Prejudice rules

As a quintessentially urban bloke, I know next to nothing about the countryside.  But I doubt if you will find a better example of how evidence-based policy making is a stranger to this government:

Britain's top animal disease scientists have launched a devastating attack on the government's "mindless" badger cull, accusing ministers of failing to tell the truth and demanding the immediate abandonment of the killings.

The intervention by dozens of the nation's most senior experts, in a letter in the Observer, comes as farmers prepare to begin the cull in Gloucestershire and Somerset, possibly as early as tomorrow. The government's own chief scientist has refused to back the killings.

More than 30 eminent animal disease experts describe the cull as a "costly distraction" that risks making the problem of tuberculosis in cattle worse and that will cost far more than it saves.

It used to be said that MAFF had been captured by the farmers.  It seems that DEFRA, its successor, may also be regarded as the political wing of the NFU.

The kids are alright

The principle that those who are 16 and 17 should be allowed to vote is to be welcomed.  Even if there are technical problems:

The Electoral Commission has warned that the current system excludes nearly all 16-year-olds. They can only put themselves on the voters' roll one year in advance if their 18th birthday falls in the year after 1 December. Because registration ends each October, that means only teenagers who are older than 16 years and 10 months can do so.

Most teenagers eligible to register in advance – a group known as "attainers" – are already missing. The Guardian has established that only about a third (44,000) of Scotland's 123,000 16- and 17-year-olds are included in the current local council roll.

Niall McCluskey, a Scottish advocate expert in human rights, said failing to include every 16-year-old would leave Holyrood open to legal challenge: "It's potentially discriminatory. If your general principle is that 16- and 17-year-olds ought to be able to vote, these rights have to be practical and effective. If they're not, you can fall foul of human rights law."

With goodwill and not a little money, these can be resolved.  But on the practical basis that the younger you are the less likely you are to exercise your ballot, the far greater problem will be persuading this new electorate to turn up in the polling station.

Heresy

How dare they?

Explanation here.


 

Cameron channels Talking Heads

Don't worry about the mixed metaphors, feel the vibe, man.  The Prime Minister goes metaphysical:

"Britain may not be in the future what it was in the past because the truth is that we are in a global race today and that means an hour of reckoning for countries like ours – sink or swim, do or decline," he will argue.

It reminds me of that song by Talking Heads:

Well we know where we're goin'  But we don't know where we've been

And we know what we're knowin'  But we can't say what we've seen

And we're not little children  And we know what we want

And the future is certain  Give us time to work it out

The name of the song?  'Road to Nowhere'.  Appropriate enough, really ...

    

Lookalikes

Secretary of State for Education:

Comedian:

 

Quote of the day

Here:

David Cameron branded burglary a 'crime of violence' today as he backed plans to give householders more powers against intruders.

"When that burglar crosses your threshold, invades your home, threatens your family, they give up their rights," he said.

Actually, they don't.  But perhaps Mr Cameron does not know the meaning of "inalienable".


 

Beating up burglars

It's the latest attempt to tickle the Tory Party's erogenous zones.  Unfortunately, it will become enmeshed in a semantic quagmire.  The Guardian reports:

The justice secretary will say: "Being confronted by an intruder in your own home is terrifying, and the public should be in no doubt that the law is on their side. That is why I am strengthening the current law.

"Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self-defence are victims of crime and should be treated that way. We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all, and I am very pleased to be today delivering on the pledge that we made in opposition."

The change to the law, which is likely to be signalled in the next Queen's speech, will for the first time mean that householders can use "disproportionate" force in exceptional circumstances. Under the current law, homeowners are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves in their home or on the street to protect others, to prevent crime or to protect property. But the force cannot be disproportionate.

Grayling's change will mean that if a householder uses force which he or she believed was reasonable at the time, but was in fact disproportionate, then that could be deemed to be lawful.

Synonyms for "disproportionate" include such words as "excessive" or "more than necessary".  By definition, what is disproportionate cannot at the same time (or even at a later time) be considered reasonable.  If a householder goes beyond reasonable force, then also by definition it must be disproportionate.  If Mr Grayling can come up with an explanation which will meet legal requirements, then he will be a rather better linguistic philosopher than I think he is.

In any case, with overcrowded prisons and overloaded courts, has the Justice Secretary nothing better to do?

 

Lazy sods of the world should unite

Well we would, if we could be bothered.  The Independent reports:

The Tory leadership is attempting to use the conference to reach out to middle-income "strivers", announcing that council tax would be frozen for the third year and rail fare increases capped at 1 per cent above inflation.

Are you a striver?  I'm not.  Nor am I a "hard-working family", which was the desirable thing to be under the previous government.

So which party cares about the lazy sods?  We have a vote too, you know, even if we frequently can't be arsed to use it ...

Playing to the gallery

It must be a sign of desperation: to advocate a policy which has absolutely no hope of being implemented.

THE GOVERNMENT yesterday indicated that it could introduce visa restrictions for some EU citizens in an attempt to net reduce immigration into the UK.

Both David Cameron and home secretary Theresa May indicated their support for the plan, which has been added to a wide-ranging Whitehall review of Britain’s relationship with Europe.

“I believe in free movement, but two weeks ago, I visited two factories in a week, and I asked the question: how many people do you employ from other EU countries? In one it was 60 per cent, in the other it was 50 per cent,” Cameron told the BBC. “Heavens above, we have got so many unemployed people in our country that we want to train and educate and give apprenticeships to and get back into work...we’ve already capped immigration from outside the EU on economic grounds.”

Both Cameron and May must be well aware that there is no possibility of securing any further limitation on the right of EU citizens to move to the UK.  They may not like it but free movement of labour is a cardinal principle of the EU Treaties and could not be moderated unless the UK were to leave the EU altogether.  So why raise the issue?

   

Music of the week

Compare and contrast

Ah yes, Maria Miller, the new equalities minister, opts out of the page 3 controversy:

Asked if she thought topless pictures degraded women, a cause recently reignited by the nomorepage3 petition, she sidestepped. "It is for newspapers to decide what they print and it is for consumers to decide what they buy.

"That is the way it should be, and I don't think it is right for ministers to dictate what goes on any page of a newspaper, whether it is page 3 or not."

And yet, this same minister, apparently regardless of medical evidence, is more than willing to dictate when a woman may have an abortion.

As they say, go figure ...


 

Putting the boot in

You might wish to see the latest Labour poster:

Choo-choos a gogo?

So all those politicians and journalists blaming the civil service for the west coast trains fiasco may have jumped the gun.  The Independent reports:

A former Goldman Sachs banker in charge of private contracts for the Department for Transport was named yesterday as one of the officials suspended for their alleged role in the West Coast rail franchise fiasco. Kate Mingay, head of commercial at the DfT, is believed to be the most senior of three staff suspended on Wednesday.

She ran a team responsible for the finance model in the bidding for the West Coast Main Line franchise. The decision to strip Sir Richard Branson's company, Virgin Trains, of the multibillion-pound contract and award it to FirstGroup instead was scrapped after the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, said there were "significant technical flaws" in the bidding process because of the DfT's mistakes.

It is easy to label civil servants as obstructive incompetent bureaucrats and this has resulted in the increasing appointment of outsiders to senior posts in various departments.  Unfortunately, these thrusting, decisive individuals have not been brought up in the cautious ethos of the service where it is important to have all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, with decisions and recommendations to Ministers subject to proper investigation and consultation.  Instead, it is in the nature of these privateers to cut corners and disregard the fuddie-duddies insisting on due process.  And, indeed, that is why Ministers have encouraged their recruitment.

The results are now becoming apparent.

Oh and yes, I may be biased as, some years ago now, I was one of the fuddy-duddies ...

Quote of the day

By Ed Miliband:

"Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out-of-touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-of-the-envelope, miserable shower than this Prime Minister and this Government?"

   

No way to run a railway

If I were a FirstGroup shareholder (which, thank the Lord, I'm not sir), I would be seriously annoyed with the Department of Transport.  The Guardian reports:

The future running of one of Britain's most prestigious and lucrative rail services, the West Coast main line, was thrown wide open after the transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, announced that the competition had been cancelled following the discovery of significant technical flaws in the franchise process.

The news could potentially put other franchises due to be settled in the next two years on hold and will raise questions over the whole system, with unions and Labour considering calling for renationalisation.

The shock move means that the Department for Transport will no longer be awarding a franchise contract when Virgin's current one expires on 9 December, and will not contest the judicial review that Sir Richard Branson's firm sought in the high court.

In a climbdown that appears to vindicate Virgin's angry reaction to losing the franchise on 15 August, the DfT has indicated key staff will be suspended, apparently for incorrectly calculating the risk involved in the winning bid.

A spokesman for FirstGroup, which had been awarded the franchise, said: "We are extremely disappointed to learn this news and await the outcome of the DfT's inquiries. The DfT have made it clear to us that we are in no way at fault, having followed the due process correctly. We submitted a strong bid, in good faith and in strict accordance with the DfT's terms."Our bid would have delivered a better deal for West Coast passengers, the taxpayer and an appropriate return for shareholders."

A surprisingly mild reaction from FirstGroup.  All the bidders will have to be compensated and, given the costs of putting the bids together, that is likely to cost the taxpayer more than a pretty penny.  But for the DoT to discover errors after the contract has been awarded is quite extraordinary.  And who can have any faith that they will get it right next time?

     

Where do you find an ark when you need one?

Rain, rain, rain.  The Independent reports:

Seven people were killed and hundreds evacuated after flash floods caused by torrential rain swept through the southern Spanish regions of Andalucia and Murcia, emergency services said yesterday.

Roads were closed and some public transport was disrupted after heavy rains that started early yesterday, flooding streets and homes after months of drought.Four of the victims were in the coastal provinces of Malaga and Almeria, which are both popular tourist destinations.

And today it's been chucking it down all morning.

I don't expect much sympathy from my UK readers (who have apparently been experiencing their own deluges).  But it's a bit of a shock, having to wear long trousers.  But, according to the forecast, it'll be back to shorts by Tuesday.

 

Night fever?

Is it John Travolta, strutting his stuff to the BeeGees?

Nah, it's only Nick Clegg ...

Quote of the day

From The Independent (here):

It is seldom easy choosing between contradictory accounts of the same conversation, but can anyone doubt Andrew Mitchell, the mannerly Chief Whip, when he denies calling a policeman a “pleb”? This is exactly the kind of archaic, public-school insult that would flash into a copper’s mind. I mean, how often did The Sweeney’s Jack Regan yell, “Shut it, you pleb,” as he banged a villain against a wall?

Re-inventing the wheel

The Government is already the majority shareholder in one of the big four banks, RBS.  And it has what amounts to a controlling stake in another, Lloyds.  Each of these has offices all over the UK; each of them the staff and the resources to do whatever the Government tells them to do.  So why go to the trouble of setting up a new bank from scratch, which is what the blessed Vince wants to do?  Think staff recruitment, think offices, think computer systems, think loan procedures.  Crazy, isn't it?


 

Sorry seems to be the hardest word