IntenseDebate - Blinxly

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Iain Dale: Ofcom was r... · 0 replies · +1 points

+1

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - George Freeman: The in... · 1 reply · +1 points

Well, he's won Brownie points for being out of the traps ahead of his two co-founders (who must surely be seething) but, on the 'empty vessels' principle I have a feeling that most of the heavy lifting will be undertaken by the Cabinet Office civil servants to whom he generously gave a couple of lines. One of the most bizarre pieces to appear on these pages in some time - and that's up against some pretty stiff competition. I am puzzled that the editor didn't, er, edit this article.

Meanwhile, here's a letter from ACOBA to Mr Freeman:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governme...

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Chris Whitehouse: Coun... · 0 replies · +1 points

The author raises a valid point. There is a case for maintaining or increasing councillors' expenses (remuneration?) and, on the same principle, there's a good case for increasing the pay of the Prme Minister and others so that they are paid at least the same as the vice-chancellor of a mid-rank university - say £250,000. (Look it up.)

But that's only half the issue.

Even if expenses/pay are increased to attract better candidates, there's still the problem of selecting the best candidates. Do we want line-toeing clones parachuted-in from CCHQ? Do we want local committees to reward the usual suspects with the usual nominations?

We have to address selection, not just remuneration.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Harriet Baldwin: Cutti... · 0 replies · +1 points

I can understand the author's point of view. Even if we kept the budget at 0.7%, that would still leave 99.3% for the UK. It's hard to think how the marginal 0.2% makes any difference one way or another, till you realise how many millions of actual pounds are involved - of taxpayers' money.

Even so, most of us, I think, would be happy to ride the feel-good slipstream of this cash-rich virtue signalling - for it makes little difference as far as I can see - were it not for the fact that it goes to fund a massive infrastructure of charities, consultants, advisers, bankers and brokers. The end result of their besuited efforts is that bespoke tailors and makers of armoured sedans do pretty well, while people at the bottom of the pile get the fresh water they need to live longer ... in the same abject poverty, ruled by the same leaders, fighting the same wars.

We give money to countries that have space programmes. We fund money-hungry charities. We make little difference. We call it 'soft power' and think it buys influence. And then we argue among ourselves when someone seeks to prune our expenditure.

So, try this: make the spending profile more equitable and effective. Then ask taxpayers to fund the revised programmes.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - If the Lords is to be ... · 0 replies · +1 points

The virtue of the British monarchy is that it is ... hereditary, and permanent (touch wood). Compare the UK outcome with those of other nations, and, on a per-century basis, the UK position is better.

As for the House of Lords ... the UK *must* have a revising chamber. Hereditary peers have to go. They should maintain their peerages, but not their rights to sit in the House. Bishops should lose their entitlements as well.

Instead we need benches of scientists; of engineers; of philosophers; of (wait for it) lawyers ... people of proven impartiality, proven expertise. All other lords can attend, fee-free (!) as observers, with freedom to speak. But only the expert benches should vote.

I'll get my coat.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Mark Shelford: Indepen... · 0 replies · +1 points

Surely the point of PCCs (not Parochial Church Councils) is to be independent, like one-person quangos. If they are aligned to political parties, they may as well be replaced by, say, Watch Committees formed from sitting councillors. That option would also save money.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alan Mak: The NHS Rese... · 0 replies · +1 points

+1

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alan Mak: The NHS Rese... · 0 replies · +1 points

This article is not only partial (as expected) but also, if I may say so, plain wrong:
- The McKinsey-driven reorganisation of the 1970s saw thousands of NHS executives taking early retirement, receiving severance payments ... then gaining fresh employment in new NHS organisations, with relocation expenses on top.
- Mr Lansley's changes are generally regarded as opening the door to CEOs on salaries greater than the Prime Minister's, with bloated administrations.
- And as for the computerisation of the NHS, do some basic Googling. Billions wasted and years adrift.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Andrew Montford: Johns... · 5 replies · +1 points

One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand the numbers. If you, as an accountant, can't follow the figures, then your clients may have a problem. The slang won't help.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Andrew Montford: Johns... · 0 replies · +1 points

... or, if you have the space, a container full of lead-acid batteries. Let's face it, the blokes in suits for whom we vote, on the basis that they represent us ... really don't.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Blinxly

People I'm following

Blinxly