#GeneralElection2019 a note to Boris Johnson

I am in a bit of a rush - have to get out - but I feel the need to write this - after the Theresa May debacle.

I want the Tories to get a working majority in the December General Election and for the Brexit we voted for to follow.

However I acknowledge the Tories are in a complex battle and election tone could well prove critical.

Here is some constructive feedback for Boris and Dominic Cummings :

• Avoid being over bullish. Show some humility. "Fantastic " is not a good word. It is over egging.
• Don't underestimate the subtlety of the electorate.
• For instance STOP bigging up the new Withdrawal Deal as "fantastic". It is not fantastic. It is a good deal, Boris got it against the odds - it does the job and it allows us to deliver the full Brexit the people voted for - which is the democratic thing to do. It acknowledges we were right all the way along - the EU did not want a no deal - because it would hurt them massively. The Benn surrender act damaged our negotiating position massively. Without it the Withdrawal terms would have been even better.
• One big vote winner - Brexit - people voted to take back control of our laws money and borders and to be able to trade on our own terms with the rest of the world. Anything less than that is Brino - not Brexit and therefore not what the people voted for. It is as simple as that. Boris will deliver Brexit not Brino. Be clear on that. Knock back the notion of a Tory hard Brexit - there is no such thing.
• Talk positively about the opportunities Brexit offers. There has not been nearly enough of that. We are defending Brexit by playing down the negatives of leaving. The referendum was won by playing on the disadvantages of staying relative to the merits of leaving. We need to get back to that.
• Talk calmly about what would happen if Brexit didn't happen. Imagine if Brexit was overturned. We would not quietly go back to the status quo. Democracy would have been undermined in the view of millions. More than that imagine how the EU would be emboldened. There would be no stopping the EU technocrats. We would be heading for a federal Europe and there would be nothing we could do about it.
• There are a lot of disillusioned voters. A lot of people who voted Brexit are saying they will never vote again because there vote did not count. This needs to be addressed. Their vote is even more important now!
• Stop saying the NHS is fantastic. That is a vote loser. The NHS is NOT in a fantastic state. The Tories have tried hard - we are putting more money in - we really believe in the NHS but we acknowledge we have to do more etc etc - and we are!
• I have always used this Margaret Thatcher truism (sadly might not want to refer to her at this time)  which sums up the difference between Tories and Labour. "Compassion is rarely enough - you have to earn it first before you can give it away". The public understand this - they know it to be true - it is commonsense. Labour want to give it away but they do not have the policies to create the tax revenues. This is fundamental and while every past Labour Government has got into financial trouble. Labour policies especially under Corbyn are too greater risk.
• Explain why we had to get the UK debt under control after the crash - but under the Tories public finances are now off the critical list and we can start investing again in public services and infrastructure.
• Banging on about another 20000 police is not subtle enough. It is how the police will be used that needs to be emphasised. Refer to too much political correctness that stops the police being able to function properly.
• Do not duck the need to end the free movement of people - it is still a huge vote winner. The UK does not want to stop immigration - we want to control it!
• At all costs DO NOT GET CARRIED AWAY WITH SPENDING PLEDGES - it undermines credibility. The electorate recognise when politicians are offering sweeties. It does not go down well. Be statesmanlike.
• Do not over play the Jeremy Corbyn is a Marxist terrorist sympathiser etc. People are happy to accept he is misguided , naïve etc etc - not suitable to be a Prime Minister - but they recognise in him that he means well and is probably a "nice person". Do not bully. Be more subtle. 
• There are millions of Labour brexit supporters especially in the north. True they feel let down by the remainer Labour Party. However they will have to hold their nose big time to vote Tory. Definitely not in the bag. Their vote is more likely to go to the Brexit Party. Be strategic.

More to come - but these are some of my immediate thoughts! Don't blow it otherwise our nation will really be heading down the pan.

#Dogs in public places.

I am prompted to write this short blog following this headline in the Isle of Wight County Press - the local paper.

Rules banning dogs from cemeteries, beaches and playgrounds published by Isle of Wight Council

Reading a little more - it was proposals put out for public discussion. There were quickly many comments added to the comments page. To say the debate quickly polarised is an understatement. Is there some  the commonsense middle ground ?

The pro dog lobby :

• Dogs offer important companionship and they are part of our society.
• Dogs help people take exercise.
• Dog owners have as much right to use public spaces as anyone else. (parents need to control their children)
• Most dog owners are responsible - they keep their dogs under control and clean up after them.
• Most IOW beaches have dog restrictions in force during the summer months. 
• Rules and restrictions already exist regarding dog management and responsible ownership but the rules are rarely enforced by the Local Authority ( lack of Dog Wardens ).

The anti dog lobby :

• Dog mess too evident.
• Dogs off the lead pose a potential threat - especially to children.
• Many people are nervous/scared of dogs.
• While most dog owners are responsible plenty are not.
• Dogs on beaches a disincentive for tourism. Of course some feel the opposite might be true.

Is there a middle ground? :

We have recently lost our dog. We had him for 15 years and he was an integral part of our family life. One thing that is obvious - dogs love exercise. They are happier - it is natural for them to want to run free on a regular basis. Not being able to exercise your dog properly would be cruel in my opinion.

I think dog ownership is part of our society and plenty of good emanates from it. However dog owners do need to acknowledge there are potential negatives too. (some dog owners are not very good at that - heavy on rights - light on responsibilities) (I have some issue with the choice of dog in an urban environment - why choose  a Husky type for instance). 

However I have one overriding and massive reservation. I have 2 little grand children (and felt the same when my children were small). Dogs off the lead (or on very long leads) can be very intimidating. Of course few dogs bite - but occasionally they do. Dogs can be unpredictable with strangers. Certainly scared children can spook a dog. Dogs can react differently off the lead. I have seen them form packs on the beach. Dogs sometimes chase cyclists and joggers. Most of the time they are having fun - but not always of course. Dogs can be very territorial.

So my massive reservation - unknown dogs and unknown children do not mix in public spaces (even with responsible dog ownership).

Many owners have implicit faith in their dog and offer assurance it "is just playing - it will not hurt you". They might be right.

As a parent and particularly now as a grandparent that is a risk I am unwilling to take and I do not think it is fair or reasonable that dog owners place their fellow public in this position.

My conclusion - dogs in public places should be muzzled. If this is done I see no reason to further ban them from most public spaces (just the issue of dog dirt to be tightened up on - education and enforcement).

Please see the link below :

https://www.dogbehaviourconsultant.co.uk/single-post-page/2014/12/16/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Muzzling-Dogs

This is an excellent article and I commend it to you.

Responsibly muzzling dogs in public places might seem draconian. I would not advocate it if I understood it to be harmful to dogs. It seems like a commonsense solution but there would be massive resistance from dog owners as there would be to any suggestion to curtail/control dog ownership.

UPDATE

https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/17997875.thousands-sign-petitions-isle-wight-council-publishes-rules-banning-dogs-beaches-cemeteries/

Everyone will have their own personal opinion on whether muzzling a dog is a good or bad thing. Many people I speak to who do not like muzzles, often have a bad association with them. This may be due to an experience with their own dog who became very distressed when wearing one (e.g. for a vet visit), or due to the misconception that all dogs who are muzzled are “dangerous” which leads to the dog and owner being judged. 

In my opinion, ALL dogs should be muzzle trained. Ideally training should commence with puppies, as no one can predict when their dog might need to be muzzled in the future. Any dog that is frightened or in pain, may react aggressively if it feels it has no other option. The worst thing that can then happen is for of the dog to have a muzzle placed onto its face, having never experienced one before.

Some of the most interesting feedback from a puppy class I used to run, was how pleasantly surprised the owners were when up to a year later, their dog accepted a muzzle without a problem. This was after just 10-15 minutes of the first stages of muzzle training (placing a treat at the back of the muzzle and letting the puppy place its head in to retrieve the treat) when the puppies were between 10 and 14 weeks of age. This shows that allowing puppies to have a positive experience with a muzzle may help them to accept a muzzle later in life.

If a dog is introduced to a muzzle properly and time is taken to make the experience fun and positive, most dogs will accept a muzzle very well. The video below from The Blue Cross shows how easy and fun muzzle training can be.

veryone will have their own personal opinion on whether muzzling a dog is a good or bad thing. Many people I speak to who do not like muzzles, often have a bad association with them. This may be due to an experience with their own dog who became very distressed when wearing one (e.g. for a vet visit), or due to the misconception that all dogs who are muzzled are “dangerous” which leads to the dog and owner being judged.

In my opinion, ALL dogs should be muzzle trained. Ideally training should commence with puppies, as no one can predict when their dog might need to be muzzled in the future. Any dog that is frightened or in pain, may react aggressively if it feels it has no other option. The worst thing that can then happen is for of the dog to have a muzzle placed onto its face, having never experienced one before.

Some of the most interesting feedback from a puppy class I used to run, was how pleasantly surprised the owners were when up to a year later, their dog accepted a muzzle without a problem. This was after just 10-15 minutes of the first stages of muzzle training (placing a treat at the back of the muzzle and letting the puppy place its head in to retrieve the treat) when the puppies were between 10 and 14 weeks of age. This shows that allowing puppies to have a positive experience with a muzzle may help them to accept a muzzle later in life.

If a dog is introduced to a muzzle properly and time is taken to make the experience fun and positive, most dogs will accept a muzzle very well. The video below from The Blue Cross shows how easy and fun muzzle training can be.

Everyone will have their own personal opinion on whether muzzling a dog is a good or bad thing. Many people I speak to who do not like muzzles, often have a bad association with them. This may be due to an experience with their own dog who became very distressed when wearing one (e.g. for a vet visit), or due to the misconception that all dogs who are muzzled are “dangerous” which leads to the dog and owner being judged. 

In my opinion, ALL dogs should be muzzle trained. Ideally training should commence with puppies, as no one can predict when their dog might need to be muzzled in the future. Any dog that is frightened or in pain, may react aggressively if it feels it has no other option. The worst thing that can then happen is for of the dog to have a muzzle placed onto its face, having never experienced one before.

Some of the most interesting feedback from a puppy class I used to run, was how pleasantly surprised the owners were when up to a year later, their dog accepted a muzzle without a problem. This was after just 10-15 minutes of the first stages of muzzle training (placing a treat at the back of the muzzle and letting the puppy place its head in to retrieve the treat) when the puppies were between 10 and 14 weeks of age. This shows that allowing puppies to have a positive experience with a muzzle may help them to accept a muzzle later in life.

If a dog is introduced to a muzzle properly and time is taken to make the experience fun and positive, most dogs will accept a muzzle very well. The video below from The Blue Cross shows how easy and fun muzzle training can be.

Everyone will have their own personal opinion on whether muzzling a dog is a good or bad thing. Many people I speak to who do not like muzzles, often have a bad association with them. This may be due to an experience with their own dog who became very distressed when wearing one (e.g. for a vet visit), or due to the misconception that all dogs who are muzzled are “dangerous” which leads to the dog and owner being judged. 

In my opinion, ALL dogs should be muzzle trained. Ideally training should commence with puppies, as no one can predict when their dog might need to be muzzled in the future. Any dog that is frightened or in pain, may react aggressively if it feels it has no other option. The worst thing that can then happen is for of the dog to have a muzzle placed onto its face, having never experienced one before.

Some of the most interesting feedback from a puppy class I used to run, was how pleasantly surprised the owners were when up to a year later, their dog accepted a muzzle without a problem. This was after just 10-15 minutes of the first stages of muzzle training (placing a treat at the back of the muzzle and letting the puppy place its head in to retrieve the treat) when the puppies were between 10 and 14 weeks of age. This shows that allowing puppies to have a positive experience with a muzzle may help them to accept a muzzle later in life.

If a dog is introduced to a muzzle properly and time is taken to make the experience fun and positive, most dogs will accept a muzzle very well. The video below from The Blue Cross shows how easy and fun muzzle training can be. 

#NHS the Orkambi availability issue

Orkambi is in the news today. It is a life-extending drug for cystic fibrosis. It will be available on the NHS in England, health bosses say.

NHS England reached a deal with Orkambi manufacturers Vertex Pharmaceuticals after months of talks. Patients should be able to get the drug within 30 days. The drug improves lung function and reduces breathing difficulties and can be given to children as young as two. The firm wanted to charge £100,000 per patient per year but a compromise has been reached in a confidential deal.

Why was it's availability ever in doubt given the benefits that accrue to cystic fibrosis patients? The reason COST v BENEFIT.

I would like to discuss some of the issues involved here because it is legitimate and complex debate that should be faced up to. However for some there is no debate to be had - cost should not feature as a consideration if there is any derived health benefit for anyone.

In the UK the debate distills down to this - do you believe NHS finances are finite or not? 

A CLEAR & SIMPLE POSITION 

You believe if it is possible to help someone with a health issue (regardless of cost or marginal benefit) then the NHS must offer it as a moral imperative.

If this is what you believe there is no debate to be had - or at least there is no debate you are prepared to engage with.

Is this position realistic. Is it sustainable. Is it actually as moral as it appears ? Some would argue this position is a "cop-out". It is a naïve position - a idealist one - one that does not stand up to scrutiny in the "real" world.

A "REALISTIC" POSITION

We acknowledge the NHS budget has to be finite because it is funded from taxation (and borrowing) and therefore tough decisions have to be made about how the finite budget is spent. Once you accept this reality you are faced with a "Pandora's box".

AN EASY (GLIB) RESPONSE

While I accept the NHS has a finite budget the UK is the 5th largest economy in the world. We are a rich nation. We should tax the rich more, tax corporations more - we should stop wasting money elsewhere and spend it on the NHS. End of argument. (in effect saying NHS has an infinite budget).

A HARSH REALITY (are we really a rich nation?)

While the UK has one of the largest economies in the world measured by GDP our finances are shaky to say the least.

Our national debt is £2.25 trillion (one trillion is a million million). (our nation debt is still increasing by £5170 per second)

Which breaks out to a debt of £36,254 per citizen 

and £62,357 per tax payer.

Currently the UK is spending £43 billion per year on interest to service the national debt. (this figure equates to 25% of the NHS budget)

We are currently spending £30,000,000,000 (30 billion) per year more than we are raising so our national debt continues to increase. Before the "austerity" cutbacks we were borrowing £150,000,000,000 to fund our expenditure on things like the NHS. This was unsustainable.

(If you are a parent - you must be aware the national debt we continue to pile up now will be a burden for your children to deal with when they become adults.)

PLEASE SEE THE NATIONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE CHARTS BELOW.

FUNDING THE NHS - THE REALITY

If you want to argue the NHS should have more funds you have a responsibility to show where the money is going to come from given the backdrop that we are currently spending much more as a nation than we are earning. Decisions have to be made. ( I guess a lot of people point to the defence budget - some on the International Aid budget - small beer).

Chart 1 below currently shows our public sector spending. Do you recognise one area on that chart than is not calling out for more money? Where would you make cuts?

Chart 1: Public sector spending 2019-20

So if it is hard to find extra money for the NHS by cutting elsewhere and we are trying to reduce the amount we are borrowing each year the only answer is to raise more money from taxation. Chart 2 below shows current sources of UK income.

This is where the debate can get particularly heated (political - socialism v capitalism). It is easy to say we can raise tax rates for the rich, and tax corporations more particularly the big global companies like Google and Amazon. Here are some harsh realities many people do not want to hear leave alone accept :-

• For an economy to be dynamic - entrepreneurs and high achievers need to feel rewarded for their effort. That is a prime motivation. If you tax too highly they go elsewhere to pursue their business and careers - tax revenues fall. (see France).
• If our corporation tax rates and terms of doing business are not competitive with other countries, international companies will either relocate elsewhere or not come here at all. Tax revenues fall.
• If inheritance tax rates are too high - people hide their money or find ways to mitigate their tax bill. Tax revenues fall.
• There is a world wide problem with taxing global companies like Google & Amazon. Currently we are unable to tax them unilaterally. This is a complex issue beyond one nations control. There is no easy answer to it because it requires international cooperation.
• If you put up employers NIC too high it often results in job losses.
• If you increase VAT people spend less - or use cash. Tax revenues fall - unemployment increases.
• If you increase business rates businesses struggle (High Street businesses are pressing for cuts). Businesses close. People lose jobs - tax revenues fall.

So stating the obvious it is not so easy to increase tax revenues. The only real and sustainable way to do it is by creating conditions were business can flourish and real wealth is created. (where GDP per capita increases - where peoples share of the national GDP cake that can be taxed becomes larger. This requires our businesses to become more efficient - more productive per head of population). As Margaret Thatcher  famously said - compassion is rarely enough - you have to earn it first before you can give it away.

Chart 2: Public sector current receipts 2019-20

So back to the NHS budget and the provision of expensive drugs like Orkambi. 

This is my summary - 

• it is disingenuous not to accept the NHS has a finite budget - it clearly has.
• I am not saying the NHS budget shouldn't increase but I am saying those canvassing for more money should try to engage in the debate to address from where and how this money will be generated. It is too easy to be glib. It is too easy to be simplistic. It is too easy to try and grab the moral high ground.
• Public sector borrowing is not the answer. The national debt is a national cancer.
• The NHS has an obligation to spend every £ wisely.
• There is a big debate about "health tourism".
• There is a big debate about "personal responsibility" regarding health - smoking - obesity - drunkenness etc.
• Someone has to evaluate cost v benefit of treatment. Is the greatest good for the greatest number sufficient criteria. Just because we can do something should we? Does age for instance matter? Does health in the round matter when determining a treatment. If a drug increases life expectancy marginally - say 6 months - does that off set cost? A £million spent on a drug treatment for a few might be used for a preventative campaign to save thousands! A new expensive drug shows good results and is being used overseas. Its benefits have not been fully evaluated here - should it be available on the NHS - if patients might die in the time it takes to evaluate (and sue the NHS if it goes wrong). International drug companies want reward for their R & D. To what extent should the NHS resist their high prices - if it could mean patients might benefit from their drug? 

As for Orkambi - I watched the young lady - a cystic fibrosis patient - (who had campaigned so hard for the expensive drug to be available on the NHS) receive the news that she and fellow patients would now be able to get the drug on the NHS. It was a wonderful moment. A fantastic moment. With heartfelt best wishes we all hope for the best possible outcome for her. 

What a dilemma. (It must be an invidious position for our brilliant vocational health professionals - doctors and nurses who have to manage under resourcing and shortages.)

Why did I write this blog? How could you possibly deny her Orkambi by making a tacit case for doing so?

I am definitely not doing so I hope - I am overwhelmingly for her getting access to the drug.

Restriction can only possibly be made at a macro level - but of course someone has to be at the sharp end - and it would be immoral to deny that.

I am virtually in tears now -  the brave young lady so clear in my mind. She had so much dignity. What is the answer?

One thing I would say to finish off - is it is immoral to squander NHS resources. There is so much waste and inefficiency. There are so many missed appointments. So many expensive drugs are stockpiled and wasted. The public have to look at themselves and take much more responsibility for this. Nothing is actually "free" at the end of the day. What is wasted could be used so much more beneficially - that is clear and obvious. (and the climate debate is important!)

#Brexit bogus arguements against the deal

I am just back from my early morning bike ride along the sea wall. I set out thinking about what I still have to do to get ready to attend a family wedding this weekend. A lot - blimey what a procrastinator! But Brexit and Boris's deal loomed. As an ardent supporter of Brexit and of Boris's deal I need to make this point - but I have to keep it short.

As you will know the EU and the UK agreed a deal yesterday. However it has to be ratified by our Parliament.

Like millions of others I have been following reactions to the announcement of the deal. I want to pick up on one argument used by Labour and Liberal Democrats to justify not supporting the deal.

They say there is no protection for environmental, social (wages etc) and food standards.They talk about a race to the bottom to make our economy more competitive. They are in effect saying we need the EU to ensure we maintain and improve our standards in these areas.

Evidently they have no faith in the British people (or have any historical knowledge of the creation of our Welfare State) !

The rebuff to their concerns is simple, honourable and practical. DEMOCRACY.

Our Government will be in charge of these things. Every 5 years we can elect a new government. If they have done a bad job in the eyes of the majority and there is a better option - they will not be re-elected. It is as clear as that. We the people decide. Why are Labour arguing the British people cannot trust ourselves. Why are they arguing we need other nations to decide what is best for our nation?

A simple example. Some people say the Tories want to scrap the NHS. If they did it would be political suicide. They would never be re elected because the NHS is held as such a valued institution by the British people. It is not going to happen. In fact the reverse is true. Tories will not get re-elected unless they are seen to be striving to improve the NHS.

The whole point of Brexit is we take back control. We govern ourselves. The people elect the government in our democracy. If their policies and priorities are not what the people want they will not be re-elected as a government by the people!

The issue of immigration is similarly answered. If the UK has a shortage of labour or want to respond to a humanitarian need the UK government is in charge. We decide what is best for our nation. If the people do not like the direction the government is taking they will be thrown out at the next general election. This is democracy in action. (politicians keep an eye on opinion polls)

Finally the issue of consent in Northern Ireland. The deal gives Stormont (the NI parliament) the right to decide every 4 years if they want to continue with the agreed customs arrangements set out in the deal. Under the deal this will be decided by simple majority. The DUP in effect want a veto - by requiring a higher threshold ( say a 2/3rds majority). This is not democratic. A simple majority seems reasonable to me. The people of Northern Ireland decide. They have the power by determining who they elect. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Lets hope Boris's deal is carried. It should be. It gives us back full control to determine our own future (at the end of the transition period) and this is what the people want and voted for. However the main point is it is the democratic imperative. Remainer MP's are duplicitous and self serving. They are trying to trash our democracy for short term political advantage and will grab any bogus justification they can find.

#Brexit why Remainers should take a deep breath and recalibrate

To say positions on Brexit have become entrenched would be an understatement. The remain position has polarised to the extent that they have stopped objective analysis of their position. They just want to stop Brexit at all cost. They just want to stay in the EU regardless of anything else because they are remainers and they must win.

It seems to me our whole nation would benefit if remainers stopped for a deep breath and looked objectively at the EU - where it is heading if Brexit is stopped and what impact overturning the Brexit decision will have on the UK.

I am suggesting to remainers their fight has become irrational. If they thwart Brexit their "victory" will be a pyrrhic one only and therefore they should stop now and let the democratic imperative happen. Everyone will be better off if they do.

Why irrational? Why pyrrhic?

Put simply irrational because remainers seem to believe they can overturn Brexit and the status quo will be resumed ie we will back to where we were pre referendum.

And a pyrrhic victory only - because we will not be returning to a status quo - far from it. Our future will be diminished and bleaker for generations to come.

Some meat on the bones of these assertions!

Point one. Like it or not - however it is achieved - if Brexit is overturned a very significant number of people who voted to leave the EU will feel cheated. They will feel democracy has been thwarted. They will feel the gloves are off. No longer will it be necessary to respect and uphold a democratic decision if we do not like it. Massive damage will have been done to our democratic system - a system that until now has held our disparate society together. And what of our international reputation? The UK ignored a democratic decision. The UK a bastion of democracy. No longer will we be able to take democracy out into the world with credibility. So not back to the status quo. Democracy will be diminished in the UK going forward and people should be very troubled about that.

Point two. We will be returning to the EU in effect to resume where we left off pre referendum. Are you joking?

Europhiles will see this as a great victory for their project. They would have demonstrated it is impossible to leave. They will be hugely empowered. There will be no stopping their ambition to move to a federal Europe. We no longer will be able to be a brake on EU integration - no longer will they allow us to be semi detached. With majority voting we will be over run. Unelected anti democrats like Verhofstadt and Junker will be lording it as Kings and Emperors. Macron will be rubbing our noses in it. Billions more guaranteed for French farmers - and of course no holds barred on free movement now!

Point three - do you want to live in a society where deceitful, duplicitous people like Soubry, Grieve, Lucas, Swinton, Wollaston, Allen, Major, Thornberry, Blair, Adonis and Campbell etc have prevailed over 17.4 million leave voters. I don't. They CANNOT be allowed to get away with it. What sort of society will we be if they do?! Our national self esteem will be on the floor. That will greatly impoverish us for generations.

So there could hardly be more at stake. Fortunately plenty of people realise that and I am confident Leave will prevail but I despise those that are fighting against the democratic imperative of the referendum leave vote. History will treat them harshly because they are duplicitous and anti democratic and in many cases no more than an EU 5th column and therefore traitors. Shame on them.