Progress! Who needs failure? @ No 10

Yesterday on BBC television, commenting on the latest UK borrowing figures, a certain David 'Hairy-Eyebrows' Gauke MP for South West Hertfordshire and Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury spoke out. He said that

"we have made some progress in reducing borrowing but we've still got a long way to go".

http://www.politicshome.com

As I was listening to 'Hairy-Eyebrows' Gauke, Arturo pointed to a Telegraph headline in the Finance section that said:

UK public borrowing rises in December threatening AAA rating: Britain's government borrowed more than expected in December, which could lead to Chancellor George Osborne missing his target set out in the Autumn statement, economists have warned, and threatens the country's AAA rating.

The article continued:

The Office for National Statistics said that public sector net borrowing excluding financial sector interventions -- the government's preferred measure -- rose last month to £15.4bn from £14.8bn a year earlier, as spending grew faster than income in a struggling economy, thwarting efforts to erase a large budget deficit.

Nasty! Very nasty! This Coalition came to power promising to cut the debt first: cut the debt second; and cut the debt third! Yet what do we discover? Halfway through their term in office:

borrowing excluding financial interventions amounted to £106.5bn in the first nine months of financial year 2012/13, which was 7.3pc up from £99.3bn in the corresponding period in 2011/12.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9817511/UK-public-borrowing-rises-in-December-threatening-AAA-rating.html

The BBC News web site had more details on the figures:

The broader public sector net borrowing measure - which includes the cost of bailing out the UK's banks - rose to £13.2bn in December from £12.6bn a year ago.

The UK's total public sector net debt, excluding the cost of bank support, is now £1.11 trillion, or 70.7% of GDP.

All three of the major credit ratings agencies now have the UK's AAA rating on negative outlook, meaning they could downgrade its rating if performance deteriorates.

The news on public sector finances comes days before economic growth (GDP) figures are expected to show the economy contracted in the final three months of 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21141201

Some progress!!! "If this is progress, Butch, mi old pal, who needs failure?" Arturo asked.

Richard Evans in the Telegraph had one final layer of icing for the 'progress' cake made by the Coalition. He wrote:

Government texts to encourage part-timers to work longer hours: Part-time workers could receive regular text messages from the Government telling them how much better off they would be if they worked extra hours.

The article continued :

The idea is one of several being considered by the Government to encourage claimants to work more when the new universal credit is introduced later this year. Others include an online calculator and printed messages on monthly benefit statements.

One union leader called the texting proposal "outrageous".

The universal credit, which will replace six existing benefits, is designed to ensure that work always pays. Under the current system, some low-paid workers can find themselves worse off if they extend their hours.

A Government spokesman was also quoted:

Lord Freud, the minister for welfare reform, said: "Today we are calling on employment experts to work with us to develop and pilot innovative ways for claimants to meet their commitments in return for their benefit.

"Text messaging and access to an online 'better off' calculator are just some of the ideas so far."

Now that is progress!! You couldn't make it up, could you? Talk about Gilbert & Sullivan!!

Richard Evans quoted Len McCluskey:

"We have members who are desperately looking for more work and more hours to fill the gap that stagnating wages and rising prices is pushing on them but they just can't. So to get a text every month from the Government telling you could be working longer hours just adds insult to injury and shows how out of touch the Government actually is on this issue."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/9818209/Universal-jobmatch-Government-texts-to-encourage-part-timers-to-work-longer-hours.html

Arturo and I are sitting patiently - we're waiting for a text message from the kitchen to tell us that the scraps are ready now! Or - perish the thought - we might get a text telling us to catch more mice if we want scraps!! Don't hold your breath!

Bye

Shapps eats his words @ No 10

Arturo was chuckling as he read Twitter. I peered over his shoulder and saw:

DodgeyDog: Shapps doesn't know what he's eating! Osborne can't add up, Cameron can't make up his mind, Clegg can't think straight - Omnishambles!

www.twitter.com

I was surprised to see him reading a dog's tweet and a 'dodgy' one at that. But then, Arturo is eclectic in his reading habits! He looked at me and asked if I'd read the Telegraph article on 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps?

I hadn't! But I soon found it. The article was written by Rosa Silverman under the headline:

Grant Shapps gives confused explanation of which animals we eat The Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps was laughed at on national television after appearing to suggest that horses were carnivores.

As you must know there's been a furore over the contents of beefburgers! It seems beefburgers are not what they seem - at first sight! Or maybe one should say 'first bite'!

The problems for our 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps arose during BBC One’s Question Time. The question about the possibility of eating horse meat as a cheaper option than beef was raised. 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps always eager to answer any question, any time - rushed in with his thoughts. Like the proverbial cow - he ruminated. Whereas the cow just belches in some faraway field - our 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps uttered his thoughts as to:

“why we think some animals are socially acceptable to eat and others are not.”

Not an unreasonable thought, you might say! Most British people would have shuddered at the prospect of eating Desert Orchid or Red Rum though they happily munch on small calves and tiny lambs' livers. There's nought as queer as folk!

So - so far - so good for old Shapps! But then he allowed his uncensored ruminations to overwhelm him. He said:

“I think the answer is we basically eat animals that don’t eat animals. So we eat animals that eat grass and what have you.”

Ummm! Just think about it for a moment! And that, unfortunately for 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps is what some of his fellow panellists did. According to Rosa Silverman:

It was instantly pointed out to him, however, that horses eat grass. But under his theory as we don't eat horses, they would therefore be lumped with carnivores.

Faced with the undeniable facts of nature, Mr Shapps instantly abandoned his theory, replying good-humouredly: “That’s not the answer! I thought I had cracked it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9810181/Grant-Shapps-gives-confused-explanation-of-which-animals-we-eat.html

You have to admit that it was the 'good-humoured' part of his explanation that saved his bacon! Ha Ha!

The worry that both Arturo and I have is that this bloke, Shapps, is in the Coalition Government and a Member of Parliament for Welwyn Hatfield. In addition, he is Chairman of the Conservative Party & Minister without Portfolio.

Here we have a man who ruminates out loud the possibility that a horse eats more than just grass and hay i.e is possibly a carnivore. This is the man who aims to get the Conservative Party into Government after the next election. And this time the aim is not coalition - no siree - it's sole Conservative Party government. All I can say is with a Chairman like this who mistakes his horses for his carnivores - Heaven help the Conservative Party!!

As for me and mi old carnivore pal, Arturo, we're going mousing tonight!

Bye

No 11's Daylight Robbery - @ No 10

"I say, I say, I say! When is an underspend a cut?" Arturo asked.

"Don't know - but I'm sure you're going to tell me."

"When it's daylight robbery!" Arturo chuckled. But, to be honest, I hadn't a clue what he was on about! Then, he pointed to the monitor.

Glancing at the screen, I immediately saw the word 'underspend' in a headline which was worded:

NHS chiefs ordered to explain £3bn underspend

James Illman had written an article in HSJ (Hospital Service Journal). He described how Stephen Dorrell, Chairman of the Health Select Committee, requested details of where the 'underspend' money had come from. Illman wrote:

Committee chair Stephen Dorrell told NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson and his deputy David Flory they would need to elaborate in writing after deeming they had failed to provide a full explanation on the matter at a hearing this morning.

Mr Dorrell told HSJ: “The question is what has happened to the balance and how much of it is still available to the NHS?

“Could some of the £3bn that has gone over to the Treasury come back to the NHS and [if so] over what period?”

I read the screen without much interest - until I came to the £3bn!! £3bn!! I could hardly believe my eyes. I thought that I'd read only the other day that nursing posts were being cut; that certain vital medicines were not being prescribed because they were 'too expensive'! Now here, before my very eyes, was the phrase:

the £3bn that has gone over to the Treasury

How come 'Georgy' Osborne got his little hands on £3bn of NHS underspend? Now I know that the Treasury is desperate to mop up every spare penny it can - but this is daylight robbery, as Arturo had said!!!

James Illman's article continued:

Mr Flory (Deputy NHS chief executive) told the committee that the vast majority of the money was capital spending that came from national programmes such as Connecting for Health.

He added: “A large part of the number was underspend of capital monies associated with particular projects in the department which hadn’t progressed or progressed at the speed that had been anticipated.

“Capital monies in that sense are one-off by their very nature and can only be spent once and couldn’t support on-going investment in staffing”.

http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/nhs-chiefs-ordered-to-explain-3bn-underspend/5051767.article

Maybe, the £3bn could only be spent once! But that's a heck of a lot of spending!! And why, as Dorrell implied, couldn't it have gone back into the NHS pot?

A great deal has been written in various journals, newspapers etc about this anomaly of NHS underspend money going into the coffers of the Treasury. Coalition supporters argue vociferously with Labour front-benchers. Figures go up and figures go down!

However, after nosing about, I came across the website of the Social Policy Digest. Its url is:

http://journals.cambridge.org/spd/action/digest?type=old&category=Health&topic=Funding%20of%20health%20services

The site had several references to NHS spending. In view of the 'underspend' being presented lock-stock-and-barrel into the grasping hands of the Treasury, these were extremely disturbing . The first quotation was:

Financial problems in NHS trusts – report by MPs

A report by a committee of MPs said that an overall surplus of £2.1 billion across all National Health Service bodies in 2011-12 masked the fact that a significant minority were in financial difficulty. Yet the Department of Health could not explain how it would deal with a trust that went bankrupt; nor could it provide reassurance that financial problems would not damage the quality of care or equality of access.

Source: Department of Health: Securing the Future Financial Sustainability of the NHS, Sixteenth Report (Session 2012–13), HC 389, House of Commons Public Accounts Select Committee, TSO

Date: 2012-Oct

Further down the site, there was another quotation:

NHS finances in 2011-12 – audit report

An audit report said that National Health Service finances were healthy overall, but that a growing number of organizations were in deficit. Primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, and NHS trusts reported a combined surplus of £1.6 billion in 2011-12. Most trusts reported an improved financial position. But the number of trusts in deficit increased from 13 in 2010-11 to 31 in 2011-12.

Source: NHS Financial Year 2011/12, Audit Commission

Date: 2012-Sep

Further along still, there were two more quotations of concern:

NHS 'not able to cover soaring social care costs alone'

A briefing paper examined the demographic and financial realities of social care and how these were likely to place additional pressure on the health and care system in the years ahead. In the long term, it was not sustainable to expect the funding shortfall of £2 billion for social care to come from the National Health Service.

Source: Papering over the Cracks: The impact of social care funding on the NHS, NHS Confederation

Date: 2012-Sep

and next:

Mental health spending down for first time in 10 years

Total government expenditure on mental health services fell by 1 per cent in real terms in 2011-12, the first annual reduction since 2001.

Source: Tony Ingham, 2011/12 National Survey of Investment in Adult Mental Health Services, Department of Health | Tony Ingham, 2011/12 National Survey of Investment In Mental Health Services for Older People, Department of Health

Date: 2012-Aug

How can the Treasury justify taking the so-called 'underspend' in the light of :

NHS 'not able to cover soaring social care costs alone'

Mental health spending down for first time in 10 years

We all know that Europe, the USA and the UK are still in trouble as a result of the banking fiasco in 2007 - 2008. However, this Coalition Government cannot justify grabbing the NHS underspend to settle its debts! Bankers did NOT pay back their bonuses! The NHS is struggling! The so-called 'Reforms' have all but crippled it! Now it is suffering from Governmental Daylight Robbery - just as Arturo said!

I'm going to treat Arturo to a slap up meal tonight - I'm going into the kitchens of No 11! No doubt there'll be loadsa caviar lying round the cupboards. After all - what better way to celebrate getting an unexpected £3bn?

Bye

What a difference a year makes @ No 10

Arturo and I looked over last year's news. An appropriate thing to do on New Year's Day, you will agree. How things have changed! Or not!!

At the beginning of 2012, the pamphlet 'The Politics of Optimism' by Antony Seldon was published. In this he wrote:

It is perfectly possible to be happy, indeed happier, with the current or even reduced levels of affluence. It merely requires an adjustment in thinking.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/

"And that, mi old pal," Arturo said, "has been 'Boy David' Cameron's thinking all year. You merely need 'an adjustment in thinking' to see yourself through unemployment; reduction in benefits; an NHS going steadily up-the-creek; your local high street with more empty shops than ever - less money to buy anything, anyway! Some adjustment in thinking!"

Last year, Cameron said in his New Year speech:

I will be bold about working to cure the problems of our society. While a few at the top get rewards that seem to have nothing to do with the risks they take or the effort they put in, many others are stuck on benefits, without hope or responsibility. So we will tackle excess in the City just as we’re reforming welfare to make work pay and support families.

I profoundly believe that we can turn these things around. That’s what I mean by the Big Society. The British people have got what it takes – and the government has got the ideas and policies we need.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/2012-new-year-message-from-david-cameron/

At the time, he knew the British public would be distracted from the plight of the economy by the Jubilee celebrations and the Olympic Games. But as for tackling excess in the City!! And as for curing the problems in UK society - no great shakes there, Davy Boy!! However, what more could you expect from a man who doesn't know the difference between Laugh Out Loud and Lots of Love!! LOL!!

However, it wasn't only 'Boy David' Cameron who has failed to bring home the goods, this year - no siree - his old Etonian pal, 'Georgy' Osborne, has done his own little bit to worsen the situation, as well.

Osborne's real calamity of the year was the much 'leaked' Budget! In the Guardian's News Review of 2012 written by Toby Helm, Vanessa Thorpe, Robin McKie and Peter Beaumont, the following appears about 'Georgy' Osborne:

The decline and fall (almost) of George Osborne Whatever you might have thought of George Osborne a year ago, he began 2012 with a pretty decent reputation in Westminster as a political strategist. Then came his March budget – an "omnishambles" that unravelled day after day and all but destroyed Osborne's career with it. It was the politics, more than the economics, that were awful. The decision to drop the upper (50p) rate of tax in the thick of painful austerity at the same time as imposing taxes on pasties, caravans and even charity donations (the spring from which the "big society" was supposed to be watered) was a catastrophe and a gift for Labour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/30/2012-review-biggest-surprises

Oh dear! To go from a 'pretty decent reputation' to 'omnishambles' to 'catastrophe' - and all in one year! Now that takes some achievement! Almost worthy of an Olympic gold - you might say! The Politics of Optimism surely turned on its head!

We must not forget the third member of the triumvirate who head the Coalition - none other than 'Wailing Lad' Clegg. At the start of 2012, though students were no longer in love with him, he was still the 'almost-darling' of the LibDems. But the Lad's fortunes have sunk lower and lower and lower - gone is the smooth brow of youth to be replaced by lines of misery! No longer the jaunty step and winning smile but now the slouch of care and grimace of woe! What a transformation! Even the kiss-and-make-up with 'Boy David' Cameron in the yard of CNH Tractors in Basildon, Essex, did little to raise his profile. And now - the final ignominy.

The BBC News website has a recent article by Ben Wright & Andrew Fagg . They wrote, quoting Peter Kellner, president of YouGov,

"Nick Clegg is a toxic brand," he argues. "Fewer than 20% think he's doing well as party leader and deputy prime minister.

"Around 70% typically think he's doing badly."

"These are simply terrible figures. I find it hard to see how the Liberal Democrats could recover with him leading the party at the next election."

'Toxic brand', eh! Sounds nasty! No wonder he looks so miserable, I would too!

The BBC News web site concluded with another quotation from Peter Kellner:

"So the Lib Dems' challenge in 2013 is to find that big, deus ex machina, that thing that none of us can quite foresee, which will change people's minds about him. I don't know what it is. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20795452

That deus ex machina - an illusive thing, at the best of times, and 2013 does not promise to be one such year.

According to the 'Lord High Everything' Francis 'Weasel' Maude:

Tories must modernise or face 'oblivion': The Conservatives will be “unelectable” if they do not abandon “backward looking” social attitudes and catch up with modern society

On the last day of 2012, Tim Ross quoted Maude in the 'Telegraph'. The article went on to state about Francis Maude:

But he had changed his views on social questions over the years. “I’ve become more socially liberal. That's where the party has changed the most as well – but it's where British society has changed even more,” he said.

The next decade in politics “will demand even more” reforms, he said.

“As British society continues to evolve so must the Conservative Party, if we are not to face electoral oblivion.

“If we fail to keep pace – fail to understand and influence the spirit of the age – we will be rightly punished by the electorate.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9771950/Francis-Maude-Tories-must-modernise-or-face-oblivion.html

So there you have it - the two parties that make up the Coalition - one has a 'toxic' leader!! The other, unless it wishes to face electoral oblivion, needs to evolve!! Since the Tories are nine-tenths backwoodsmen, evolution seems unlikely!!

Arturo was giggling - I peered over his shoulder and saw he was playing some videos from Mail Online. The headline read:

And these people are running the country...

To see the full farce go to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255293/Best-political-videos-2012-politicians-singing-gaffeing-zip-wiring-bell-ringing-way-12-months.html

Take a look! And they're not even supposed to be comedians! Doesn't fill you with much confidence for 2013!

However, before we disappear to gather the left-overs from today's lunch, Arturo and I wish all of you:

A GREAT 2013

Bye