So taxation for education is spent on wages, fixtures and fittings, stationary & maintenance, and not on the education of the individual. The value of learning should therefore be considered a by-product of this expenditure.

A market will settle on a price for a product or service below which that good will not be supplied. If the consequences of not providing a service to those in need of it (e.g. the education of children or the care of the sick) cannot be tolerated by a civilised society then it becomes a legitimate role of the state to step in and do what the free market is not willing to do. But by abandoning the market mechanisms we also lose useful tools such as return on investment which greatly complicates the investment decisions. It seems to me that the ‘return on investment’ must still be there because society is willing to pay for public education and health, but the value seems to have been converted (at least partly) from a monetary currency to one of morality.

He does come across as one of the dumbest of the Zanu LP cabal.

2.2 para. 3: There should be no need for debate at all regarding the use of CPI. This was an obvious fiddle right from the very start to maipulate the MPC and to make the government look good. Many people are suffering from two digit levels of inflation because they are trapped by fixed incomes and are at the mercy of raging taxation inflation – pensioners for example. Don't talk about it, get rid of and replace it with RPI and some other measure to take into account fiscal and public sector inflation.

The whole of section 2.3 terrifies me. Stuart Fairney may be right……maybe there is a scorched earth policy. But if there is, it is likely to backfire on the Labour party. Once the Tories form government and find out and publicise just how bad the situation really is, the likelyhood is that the electorate will never forgive them. Roll on the Lib Dems being the next main opposition party. It will serve Labour right, because much of the damage they have done to this country has been absolutely deliberate. I speak as a livestock farmer who has watched their TB strategy with open-mouthed horror.

But there are two or three areas which deserve closer attention: The first is that of local government which Acorn has mentioned; The second is that of quangos and third is that of charities.

Quangos are managed in such a way as to be unaccountable to the electorate, despite spending huge amounts of our money. When they make a mess of things, e.g. SATs, the appropriate minister is able to wash his hands of responsibility. Witness Ed Balls' mind blowing evasion of his responsibility the other night on Ch.4. There has to be some way of bringing important parts of public expenditure back into political control and responsibilty so that ministers can and should be sacked when things go wrong because of their officers' incompetence. This will sharpen up civil servant quality.

Charities are being talked about by David Cameron as organisations who can help in some vague undefined way with public matters. I am uncomfortable with this. I have watched the RSPCA, National Trust and others be taken over by those with a particular political bent. In some cases the original purpose of the charity has been lost and they are now campaigning organisations with altogether lopsided agendas. With this suggestion by DC, whichever government is in power, the tendency will be for charities to become quasi regulatory bodies and, again, will be unaccountable to the public.

I would be interested to see the development of Conservative policies on both of these subjects.

Assuming there are still some honourable civil servants at the Treasury, who know the truth and are still minded to print it whenever possible; have a look at:-
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_08/do…

Particularly at:- http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/8/bud08_eco…

There is some very interesting data in the latter. You can see where the credit exploded and things like PFI payments being around £9 billion a year for the future decades.

Also, it is not impossible that a future government may have to renege on a portion of its internal debts – public sector pensions for instance. You talk John, of the future mandate for the Monetary Policy Committee; it may now be time for you to establish a shadow Fiscal Policy Committee; and, have it ready to go into action on day one of your next government. It may be given a mandate say, of reducing and maintaining public sector spending at 33% of market price GDP. One thing is for sure, you have to start getting your people inside the Treasury infrastructure now, you are going to need them!

As an amateur government studier, one thing that strikes you time and time again; eight years is the maximum that ANY government can sustain competent performance. By year ten, it becomes obvious to the lay observer, that things are falling apart. I read sometime back that "… no politician should be more than two years away from an election …". I am starting to think that this should be a prime directive in our constitution.

By the way. We are now electing far to many people with little talent. The days of sixty / seventy member Councils have passed there sell-by date. Likewise Trust boards etc – NHS; Police Authority etc,. – provide no added value and are basically ignored by their paid management; who take their instructions from central government alone. We have ended up with a government front bench that has little management experience and most should not have risen above their District Council competence level. There is a major task for the future of educating voters to look for competence in any individual they elect. Voting for a donkey with a coloured rosette on his collar, is not good enough anymore.

Am I still in favour of a democracy? Oh yes. But, I want my democracy to have a management structure more like Tesco than fiasco!