Act in haste, repent at leisure

It may have been an inadvertent addition to the agreement but it was actually one of the sensible policies to afford equality of annonymity to men in such cases until actually charged.

At least unlike many of the recent announcements on e.g. health, education and policing it actually was in the agreement to begin with.

Shame on them for this and special shame on the junior partners for not standing firm on such a small point. I can almost picture the shoeprints on Cleggs face when he appears on telly.

Five Days that Changed Britain?

Did our permanent government change too - or did I miss that?

Look here Nick, consider if you will, the question of how changing one bunch of amateur front-men/fall-guys changes anything - if the permamaent government has not changed. The same Permamaent Sectretary of the Treasury is in post (as is his predicessor as head of the Cabinet Office) and these are the guys who did not see the crash coming even though it was predicted and its cause was predicted and they were told. These same guys are still running things! How is this change?

I think that it can be reasonably argued that you are party to a conspiracy to make us believe that change has happened - when it hasn't!

How was it different for Tony Blair to carry on with Thatcherite economic policies when he came to power - that was supposed to be a change too and it wasn't one either - not at least in economics.

This 'change' is a marketing stunt to keep the people silent and off of the streets! And of course to blame the people when it all goes horribly wrong, which it always does - with 'well you voted for it'!

The British Civil Service need purging at the top! Then we might have change.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Thanks for that, Nick. I will be watching on Thursday.

The Conservatives were right to consider that they may not get a working majority at the election, and to plan accordingly. They probably had plans for all eventualities.

Such planning lays the foundation for good government.

Mr Cameron has settled in to the role of Prime Minister very well, and I think the public have recognised this. He has deliberately allowed his ministers to speak to the Media instead of the impossible task of micro-managing everything.

There are two more things which, in my opinion, he should do. He should spend regular, quality time in Scotland, building public opinion and goodwill, with an eye to the next election. And he should spell out the poor decision making and disastrous policies of the previous government, so that the electors are aware of the reasons for the difficult decisions now being taken.

Hang on - so a policy that wasn't in either manifesto was drawn up across a table and made a coalition manifesto?

Now I am getting confused.

The Lib Dems wanted it, but they didn't want it, but one of the Lib Dems did, so the Tories said ok lets have it even though they didn't want it or agree with it. Nick Clegg didn't know about it and David Cameron didn't care about it.

Oh I see! ....No I don't.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Common sense prevailed then.

Seems to be happening rather a lot these days.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

nick. i hear mr clegg is on a special summer tour around the country to bolster and get back support for the Liberal Democrats after the parties MAJOR SLUMP in the polls.
thankfully he wont be repeating any of his famous mumblings...such as....
""You want to know the great political story of our generation? It isn't new Labour. It isn't New Conservatives. Those are just the dying sparks of a fire that's running out of fuel.
"No, the great political story of our time is the story of the vast and growing army of people who look at the main parties and say, 'no thanks'. People who, like me, like you, want something different.
Liberal Democrats have costed, in full, our proposals for tax cuts. We can tell you, penny for penny, pound for pound, who pays for them. We will not have to raise VAT to deliver our promises. The Conservatives will. Let me repeat that: Our plans do not require a rise in VAT. The Tory plans do.
“Their tax promises on marriage and jobs may sound appealing. But they come with a secret VAT bombshell close behind.
“So if you’re on an ordinary income, you have a choice. If you want your taxes to rise: vote Labour or Conservative. If you want your taxes to fall: choose the Liberal Democrats.”

Yes yes Nick, I'll be making best efforts to watch your documentary. Already said that.

I shall also be watching.

So a policy is dropped that appeared in the Coalition document...

Funny really, because other policies which did not feature in either parties manifestos or the Coalition document are being pushed through...like the small matter of the biggest reorganisation of the NHS for 60 years.

Aint democracy wonderful.

Lefty10.

Re: The Nick Clegg Summer Tour 2010.

Two tickets for Sheffield Town Hall, I'd pay to see that.

I may watch the documentary but could have trouble due to a somewhat unreasonable aversion to wedding videos.
So the Libs were wooed with an offer to do something that they didn't particularly want? Sounds fascinating. Or is there an implication that they would have accepted no matter what. Should be interesting hearing what they want us to believe happened. Barring someone using their mobile clandestinely at the time and sharing it with us, we shall never know. Maybe I will watch as long as it isn't too Mills and Boon.

Oh...and have they pushed through the education reforms, you know the ones being rushed through using measures usually reserved for emergency legislation such as anti-terror laws...without any proper scrutiny or debate.

More common sense I suppose.

CraigM@14
Did you catch the bit about M Gove possibly relaxing the admission rules for academies and free schools so that there might be some element of selection by ability.
Should we call them Grammar schools? Should we call state schools Secondary Moderns? Has a familiar ring to it. Was that in the coalition agreement?

Idontbelieveit @ 15.

So much to talk about:

Airports in St Helena
Forgemasters
DIY policing
DIY everything else
13% in the polls,and falling...
Brokeback Club

And this is before the nasty business starts in the autumn

Write in haste - get a non story. Yawn yawn.

Have the cuts at BBC already started - keep geeting Server overloaded messages when updating HYS.
Forgemasters story has a familiar smell to it. New policing plan seems destined to add cost rather than reduce it. Right wing vultures waiting their opportunity to pick over the bones of the Coalition. George and Vince 'threatening' the banks over lending more when most commentators seem to think that banks should be retaining larger reserves and be far more careful who they lend money to. Darling's deficit reduction plan looking a better bet as each day unfolds.
No wonder LibDem support is falling. Sounds like marry in haste, repent at leisure. Should be fascinating to see what spin they put on the pre-nup agreement. I think I will watch Nicks Documentary after all.

craig @ legs

"other policies which did not feature in either parties manifestos or the Coalition document are being pushed through...like the small matter of the biggest reorganisation of the NHS for 60 years."

It's a shocker, that one. Gratuitous vandalism.

Welcome back Sagamix. Trust your week in Whitstable was wonderful and you managed to avoid any dodgy oysters.

Has anyone costed the NHS re-organisation for Lansley? I wonder if he will take fright at this when questions being asked start to reach the ears of GO & Co. He's seen Gove skewered in the HoC - could be his turn next!

It is becoming clearer by the day that this Alliance simply do not know what they are doing. They make policy on the hoof without thinking about the ramifications of their implementation.

What a bunch of amateurs.

Gooooooood morning Westminster.......

What should surprise us more than the Tories being prepared for negotiation is how ill prepared Labour were. It is as if they were intent on not being in Government. Reasons to be tearful part three.....
1) Chance for a clear out, clean slate, new leader, after all it worked in 97. Are we about to see the birth of Nu Nu Labour.
2) Did arrogance get the better of them. Did the Dark Lord think that he held all the aces.
3) Just incompetence, rather than preparing for what appeared to be the likely outcome they tried to do it on a wing and a prayer.

So why has this question not been asked as it would appear that the Lib Dems wanted Labour rather than the Tories, it should have been Labours to loose.

Nice narrow focus Nick. Fully expect to see the board absolutely shredded by the removal of off-topic messages by the time this afternoon comes along.

Given all the things that are going on at the moment which have deeper implications, that there should be some pressure about, that the Political Editor should be asking questions about, you choose this non-story of a non-policy and a shameless plug for a programme that'll probably lose out to Police/Camera/Action?

And so long as you slag the coalition off, you're on topic?

Nice work if you can get it. The Sterling to Old Rope Exchange rate must be at a new high.

'22. At 08:24am on 27 Jul 2010, Chris London wrote:
Gooooooood morning Westminster.......

What should surprise us more than the Tories being prepared for negotiation is how ill prepared Labour were. It is as if they were intent on not being in Government. Reasons to be tearful part three.....
1) Chance for a clear out, clean slate, new leader, after all it worked in 97. Are we about to see the birth of Nu Nu Labour.
2) Did arrogance get the better of them. Did the Dark Lord think that he held all the aces.
3) Just incompetence, rather than preparing for what appeared to be the likely outcome they tried to do it on a wing and a prayer.

So why has this question not been asked as it would appear that the Lib Dems wanted Labour rather than the Tories, it should have been Labours to loose.'

Please don't play any damage limitation cards, it shows lack of character. The CON-DEM Alliance is in power now and they have to answer for the decisions they make. This is not a game or hobby, each decision will affect millions of people in our country. Sadly, their brief record has shown that they have simply no idea what is going on.

ChrisL @22
Goood Morning. Can't disagree with your opening comment. Personally would go for option 1. Renwal/rebirth/new politics very popular at present. Option 2 - politicians are inescapably arrogant but still I would just narrowly favour 'governing fatigue' after 13 years. Option 3 - hard to argue against too, although, increasingly it begins to look like their final policy formulation, somewhat forced upon them by circumstances, may well have borne fruit. The fate of political parties often carries with it some delicious ironies. The Coalition seem to be putting together a particuarly tasty buffet after less than 3 months. They really do move quickly!

19. At 11:14pm on 26 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
craig @ legs
"like the small matter of the biggest reorganisation of the NHS for 60 years."

It's a shocker, that one. Gratuitous vandalism.
=========================================================================

What is the shocker is how much money was thrown at the NHS, all be it with good intentions. Only to be waisted. As I have said before this is a subject close to my heart as my wife has worked in the health service all of her working life. I have also had the privilege of carrying out a number of assignments with the NHS.
Firstly lets get the niceties out of the way. The majority of clinicians are very good conscious people.
Now, my wife will tell you that the NHS is drowning under its own bureaucracy. There needs to be change and this change is in the way the NHS functions. And the only way to implement this change is with the support of the clinicians. It is they who need to buy into and assist in shaping the way the services are delivered. If we leave it to the managers then we will be left with an ever increasing level of bureaucracy. The motto in the NHS at present appears to be why have a meeting when two or three or more will do.
My wife is also very critical about the training nurses are getting and what they are now aspiring to do. She has come across too many that now do not want or care about delivering good basic nursing care. They have a career plan which is based on them being fast tracked into managerial posts. Only last month she came across a nurse who had qualified and had been let loose on the NHS who had never given an injection to a person. She had practiced on other objects but never on a living breathing person. The same nurse refused to assist in cleaning up an elderly patient who had soiled the bed. She had no interest in the softer side of patient care, which my wife and an increasing number of clinicians believe can be as important in the treatment of patients.

Sorry I am going to start a rant.....

The NHS now delivers a wide and varied number of services and as such needs a management structure and organisation that is up to the task. What we have now is something that has evolved and is totally unfit for purpose.

Medical advances have put and will continue to put additional strains on a service which does not have limitless funding. So therefore it should be their obligation to deliver us the best possible service by getting the most out of their funding.

This is and will never be an easy task but it must be tackled. Because something is difficult does not mean that you ignore it. Unless you are a politician or a senior civil servant that is......

And from my point of view we should be getting the best bang for our buck, seeing we are committed to giving the NHS so many Bucks........

24. At 09:01am on 27 Jul 2010, GoBetween
'Please don't play any damage limitation cards, it shows lack of character. The CON-DEM Alliance is in power now and they have to answer for the decisions they make. This is not a game or hobby, each decision will affect millions of people in our country. Sadly, their brief record has shown that they have simply no idea what is going on.'


Accountability.
Should apply equally to those who have just left as well as those who now hold the keys.
Or are you suggesting that the last lot who were renting no.10 left it in a pristine condition?

"Please don't play any damage limitation cards, it shows lack of character."

Mmm. Yet, if anyone criticises you for blaming anything on the previous Tory administration 79-97, you'll squeal like a stuck pig.

...why is it that those on the left only come out when this blog is open, like worms wriggling their way to the surface when they feel the pitter-patter of the drops of spring rain on the soil?

At the beginning I was prepared to give this coalition a chance, but it is proving worse than I could possibly have thought - particularly on the economic front.

However, there is some light relief - the governments spending challenge websites have both been taken down. The fate of the facebook one was particularly amusing. After one week it had 70 fans: then a rival was founded which got over 1000 in 24 hours - basically people preferred Gideon the Goat.

https://www.taxpayersalliance.org/news/spending-challenge-race-hate-meets-comedy-gold

https://www.taxpayersalliance.org/news/goat-embarrasses-government

So women accusers will continue to benefit from rape being a 'special' crime but the male accused are told it is a crime like any other and they must be named even whilst still assumed innocent (or are they?).

As I have said repeatedly - this may well be the worst government I have lived through.

Thatcher's economics. Labour's political correctness. What a combination!

No matter how convincing your arguments might sound re NHS, the original reason for it being mentioned on this blog was that it was an example of a major policy announcement that was not raised during the election, the LibDem/Conservative manifestos or the coalition agreement.
I can see no reason for this 'change' of view other than it was a deliberate deception which the LibDems seem to feel obliged to go along with for their thirty pieces of silver. The real agenga being the reduction/privatisation of the state sector, depression of wage/benefit/pension levels generally, free rein/help to banks/financial sector/large corporations - the status quo of at least the last 40 years.

Clever Letwin! Wooing the Lie Dems with an idea that was never going to happen.

Stupid Lie Dems. Once again proving they've sold their souls and getting themselves into a right old mess because of it.

Has this coalition done anything useful yet?

F_S @28
...why is it that those on the left only come out when this blog is open, like worms wriggling their way to the surface when they feel the pitter-patter of the drops of spring rain on the soil?
------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you say that when you've surfaced too.

So is this like when newlabour dropped Frank Field's proposals to reform the benefits system back in 1997?

Or is it like the reform of the NHS that was promised by newlabour for thirteen years but never delivered?

Or is it like the dropping of the referendum on the EU treaty that was dropped by Gorodn Brown?

Gosh. A government drops a policy... that's never happened before, has it?

'Five days that changed Britain' ...? More like 'Five days when Britain finally woke up from it's thirteen years of Stockholm syndrome...'

It's a great time to be a tory...

'Act in haste, repent at leisure.'

Not unlike your own Westminster lobby, Nick.

Write in haste. Recant at leisure.

This is an issue I take personal interest in; A few years ago a close friend of mine was accused of rape after he rebuffed a girl's advances after a night out. She proceeded to accuse him of rape, and she informed her family as well as the police. After his release on bail, her older brother then collected a gang of friends and proceeded to attack my friend in the street and beat him so mercilessly so as to leave him in a wheelchair.
She later admitted to the police that she had made the whole thing up as punishment as my friend rejected her. She was given a commmunity order for wasting police time, her brother and his friends were given a year or so in prison each. My friend will never walk again.

I am sure there are other cases in the country of men affected by rape accusations; I implore members of the coalition to speak to men such as my friend before relinquishing the proposed rights to anonymity. It will not only protect men from physical harm, but the stigma of a rape accusation will never leave some men, indeed there are stories of men having to leave the country and change their names top avoid the taint of such an accusation.

" 21. GoBetween wrote:
It is becoming clearer by the day that this Alliance simply do not know what they are doing. They make policy on the hoof without thinking about the ramifications of their implementation.

What a bunch of amateurs."

David Cameron speaking to George Osborne "This coalition thing is working really well"
G.O. "What do you mean"
DC "Well our boys keep opening their mouths before their brains are in gear, making policy on the hoof etc. and the alliance gets the blame for it."
G.O. "With any luck, people will look back on this as a failed experiment and the issue of PR will never raise its ugly head again. And we managed to keep Trident, brilliant!"

32. RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:

'Has this coalition done anything useful yet?'



Got rid of New Labour.

Ba-da-boom.

(Could be its last useful act too.)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

33#

Because its the first time the blog has opened in at least a week and its kind of hard to post anything on it when its shut.


Durrrrrr....................

30#

Born in 1991 were we?

28. At 09:42am on 27 Jul 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

...like worms wriggling their way to the surface when they feel the pitter-patter of the drops of spring rain on the soil?

Wow, Fubar - Makes me wonder if you're actually Alan Titchmarsh?

38#

How true.

26. At 09:19am on 27 Jul 2010, Chris London

You say your wife is critical of 'the training nurses are getting'

Well lets be clear - there is no one in a school of nursing telling student nurses they are not there to give injections or give direct care to patients.

50% of their training is in hospitals by registered nurses.

As you admit, this nurse has been taught the theory and practiced on a dummy - all that can be done at the school - only the hospital has real patients to learn with. How has someone got to the end of three years training and not given a real injection? Why have none of these registered nurses ensured that she has given not just one but many? Why have registered nurses signed her off as competent to be registered? - ONLY nurses in practice can do this not the university.

Is your wife a nurse? If so, perhaps she should start questioning the role she and others have in the current situation.

As long as rape is treated the same as every other crime, I have no problems.
It's the anonymity awarded to the accuser whilst the accused is named and thus has their reputation damaged well before any trial, let alone conviction, in wrong.

If a rape case results in an acquittal, I see no reason why the accuser is not then named (and to that extent, shamed).

I also see no reason (and, clearly, juries don't either) why a drunken couple who go to bed together should result in any possibility whatsoever of the man being accused of rape.

Hattie Hatemen shrieked on about this to an utterly insane degree. Rape means forcible sex and is equated in the public mind with violence. A 'casual sex' event cannot be deemed rape on that basis and nor should it be.

These days many young people have 'one night stands' on a regular basis for years at a time and *because* that is so common, it is not unreasonable that a man, having spent some time at a club, party or whatever, with a woman who is equally drunk (or has used illegal drugs as well) should think, indeed expect, that they will have sex at the end of the night.

If the woman has no intention of doing that at the outset, she has plenty of opportunities to make that clear. Going back to his/her home for 'coffee' and then waking up in the morning and having second thoughts does not make the man's conduct second only to murder in the serious crime ratings.

If you look at what might happen after that, the male has no rights whatsoever:
She can have an abortion - he has no say
She can keep the baby - he has no say
He has to pay CSA payments until the child reaches 18 - no say again
He stops payments - he's arrested
She stops all contact - he has no say (he'll simply line the lawyer's pockets if he goes to Court) No penalty against the mother - ever.
He fails to return the child at the end of contact - he gets arrested, even if the child refuses to go back to the mother (I had to use extreme deception to get my own children back to their mother on several occasions after they refused to return)
She abuses/mistreats the child - he'll not be considered as a parenting option. In the highly unlikely event that Soc Ser actually take their child into care, he'll not be either consulted nor considered as a home for the child
She decides to move or even emigrate - he'll have no possible chance of winning in court to retain contact

His family have no rights of access to their new family member.

It's literally 100% power to the female and 0% to the father and unless and until someone makes a radical change in the *interpretation* of the law (Children's Act, 2004) then this grotesque imbalance will continue.

If the Govt wishes to make a 'bonfire of the Quangos', then the entire Family Court system would be an excellent place to start, being replaced with a straightforward standard deal in which contact and cash are linked. Minimum contact levels are set out (35% is simple, being alternate w/e and an overnight each week) and from that point on, if EITHER party breaks the terms of the Order, then they forfeit the other (ie no pay, no see children; stop contact, no receive money).

The entire Order can then be re-examined every 6-12 months and minor alterations agreed: the wishes of the children should be greatly respected and the wishes of the rest of the family, too. Any denial of generous contact with the extended family = suspension of payments and reversal of Residence.

There really, really does need to be a Draconian set of punishments meted out to women (and it's usually women) who stop contact and a recognition that, in an age when women work as much as men, that contact should NORMALLY be on a 50:50 basis, not the 90:10 basis that often results.

Contempt of Court (ie breach of a Contact Order) should immediately result in imprisonment, even if only for 24 hours, so that mothers cease to regard children as being 'their' property, rather than a joint production, with 2 equal families involved.

Chris @ 26

"What we have now is something that has evolved"

Not really. What we have now (with the NHS inherited from New Labour) is a centralised model which was planned and implemented from the top down – “Stalinist” indeed (to its critics). The very opposite of evolution. Fit for purpose? Yes I think so. Has to be this way if we remain wedded to (i) free at the point of delivery, (ii) full scope health care (not just the basics), and (iii) same for everyone ... e.g. none of that thing which always seems to get people's goat, the "postcode lottery". By all means devolve and decentralise and privatise, but that's a radical change which needs to be mandated. It hasn't been. I might vote for something along those lines, as it happens, but neither I nor anybody else got the chance. I get the impression, to be honest, that this NHS policy is not particularly ideological; it's more change for change's sake, driven by the desire to look as if a "problem" is being tackled, when the problem has not been properly identified and thus the "solution" is anything but. Also, as I say, it hasn't been debated or discussed or thought through. GPs want to doctor, not manage. They’ll be next to useless at the latter. It’s crazy. And (as someone above notes) amateurish. Becoming the watchword, that, for this administration - bunch of amateurs messing about with stuff they have no clue about. As regards running it, the NHS is one of the biggest public sector management challenges in the world - it's very difficult as you rightly say - there's no way around this unless we privatise (and even then we'd have the same issues merely transplanted). It needs a lot of managing; you can't expect it to be run like some sort of lean and mean private sector start up. Sure the procedures might be a little cumbersome in places but that goes with the territory; all this slagging off of "bureaucrats" is just ill informed tabloid talk half the time. It’s political correctness is all (everyone likes to have a pop at easy targets, don’t they?), the truth is that NHS overstaffing is mainly in the area of nurses. There are way too many. No politician can say that, of course. Angels. We have also got overly exercised with targets and the measurement/presentation of outcomes, rather than the outcomes themselves. Not that we can drop all this – targets are an important tool and you have to measure in order to know how you’re doing – but the balance is wrong.

'27. At 09:39am on 27 Jul 2010, TheBlameGame wrote:
24. At 09:01am on 27 Jul 2010, GoBetween
'Please don't play any damage limitation cards, it shows lack of character. The CON-DEM Alliance is in power now and they have to answer for the decisions they make. This is not a game or hobby, each decision will affect millions of people in our country. Sadly, their brief record has shown that they have simply no idea what is going on.'


Accountability.
Should apply equally to those who have just left as well as those who now hold the keys.
Or are you suggesting that the last lot who were renting no.10 left it in a pristine condition?'

Predictable stuff. The reality now for you is that your posts will now be in defense of this Alliance for however long it is maintained. And they will need some defending.

'37. At 11:23am on 27 Jul 2010, pandatank wrote:
" 21. GoBetween wrote:
It is becoming clearer by the day that this Alliance simply do not know what they are doing. They make policy on the hoof without thinking about the ramifications of their implementation.

What a bunch of amateurs."

David Cameron speaking to George Osborne "This coalition thing is working really well"
G.O. "What do you mean"
DC "Well our boys keep opening their mouths before their brains are in gear, making policy on the hoof etc. and the alliance gets the blame for it."
G.O. "With any luck, people will look back on this as a failed experiment and the issue of PR will never raise its ugly head again. And we managed to keep Trident, brilliant!"'

I believe you overestimate the combined intellect of the Tory party. I mean we are talking of Cameron,Osborne & heavens forbid Mr Pickles.

'28. At 09:42am on 27 Jul 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"Please don't play any damage limitation cards, it shows lack of character."

Mmm. Yet, if anyone criticises you for blaming anything on the previous Tory administration 79-97, you'll squeal like a stuck pig.

...why is it that those on the left only come out when this blog is open, like worms wriggling their way to the surface when they feel the pitter-patter of the drops of spring rain on the soil?'

Nasty and unnecessary.

Meanwhile back at planet newlabour... it's a family affair.

The question is, which Miliband brother is best palced to disassociate himself with all acts of a Blair/Brown persuasion?

Is it David, with his intimate involvement in the detention of prisoners?

Or is it Ed, with his apparent unfamiliarity with the newlabour manifesto he co-wrote?

Neither of these two can be said to have acted in haste; on the contrary David dithered for two years about replacing his leader.

The tension is killing me; a lurch to the left seems likely. A spell in the political wilderness inevitable as newlabour reborn forgets the lesson it took so long to learn in the first place - elections are won from the centre. Ed's tax on the wealth creators is a sure fire election loser, David's inability to connect will be like fighting an election with a wooden top.

Meanwhile back at the BBC the long anticipated 'five days that changed Britain' appears and confirms what we knew all along - the government would fall because it had failed on so many front.

It's a great time to be a tory...

Nick,

It's obvious that you're itching for the coalition to fail, which is a shame, but you're hardly the only one, and it's only what I'd have expected from you anyway.

I'm hoping the coalition reconsider this decision, anyway. It's posts like Spike's at #36 that demonstrate why it needs to be done. Whether it was originally a Libdem, Tory, Labour, or whatever policy in the first place is irrelevant because it's a policy that makes sense.

It's sad to see the coalition taking flak from all sides when for the most part it's been unjustified. The commonsense coming from Westminster over the past month or two has been a total breath of fresh air after the previous ghastly 13 years, which is why this particular U-turn surprises me.

Am interested in seeing your documentary and hope that it will be balanced and enlightening, but suspect I will be disappointed.

sagamix..

your party is not in charge anymore. Toime to move on.

You had your chance with the NHS; tripled its budget and comissioned no less than eleven reviews.

After all these reviews it remains a national institution staffed with over qualified people (correctly) but awash with bureaucrats. Something has to be done and newlabour were not prepared to do it.

It's a great time to be a tory...

I think the '5 days' says it all in my book. It may have helped that Labour didn't really seem to bother much with anything as they most likely realised that without Gordon Brown at the helm at such a time then such a coalition was doomed from the start, especially in order to form a stable government with a majority.

David Cameron saw his opportunity and went for it.
Nick Clegg saw a chance to have Lib Dem involvement in government decision making and policies, so he went for it.

I admit that the country is facing problems but right now, it seems that those 5 days led to a coalition government working in top gear having lost the ability to slow down. Everything is rush, rush, rush, which may appear good in terms of "Oh look at how quickly we're all coming to decisions, we're all good buddies, it's like we've always been one party." However, in all the rushing, it is becoming more difficult to strike the right balance in making decisions.

I admire the determination they have in trying to make it work, whether the intentions behind such actions are good or bad. However, as they have said from the start mentioning that it takes longer to sort out coalition governments in other countries to form a successful government and comparing that to a 5 day negotiation period. Of course, there are going to be many on-going issues and in such circumstances we should expect there to be a more lengthy time-scale involved. Instead, it's all about the Tories proving themselves to be the best decision makers who are rushing things without putting as much thought in as they should be doing while the Lib Dems are still in awe at where they find themselves that they're too caught up in being in government that they've lost sight of some of their ideals and policies while being carried along by the Tory tide.

I'm sure the Lib Dems have had some involvement in decisions and this has led to some positive things but for the most part, the Tory tide of proving themselves by making such speedy decisions is leading to mistakes that could easily have been avoided if the government learnt how to shift gears and operate in 1st for a while to solidify the foundations that are holding the coalition together.

If they want the coalition to work and the people to be supportive, let's have a bit more time and talking and engaging with the people to explain things clearly. I appreciate the country is a mess and it needs to be sorted out, the quicker the better in my opinion, but right now they seem to be set on moving at a speed that may prove to be more treacherous than they have realised.

42#

I have to say his taste in country attire as displayed on that schedule filler the other day "All The Queens Men" would preclude me ever going down that road. Although, I must say, wouldn't have minded working with Charlie Dimmock.

Straying dangerously off-topic now. Come on, lets get back to slagging off the coalition.

That Nick Clegg, eh? What a {insert chosen expletive here}.....

"it's more change for change's sake, driven by the desire to look as if a "problem" is being tackled, when the problem has not been properly identified and thus the "solution" is anything but."

Yet another one I find hard to disagree with. Whats happened to you Saga? I'm starting to worry...

"We have also got overly exercised with targets and the measurement/presentation of outcomes, rather than the outcomes themselves. Not that we can drop all this – targets are an important tool and you have to measure in order to know how you’re doing – but the balance is wrong."

And another one! I'm going to need to go for a lie down in a darkened room at this rate...

46. At 12:22pm on 27 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
It’s political correctness is all (everyone likes to have a pop at easy targets, don’t they?), the truth is that NHS overstaffing is mainly in the area of nurses. There are way too many.

My first thought was 'how can you have too many nurses?' Why do you think that we have too many? Do they cost too much, are the numbers too unwieldy to manage, or is it because they are money that could be better spent elsewhere? Not arguing, just asking.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that a major problem is one of all self-important chiefs and no Indians.

Spike, your awful tale at 36 is certainly an argument in favour of anonymity for those accused of rape - although her brother would still have known (wouldn't he?) and thus the vigilante revenge beating he organised and led would maybe not have been prevented - and there is also the (less powerful but nonetheless valid) symmetry point: why protect the identity of the accuser but not the accused? However, to put the other side. Rape – a hate crime more than a sex crime, really - is a uniquely problematical offence for the justice system to handle. Of all serious violent crimes, this is (easily) the most under reported, under prosecuted and under convicted – i.e. the vast majority of perpetrators get away with it. It is this, rather than anything to do with "political correctness", which has driven policy. Anonymity for the accuser is designed principally to combat the under reporting aspect and it’s been successful in this. Only partially, though – there are still many rapes which remain unreported. We should also bear in mind that only a small proportion of allegations are false (and an even smaller number completely bogus, as in your example). This means that the number of men maliciously accused is dwarfed by the number of women who are raped and never see the guy punished. Lives are despoiled and ruined in both those situations. It really is a difficult issue. The status quo is not satisfactory – I see that very well – but the options, to give anonymity to the accused (giving the message this crime is special in that the accuser is likely to be making it up), or to remove it from the accuser (and risk undoing the progress made in achieving greater reporting of a chronically under reported crime) ... neither of these is particularly palatable.

robin @ 52

"it remains a national institution staffed with over qualified people (correctly) but awash with bureaucrats."

Now then, what did I say about two thirds of the way through 46? Ah yes ... "ill informed tabloid talk". Mmm. Yes indeed.

Too many nurses, Robin, not too many managers. Plus an obsession with targets and with looking good rather than being good. Surprised to see you - you of all people - falling victim to political correctness.

49#

So sue me then, if it isnt true.

HD2 @ 45

So would you rather (i) remove anonymity from the accuser, or (ii) give it to the accused? Has to be (i) if you want to see rape "normalised" within the justice system since (ii) would make it even more of a special case than it is under the current framework. Trouble then with that solution - naming the accuser from the outset - is it would lead to even more under reporting of an already chronically under reported crime. Ergo more rapists would get away with it than is the case now. Probably a lot more. Is this a price worth paying in order to achieve the principle you're espousing - that rape should be treated like any other adult on adult violent crime?

22. At 08:24am on 27 Jul 2010, Chris London wrote:
Gooooooood morning Westminster.......

What should surprise us more than the Tories being prepared for negotiation is how ill prepared Labour were. It is as if they were intent on not being in Government. Reasons to be tearful part three.....
1) Chance for a clear out, clean slate, new leader, after all it worked in 97. Are we about to see the birth of Nu Nu Labour.
2) Did arrogance get the better of them. Did the Dark Lord think that he held all the aces.
3) Just incompetence, rather than preparing for what appeared to be the likely outcome they tried to do it on a wing and a prayer.

So why has this question not been asked as it would appear that the Lib Dems wanted Labour rather than the Tories, it should have been Labours to loose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems so long ago, now. But that weekend, we teetered on the edge of something of that appeared to be a constitutional crisis. GB appeared to be trying to hang on to No10 until the autumn. What brought that on? GB in denial? Or as your ?#2 suggests, Chris, Mandy was meddling. Hope you tell all on that, Mr Robinson. And as Chris asks, were the Libbies really after Labour or was Cleggie summoned for a verbal working-over that immediately drove him into Dave's arms?

The memory I have of NewLabour was being constantly bombarded by initiatives, announcements, warnings of new fears, new disasters. And I was just a radio listener. Must have been a bit grim for the civil servants ... and the journos. Oh, I forgot, you love that sort of thing!

Tell you what: it's a great time to be a voter.

#58 sagamix

It really is a difficult issue. The status quo is not satisfactory – I see that very well – but the options, to give anonymity to the accused (giving the message this crime is special in that the accuser is likely to be making it up), or to remove it from the accuser (and risk undoing the progress made in achieving greater reporting of a chronically under reported crime) ... neither of these is particularly palatable.

Good to see you again, saga by the way - and I have to echo Fubar's earlier sentiment in that you seem to be favouring common sense over blind party-political dogma at the moment so long may that continue :)

I see your point in this quote above, and I agree that this is an issue with no easy solution.

Regarding the anonymity giving the impression that "the accuser is likely to be making it up", I have to say I think this is a bit of a leap. There are already many cases (not rape cases, admittedly) where the accused is given anonymity and I can't believe that there is correlating evidence to suggest that doing so favours a not-guilty verdict as the outcome.

I'm thinking of it in terms of cases where the accused is underage, for example - does anonymity make them more likely to be acquitted? I don't think so.

I'd like to think that cases are tried simply according to evidence and that the issue of whether or not the judge/jury knows the name of the accused is irrelevant.

If things were to stay the same, there'd be more cases like Spike's at #36, and I think one extremely depressing part of that story concerns the sentences of the false-accuser and the vigilantes themselves. This highlights the problems in other areas of the justice system which also need addressing by the coalition. No-one's denying the seriousness of rape cases whatsoever, but if falsely accusing someone of rape or pre-meditatively assaulting people and leaving them in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives only results in a relative slap on the wrist, that's a pretty serious problem as well.

57#

I have a feeling he might be referring to the number of nurses as against auxiliaries and the divisions of labour/tasks between the two and how things may fall between the cracks, for instance infection control, handing out of prescription/treatment drugs to inpatients, record keeping/updating, and other things that you dont necessarily need a degree for, but a proven, disciplined, workable process.

But more nurses, as people arent in the habit of slating them is usually seen by politicians as an easy peice of red meat to throw at the press galleries and to the masses. Nobody criticises anyone who advocates and produces more doctors and nurses, either at the ballot box or in the press.

I could be wrong though. Its a bit like the ol' promises of more coppers on the beat, when what you actually end up with are PCSO's with no powers of arrest.... The whiff of smoke and the sudden flash of light against a broken mirror covered in cobwebs.

Only a few weeks into the new coalition and they haven't performed any miracles yet. The British public will be disappointed.

This everything should happen at the push of a button society will really have to learn to be patient.

The new lot hit the gound running which they had to but the problem solving is going to take years to pan out if not decades.

Most of those who do not have time for the politics have to rely on the sound bites they hear on the news. These are not always positive and in some cases are downright negative. So little wonder the public's expectations are so out of kilter with the reality.

Anyone who listened to Gordon's Brown's interview over the last two days and yes he's still running around trying to save the world will know the task this coalition faces as they have to cope with the reality after the fantasies of the previous incumbent become clear to all.

59#

Thank god, you're back to normal, I thought someone had burst into your mothers house and stolen your laptop. :-)

If not awash with bureaucrats, may I venture an inefficient use of such bureaucratic muscle? Not using things like shared services, centralised reporting and allowing the patient to be able to "pull" what they want from the system rather than being compelled to take whats on offer and having to jump through hoops?

Currently reading "Systems Thinking For The Public Sector" by John Seddon. Quite interesting and thought provoking and apolitical as well.

outrage @ 57

Not sure why. I suspect the number of nurses became a kind of success indicator in itself - you know, we have XX now (miles more than the X we used to have) and this per se shows that things are better by about the same ratio. Couple of other factors also spring to mind - (i) they are easy to recruit (esp. compared to doctors of which there are still too few), and (ii) they are quite cheap (per head) and thus there is a temptation (not fought) to staff up to the levels needed for peak activity when peak activity is not the norm. Plus there's the "angels" image in the public mind (which means one is always applauded for hiring more whether one needs them or not). Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for a mass nurse cull or anything - we should just ease off and let demand catch up with staffing levels. I'm also all in favour of a hard look at non front line staff - managers (or "bureaucrats" if you must) - and consolidation in this area where sensible, but the idea that therein lies a silver bullet solution to saving a stack of money without impacting service levels is (I feel) more a matter of wishful thinking than anything else. The NHS needs a great deal of managing if it's to run anything like smoothly. The notion the place is full of surplus to requirements paper shufflers owes its prevalence and popularity more to people being very comfortable believing that than it does to it being true. There are many examples of this sort of thing when you think about it. Gerrard has to play in the centre of midfield (or else the world will end) is a good example from the world of sport.

"What's happened to you Saga?" - 55

Well I don't know, Fubar, I'm still the same old namby pamby, hypocrisy drenched, Hampstead cum Islington champagne socialist that I've always been. Lower than a snake's belly, in fact.

sagamix..

Really you must try harder than this. Falling victim to political correctness? Moi?

I am falling victim to knowing several highly qualified and hard working members of the NHS payroll who find it hard to understand the myriad reorganisations of the newlabour years and the wasting of billions of pounds of our and their money.

You really must get used to the fact that the coalition is in charge now and not newlabour. We say what happens.

Listening to Ed Balls today it is harldy a surprise newlabour are not in charge anymore as he admits they weren't actually 'in charge' of anything most of the time they were supposed to be. His statement that one of the qualities of leadership is bringing together a team of people who stick together, and that the inability of both TB and GB to do this is a mark of both men's failings, is the first time any member of the newlabour party has shown the faintest remorse for the dysfucntion that was foisted on this country for thirteen years. And 'foisted' on us it was too; nobody voted for the constant internal wrangling that hobbled everything newlabour did from the start. People thought 'things could only get better'. Until they got a lot, lot, worse. And how much of that worse was down to the wasted years of rowing and internal politics? Newlabour practised internal student politics right from the very beginning; they adopted the US model of non stop polling and electioneering throughout their years in office instead of getting on with the job they were elected to do - to both fund and reform the public services.

This frank admission by Ed Balls explains another curious phenomena; that of the media's obsession with dissension in the ranks of the coalition; why, newlabour was full of dessent, so must be the coalition, right? Wrong.

In time they'll get used to a prime minister and a chancellor who are actually working together to clear up the newlabour fiscal car crash and sagamix will get used to the fact that this country is being properly managed again. No more tractor production statistics to prove it, though.

It's a great time to be a tory...

54. At 1:39pm on 27 Jul 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

Straying dangerously off-topic now.

You're right, Fubar, let's get back on topic.

Sound's like it's going to be a fantastic programme, Nick - can't wait!

35. (referred)

Mods, supervisory administrator, whoever.

I'm sure you mean well, but FGS...

68#

I guess I asked for that, didnt I... Maybe less champagne, more prosecco.

47. GoBetween wrote:
'Predictable stuff. The reality now for you is that your posts will now be in defense of this Alliance for however long it is maintained. And they will need some defending.'

I would have said 'obvious stuff'. Clearly not though.

Reality for you is what's inside your head, GoB.
I don't live there so it's different for me.

#67

sagamix.. there you go again..

newlabour like to talk about reform but never actually get around to doing it; far easier to spend a few billions commissioning a review than actually act.

Time for the coalition to step in where newlabour feared to tread. We're in the driving seat now.

It's a great time to be a tory...

"I am falling victim to knowing several highly qualified and hard working members of the NHS payroll who find it hard to understand the myriad reorganisations of the newlabour years" - 69

Finding something tough to grasp is no crime. This is a difficult issue, how best to manage the NHS, as I think all who have insight into the subject will agree. Labour put a system in place and whilst capable of being improved (as I say, they overcooked it on the nurse front and they went too far with targets and with measurement/presentation over real outcomes), it's nevertheless clicking in pretty well. Don't you love it when a plan comes together, Robin? You should - especially when it relates to something as important and (can't stress this enough) difficult as running the nation's health service. I don't expect our Brave & Reforming Coalition to applaud it or anything, that would be too much to ask - and it's just not politics - but I do expect them to at least lay off from rolling out a massive but half baked, back of envelope "reform" (sprung out of nowhere). A great many of the more thoughtful tory supporters (so okay, not necessarily you) are unhappy with this. A period of quiet depoliticisation of health was what they were hoping for. What I was hoping for (in the absence of radical reform proposals from any of the parties) was intelligent and pragmatic management of the resources it's agreed will be going into health care. Instead we get a policy which will waste oodles of taxpayer money and lead to a significant deterioration in service levels. We want more for less, Robin, not less for more. It's disappointing and I'm disappointed.

Fubar_Saunders @ 66

So you are currently reading "Systems Thinking For The Public Sector" by John Seddon.

It is the sort of thing I should be reading too, being a systems engineer, however, there is only so much time and one must prioritise, so I am currently halfway through 'When Money Dies' which is the gruesome tale of Weimar.

Not entirely unconnected, I see that the National Debt has lept up a bit recently and is now over £938Bn and is on target to cross the £1Tn threshold just before Christmas/Winterval.

The Coalition will have its work cut out dealing with this and some very restless natives and I predict at least one riot.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Amusing that some posts remind us ad nauseum that Labour aren't in power any more but cannot stop whittering on about the previous administration. I take it now after an hilarious 10 weeks us who do not much care for the Coalition can put forward our view without the usual tiresome remarks...which I may add are becoming more desperate by the day.

We need more balance. However, can't sit around here...got to volunteer to be a policeman, or look after the elderly, or those with mental illness etc etc

Three cheers for the B(&Q)ig Society.

56 Fubar

The act of measurement distorts the system and invalidates the measurement - Schrodingers cat et al.

Resource is shifted to meet the targets but at what expense - the bigger picture gets lost in the detail.

The end cost of the short termism encouraged by targets may well exceed the cost of just doing the right thing at the right time.

67. At 3:07pm on 27 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
outrage @ 57

Not sure why. I suspect the number of nurses became a kind of success indicator in itself - you know, we have XX now (miles more than the X we used to have) and this per se shows that things are better by about the same ratio. Couple of other factors also spring to mind - (i) they are easy to recruit (esp. compared to doctors of which there are still too few), and (ii) they are quite cheap (per head) and thus there is a temptation (not fought) to staff up to the levels needed for peak activity when peak activity is not the norm. Plus there's the "angels" image in the public mind (which means one is always applauded for hiring more whether one needs them or not). Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for a mass nurse cull or anything - we should just ease off and let demand catch up with staffing levels. I'm also all in favour of a hard look at non front line staff - managers (or "bureaucrats" if you must) - and consolidation in this area where sensible, but the idea that therein lies a silver bullet solution to saving a stack of money without impacting service levels is (I feel) more a matter of wishful thinking than anything else. The NHS needs a great deal of managing if it's to run anything like smoothly. The notion the place is full of surplus to requirements paper shufflers owes its prevalence and popularity more to people being very comfortable believing that than it does to it being true. There are many examples of this sort of thing when you think about it. Gerrard has to play in the centre of midfield (or else the world will end) is a good example from the world of sport.

I wouldn't argue with any of that. However I am puzzled by the fact that although the public, for years now, has been making noises about the increasing non-angelicness of nurses, nobody seems to be listening. If maintaining current numbers is not an issue, I think the answer might be to decrease the number of ubernurses/doctors who don't want to be hands-on, and increasing the number of 'Emergency Ward 10' angels, who do.
But perhaps it's easier to recruit those who would rather fill the former role than the latter?

I suspect that a management cull would be no more or less difficult to carry out than in any other field, and would have the same pros and cons. As you might know, in large organisations this exersise is usually carried out by a hatchet-man or woman who mysteriously disappears immediately after the cull. The survivors all agree what a disconnected psycho he/she was, breathe a private sigh of relief and move on.