Make the unions pay

Last year the militant trades unionists in the teaching unions decided to take a couple more days off from their busy week and are threatening to do so again. Last year I was fortunate in that I was able to work from home and was able to look after my children and maintain my income. Other parents I know were less fortunate and had to pay for the services of childminders or take unpaid leave. In either case there was a financial loss to the family concerned, not insurmountable for the families I know of but painful and with a knock on effect to the wider economy in general. Once again the Trotskyist Tendency in the teaching unions are calling for more industrial action and once again many parents will be forced to give up a days pay to stay home and look after their children or pay somebody to do it for them. Whilst from an educational perspective these one day strikes are harmful, they are unlikely to ruin an education. Similarly the financial hardship will be merely uncomfortable for most. As always it will be the poorest who are hardest hit, shop and factory workers cannot by definition have the option of working from home or even making up the time another day, they will lose money which can never be made up. The question I have is why should hard working parents be made to suffer just to satisfy the ego trip of a Trades Union baron earning upwards of £150,000 per annum representing an industry with a reported average salary of more than £32,000? I have no doubt that many industrial disputes centre around real grievances, but most in the wider public sector are political in nature with fat cat union leaders seeking to maintain a reason for their continued existence and thereby justify their exorbitant salaries which can be many times more than the earnings of the rank and file membership of the union. I should like to see legislation introduced which would allow those third parties adversely affected by unjustifiable trades union militancy to be able to recover actual financial losses directly from the trades union concerned. In the case of teacher strikes, the cost of emergency childcare or lost wages would be obvious items of claim, but I would feel less comfortable about allowing claims for cinema tickets or meals at Frankie & Benny's, those adversely affected should be under a duty to minimise their loss. Similarly with transport strikes lost wages is an obvious claim but the lost proportion of season tickets should also be allowable. I am sure that other losses would be suffered, the above are not exclusively the only heads of claim, and again these could be claimed for subject to loss being demonstrated. What is important is that these claims should be met quickly and I would suggest a thirty day cap on dealing with claims with the imposition of interest penalties for late payments. There will also need to be an appeal system, I would suggest it be funded by the TUC and have power in making the award to levy costs (up to the cost of the appeal) against frivolous claimants and double damages and full costs against the union trying to avoid its responsibilities.

MP's Pay

There is a lot of flapping around going on in the media on the subject of MP’s pay, they do not seem to think that £65,738 is enough, but let’s face it, who does think their own salary is enough so I don’t blame them for that. The question to my mind is how much should they be paid and I do not think a one size fits all is the way to go; we need an element of performance related pay to reflect how hard they work and if they are doing a good job. So how about a basic salary and bonus system which is what many in the private sector are used to. This leads to two questions firstly what should be the basic and secondly how should the bonus be calculated. The first part is the easiest to deal with, set the basic pay in line with the average pay in the constituency. There is so much statistical data held these days that this should not be beyond the powers that be to work out. I know that means an MP in leafy Surrey would drag in more than an MP for a collection of slums in the North, but nobody would argue that they don’t face widely different living costs. At a guess this would probably put most of the Honourable Members on a basic wage of between £20,000 and £30,000 per annum. Not a huge amount but a lot more than many and roughly in line with what most of us have to get by on and perfectly capable of sustaining life. The second part of their remuneration would be by way of an annual bonus and this should reflect the performance over the previous year. The tricky part is how should this be assessed. Firstly I don’t think this should be capped, if an MP is worth a million pound bonus then let them be paid that. Conversely if an MP is not deemed to be worth the basic then I have no problem with a negative bonus being awarded to be clawed back from next year’s wages. So how do we go about setting this bonus, this is the tricky bit. I would start by the MP making a public submission to their constituents detailing what they think their individual bonus should be and why. They may wish to highlight how busy they are on behalf of constituents, how often they attend the House, how many divisions they take part in, their contributions to debates and so on, in fact they should have a pretty open book to convince us they are worth the total package they ask for. Again given the wealth of information held they can easily be benchmarked against their fellow Members. In response constituents can give their feedback and recommend a larger or smaller bonus and the reasons why. I would suggest they are marked against the following, or at least they are factored in. 1. Attendance 2. Voting 3. Speaking in debates 4. Committee time 5. Campaigning (non-party related) 6. Surgery hours 7. Success rate on dealing with constituents issues 8. Response rates to constituency enquiries 9. Staff costs The most effective and hardest working MPs would be rewarded accordingly, whilst those who cannot be bothered to attend or speak may similarly see their pay cut.

Could Brown have been that bad?

The latest revelations coming out today that the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown had his telephone, bank accounts and family medical records accessed by an investigator working for News international suggest to me two things.

Firstly, the security services responsible for protecting the Prime minister under Labour were so inept and useless that they and the politicians supposedly in charge were totally unfit for purpose.

OR

Secondly, the Labour Government were totally aware of the hacking and its extent and were prepared to allow it to go on so long as they could exercise some control of the information it allowed to be leaked this way.

Either way, it just goes to show what an unprincipled, incompetent bunch of mendacious charlatans the Brown government really was.

Two shags Prescott, the ultimate hypocrite.

In no way do I approve whatsoever of the actions of the News of the World and its executives in sanctioning the interception of private telephone messages, but in targeting the mobile telephone of Milly Dowler the then missing schoolgirl they went so far beyond what can be considered acceptable that I am unable to find the words to express my contempt. The fact that over nine years have passed since her disappearance does not make the actions of the NOTW any less deplorable. The then editor and deputy editor have some serious explaining to do as to their role in this mess and why they were not aware, if indeed they were not, exactly how far beyond the bounds their staff were prepared to go to secure a story.

Unfortunately we once again see the hypocritical Labour motormouth John Prescott appearing all over the media calling for Rupert Murdoch’s head, seeking to gain political advantage against the current government without at once acknowledging that at the time of the abduction of poor Milly he was firmly entrenched in power as Deputy Prime Minister in a government which was totally in thrall to the Murdoch press empire. Given the power of his stable of newspapers and Sky TV Labour were at the time delighted to be in receipt of Murdoch’s blessings, after all they had helped secure a second term in office for Blair, Prescott et al.

I do not blame Prescott for not keeping a closer eye on the activities of the NOTW from his grace and favour flat in Whitehall or his country residence provided by the tax payer, after all he was far too busy shagging his diary secretary around then to have any real interest in running the country. There is something about the rank hypocrisy of somebody who knowingly and enthusiastically cheats on his wife yet retains a stance of moral indignation which is positively nauseous in its affront to all that is decent.

I notice that Messrs Brown, Blair, Prescott etc have not sought to assume culpability for the crimes that were committed by their troops during the expenses scandal yet seem it appropriate to go after Rupert Murdoch for crimes committed by his minions. They do not call for the head of a Chief constable when a humble PC is convicted for rape, nor do they go after the head of Terry Leahy when a store manager flogs booze to a teenager so why do they go after Rupert when a humble hack breaks the law and outrages the nation? The editor is the accountable person, not the proprietor unless they have declared that they no longer love Labour which is the big crime of which Mr Murdoch is guilty and for which he will continue to be hounded by the left until such point as he switches his allegiances back to them.

The activity of Prescott in the NOTW scandals of recent months is nothing to do with seeking out the truth, and all about wanting revenge on Rupert Murdoch for having deserted the sinking ship that was Labour under Gordon Brown.

Don’t get me wrong, journalists at NOTW and no doubt other newspapers as well have acted in a disgraceful fashion and those responsible need to be called to account, but to pretend that it is all the fault of Rupert Murdoch tends to undermine your integrity, but if you are johnPrescott you have none to undermine.

Redressing the balance

There is an inevitability to public sector strikes that will not go away as long as the unions and militant members are able to strike with little or no impunity. It matters little if anything to them if schools and hospitals are closed down because they never have to face up to the consequences of their selfish actions. Schools will not close nor will hospitals as we cannot desert them in favour of more reliable providers; unemployment is not a possible consequence as it was for the private sector strikers of the 1970s and 1980s. As things are at present the power is entirely with the trade union barons on their six figure salaries and it is long past time this balance was redressed.

On Thursday of this week, schools will close because less than 20% of teachers want to strike. This will cause enormous hardship for many families which could involve them in having to take unpaid leave or purchase additional childcare. The victim of this action is not the government, it is the hard working taxpayer and we need the power to fight back.

I do not propose that strikes in the public sector be banned, rather I would like to see anybody who is adversely affected by public sector strikes be given the right to have their quantifiable losses reimbursed by the trade unions who call the strikes. If you have to forego a day’s pay to look after your child because the teachers are on strike, then you should have the right to demand the union calling the strike pay you the wages you have lost. If as a result of a strike on the public transport systems you are unable to get to work, then you can claim the day’s wages from the union.

The problem with the NHS

Not all of them obviously, but some are just so ideologically opposed to reform nothing will ever be achieved until they are either retired or replaced by others prepared to countenance change for the better.

Last night on the TV there was a programme featuring Heston Blumenthal who was going to improve the food at Alder Hay Children’s hospital. During the initial part of the show we were treated to a few cameos of bedridden children complaining about the food being boring and disgusting spiced up with a few shots of parents feeding their children food brought in from outside. Nothing new here, jokes about the awful quality of hospital food have been doing the rounds since God was a boy.

The revelatory moments came a few minutes in when Heston went into the kitchens to meet the team of six chefs and found out that of the six four were engaged in cooking for the staff canteen and two were occupied with cooking for the children. The four who were preparing staff meals were using fresh ingredients to prepare attractive meals such as you might eat at home yet the two who were responsible for the children’s meals were busy tipping frozen chips into fryers and opening tins of beans and spaghetti hoops. Like me, Heston was a bit confused about this as we both thought that the main purpose of a hospital was to look after the sick, instead it seems as if the catering operation at Alder Hay is being run as a welfare club for the staff and when the chefs were questioned on this the reasons they gave boiled down to the fact that it had always been done that way.

Next we met who for me was the star of the show, the catering manager, Jeff something or other, who had been at the hospital for around 30 years, who was convinced in his own minds that there was nothing that Heston could teach him about catering and that in fact it would be Heston who would learn from his interaction with the NHS caterers and not him. He was clearly bitter at having had this imposition foisted on him from above and was set upon a course of action that seemed to involve him sticking his fingers in his ears and going la la la la! However despite Jeff’s best efforts, Heston had at least engaged with the chefs a bit and was able to persuade them to go up to the ward and meet the children they were supposed to be feeding. I was amazed that despite some of them having had tens of year’s service in the hospital’s kitchen, none of them had ever been onto a ward and met a patient to find out what they thought of the food. It was at this point that one or two of the chefs finally realised that there was a problem and more importantly they could help to fix it.

From about here on in the programme got into the happy feely mood with the chefs thinking about and ultimately creating food that the children wanted to eat and Heston coming up with his typical fruitloop ideas. We were treated to a final appearance from Jeff decrying the idea that kids like to eat tasty food and that Heston could learn from him before the programme moved towards its inevitable dénouement with kids happily tucking in to the Heston inspired menu and like Oliver Twist coming back for more and the senior managers (way higher up the food chain than Jeff) agreeing to change their ways for ever.

Anyway to cut out further rambling, the problem with the NHS is people like Jeff. They have been in the NHS since leaving school and who be sheer hard work combined with natural talent have hauled themselves onto the bottom rung of management by their mid fifties and are content to serve out their time doing exactly as their predecessors have done for decades. They are not intrinsically bad or evil, far from it, instead they are happy to sit in their little office doing as little as possible, creating nothing nor thinking about what their job should entail. They are calcified in their outlook and not open to any form of change, their only response being that they know what is best because it has worked for years.

As most people know at heart, the NHS is in desperate need of major surgery, and a good place to start would be to get rid of those who say things cannot change and replace them with people who believe that the NHS should be about caring for patients and not about providing safe unchallenging jobs for people trying to fill out the hours between leaving school and drawing a pension. The people who matter most in the NHS are not the doctors or nurses, not the managers or caterers, not the porters or receptionist, not the Trust board members, not even those in Whitehall and Government; the most important people are the patients and the whole shoddy crumbling edifice needs to be redesigned around them and their needs.

For more information about the programme and to watch it on Channel 4 version of iPlayer

Pulling the Woolas over our eyes

Well, it appears as if Phil Woolas is on his way out of the door, and I for one am not upset. He is undoubtedly the architect of his own misfortune and really has nobody else to blame; he was ultimately responsible for publishing lies about his opponent and has thereby lost the right to represent the constituency of Oldham. I seriously doubt he will be missed in Westminster, he never struck me as particularly good at his job when he had one and given the alacrity with which Harriet kicked him out of the Labour Party I suspect this view is shared by the party hierarchy.

There does however seem to be a strand of opinion doing the rounds within the hallowed walls that even if it was right that he should go, the method of precipitating his departure was wrong; that judges should not have the power to interfere with the will of the people who elected him. This argument may have some merit were it not for the fact that his lies undoubtedly had influence over the result. If his majority had been huge it might not have mattered but seeing as more people voted for candidates other than Woolas and the winning margin was so small there was a pressing need to rerun the election without the lies and half truths.

Amongst the “great and good” at Westminster there are many who believe themselves to be beyond the laws that govern normal mortals and that in matters such as lying to the electorate or trousering expenses to which they have no right, they should only be answerable inwards to their fellow MPs. As we have seen with the expenses scandal there seems to be a marked reluctance to recognise the anger in the country about the behaviour of Parliamentarians and their seeming inability to come to terms with this anger. It is long past the time when we need to wrest back power from this self serving elite who are in the unique position of being able to write their own rules. They fully understand that with every erosion of their status, with each clawing back of power their ability to run Parliament as a cosy little club for their own benefit is diminished; their self awarded authority stripped away and they do not like this one little bit.

Parliament has no power other than that given to it by the people and it is for the people to determine the extent of that power, to vary it and reduce it as the people see fit and the mechanisms for doing so are the ballot box and the courts. As Cameron takes us towards fixed term Parliaments the need for the courts to have the ability to challenge Parliament and its members increases. When I hear MPs saying that the Courts do not have the right to look into their affairs the red mist descends, of course they have the right, without the courts who would protect the rights of the citizen against the state.

We have had the unedifying farce of Messrs Morley, Chaytor and Devine parading through the courts claiming that the laws as they apply to mortal man do not apply to Parliamentarians and they should not be subject to the normal court processes that apply to us if we have been accused of theft; thankfully this has now been adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court who have rightly decided that they are not above the law and I look forward to their trials with anticipation. I trust that if found guilty, incarceration will immediately follow.