibDem coalition and a Labour victory would not result in a UK withdrawal from the EU. If the UK moves towards a referendum or outright withdrawal this would cause massive uncertainty amongst foreign investors and there is no way this won't have a huge economic downside. Whatever view you may have of the EU, the Scottish referendum showed exactly what business thinks of such splits. The EU would be a far more devastaing issue for foreign investors and it is plain dishonest to pretend otherwise.

So basically from a Labour perspective, their campaign message is simple. They need to get the message out to ordinary people that if they want to have more money in their wallet, they simply need to vote Labour. For the Tories there is a conundrum. Firstly, half of the party hates the EU so their biggest selling point, economic stability through continued EU membership is not something they can afford to boast about. The second problem they have is that they cannot boast too much about their record in power as this makes the case for coalition government and despite the relative success of the coalition, they cannot claim the success. Even more difficult is that the few coalition policies which have really affected people in the middle in a positive way are Lib Dem initiatives, such as raising the tax thresholds. The Tory headline policies such as cutting the top rate of tax for millionaires is not exactly a major vote winner with the middle classes.

The biggest problem the Tories have got is the fact that they have employed Lynton Crosby as their chief campaign strategist. Crosby is a hard nosed Australian who believes that you win elections by destroying the credibility of your opponents. He is a specialist in attack dog politics and negative campaigning. Sadly for the Tories, this simply doesn't work for the Tories in UK General Election campaigns. Whilst it worked worked well for Boris, who is a sharp operator and genuinely witty, in his Mayoral campaign against Ken Livingstone, it fails miserably when you have someone like Cameron in charge.

The problem for Crosby is that Cameron is simply incapable of being nasty without looking like an arrogant upper class toff, who thinks he knows it all and is ordering his butler around. Crosby is so mired in politics that he has managed to turn perhaps his biggest asset into a liability. What Crosby has missed is that Cameron is actually a nice bloke, who isn't good at doing nasty. The Tories followed the Crosby method for the first election and it failed miserably (although without him being him in charge). To fail to score an outright majority with the economy in meltdown and Gordon Brown running Labour was a spectacular own goal. Now Crosby looks set to repeat the feat.

 It should be simple. Ed Miliband is seen by many as lacking what it takes to do the job. Cameron has presided over a full term in which the economy has picked up and is now showing record breaking growth.With Cameron still perceived in the country at large as a decent bloke, the Tories should be well ahead in the polls. The problem they have is that Crosby has decided that rather than say "campaign on your record, say you've served your apprenticeship with the Lib Dems, show some vision and give people a positive reason to vote Tory for a better future", he has said "We can only win if  we spend the campaign attacking Ed Milliband". Crosby's plan spectacularly backfired when Cameron forced the sole leadership debate to feature all seven mainland UK party leaders. Now every leader has claimed they won, but the opinion polls tell a different story. The biggest winner was the SNP in terms of the debate, but the true winner was Ed Miliband. Because the Tories campaign is based on the fact that he is unelectable and useless, the fact that he was seen as no better or worse than Cameron has effectively spiked Cameron and Crosby's guns. The biggest failure of Cameron, which no one has picked up, is that Cameron has a problem with women voters. For Cameron to insist that there were three women on the panel, who all did better than him, simply highlighted the problem. Following the debate, all of the women I spoke to commented on how badly this reflected on Cameron.

Crosby has turned Cameron into a vacuous, policy free leader, who's sole claim to the job is that he thinks he'll do a better job than Miliband. As Crosby and Cameron move in those circles, they think that lining up rich businessmen to endorse Cameron will sway the millions of families who have had a massive budget squeeze ever since Cameron got the job. Even hard right commentators such as Peter Hitchens, who writes for the Daily Mail have been forced to admit that David Cameron is a fake


Hitchens speaks for many on the right of the Tory party, who hate Cameron. Like the Labour left with Blair, they sit on their hands gnashing their teeth, but knowing that this is the only way they can ever get their hands on the levers of power.

Perhaps the funniest thing is that Crosby has missed the bleeding obvious. The truth in the UK is that the country is basically inclined to vote for 'nice' centre right smoothies such as Blair and Cameron. Labour under Blair recognised this and stormed to three massive victories. The Tories under Cameron have taken the opposite view, choosing to mask all of their candidates best qualities and making him play to his own biggest failings.

What is interesting is to cast your mind back to Blair and how new Labour used to operate. They were far more nasty than the Tories have ever been, but they made damn sure that it wasn't Blair who was sticking the knife in. "Tone" was always seen to be nice, decent and reasonable. Crosby managed the Tory campaign against Blair in 2005. Blair demolished it, even though his shine had long since worn off, mired in the post Iraq sleaze.  Tony Blair realised that when it comes to mudslinging, it is better to let someone else do it for you. Sad

The truth is that Lynton Crosby is a back seat driver who is sending Cameron and the Tories off a cliff.  Whilst many Tory backbenchers recognise this, the elite group at the top aren't listening.I simply wonder when the penny will drop with the Tories and they'll sack Crosby. As someone who doesn't want to see another Tory government, I for one hope that the realisation will come after, not before the general election. Sadly for Cameron, I think he'll be packing his bags in May and wishing that he'd followed his own instincts, told a better story and sacked crosby when he had the chance.

We don't need a debate to hear how David Cameron has ruined the NHS

There is a lot of debate about whether the Party leaders should have a televised debate. I think this is a completely pointless exercise. We've had five years of the Coalition. David Cameron has a track record to be judged by. Mr Cameron and his colleagues have been making hay about how well the economy is doing and how many new jobs have been created. The sad truth is that it is onlly this month, nearly five years after Cameron took the helm, that the economy has recovered to a point where we are as wealthy as we were in 2008 when the global economic meltdown happened. It is also a fact that the man in charge of business is Vince Cable, not a Tory at all but a Lib Dem. So we have to conclude that in the area where Cameron is claiming his governments greatest success, he is not even in charge. Cable is an economist and is widely recognised as being one of the most capable members of the government. This is born out by the fact that neither the Tories or Labour attack Cable in the way they attack Clegg. Any attempts by these parties to bully Cable inevitably end in a very bloody nose for the bully boys. But Camerons proposition is that the most successful cabinet member should be turfed out on his ear and replaced by a Tory lackey of Cameron.

The sad truth is that the most important thing the govt do is to run the NHS and this doesn't have Mr Cable in charge. This has had a succession of useless Tory lackeys, who are not up to the job. The latest one Jeremy Hunt has been in charge since 2012. How is the NHS doing under his watch. Now regular readers of this blog know that we normally run a joke on Friday, but at 1.20 this morning I got this email from a regular reader of the blog

Thanks to the negligence of Barnet General Hospital I have an incurable cancerous disease the left overs of a carcinoid tumour.

Periodically I have massive debilitating carcinoid attacks and have to inject myself, or if the attack is particularly bad a member of my family has to inject me.

At 10am yesterday morning March 5th , I say yesterday morning because it is now 1-15 am on the 6th. I had a severe carcinoid attack and my wife called the specialist nurses of the Nets team at the Royal a Free Hampstead, who qualified the actions we had taken were correct, but also suggested I take at least one more injection. They asked that we call them later to let them know how things were going which my wife did, but as my symptoms appeared particularly severe and I had minor surgery three weeks ago. They were concerned I might have a bad infection related to my recent surgery, and advised us to ring our GP to get a home visit as a matter of urgency.

My wife called the surgery at 4 pm yesterday March 5th, it is now 1-20 am on March 6th, and I am still waiting for the so called out of hours emergency Dr to arrive, 9hours and 20 minutes since my wife called our GP surgery.

Yet Mathew Offord  the joke of an excuse for an MP of Hendon, insists there are no problems to deal with in our Local NHS, it is now 9 hours and 25 minutes and still no Dr, my wife has gone to bed exhausted, and although I am feeling really ill and have had no sleep for two days, I have to sign off and await the Dr.

How on earth can ignore this? How on earth can anyone with any humanity say that this is a right and proper sitution? There is no need for any debate on this issue. The NHS is falling apart if a man with cancer cannot get the treatment he needs. We read of the barbarity of ISIS, but what we are hearing of here is far more brutal. A man in excruciating pain for 9 hours with no treatment and no help.

That is the sad truth of David Camerons reign. Anyone who reads this blog (look at yesterdays entry) know that we are not friends of the local Labour party. We do however have to look at the bigger picture. In the London Borough of Barnet we have two marginal seats. These are Mike Freer in Finchley and Golders Green and Matthew Offord in Hendon. The sad truth is that the only way we will see the NHS sorted out is to send these two extremely poor MP's packing and replace them with someone who cares about the NHS.

The Conservatives do a grand job looking after their millionaire supporters, top bankers and businessmen. The sad truth though is that any one of us could be writing that letter above. I have cancer and I am ony too aware of the Sword of Damoclese over my head. That my friends is the truth. And tomorrow it could be you, your wife, your son, your mum, your granny, your mistress or your favourite auntie. Unless you vote to fix the problem in May, this will only get far far worse. You don't need a debate to figure that out.

Sorry there is no joke today. I am sure you understand though.

David Camerons Campaign Rap !!!!!

This is brilliant (contains strong language).

Thatcher vs Cameron - No comparison?

Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979 and after 4 years sought re-election. David Cameron was elected in 2010 and so on the Thatcher timetable would be up for election this year. I thought it may be interesting to compare and contrast their records.

Wars
Thatcher presided over two major military conflicts in her first four years. The Falklands and Northern Ireland. The Falklands war was a major victory and will perhaps always be viewed as the defining moment of her career. At the time of the war, the USSR did not consider that the UK had the capability to mount such a campaign. The Argentinian generals did not even consider such an option, thinking Britain would roll over and say "kick me". At the time the USA had an aversion to foreign adventurism, having its fingers burned. Thatchers war changed all that. Reagan realised that a successful military excursion is good for votes. I believe the Iraq and Afghan adventures are a direct result of Thatchers PR victory. What is never discussed in such glowing terms is the Northern Ireland situation. Under Thatcher there was a terrible military stalemate, where the ordinary people suffered under a repressive state and terrorism. Thatcher never really had a clue where to start with Ulster. In my opinion her period was one of unmitigated failure, but due to the Falklands success, the airbrush has been applied.  Nevertheless, with her leadership during the Falklands conflict, no one could argue that Thatcher wasn't a proven leader in a time of war.

Cameron has presided over the Afghan debacle in much the same way. It is clear that Cameron doesn't know what to do, hasn't got a plan and is simply a passenger in the process. British servicemen die without a sense of what the mission really is. When the British and americans go, everyone knows things will soon degenerate. When the UK leaves Afghanistan, will it be a better place than when Cameron took over? I doubt it. The problem is that, unlike Thatchers Falklands war, there is no plan, no objective and no idea what we are really trying to achieve. In four years, I've yet to hear a single coherent sentence from Cameron on the subject. Whilst I believe history proved Thatchers non engagement with the IRA wrong, at least she was consistent and could elucidate why whe was persuing this course. Cameron simply comes across as vacuous.

Economy.
When Thatcher took over, Great Britain was in terminal decline. We were the "sick man of Europe". Whatever you may think of the UK when Cameron took over, we have maintained a high degree of economic prosperity and the problems with our country have not resulted in others viewing us as a complete basket case. In 1979, the UK was viewed as a spent force which had nothing left to offer. Thatcher believed that the key to fixing the economy was to cut the balls off the Trades Unions. She believed in "moneterism" (a phrase which seems to have disappeared). The first two years of her rule were met with a huge fiscal squeeze and spiralling unemployment. Thatcher despised socialism and sought about taking an axe to the low hanging branches on the tree of social government. What people don't appreciate about Thatcher was that she was firstly a pragmatist (most successful Tories are). She kept well away from the NHS and when she was looking to privatise, she picked off easy targets and by doing mass share offers that made the ordinary man a few quid, she made herself popular. The targets for privatisation were carefully picked. They were not picked for ideological value, but for the likelyhood of success. BT was the first. It was clear to all that Telecomunnincations needed deregulation. I don't think anyone can argue that privatising BT was successful. In this day and age, the concept of waiting three months for a telephone line is uniimaginable. However harsh, Thatchers medicine for the economy eventually worked. The economy was booming within ten years, Harry Enfield parodying Thatchers children with his Loadsamoney character.

Unlike Thatcher, Cameron doesn't seem to have a coherent plan or too many answers. The British economy has many structural issues to address, government debt, welfare dependency and a money supply crisis for small business. The economy has returned to strong growth in the last year, but oddly this even confounded George Osborne's own predictions from this time last year. There have been huge cuts to the benefits system, but so far this has had no effect on government debt. Unlike the Thatcher "Loadsamoney" boom, this recovery shows no signs of ending up in the pockets of anyone apart from rich bankers who started the problems. Like Thatcher, Cameron seems to like the idea of privatisation, however unlike Thatchers BT privatisation, he didn't see the Post Office privatisation as an opportunity to make the ordinary working man a bit better off. There was no TV campaign to persuade us all to buy shares and pocket a few quid. Wheras Thatcher always knew what she was doing, Cameron gives off the air of bending with the wind. I was talking to an economist, who was explaining that the most successful economic policy of the coalition was raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. He pointed out that this was actually one of the policies the Lib Dems brought to the table. No one seems to know what the basis for Camerons economic vision is. Least of all David Cameron. Unlike Thatcher, we suspect that Cameronism is a byword for bending with the wind.

Europe.

Perhaps the biggest misconception of people who haven't studied Thatcher is the concept that she was "anti European". This is complete baloney. She never advocated withdrawal. She signed every treaty put before her, most notably the single European act. This is the single most important pro euro piece of legislation. She never advocated a referendum. Thatcher recognised that the UK had to be "in the club" or our vital interests would have no protection from our European neighbours. She was a total pragmatist. She realised that the European commission was  democracy free zone, dedicated only to making itself ever more powerful. Her strategy was to limit the power of the commission in the UK as far as possible and to get the best deal possible for the UK in fiscal terms. She had no interest at all in the smooth running of Europe, she couldn't care less. She wanted free access to trade markets and as little European interference in UK affairs as she could manage. She also wanted the UK to keep as much of our cash as possible. That was her method for dealing with our EU partners. She was single minded and once they got over the initial shock, they found that they simply had to horse trade with Thatcher. To give her her dues, she was probably  the most effective UK Prime minister in protecting our interests.

Cameron suffers from a complete lack of authority in his party. Whatever he says on the Europe issue, no one believes him. He has made himself a hostage to the right wing of his party with his pronouncements, without actually buying himself any bargaining power. As with many issues, Cameron needs the Lib Dems to keep him afloat so he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. As a result he has no policy on Europe. Who knows what Camerons true position of UK membership of the EU is. Does he see any benefit? He is too scared to actually say so. Does he want to pull out? He is again too scared to say so. We expect some sort of Leadership from Cameron, but we get none at all. Our EU partners see Cameron as a man of straw, because they know he has no authority.

Social Responsibility.
Thatcher famously stated that "there is no such thing as society". She passionately believed that the UK was simply a group of millions of individuals and that we only cooperated with each other because it suited us to do so. She despised anything "co-operative". She saw no value in community and her response to the miners strike, which completely polarised the country exemplified this. Thatcher once commented that any man in his thirties on a bus was a failure. For her, the concept of having to share your personal space with a bunch of other bus passengers was an anathma. She believed that social care should simply be an act of personal charity. She despised other Tories who viewed the weaker members of society as people and people who required care. She referred to such Tories as "Wets". She despised them more than she despised Socialists and viewed them as the real enemy.

Again with Cameron, no one knows what his policy on social responsibility really is. Following the death of his disabled son, he gave interviews praising the NHS. I for one felt that given his experiences, there is no way he'd let the NHS come to harm as Prime Minister. I thought he'd see the value in what it offers. Being fair to Cameron, the NHS has had its budget ring fernced. Given the cuts elsewhere, it has to be conceded that he has shown a degree more care than may have been expected. This is perhaps the only area where Cameron has shown any social concern. The changes to the Benefit system have been cruel. The "bedroom tax" has caused real unhappinees and hardship for many. I cannot see how penalising families when a child goes to college can possibly be seen as socially fair. The rise in food banks is the most tangible sign that Cameron doesn't care. It is odd that even with Thatcher despising social responsibility, we never saw a mushrooming of food banks in the way we see today.

The working class.
Thatcher believed that the working class by and large wanted to become middle class. She believed that there were large numbers of votes to be had on council estates. She believed that the British working man was aspirational. She designed policies to try and tap into this belief. The two keynote policies were selling council houses to their owners, with the right to buy and the popularist share issues, with attendent advertisng campaigns. Millions took advantage of these policies and they voted Tory to show their appreciation. Labour never really got to grips with this assault on their core vote. This failure kept them in opposition for 17 years. Thatcher created a whole new subgenre of Tory voters.

Cameron just doesn't get the working class at all. I think it is probably fair to say they don't get him either. Wheras Thatcher always kept this group in the corner of her eye, to Cameron they are invisible. Thatcher ensured every budget in her raign always threw this group a bone of some sort, even if that was taken away elsewhere. Cameron and his buddies from the poshest public schools don't see this, so they don't know where to start. Cameron was widely expected to sweep the board at the last election. I believe the reason he failed so miserably was because he had no policy that talked to this group. Thatcher always recognised that there were working people who wanted to own their own homes, run a car and go on a holiday abroad. Cameron doesn't talk to these people. It is there children who have borne the brunt of the hike in student fees. It is them who have been fleeced by utility companies. It is them whos parents are hardest hit by cuts to Council Social care budgets.

Summary.
Whilst researching this blog, the Barnet Eye was struck by the fact that when you compare Thatcher to Cameron, the differences are huge. What is perhaps the most difficult thing to quantify is how the influence of the Lib Dems has tempered the policies of Cameron. We have to conclude that without the input from his coalition partners, Cameron would without doubt have been more harsh and more right wing. The Barnet eye believes that the Lib Dems have given Camerons uber right machine a small figleaf of social responsibility. We also believe that the influence of Vince Cable, an economist by trade, has managed to inject some sanity into the regime's economic agenda. It is impossible to be sure, but we believe that the economy would not be in recovery without this injection of sanity. The one thing we must give Cameron credit for, which I doubt Thatcher could ever have achieved is that he has managed to hold together a coalition for nearly four years of two very different parties. Whatever his faults, the UK is now experiencing strong growth, bucking the trend of the rest of Europe. I believe that Cameron is actually lucky that he has the Lib Dems as his partners. It gives him an excuse for all his errors and it gives him a safety catch on his most right wing nutcases. If Cameron loses the next election and a Milliband regime takes over, I suspect that this will be seen as a massive achievement. If the Tories win a majority, I would not be in the least surprised to see Cameron dumped in a palace coup, and replaced. Lets face it, if they could stab Lady Margaret in the back, having delivered three stunning election victories and an economic boom, why on earth would they persist with "Dave", who the vast majority of them despise.

Ten policies which could win David Cameron the next election

I am not a Conservative and I believe that David Cameron is destined to lose the next election. I do however believe that he could turn his fortunes around and regenerate the country by adopting ten policies which would completely pull the rug out from under the Labour Party.  The economy is  in a mess and these measures would put a kick back into it. The only drawback is that they have to be done now, or it will be too late.

1. Cut fuel duty. The alleged reason for hiking fuel duty was to cut greenhouse gas emission. As the economy nosedives, this is stifling growth. We should adopt longer term measures to encourage green technology rather than this anti growth tax. This will make a huge difference to

2. Cut VAT to 15%. This will put cash in everyones pockets and help get the economy off its knees. Growth will fill the revenue gaps.

3. Renationalise the Railways. The franchise system is a nightmare. Profits go to private companies and taxpayer funded subsidies line shareholder profits. It is a complete joke. Nationalising the network would allow the public purse to benefit from the cash being poured into the infrastructure.

4. Build Boris Island airport ASAP. Heathrow is a dead end. It is in the wrong place and has reached the maximum capacity for the area without ruining millions of peoples lives. Cameron needs to be brave.

5. Cut Bureaucracy from the NHS. In the 1970's the organisation was based on clinicians, nurses and medical need. Now it is awash with adminstrators, accountants and managers. Get rid of them and get back to a system based on care. It would save a fortune.

6. Clamp down on consultants in local government. Barnet Council has wasted millions on consultants who have so far delivered no tangible benefits. They are all on tax effiecient contracts. Ban local aithorities from employing temps for more than six months. Stop this merry go round of jobs.

7. Cut business rates for start up businesses for three months. Encourage entreprenuers.

8. Remove Employers NI contributions for six months for new jobs. Give firms breathing space to take on staff.

9. Give the mayor of London responsibility for setting parking policy in High Streets. This is too important to be run by incompetent local authorities.

10. Set up a government backed care scheme for the elderly, allowing for equity swap arrangements, to allow people to be cared for in their own homes and give relatives tax breaks for care provision.


I believe all of the above measures would prove extremely popular and would improve the lives of people affected by the measures in a big way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't normally blog about National Issues, but if I do not reach my sponsorship target of £500 for the Age UK 10K run on 10th March, I will be quitting blogging, so I thought you may like to know my views on the subject before then. If you wish to see me carry on blogging click this link to donate some cash - http://www.justgiving.com/RogT

Mike Freer and Matthew Offord will pay the price for One Barnet in 2015

First, lets consider the next general election, likely to be held in 2015. The London Borough of Barnet has three Parliamentary constituencies. Two are mrginals. Hendon is one of the most marginal seats in the country. Matthew Offord MP won in 2010 with a majority of 105, taking the seat from Labours Andrew Dismore. Mike Freer MP in Finchley had a slightly easier run in Finchley. The incumbent Labour MP, Rudy Vaz was unwell and standing down. If the Conservatives are to triumph in 2015, they need to retain both seats. If they don't, the chances are, they will not form part of the next Government. Prior to the election, both MP's were influential members of the Council. Mike Freer was the man who brought in the consultants and initiated the One Barnet program four years ago. Matthew Offord was the deputy leader. Until recently, Matthew Offords support for the project was ambiguous, but he came off the fence recently to try and bully Mill Hill Councillor, Sury Khatri into supporting the project. Khatri had stated that One Barnet had no democratic mandate as not a single word was mentioned of it in the Conservative manifesto. Offords unequivocable support (in private) for the project cannot be in doubt. So what have  Freer and Offord unleashed? The sad truth is that nobody really knows, because we are denied any democratic scrutiny. The One Barnet project talks of a new relationship with residents. This is true, the relationship is one where we are allowed to see nothing at all and all decisions are made behind closed doors, all the key discussions are had in private and woe betide anyone who asks. Friendly Tory Councillors have told me that the leadership of the Party hit the roof when Khatri's email was leaked to the press. Why? Because it exposed the truth. So who is worried about One Barnet and why?

There are many very reasonable people in the London Borough of Barnet who have doubts about the One Barnet program. If you are a reasonable, open minded person, then I ask you to consider the following facts.

You may not like me, this blog, the Trades Unions, the Labour Party or even the way Barnet Council runs its services at the moment. You may think the Council could be far more efficient and needs shaking up. You may have voted Conservative at the last Council election, because you bought into their promise to keep council tax low. If some of these statements apply to you, then you are likely to be one of the people who Mike Freer and Matthew Offord need to support them to ensure they retain the seat. The question you have to ask yourself is whether you should support people who have lobbied, behind closed doors, for a process which is of huge benefit to multi national companies, but exposes you to huge financial risk.

You may wonder how getting private companies to supply services exposes you to financial risk? Well the answer is actually quite simple. At present, the Council runs the departments. If the council identifies ways to make those departments more efficient, then the taxpayer sees the benefits. If the departments don't perform, then democratically elected councillors can be contacted and the council can be held to account. If the government cuts the grants to the council, then the council can trim staff and close services. Once One Barnet comes into force, contracts are signed and all of the rules change. If the contractor sacks staff and pays new staff less, the savings do not come to the council, they become profits for the company and are paid to shareholders. If the company does not perform, councillors can do nothing, because the contract governs management of the agreement. Then the biggest risk. If the government chops budgets, the council still has to pay the contractors what the contract says. Not only that, but the contracts are for ten years. We may be paying for services which are wholly redundant. Think how much the world has changed in ten years. In 2002, there was no Facebook or Twitter. The first iPhone wouldn't be launched for another five years. The iPad hadn't been thought of. Gordon Brown was the "Iron Chancellor" declaring his love for prudence. Ken Bates was running Chelsea and Manchester City were languishing in the doldrums, dreaming of "mid table mediocrity" as an aspiration. The point is a lot changes in ten years, especially in service provision and IT. In short we are signing up companies for years on end, knowing nothing of what will actually be happening in five years, let alone ten. The contracts are worth between £500 million and a billion pounds.

What is likely to happen? Well Barnet has a reputation for mismanaging contractors. Regular readers of this blog will be well aware of all manner of problems. Barnet council claimed all of these problems were historic, but the first big One Barnet outsourcing project was parking control and that has gone completely pear shaped. On a £15 million project there is currently a reported £1 million deficit. A similar 7.5% variance on budget is £75 million on a billion pounds. That money will have to be found from Barnet taxpayers. We only have figures since April for NSL. If we look at the first big "Mike Freer" It project, it was the SAP purchasing system. It was meant to cost £6 million and ended up costing four times that. If One Barnet goes that way, we could be faced having to find between £2-£4 Billion which is between £6-£13,000 per person in Barnet.

The Leader of the Council claimed at a recent meeting that "people were speculating" about the scale of the risk. The reason we are speculating is because the Council refuses to share any of the documents. Their mantra is "trust us". Whilst One Barnet contracts will be signed, sealed and delivered by 2015, when the next election takes place, the fallout from the project will not be. Whatever happens, I have seen before my own eyes how the One Barnet project has energised the people of Barnet into action. When I started blogging in 2008, nobody was talking about outsourcing and One Barnet. Now everyone is. Mike Freer and Matthew Offord have a strategy for winning in 2015. If One Barnet works, they will take the credit and if it fails they will say "nothing to do with us guv'nor" even though they were the people who initiated the project.

Whatever happens, I believe that One Barnet is a reckless gamble. If Mike Freer and Matthew Offord had invested £1 billion at Ladbrokes on Norwich to beat Manchester United on Saturday, they would have made a five billion pound profit. They would have, at a stroke, solved all of Barnets financial problems. That would not make it wise, prudent or sensible.

I do not believe local authorities should gamble with taxpaers money. I don't believe the Conservative voters of Barnet would either (if the Council trusted them with the truth). That is why I believe that Freer and Offord will be kicked out in 2015. If the election of 2015 is as tight as I expect it to be, David Cameron may well rue the day he chose to let Barnet run riot with our money. Eric Pickles take note. Looney leftie councils did for Labour in the 1970's and 1980's. Barnet is the rabid right, be warned.

Why the Tories should sack Cameron and appoint Boris ASAP

Regular readers of this blog will be shocked at what I have to say or wonder if it is some sort of bizarre joke. As it's not Friday, I can assure you it isn't. I take no pleasure in writing this, but sometimes you have to face reality and speak the truth. The UK is faced with a massive economic crisis. It is 100% clear that David Cameron and George Osborne have not got a clue how to address it. That would be bad enough, but they seem to be hell bent on a set of policies which will drive the UK into a steeper decline.

Every Conservative I've spoken to recently has acknowledged three facts

1) Cameron isn't up to the job
2) Osborne hasn't got a clue what he's doing
3) The undynamic duo haven't got a clue what to do next

Cameron and Osborne have a mantra that there is "no plan b". Well there damn well should be, because plan A clearly isn't working. What is even more bizarre is the fact that there are a whole raft of highly unpopular policies which run counter to Tory mainstream thinking and are alienating huge swathes of Tories in their heartlands. To name but a few

* HS2 Rail link
* Heathrow Expansion
* Police cuts

They cannot blame these policy disasters on the Lib Dems. In fact, there are no policy disasters that they can realistically blame on the Lib Dems at the moment. Many Tories mumble that if there wasn't a coalition things would be better, but they can't name a single economic policy of the government that they can blame th Lib Dems for. They hate the Lib Dems for the fact that they are pro European, but even the most die hard Tories doubt that the policies towards the EU would be any different if Cameron had a majority.

Even more worrying is the fact that Cameron and his cronies seem to have no connection with ordinary families. This first became apparent when he failed to win a majority in 2010. Gordon Brown was as popular as the Pox, but Cameron couldn't even get a majority, despite Brown and Bust. The reason was clear, he was Tony Blair without the brains. Whatever one may think of Blair, he instinctively read the electorate correctly, that is why he won three terms. Labourites hated Blair for his lack of ideology and Tories hated him for spanking them three times. The electorate loved him. That was why he won. These days it is hard to find anyone with a good word for Blair, but when he was Prime Minister, we knew who was in charge and we knew that he had credibility. Blair made monumental cock ups, the greatest of which was his support (a la dodgy dossier) for the Iraq war, but he was a proper prime minister who won elections. I was not a Blairite, but like millions of others, I voted for him three times, because he was clever enough to ensure that he seemed like the least worst option.

Which brings us back to Cameron. The Tories have to ask themselves "Is Cameron likely to be the people's choice as least worst option?" Well he wasn't when Labour were lead by Gordon Brown in the middle of a massive economic crisis. Given that Cameron and Osborne have created an economic crisis of their own, they convince no one. Labour have a rather unconvincing leader of their own in Ed Milliband, but even he seems to have the measure of Cameron. Given the likely devastation of the cuts still to bite, there is likely to be an even more gloomy outlook when the 2015 election kicks off.

Which brings us to what any sane Tory would be doing. Cameron had an open goal in 2010 and he blew it. Who is a credible alternative? As far as any Tory I've spoken to is concerned, there is only one. Boris Johnson has been running London for 4 years. Much to the surprise of left wing commentators (like me) he hasn't made a complete cock up of the job. He managed to oversee a triumphant Olympics and despite the woes of the Tories nationally, got re elected comfortably.

He knows that the policies of HS2, Heathrow and Police cuts are plain bonkers and he believes in economic stimulus via large infrastructure projects. During his time as Mayor, he has come to see the value of a bit of joined up thinking, which is why he is lobbying for control of commuter rail routes. He has seen the dangers of overzealous outsourcing at the Olympics with G4S and has even done his bit to boost the UK's manufacturing sector with the Boris bus. Many people have derided the Boris bus as a vanity project, but it has created jobs and is far more environmentally friendly than any other similar vehicle on the road. Had it been a Labour devised project, the Tories would have lambasted it from start to finish, but Boris gets away with such largess.Any visit to the Conservative Home blog will confirm this.

The man question for us is whether Boris would make a better Prime Minister than Cameron. He has two main qualities which would help him enormously. Firstly, he's clever than Cameron. Whilst Cameron seems perpetually mired in dithering, Boris seems able to see a path and then follow it. Whilst many of us don't agree with his decisions, he sees them through. The second quality is that he's far lazier than Cameron. This may seem like a perverse attribute to label a quality, but as a Prime Minister it surely is. Workaholics end up like Gordon Brown, mired in detail and unable to delegate. Boris doesn't do detail, he gives people a job to do and lets them get on with it. He is quite prepared to use whatever tools he has at his disposal to reach an end, whilst making sure he isn't associated with unpopular decisions. A classic example of this was his appointment of Brian Coleman at the LFEPA. Boris didn't want to be associated with clobbering the fire service, so he stuck a loudmouth Tory bogeyman in charge. Colemans obnoxious personality was so overbearing that Boris took no flack at all for the massive attacks on this highly popular service. For a while, I couldn't understand how Boris tolerated Coleman, until I realised just how useful he really was.

Of course Boris isn't an MP and any process to replace Cameron would be extremely high risk, for all concerned. Realistically, even if a bunch of Tory plotters hatched a plot tomorrow, it would probably be 18 months before they could install their man. Just in time for the 2015 election. I suspect that there are moves afoot and they want to get the worst of the cuts out of the way and let Boris come in when there is a perceived upturn around Spring 2014. I think this plan is a bad one. Cameron and Osborne are clearly inept and I suspect that by 2014 things will be even worse. Another suggestion is that if Boris took over, the Lib Dems may pull the plug on the coalition. I personally doubt this. If they did they would alienate right leaning Lib Dems. Having permanently scared off left leaning Lib Dems, they would be well and truly finished. It is clear that Lib Dems have only one place to go and that is onwards on the current path.

I suspect that Boris would have most of them for breakfast. I suspect he would actually work with Vince Cable quite well. Cable is clever and useful to him. Cable knows that Boris gives him an opportunity, because if Cameron goesm Clegg won't be far behind. A Johnson and Cable team would draw up a list of infrastructure projects that both would back and put the differences on the back burner for a year until after the election.

Now you may wonder why I am backing such an unholy alliance? I am not. I think it would be a complete disaster for the UK. Unfortunately with Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, we don't have a disaster, we have a complete catastrophe. Labour has spent two years refusing to face up to a horrible truth. If they could dislodge the Lib Dems from the Tories and form a government, they could conceivably prevent both disaster and catastrophe. Could they prevent a Boris led Tory party? I am convinced that only a nasty accident could stop that. I just think that it would be far easier to stop the Boris bandwagon from a position of having rescued the economy than with him installed as incumbent PM on a rising economy. This blog, written in the week of the Labour Conference, isn't aimed at Tories (though I suspect more than a few will agree). It is aimed at the Labour party. If they don't wake up to the horrible reality which is about to unravel, Boris will do to them what he did to Ken Livingstone in May this year.

If you are in a car accelerating towards the edge of a cliff, you can do one of two things. You can change direction or you can cover your eyes and pretend it isn't going to happen. Both Tory and Labour parties are currently in this position. Sadly, whilst they are driving the car, we are all the passengers.

A lesson in life

So what did you spend the last week doing? Watching the Olympics? Enjoying the summer holidays? Maybe you went abroad for a week and were on holiday. Maybe you still are. We ALL need a break from the routine of our life, a change of scenery and the chance to unwind, recharge our batteries and have a break from our normal routine. There is nothing I like more than getting away with family and friends, sinking a few beers and catching up on my sleep. Most of all I like a few days of not blogging, it does get a little bit draining.

So you may wonder, what was I up to last week? Well yes, I was away. I asked for a few guest blogs and I've been inundated. So much so that I've a load for next week as well. I wanted to enjoy the Olympics, so I did ask for some, so I'll be restricting my blogging over the next week (unless something really needs addressing). But that wasn't what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to tell you about my holiday. I went away with someone very special who I love very dearly. She's a beautiful woman and she's not my wife ! You will (hopefully) be pleased to know that Mrs T gave the arrangement her full approval and I took two of my children and adopted another one for the week. Who was the woman? My cousin Theresa. Theresa is a few months younger than me. She lives in Barnet, in the care of Barnet Council and is a very special person. This picture is us enjoying a drink in the Riviera Sol Cafe.

My cousin has Downes syndrome and this is her holiday for the year. We went with HCPT (a charity) and stayed at Hosanna House in Bartres, which is three kilometres outside Lourdes. Our group consisted of 40 people, nine of whom needed some form of help and assistance. I give what talents I possess to the group. My role includes a fair bit of driving (not after I've drunk any alcohol, I hasten to add, as there is a zero tolerance for drink & driving - the picture was on my 'day off') of minibuses. I also use my small talents as a musician to try and entertain the group.

My cousin loves visiting Lourdes with the group. The group is inclusive, with everyone doing all activities together. It is impossible to describe what the experience we had was like. Although a pilgrimage to Lourdes has a strong religious theme, with our group this is based on practical help of every member of the team and reflection on ways we can be better people within our own system of belief, whatever that is. My 'adopted' son for the week is Jewish. He came because he wanted to help with the group (strapping lads who can lift and push wheelchairs are at a premium). He confessed to me that before travelling he had minor worries that people in the group would not necessarily accept him because of his faith. By the end of the first day, his worries were dispelled. It wouldn't surprise me if one day, he would make a very able rabbi (although I don't think that's on his plan right now).  He was rather relieved to find that we didn't say the rosary once during the week (although in the past we've had one or two who have felt their wasn't a big enough 'Catholic' element within our particular group). The overwhelming view in our group is that our expression of faith is more based on the practical and the sense of brother and sisterhood we develop during the week.

The reason that most of the helpers come is because they get a huge amount out of helping people, who otherwise wouldn't get a holiday to get out and about. Hosanna House is specially equipped for dealing with handicapped people. This means that there are hoists to lift people, nurses and doctors within the group and everywhere is wheelchair accessable.

One of our group, Helen, who has spent her life in a wheelchair spent an hour with the CEO of the HCPT trust explaining why the rooms are not fit for purpose. It amazes me that resources such as Helen are never usually consulted. The practical things such as ample room for helpers to get someone on  a toilet, push button door openers, rooms laid out to allow hoist access. I asked Helen why she likes this group as she's not particularly religious and she explained that most activities for the handicapped involve activities like basket weaving and being patronised. That doesn't happen with our group.

I have been going with the group most years since 2001. I used to take my disabled mum. When she passed away in 2008, I started taking Theresa. One thing which has become clear is that for many of the people within the group, the cuts imposed by the coalition are starting to bite. It also appears that less people generally are going away due to precious money being needed for day to day living. As I said, we all need a break. For people with disabilities, living in hostels or care homes, this is especially necessary. It is easier for disabled members of society who belong to faith groups to go on holiday. The Catholic church, for all it's faults, does look after people and most churches have appeals to send people to Lourdes, which are well sponsored. It disturbs me greatly that people of different or no faith, who don't have such a support network, are in effect financially excluded, because they don't have a machine to raise money for their holiday. HCPT do not discriminate against people who are not Catholic in who goes and who gets financial assistance. Having said that there are many people who our trip would not be their cup of tea, so many will completely miss out.

I go to Lourdes with our group for many reasons. The sheer joy which I saw on Theresa's face for much of the week was reason enough. We are the same age and were born six months apart in the same bit of Barnet. Probably 99.999% of our gene's (being cousins) are the same. Sadly the .0001% which gave her Downes syndrome, has meant we have had very different lives. We as we walked down the road or sat in bars that .0001% defined how we are treated and regarded.

Perhaps the saddest irony of our week in Lourdes is that in 1944, Lourdes was under Nazi occupation. This shrine where millions of sick and disabled people have visited was controlled by a monstrous regime who's policy towards people such as my cousin was one of instant death. They would have considered Theresa to be a worthless life, one with no purpose and they would have executed her. All of the joy she brings to the world would be lost.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who discriminates against my cousin, because of that .0001% genetic difference is as much a Nazi as those evil bastards who sponsored a state execution of her ilk. Once you  start walking down the road to saying "These people" and reducing their status as human beings you are on the rocky road back to gas chambers. The disabled were the first victims of the Nazi repression.

I look at the arrogant, smug policies of the rotund politicians, some of whom in Barnet live in flats provided by charities and I despair. I  often wonder just how you can get through to people who really don't give a shit about their fellow man.  What especially disturbs me is how David Cameron, who had a disabled son, can preside over cuts which so disadvantage my friends who I travelled with? I genuinely thought that his experiences would make him a different kind of Tory. The stories I've heard of the effects of cuts in the last week have convinced me that Cameron is perhaps even more callous and heartless than those who have not had such a lesson in life. It had never really occurred to me before, but it is rather clear that some of us can attend a lesson in life and totally ignore it.

One final thing I must say. When I get back, a few people usually say to me 'Oh, you are so marvellous taking your cousin away'. Not a bit of it. I had a complete blast all week. It was great.

Have a great Sunday. I'm now off to open a beer and watch the Olympics !

Why David Cameron is wrong about housing benefit

David Cameron has announced that he wants to stop housing benefits for everyone aged under 25, apart from victims of abuse and domestic violence. David Cameron is wrong. I only have to look at my own life to explain why I find it so. I started full time work when I left school aged 18. I worked for the summer and then moved to Stockholm for six months to be with a girl I'd met. On returning, I started work as a painter and decorator, then did a TOPS course to get a job in IT. At the time I was also playing pretty much full time in a Rock and Roll band. I then met a girl I loved dearly, got a flat and was working in a well paid profession as well as running my own studio part time and playing regularly in a band.

By the time I was 24, I had a very responsible job, had been living with someone for two years and also had my own business and a rock and roll band, playing all around the UK and Europe. Then things went wrong, my relationship went broke down and the band split up. I also had severe health problems, caused by a stomach ulcer, which nearly killed me. I ended up being confined to bed in Edgware General hospital for 6 weeks. I was lucky, the firm I was working for were supportive and I kept my job. I ended up spending six months sleeping on floors at friends. My parents put me up for a few weeks when I came out of hospital, but the arrangement was impossible for both of us. They wanted to enjoy their retirement and not have someone with my lifestyle disturbing them. I'd worked and paid tax for the best part of six years and was used to living on my own. With my parents religious views, there were many clashes and arguments which didn't help my health or their state of mind. I respected their views, but I had moved on.

After six months, my health improved and I found a new flat. In all this time, I didn't need any benefits, in fact I've never claimed them. I do know for a fact that if I'd lost my job I would have had to claim them. Why on earth should someone who has lived independently for six years, be forced to live with their parents, due to a temporary setback. I had a stack of possessions and furniture, which my parents had nowhere to accomodate in the house. Luckily they had a large shed which housed them for the duration of the period between flats.

Many of my friends at the company I was working at were graduates who moved from all over the country to work in London. Would Cameron force people like them back to Scotland, Wales and the North of England if they lost their job, to live with mum and dad? What likelyhood will they have of finding work in those areas, given that they moved in the first place? Many people aged 24 would have similar issues if they lost a job. A period on housing benefits would see them through a period of disruption. Is Mr Cameron really seeking to have people thrown on the street, when they have paid rent (and tax) for several years and suddenly lose their job (there is a recession Dave, brought about by your policies), for want of housing benefit for a few months.

I was lucky that I had an understanding employer and my family were local in London. Many people move to our great city for work and things go wrong. It doesn't escape my notice that Cameron also wants to make it easier for firms to sack someone. Put all these things together and you'll end up with a situation where people under 25 will find it impossible to buy or rent accomodation. So much for a mobile workforce.

Many Tories never take account of the fact that housing benefit is beneficial to the economy. It ensures that people can move around the country to find work, because without a secure tenure, this would be impossible. I also believe it to be highly unfair on parents. Once people reach the age of 18, children are legally independent. The government is, by the back door, raising this age to 25. Parents are already faced with huge extra costs for educating their children, especially if they go to University. As usual it is the decent working parents in the middle of the tax bracket who will feel the burden the most.

As with most of Dave's policies (pasty tax, caravan tax, etc) this really hasn't been properly thought through. If Cameron really is intent on raising revenue, go after the tax avoiders (most of whom are Conservative supporters).

Breaking News : Brian Coleman to join Barnet Lib Dems

Barnet Lib Dem Leader this morning announced that Brian Coleman is to join the Liberal Democrat Party. The deal has been brokered by Nick Clegg and David Cameron, in an attempt to revitalise the coalition in Barnet. The existing Lib Dem candidate for the GLA elections has agreed to step aside to allow Mr Coleman a free run at the seat.

The Barnet Eye suggests that this is clearly a panic move, sparked by recent reports that Labour candidate Andrew Dismore is a shoe in for Barnet. Jack Cohen added "Although Brian and myself have had our run ins in the past, we are really the best of friends. Brian and his mum often pop in for tea and scones on their way to functions in London". The Barnet Eye rang Mr Coleman for a comment but got the phone slammed down on us. Conservative Leader Richard Cornelius said "I urge everyone in Barnet to support the Coalition candidate. This arrangement is great for Conservatives and great for our partners"

************* Updated 11.20 *****************
In a surprise announcement this morning, the local Barnet GMB branch announced that it is dumping Labour candidate Andrew Dismore and will be backing Lib Dem candidate Brian Coleman. Local branch sec Avi Newon said 'in the GMB we like to back winners'. In a seperate move, Coleman was seen in Brent Cross with Ceo Tom Nathan shopping for wooly jumpers and was heard to say 'i suppose i'll have to grow a beard'

Why the fuel panic is a victory for David Cameron

I am amazed at the critical coverage that David Cameron is getting in the Tory press for starting a fuel crisis, when tanker drivers are not even on strike. Sure it is inconvenient, but anyone with half a brain should see exactly what Camerons game is. At the moment, tanker drivers are working normally. Forecourts are running out of petrol, so there is plenty of overtime to be had by the drivers. Very useful considering they may lose a few days pay when they strike. By getting everyone to have a full tank, Cameron has ensured that it will take a couple of weeks of striking before there is any real effect at all. The panic is all about breaking the strike and ensuring it is ineffective.

There is another side to it as well. One which will give David Cameron another victory. Great Britain is teetering towards recession. This is defined as successive quarters where the economy shrinks. All economic activity is fed into computers at the treasury and that determines how much the economy has grown or shrunk. One of the biggest figures in the math is the amount of fuel sales. Given that the panic has moved a couple of weeks worth of economic activity from April to March (ie from Q2 to Q1), this means that the first quarter will get an unexpected boost. If the economy was marginally in negative growth for Q1, this could well push it back out of recession, albiet on a technicality. It may well be that  Q2 is worse as a result, but as the technical criteria for recession is successive quarters, has David Cameron managed to avert the bad headlines with a "cunning plan".

You may say "why bother". Well, it's down to politics. If Boris loses the Mayoral election in May, then that will be a huge black mark over Cameron. It is clear that if the economy is in recession, after two years of George Osborne's policies, this will not help Boris. If the economy "unexpectedly" grows, then Boris can claim "green shoots" and pretend that Osborne's policies are working.

Would Cameron be so Machiavellian to spark a crisis to help the election chances of Boris? Well I can't remember a Government ever encouraging panic buying before. So as you sit in your car, queuing for petrol, reading your BackBoris leaflet, just make sure you remember who to thank, when the economy figures are released.

More bad news for Barnet - Tories Shaft Chase Farm Hospital

Today is one of those forlorn days where I think to myself "What has the Conservative Party got against the residents of Barnet?". They have just announced that they are shutting Chase Farm hospital - full report on the BBC here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14880946 - it is times like this that I think back to my dear old mum who passed away in 2008. I think of the endless hours we used to spend in A&E when she had a stroke and the countless times after that when other issues cropped up. A little selfish part of me is thankful that those wasted hours are, for the moment, a thing of the past.

The closure of Chase Farm will only add to the queues, the misery and the wasted hours of peoples lives.In opposition David Cameron had promised a "bare-knuckle fight" over the closure of local hospital services. At one point, he even promised to protect Chase Farm from what he said was an "unjustified" top-down reorganisation. Well, now we know what Cameron's promises are worth, don't we?

I wonder what our GLA rep, Councillor Brian Coleman will have to say about his bosses decision.

David Camerons judgement

The issue of whether David Cameron is fit to continue as Prime Minister comes down to one important question. Does he display the quality of judgement to do the job. I ask myself this question. Forget the phone hacking and the dodgy payments to police. Forget all of the other issues. Just consider what his previous job was. He was the editor of the News of The World. Does David Cameron ever read this paper. If I was Prime Minister, what particular feature of the News of The World would I want to bring to the office of Prime Minister? Salacious stories? A reputation for being in the gutter? When I need to put out a press release detailing why we need to build  a railway through Oxfordshire or why we want to change the way students university places are funded, do I want someone who shows sensitivity. It is no surprise to me that the country is up in arms, given the tone of coverage.

Add to the the fact the bloke lost his job in circumstances which weren't exactly appealing, it doesn't exactly spell "great decision" does it. Presumably there are plenty of people in the field with unblemished CV's, who have  a track record of doing a good job. This is the job of the person who presents my face to the public.

A simple look a the NOTW during Coulsons reign would have told Cameron all he needed to know.

Klegg Exposed !!!!!!

http://www.2000adonline.com/vault/characters/kleggs

Shouldn't that be Judge Cam??????

And as for Big Dave :-


http://www.2000adonline.com/vault/characters/big_dave

Just how useless is Eric Pickles?

Has there ever been a more useless minister than Eric Pickles? The local government secretary is possibly the worst minister ever to darken the doors of Parliament. Pickles claims to be a supporter of localism and empowering local communities to prevent abuse by council executives and dodgy councils. Anyone who has followed the Metpro crisis would know that this is probably the biggest scandal in local government in the UK.

We have sent several communications to Pickles. We have not even had an acknowledgement. Not only is this rude, but it is indicative of a secretary who doesn't want to know. Why? Because he supports the Easycouncil ideology of Barnet Council and so he doesn't want to see it's failings exposed. Has Pickles read the audit report? He damn well should. He may be all for privatisation, but if he is so evangelical in it's support that he doesn't want to know the pitfalls of such a policy, then he just isn't up to the job.

Localism can only work with checks and balances. If Barnet was a school, OFSTED would put it in special measures. As it stands, Pickles is a disgrace and his behaviour could cost David Cameron dear.

Matthew Offord - Soup or Injunctions

Hendon MP, Matthew Offord has been making quite a name for himself recently. He was asked to give an interview to newsnight to discuss the subject, bit sadly was already busy. One can only speculate as to why Matthew is so fascinated in the subject. The Barnet Eye has it's own theory. As everyone in Barnet knows, the Prime Minister, David Cameron is often known to seek the advice of our MP, whilst dining in the commons canteen. We can only speculate that the interest started during one of these conversations. Maybe it went something like this.  Imagine the scene. A troubled David Cameron is pondering the issues of the day in the canteen, when Matthew walks past.

Prime Minister : Offord, come here now.

MO : Yes sir, what would you like?

PM : Superinjunctions? What's your advice?

MO : Go for the soup, the carrot and corriander is good, as is the french onion. I've not tried the injunctions, is that a french dish?

PM : Thank you Offord, I can always rely on you to bring a chink of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy day, now piss off.

MO : Yes sir, thank you sir
------------------------------------------

The Barnet Eye wishes to make it quite clear that the above conversation is a complete work of fiction and we are quite sure that the Prime Minister really holds Matthew Offord and his opinions on both the subject of soup and superinjunctions in the highest esteem.

NHS reform

Is it possible to have a sane and rational discussion about NHS reform? Let's try shall we?

Ok, so what sort of system of healthcare do we have in the UK. I would say we have one of the very best in the world. If you are poor, you won't be thrown to the wolves because you can't pay for it. If you are middle class and you get a long term debilitating illness, you won't be bankrupted, when your healthcare plan runs out and they kick you off. If your children become ill, you might worry about how they respond to treatment, but you don't worry how you pay for it.

There is also one aspect that is never discussed. If you are stinking rich, what do you get? Well you get all the above + you get the ability to pay for a healthcare plan and jump the queue. This is why I get really sick of millionaires sticking their oar in and moaning about the health service. It wasn't designed for them. They will be alright whatever the healthcare system we end up with. I just saw on the news that the government wants to introduce more choice. This is utter bollocks. How does this supposedly work. "Mrs Jones, you've got cancer. You can go and see Dr Black who is really crap and you'll die in two weeks or you can see Dr Burgundy who is great and you'll live till you're 116, which would you prefer?" What would your choice be? Sounds like a great system, this internal market, doesn't it?

Nope, sorry that's not how it will work. It will work like this. Your GP will know that sending you to Dr Black will cost his budget £50,000 and sending you to Dr Burgundy will cost his budget £100,000. The choice is his, not yours, because you don't have the facts as to who is better. Who do you think your GP will send you to. If he sends you to Dr Burgundy, that's £50,000 less in his budget to pay himself a bonus. What do you think he'll say?

Or look at how private corporations may run wards/services. Just suppose the Barnet Eye wants to go into provision of Health care. Barnfield General want me to take over some provision of services. They give me the choice between running the A&E department or the oncology department. Which would I, as an astute businessman rather run? Simple really. The one I can make most money from. So how do I do this? Well they agree a menu of prices for services and I then look at how I can provide them as cheaply as possible. Just suppose I happen to know that Dr Burgundy is the worlds greatest oncologist and he's working there. Because he's so marvellous, the Wellfishy trust pay him £250,000 a year and he has a whole team of highly trained, long term staff who know what they are doing. I look at this and say "Dr Burgundy is charging £100,000 for a course of treatment. Dr Black in Walford General only charges £50,000 and so he's getting more business and the hospital make more money". What do I do? Do I say "but Dr Burgundy is the finest oncologist in the world". Do I hell. I sack him and break up his team and get Dr White in, who has no track record whatsoever, but can provide the treatment for £40,000. Then I undercut Dr Black. Who suffers? Not me, I make shedloads of money. What do I care, happy days are here.

But three years down the line, when the survival rates start to drop, the consequences become apparent and the true cost is revealed, it is too late. Dr Burgundy has long gone, his team have been scattered and the damage is done. What happens then? That is how "internal markets" work. That is how private companies conduct their business. I'm not saying that all private companies are always bad, or that all health care trusts will act with complete disregard for the patient as described. Of course their are SLA's and quality targets. It's just that at the end of the day, private corporations exist to make profits. If prices are fixed, these can only be maximised by cutting costs. Cutting costs forces out the best people. Where do they go? Into private clinics where rich individuals can afford to pay a premium.

I don't believe that quality of medical care should be purely driven by the ability of the patient to pay. I believe that in a civilised society, we should all expect, as a right, the best quality healthcare. This may be expensive, but if we got rid of the managers, lawyers and accountants who run the internal market, it would be a damn sight less expensive than the current system. I guess the difference between myself writing this and Clegg/Cameron who will actually decide is this. They are millionaires so the effects will never hurt them. Neither of them has ever run a business, so they have no idea what decisions you make on a daily basis to make your business efficient. Perhaps the biggest difference of the lot though, unlike Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron, when I last visited a hospital, I didn't get red carpet treatment because I was an important politician. I wouldn't want it, but how on earth can they pretend to know what sort of treatment the rest of us get?

David Cameron Special - Calm Down Dear

By Kate B ( Hangbitch) & Rog T

David Cameron tells a senior Shadow Cabinet member to "Calm Down Dear".
Hangbitch & Rog T have been analysing Mr Camerons record. Looks like this
sexist crap is part of a bigger pattern.

As we approach 1 year and two budgets of this ConDem Coalition, the
 mist is clearing and we can start to see what the real priorities are
 - and the real winners and losers. The leading players - Cameron,
 Osborne and Clegg are all products of privileged backgrounds and
 public schools. One thing which is obvious - if you put a bunch of
 public schoolboys in charge of the economy, you get an economy which
 is geared towards the boys.

 Let's have a look at the latest budget. The headline policy is a 1p
 tax cut on a litre of petrol. Who gets the biggest benefit? The old
 lady on the no 9 bus, or the city boss in his Jag? Suppose you commute
 from Berkhampstead to London in your jag and fill your tank twice a
 week? You'll probably see a £1.40 a week tax cut. Will it change your
 life? Doubtful. Sadly, for many, the £72 might make a big difference.

 Let's think about the extent to which your gender will determine how
 you fare under the ConDems.

 David Cameron happily talks about big society. We all ask "What is big
 society?" It's all about members of the public working for nothing.
 And who are these people who are expected to do this work? Is it the
 bosses of the banks (to a man, erm Men)? Hardly. They won't be wiping
 any geriatric relatives' bums for their sins. So who will? The women
 of Great Britain will. As public sector job opportunities shrink and
 care services are cut, the pay packets of many carers will disappear.
 Councils outsource care to the private sector – which pays low wages.
 How many minimum wage agency and outsourced staff are ex-Etonians? For
 that matter - how many of them are male?

 A local Tory suggested to Roger that big society was merely an
 extension of what we see in Roman Catholic churches up and down the
 country - where old ladies hoover the church, arrange the flowers and
 have coffee mornings to raise money for starving kids in Africa. The
 penny really dropped then. Big Society is female slavery, by another
 name. Who looks after the elderly relatives? Who looks after the
 children? Who looks after the old lady up the road? Many churches
 would shut down if the old ladies who looked after them demanded so
 much as the minimum wage. Sadly, this kindness and generosity is
 misinterpreted by our high Tories as a sign of stupidity. "They clean
 the churches for free - why can't we get them cleaning the streets?
 Then we can sack a few roadsweepers and knock a penny off the top rate
 of tax".

 How little society moves on. I've been re-reading Marilyn French's
 “The War Against Women” and marvelling (as you always do when
 re-reading feminist greats) how little has changed in the fundamental
 sense.

 Here's French on Reagan's Conservatism:

 “Cuts (to social services and federal entitlement programmes) were
 rooted in patriarchist theory, which is woman-hating. The idea that
 poverty is a result of human inferiority is rooted in the beliefs that
 aggressive pursuit of wealth is a characteristic of superior human
 beings and that economic inequality, stratification of classes, is
 adaptive, beneficial to the human race. This is essentially to worship
 domination. Conservatives like Reagan believe that poverty is a result
 of personal failure and that programmes aimed at ameliorating poverty
 actually increase and perpetuate it by encouraging sloth in the poor.
 This belief masks an implicit agenda on women.”

 Here we are again, then, with a government that lines women against
 the wall with the services so many women rely on – the services that
 offered some buffer between themselves and the caring duties and
 poverty that fall first to females. There are too many examples to
 count, but let's have a few: there is Lancashire county council's
 drastic tightening of care eligibility criteria - nearly 4000 service
 users will be reassessed and many will be told they are no longer be
 eligible for care. That caring work will fall to women. There are the
 daycentres for people with learning and physical disabilities at
 Middlesbrough's soon-to-close Breckon Hill community centre. That work
 will fall to women, who so often make up the majority of volunteers.

 We have the Fawcett Society's devastating, and largely ignored,
 observations that cuts to the public sector will affect women out of
 all proportion:

 “Female unemployment is already at its highest in more than 20 years
 and is set to rise still further, but the one million unemployed women
 in Britain will find little in the way of welfare support to fall back
 on. Women’s incomes will be further squeezed as child benefit is
 frozen, housing benefit capped, maternity payments scrapped and the
 value of benefits and tax credits reduced.” Employment opportunities
 for women hardly look set for a bounce: women, as Fawcett observes,
 make up 65 per cent of the public sector work force. “”The threatened
 600,000 job losses are very much hanging over women’s heads.”

 French again: “Men's motivation to shift to conservatism may well be
 their opposition to women's increased economic power and political
 voice.” Indeed.

--------------------------------

Rog T suggests you to check out the Hangbitch blog.  We've been writing this article for a couple of weeks and after Camerons outrageous comments, I had to post it today

Barnet Council : Nick Walkley and the art of complete Bollocks

So what have Eric Pickles and the Prime Minister David Cameron got to do with the CEO of Barnet Council being named the 18th most important Londoner?

First check this link (if your computer lets you !)
http://www.lgcplus.com/Journals/3/Files/2011/4/11/LGC50%20Supplement.pdf

Guess who sponsors the award? BT (who stand to make lots of money from Outsourcing contracts with Barnet Council). Guess who was one of the Judges? Max Wide, who was on secondment from BT to work for Walkley in Barnet. I rather suspect that Walkley should be much higher than 18. After the Metpro Scandal, where Barnet paid £1.2 million to a security company which was operating illegally (Barnet hadn't bothered to check their accreditation) I expect the Government to do a wholesale review of how Councils manage contracts. That will be Mr Walkleys real legacy. Not the one he wanted though.

Here is some advanced warning.  The bloggers of Barnet have managed this in a co-ordinated campaign. First we raised awareness with local activists and blogs on the left and right who believe in honest and open government. Then we raised awareness of the press, to ensure maximum possible coverage.

The next phase which will start this weekend (if not before) is concerted effort to raise awareness of the Governement. This will be done via Eric Pickles and with a letter to David Cameron, handed in personally. Oh and we'll drop in on Nick Clegg on the way so he doesn't feel left out.

If they do nothing then the world will know that they are not interested in honesty, openness and proper administration. I want Barnet Council to be the last Council in the UK to behave in such a shoddy manner.