Cameron talking dirty to the TPA

This is the kind of stuff that members of the Tax Payer's Alliance might find themselves spending £1.50 a minute to hear, because it's about as close to porn as political party policy gets for them. I am, of course, talking about David Cameron's outstanding suggestions on how to bring transparency back into government spending. To quote from the introduction,

Government has been far too profligate for too long. Billions are wasted each year on pointless bureaucracy and failed projects that do nothing to improve the lives of the taxpayers who foot the bill. The explosion of unaccountable quangos, public sector ‘non-jobs’ and costly bureaucracy is an indictment of Labour’s reckless approach to spending other people’s money.

So far so good, but far too often that sort of statement doesn't have an effective follow-up to actually solve the problem. People complain that political parties are big on rhetoric, but short on workable solutions to the problems which nobody can fail to notice. No longer, because with the 5 words

sunlight is the best disinfectant

we have the solution that is just a little too radical and risky for Labour to ever contemplate. 13 years of backroom deals and hiding behind "commercial sensitivity" has got to stop, no ifs, no buts, and the only way to stop that is for a million pairs of eyes to watch every move that our elected representatives make. Whatever else the Conservatives do if they win the next election, opening up government spending and contracts to this kind of scrutiny will keep the next government and the one after FAR more honest than the current one.

And while we're at it, I can't wait for the current shady deals and suspiciously lax contracts to be shown the light of day. I can only imagine the skeletons lurking in the current government's cupboards...

You know it's an election year when...

Hull City Council plans to freeze charges for services

Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth, but you can't help wondering if this headline would have happened if a) the council was still Labour controlled (and therefore didn't need to "bribe" people in reasonably safe Labour parliamentary seats) or b) the Lib Dems weren't throwing an enormous amount of resources at Hull North, one of their target seats. Still, a freeze in the growth of taxation has to be a good start, although of course we still have no idea whether fire and policing will also have a 0% change.

What I want to know is where are the plans to be able to announce a reduction in council tax next year? What about the year after? Where is Carl Minns announcing that he is going to reduce the burden of council tax by looking seriously at each and every department and asking them to justify their budget for the year? Where are the council chiefs coming up with ideas on how to encourage existing local businesses and attract new ones by reducing the burden of regulation and taxation on them?

I'm a localist, someone who believes that powers should be pushed downwards and outwards. Ultimately I want local councils to assume a number of the responsibilities that central government currently has while other powers should be pushed out to the individual to make their own decisions over. A council who can reduce the cost to local people is a council who might just be worthy of being trusted with new powers and they pass existing ones back to the electorate.

Something to get fired up about?

Fire service consults on tax increase

TAXPAYERS in Hull and the East Riding are being asked to put up more money to improve fire safety.

Humberside Fire and Rescue Service is asking the public to pay extra on their council tax bill to help meet rising costs.

On the face of it a fairly uncontentious issue: firemen (by which I include both genders, it pains me to have to say it but otherwise someone will pull me up on it) put their lives on the line every day coming to the rescue of people in fires and road traffic accidents, they deserve to be funded appropriately.

But wait a second, let's look a little closer at why they are asking for the money:

A four per cent rise would cost the taxpayer and extra 25p per month raising £876,000 for the service - which could provide 33,000 home safety checks.

Yes, that's right, it's not about paying firemen or providing extra equipment, it's about doing 33,000 "home safety checks". Well, maybe that's a good thing, helping to reduce the number of domestic fires by checking people's homes (ignoring the obvious concept that maybe people should take responsibility for their own homes). But wait, what does the Humberside Fire & Rescue Service Best Value Performance Summary 2008/09 say about home safety checks?

Our efforts to reduce the number of [accidental fires in dwellings] by undertaking Home Fire Safety Checks and other community safety activities have shown little success.

Does this mean that Humberside Fire & Rescue shouldn't get any more money? Of course not, but it does mean that before agreeing to increases in funding a slightly more convincing justification of where these funds are going to be allocated is required. As everyone else in the public sector and the council tax payers are preparing for a massive belt tightening exercise, can part or all of these increases in spending be be offset by savings within the organisation? Let's hope more details will be forthcoming as park of the consultation process.

Wonder why this wasn't the case already...

Cheap drugs to save NHS millions

Health bosses in East Riding have revealed plans to save money by prescribing cheaper, non-branded drugs.

The region's primary care trust (PCT) believes the move will slash £3.5m from its budget.

NHS East Riding of Yorkshire aims to achieve the saving across its 39 GP practices by March next year.

The question I have to ask, and excuse me for being a little dim, is why the PCT weren't already using generics where possible in a bid to save money for the taxpayer. The issue of Statins aside (because I don't claim to have the medical knowledge to comment on the appropriateness of their use), if a generic drug is confirmed to be as effective as the branded one, then what's the point of paying the mark-up simply because the pharmaceutical company used to hold a patent on the drug.

"Ah", you may say, "those nasty cheap generic drugs just aren't as good", well there is a case for double-blind testing if ever I saw it. With finite resources (something that people often forget when saying "everyone should only get the best"), decisions need to be made about what can and can't be afforded by the NHS.

And now, if you will excuse me, I would like to offer a slightly different idea for you to consider. Currently, the government has the monopoly on healthcare, both in terms of supply (NHS) and payment (central government payments to NHS). So if you want to get treatment for something, you go to a doctor (employed by the NHS) and he treats you (by the government supplying the money to him). If you have no money, society says "that's ok, we believe that everyone should have access to healthcare, so we'll pay for it", which I hope is accepted as the right and proper thing for a developed country to do. The government having a role in the supply of resources is clearly a vital part of this equation, but what that role is and where there is a necessity for them to also be effectively the sole supplier of care is more questionable. What about the Singapore system where people have individual healthcare bank accounts which they pay into every month (and which the government will top up for those unable to pay in, for instance those out of work) which can then be spent on whatever healthcare they desire? If the government owned hospital says "we will provide that treatment for £100" then why shouldn't a patient be able to look at other private hospitals who will also offer the service for £100 but which will provide a service more suited to them. What about if the person thinks "actually, I'm willing to pay a little more for that treatment to get my own room for my stay" or "I don't think it's worth £100 paying for some of the extras I won't use, I'll use this private hospital who will do it for £75"? It's cost the government (and therefore the taxpayer) nothing extra to do this, universal free healthcare is still firmly in place, but suddenly the motivation to cut costs isn't coming from above (central government) but from below (patients being able to go elsewhere if the price offered for a treatment isn't competitive with what the market offers). If this all sounds a little far fetched and out there, might I suggest reading "The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain" by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan, or at the very least the chapter where they discuss how healthcare could be both less costly and provide better results at the same time. Oh, and if you feel tempted to Google for Daniel's name, don't overlook his blog since a lot of the invective directed at him is answered there.

Making them feel a little less "Special"

Police Specials Lose £1500 Annual Payment

VOLUNTEER police officers are set to lose a £1,500 annual payment in a move by chief officers to cut costs across the force.

Currently, the 353 special constables working for Humberside Police are given the "bounty" every year as a goodwill gesture for their services.

The question that nobody seems to be asking is whether the "Specials" have been consulted before this decision was made. If the announcement had been "having discussed this matter with the existing Special Constables, it has been agreed that they will voluntarily forego this payment to help maintain existing levels of front line policing in these financially challenging times" then maybe there wouldn't be such an outcry.

Frankly this is a good example of where an elected "sheriff" (which at least one major party has as one of their policies) would make sense, having someone elected on the mandate of ensuring effective use of resources (£40K cars, police officers, etc) would make those making decisions directly accountable to the public who will be affected by them. But no, that would be asking people how their public services should be run, and we wouldn't want to do too much of that in case they give the wrong answers...