#Livingwage will always be the minimum wage

I have downloaded a link to the BBC today which covers the government's announcement of a 6.2% increase in the "living wage".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50947097

Here is my quick comment :

A living wage is an honourable objective. The reality is wage increases like this - 6.2% (3 times the rate of inflation) - in the sectors they really affect ( like shops, care, hospitality etc) are businesses that are already struggling. Unless these businesses can increase their prices to compensate many will either go under or reduce their wage costs by reducing their work force. So the real practical effect of this type of enforced increase is increased prices (so no net benefit) and/or increased job insecurity. Brilliant !

So why are the Government doing it? The answer lies simply in "politics". Actually in "The Thick of It" type politics. It is political expediency - like referring to it as A Living Wage rather than what it is - the Minimum Wage. (note the Labour Party were promising even bigger wage increases in their xmas sweeties manifesto). Unfortunately too many of the electorate do not understand the issues involved. They think they will be better off. Sadly they won't be. And the damage done goes further than that. These wage increases are inflationary. The will put up the price of our exports and make goods manufactured here more expensive to sell abroad and they diminish the buying power of savings and pensions.

The only way we will ever be able to pay ourselves a REAL living wage is by increasing our Per capita GDP and make sure it is shared out reasonably fairly.

One major component holding our production rates back is our infrastructure. We are gridlocked. It costs businesses billions. Why is our infrastructure gridlocked ? - mainly too many people in a small country.

Brexit may give us an opportunity to plan better and only bring in people that we actually need.

#LabourPartyLeadership but will there be a party to lead?

As a vehement anti socialist I am smiling as I write this blog. I have no interest in being constructive - I am just going to make these objective observations :-

• The Labour Party in the Corbyn era has become a much more democratic party. This is admirable. The paid up members have the power to choose the new leader and ultimately party policy.
• However the Labour Party's problem is the dominant membership are old school doctrinaire, aggressive, intolerant left wingers - represented by John Lansman's Momentum.
• Historically moderate parties have only ever been elected with their roots firmly grounded in the mainstream.
• Corbynistas are not mainstream particularly as the baby boomer generation fully understand socialism does not work - as they have lived through the disaster it was - when nothing worked - the economy was a disaster - confidence drained - interest rates soared  and the country teetered on bankruptcy - so cap in hand to the IMF for rescue funds to bail us out.
• Many of the Corbynistas are young - they have not learned from our history - they apparently have not looked out into the world objectively and seen the obvious. Socialism has never worked anywhere properly. It has always ended in disaster.
• However Momentum has a grip of the Labour Leadership and this appears to be their analysis of Labours election catastrophe : 

1) They lost because of their Brexit Policy.

2) The rest of their policies were well received and popular.

3) Corbyn was a negative factor but that was mainly the fault of a character assassination by the right wing press.

Is this analysis objective?  Many potential Labour voters disagree. They believe Labour policies were unattractive  - that the old public ownership policies have limited appeal.

• Many moderate Labour supporters want to get back to something more akin to Blair's New Labour because after all he won 3 general elections. They want to fight for the centre ground - social welfare without public ownership.
• However this would happen over the dead body of the dominant Momentum faction who believe their policies are correct and if anything they have to be more radical left.
• These 2 groups seem to me to be unreconcilable. The Labour Party broad church is likely to be no more.

The other problem the Labour Party have as I see it is their leadership candidates are evidently lacking. Here is my assessment :

• Long-Bailey - attractive back story maybe - but no charisma and not of sufficient calibre.
• Rayner - attractive back story maybe - not bright enough. Not experienced.
• Lewis - a nasty left winger. Immature.
• Starmer - London centric - metropolitan elitist. Tainted by his anti Brexit role. Dull.
• Thornberry - champagne socialist. Bullying. Arrogant. Metropolitan. 
• Cooper - credible in some ways but whimpering, negative and duplicitous. A career politician. Unelectable.
• Lammy - a racist.
• Lisa Nandy - relatively strong and thoughtful. I doubt she could work effectively with the Corbynistas. The best of a bad bunch.
• Jess Philips - she can make a splash but will quickly wear thin. The opposite to Nandy. Too emotional. Not credible prime ministerial material.

So my conclusion.

I cannot see the Labour Party being able to reinvent itself as a credible opposition leave alone a credible government. They will try. Eventually the pay masters - the unions will pull the plug and some sort of attempt of a breakaway party will emerge to fail as Boris and the Conservative Party will be firmly camped on the middle ground! Not a bad way to start the next decade if you are a one nation Tory!

#UKPolitics after the December 12th General Election

It is now 30th December and I have not written a blog since the General Election - although I have started a few. Maybe I have suffered from writers block! In reality it has of course been a busy time around Christmas but mainly I think my brain has been just pummelled by the momentous nature of the General Election campaign and everything that turned on it - as Brexit did - as for me and millions of others - our democracy did.

This morning as pretty much every morning I have had an early morning bike ride along the sea wall. It was a cold one this morning - a change from the last few days. My head is clear but full of random thoughts. Where to start? I have decided the best way is to start with observations rather than analysis - to keep it simple and short - so here goes :

The Green Party - the UK face of the Green Party for a number of years now has been Caroline Lucas. She has been the only Green Party MP - representing the maverick seat of  Brighton Pavilion. Under Lucas the Green Party has got nowhere and they should reflect why. I would suggest to them that Lucas is a total turn off for most of the electorate. Her shrill and nasty politics are embedded in Labour's Momentum type left which was so heavily defeated in the General Election. She is a doctrinaire socialist who has used the Green movement as a vehicle to promote her wider and contradictory ideology which has been compounded by her anti Brexit anti democracy stance. There is no way green issues can be considered mainstream under Lucas's leadership. The Green Party should position itself above the political spectrum. We all want to be Green but we do not all want to follow a 6th former socialist haranguing us as part of a political game.

What of the Remainers - Remoaners? There is already a new term Rejoiners - which of course reflects the reality that finally Boris Johnson will be able to deliver the 2016 Referendum Result.
Do you recognise the names on this list?

Adonis Allen, Heidi Bebb Bercow Berger Boles Brake Cable Clarke, Ken Duncan Gapes Gauke Goodman Grieve Gyimah Hammond Harrington Lee, Philip Leslie, Chris Letwin Lidington Perry Pidcock Rudd Sandbach Smith, Owen Soubry Spelman Stewart, Rory Swinson Umunna Vaz Wollaston

These are mainly MP's elected on a leave manifesto / voted for article 50 / said they respected the referendum result who then sought to frustrate the leave process. These are mainly MP's who have been telling the electorate they got it wrong and were particularly telling us the public had changed their mind and no longer wanted Brexit. These people were duplicitous. These people were anti democratic. These people negotiated directly with the EU to try and frustrate Brexit (which many see as treasonable behaviour). These are Ex MP's. Those that stood for re election all lost.  The message could not be clearer. The people wanted Brexit and or they respected our democracy - unlike the bunch above. It is hard not to say - good riddance!

Change UK - a new way of doing politics. You have to laugh. They were calling for a "Peoples Vote". Of course calling it a peoples vote got the peoples backs up right from the start. The people had had a vote called the referendum. At the very least if they were claiming to be doing honest politics they had to call it what it was - a second referendum - a chance to reverse a decision they could not accept. The other irony  - and a massive nail in their duplicitous coffin was they claimed to want a second democratic vote because the people might have changed their minds but they steadfastly refused by using all manner of weasel words to stand in a bye election to reflect they were now standing for a different party with a different manifesto. Alas they have come and gone. It was no surprise. What chance did they have - led by the self serving champagne socialist Umunna, the vacuous Heidi Allen and the crazed and increasingly hysterical Anna Soubry. They all lost their seats. Vanity politics. All put in their place. The people have spoken. Of course they should show humility - apologise - but no - more hubris - more duplicity - but gradually they will fade into oblivion. They have been roundly rejected.

Ok enough for now - I do not want to get too wound up or too triumphalist! Leave some for another day. Blogs on wokeness, fascism, channel migrants and  BBC bias to come soon!

#Socialism in illustration (it doesn't work!)

I despair how living through failures of socialism Corbyn is managing to attract the young to this deceitful philosophy. They should learn their history!

#NHS Privatisation. What does it mean?

It is in everyone's interest that when issues relating to the NHS and its future are discussed it is done without misunderstanding or knee jerk reaction. Unless we can do so there can be no rational debate - a debate that allows the best solutions emerge for the very complex challenges the modern day NHS faces.

A key term and one that is often used is "PRIVATISATION" of the NHS. Usually it is used when referencing the threat or perceived threat to the NHS posed by the Conservative Party - ie the Tories are/want to "privatise" the NHS.

There is a problem. "Privatisation" is a loose term. It means different things to different people. Unless it is possible to agree what it means or not mean we will have a problem moving on objectively and collectively - something we need to do desperately.

Here is an attempt to get the terms of reference for a debate about the future of the NHS on a clear footing.

The starting point :

Our National Health System (the NHS) has 3 core principles set down over 60 years ago when the NHS was formed. They are :

1. that it meets the needs of everyone.
2. that it be free at the point of delivery.
3. that it be based on clinical need, not the ability to pay.
   

In relation to those core principles what does "privatisation" mean. There are two possibilities and they are often conflated. They must be separated.

PRIVATISATION (Meaning 1) It means getting rid of the NHS as defined above and replacing it with another system - most likely an insurance based scheme as used in the USA and many other countries. (private health care). People who advocate this do so because they believe the NHS is inefficient, too costly, possibly too big to control and too unwieldy to meet future challenges and needs. Their conclusion is it is unsustainable and needs to be replaced by a better system. That better system will be paid for by individuals out of their own money - probably with the benefit of tax relief on premiums paid. For some it might simply be they see the possibility of making a great deal of money out of a new system.

PRIVATISATION (Meaning 2) It means the core principles of the NHS above are fully retained ie free to everyone based on need rather than the ability to pay but with the private sector (funded out of taxation) providing some/all of the services and treatments offered by the NHS.

Advocates of the private sector playing a part in the provision of NHS services and treatments might argue any of the following :

• It can offer choice.
• It can be more flexible.
• It can be niche.
• It can be more efficient ie the NHS becomes the customer rather than the provider. As such it can determine the contract and what it is prepared to pay for. This can encourage/require the provider to offer excellent service/results.
• It can sometimes offer better value for tax payers money than the NHS can provide for the same money.
• The private sector is often more innovative.
• The private sector can be more efficient and offering volume treatments such as immunisation injections - flu jabs - screening etc.
• It can be a way of the NHS obtaining new capital investment albeit indirectly. 

However there is plenty of opposition to this type of privatisation. Arguments against might be any of the following :

• For some it is emotionally and/or politically unacceptable to introduce "private" (and therefore profit motive) under any circumstances into the NHS.
• It is the thin edge of the wedge - a slippery slope. Those advocating Privatisation Meaning 2 are actually aiming for Privatisation Meaning 1 in the longer term.
• It must cost the NHS (tax payer) more because some money is being taken out of the system as corporate profit.
• Private puts profit before patient interest.

OBJECTIVITY NEEDED - MY ASSESSMENT (a personal  and lay opinion).

1. I do not believe any of the major political parties - including the Conservatives - want to Privatise the NHS as in Meaning 1 above as part of their manifesto or even hidden agenda. Apart from anything else it would be political suicide. 
2. However ALL parties faced in government with running and financing the NHS quickly realise how challenging it is to both fund and to meet public expectation.
3. Those that advocate everything provided publically (without profit motive) is good and everything provided by the private sector through Meaning 2 must be bad because there is a profit motive are being doctrinaire rather than objective.
4. The NHS is still almost entirely over (95%) outright public in its provision but bad care happens (South Staffs). Mistakes happen. Waiting lists happen. Targets aren't met. Over bloated management happens. Money is wasted - paying too much for drugs etc.
5. Some argue that 4 above is entirely because the NHS does not have enough money - or even - money should not even be a consideration in healthcare.
6. However resources come from taxation and are therefore finite. Choices have to be made about what is spent where. A terminally ill cancer patient can be given a very expensive drug that might extend life by 6 months to a year. That money could be spent on providing an extra nurse for a year and would help many patients. What is the right thing to do?
7. It is well documented and understood by the baby boomers (of which I am one) that the "public sector" can be very inefficient and wasteful. They are usually both monolithic and monopolistic - and as a result can be unresponsive to customers - badly managed - complacent and self serving. Not a panacea. We have experienced it first hand
8. As a result, past Labour and Conservative (and with the Liberal coalition) have seen there is a place for some limited privatisation under the NHS public umbrella. GP's and dentists are effectively "private businesses". Hospices are businesses albeit charity based ones. Many outpatient clinics are now run by private contact (such as Virgin) - for which the NHS pays and of course so are many support services - like IT, cleaning and catering. It is happening and by and large it works very well and there might be scope and reason to do more.
9. For me (8 above) is not an issue providing the NHS sets the clinical/medical standard. The important thing is not whether a particularly service is carried out by the Public or Private sector providing any private contract outsourced by the NHS - is paid for by the NHS and is free to the public based on clinical need rather than an ability to pay. Surely the most important focus is the quality of the service provided and not really who provides it.

So in summary I think the NHS is too big and the issues too complex for a one cap fits all mind set. The NHS must continue to challenge itself - find the optimum way of doing things - and the public would be irrational to be dismissive of private providers if they can offer a quality and cost effective service (for less money.) There is no doubt in my mind Public owned businesses can be wasteful and complacent and in some situations private business can do a better job.

A quick word about PFI contracts for those that do not know much about it. Private Finance Initiatives are very much in the news at the moment. Broadly these contracts/schemes started when Blair/Brown were running the Government. 75% of all existing PFI contracts were signed by a Labour Government. What are they? The Labour Government decided they want to provide new hospitals, schools and roads. However they do not want to pay for it by raising taxes. They could borrow the money - but that looks bad too. So what do they do? They find a private company to build the hospital, or school or motorway. The private company pays for it all before handing the completed building over to the NHS/Government. Look voters we have provided you with a brand spanking new hospital - vote for us! The deal is then the NHS/Government repay the private company over say a 30 year period. However now the penny has dropped - or been exposed - which is why it is in the news. Billions are outstanding to PFI companies and is costing a fortune to service. The tax payer will be paying through the nose for years and it is the Governments fault. There should be a lesson here for all those that want to consume now and pay for it later. Sooner or later the sh-t hits the fan. Better to try and live within your means. Morally better to live within your means than dump the liability on the next generation (your kids!)