Author: johnredwood

Giving the cold shoulder to the Prime Minister was juvenile. Refusing to reassure all EU citizens living in each other’s countries that they can stay after Brexit was morally repulsive.

I assume even the EU would not stoop so low as to demand the departure of UK citizens from othe EU countries once we leave. It would be against decency,morality and probably international law. So why don’t they just say so? Their refusal shows the PM was wise not to assume they would.

The UK has made clear it is happy for all legally settled EU migrants in the UK to stay. So why can’t the others say the same about British migrants?

At the same time, why can’t the rest of the EU reassure business that they have no wish to damage their trade with us?Again they put their own institution above the needs and wishes of businesses, employees and customers around their Union.

It certainly strengthens the case for leaving. These people clearly do not want the best for their citizens. They use them as pawns in their macabre political game. I thought the EU’s idea was to  take our money in order to give us some service. Once again it looks as if the opposite is true.

Most people agree the  UK needs to do better at providing social care. Some think it is just a case of increasing the money to pay for it by more than it has been increased in recent years. Others say there needs to be reform of the way public sector care is organised and provided. Underlying the debate are two major issues which need discussion.

The first is how much should the state pay and how much should the individual pay? The tripartisan approach for many years has been to say  healthcare should be free, but living costs are down to the individual. If the individual has little capital or private pension income, then the state will pay the living costs as well.

Some say the state should take care of more of the living costs of more people. This would require substantial tax rises to meet the bills. It would mean that instead of selling the old person’s home when they move into residential care to pay the living cost bills, the money from the estate would be preserved and pass to the children. People ask why is it fair that someone who has saved and been careful all their active lives has to pay their own living costs, whereas someone who has lived beyond their means will be paid for?

Others say the current system is fine in this respect. If someone is well off, why shouldn’t they use their own assets and income to pay for their living costs? If someone cannot afford a reasonable standard of accommodation and food, don’t we have a duty to be good neighbours and to help pay?  This is a cheaper solution for taxpayers.

The second issue is internal to government. At the moment central government pays for and runs the NHS, whilst local government pays for and runs much of the social service provision. It is true local government relies heavily on national government grants paid for out of national taxes, but local taxes have a part to play in financing social care. Many people like the idea of devolution of power over policy and spending to Councils from Whitehall, yet when problems emerge in a local service the cry often goes up for government intervention. Quite often it is easier to blame the government for alleged underfunding, than to blame individual Councils for poor or unduly expensive provision.

The public is generally  not much exercised over who runs the service. They want a good outcome. The main problem with Councils running care and the NHS running health treatments comes at the borders. An elderly person who has been treated in a hospital often needs improved care services in order to be able to return home. Some Councils are reluctant to commit in a timely and sufficient way to the need to provide social care. The elderly person then remains in a very expensive hospital bed. This costs the state more overall. Someone no longer needing treatment occupies a bed needed for someone who does  require  treatment. It is often  against the wishes and interests of the patient, who wants to get home.

Any thoughts on what reforms are needed?

Those parties the electorate would destroy, they first drive into coalition. There is a very European pattern of political change. The traditional establishment parties of the centre left and centre right become unpopular in government, they are driven into coalition, and the junior partners in the coalition often become extremely unpopular as a result. Mrs Merkel’s Free Democrat partners are no longer a force in German politics, and her latest partnership with the SPD in grand coalition is harming their electoral appeal.

The bigger issue is the ability of the Euro and the EU scheme to drive the traditional parties out of government, and then to leave them struggling as minor parties with very few seats. Normally when a political party discovers than one of its main propositions is unpopular it changes its view and seeks to get back in favour with electors. To win again Labour in 1997 had to accept Conservative tax rates and spending plans. To win in 2010 Conservatives accepted the minimum wage and social legislation put through by Labour. What is odd is that time and again the strictures of EU and Euro economic policy, generating high unemployment and little or no growth, are rejected by electors only to be upheld as policy by the traditional parties that suffer from the backlash.

The fall in support has been massive for several of the leading continental parties. In Germany the Labour party equivalent, the SPD used to be able to win more than 40% of the vote and form a government. Today it languishes on 22% in the polls. In Italy the PdL centre right party won 37.4% of the vote in 2008. In 2013 this had fallen to 21.6%. Their left of centre opponents, the PD, also fell from 33.2% to 25.4%.

In Spain the centre right party PP fell from 44.6% in 2011 to 33% in 2015, whilst the centre left PSOE fell from 43.9% in 2008 to 22.6%. Worst of all has been the performance of the traditional parties in Greece, where the economic crisis has been the most intense. There Pasok, the Labour party equivalent, collapsed from 44% in 2009 to just 6% in 2015.The centre right New Democracy fared a bit better, falling from 45% in 2004 to 28% in 2015.

In each of these cases the old cycle of government switching between the centre right and centre left depending on economic performance and political skill has been decisively broken. Both main parties in each of these countries has backed the Euro and the full EU scheme. All have supported and defended it continuously, claiming there is no alternative. The electors disagree, and are busy searching for an alternative that might break out of banking troubles, low or no growth and high unemployment.

I just do not understand why once great political parties accept these policies, when they are so clearly life threatening to them as election winning organisations. Why have the normal rules of politics been suspended by the EU? Why don’t these parties want to improve the lot of their electors and get back in touch with their former supporters?

I am relieved that Southern Rail does not serve my voters. All too many commuters having been paying up to £5000 for their season ticket out of taxed income, only to discover the service is poor and often non existent, when there is another strike day.

The dispute is incomprehensible to anyone working in the competitive private sector. It is the fact that the train company has a monopoly and operates within a very controlled framework provided by the public sector, that it can indulge itself in the luxury of antagonising all its customers. They have nowhere else to go. They are prisoners of the system.

Apparently the dispute is over what duties a guard or train manager has on board the train. The company wishes the drivers to control the highly automated system of door closing and locking, as they do on other railways. The Unions say the guard needs to keep this duty. We are told no jobs will be lost if the management changes go through, and the passengers will get a better service. The Unions decline the offer and argue the train would be less safe if the driver works the doors.

Trains are best at moving large numbers of people at rush hour. Then the high capacity of a train coupled with the freedom from pedestrians, cycles and junctions that train track enjoys means it should offer the fastest way of getting into your place of work or back home again. The large numbers wanting to travel means the railway can offer a good timetable for rush hour periods, with frequent trains. The main constraint is the technology of our railway which limits the numbers of trains that can use popular track below the levels the demand would justify. It will take lighter trains, better brakes, and modern signals to increase the capacity of the commuter network.

In the meantime management and Unions need to learn to work with each other to give their passengers value for their high cost season tickets.