Burnham's big splash

As the Labour party is highly unlikely to be in power by 2012, this could be viewed as a meaningless gesture unless the Conservatives sign up for it too. And couldn't it stop new swimming pools being built?

And this is supposed to get voters flocking back to Labour is it? How about they concentrate on the issues that really affect people such as their unfair car tax increases rather than wasting yet more millions on minor diversionary issues?! If people want to use swimming pools they can pay for them!

Dear Nick,

What a damned good idea to get everybody to swim, "is he trying to tell us something only labour know about, who's about to abandon a sinking ship"? , problably the entire British race, as the Island sinks under the weight of labour "criminal" immigration policy, Politicians will be the first into the Life Boats, by buying a ticket BEFORE, women and children. "out of expenses."?

A typical NewLabour non event.

Can I claim it back on tax credits if I decide not to take up the government's kind offer?

Can I ask for taper relief on my next pair of swimmers?

Do I get a tax credit for my hot bovril after the swim?

Can I sue the government if I get a foot infection from swimming?

If I bang my head on the diving board is there a no win no fee claims hotline being set up by the government?

Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of NuBriittania.

Good idea, I'll use it. This is the kind of straight forward policy initiative that people want from the government.

I think it is an excellent idea 'free' which must be extended to, for example, .. free parking ... in hospitals and railway car parks.

'Freedom' where there is no price to pay at the point-of-use is a great idea, up to a point.

Great idea.

Free museums, free sports facilities excellent stuff.

Too little, too late though.

Unfortunately Labours record in government is appalliing. They have sprayed Billions of money around and we've got little value for money.

This initiative won't save Labour - they deserve to go. I'm surprised that people haven't taken to the streets to oust this government - maybe that is only just around the corner........

The car tax increases will be paying for the free swim. NOTHING is free...so when this Government pull a stunt like this it is the tax payers who stump up...NOT Mr Brown. I prefer to keep my tax money and if / when I fancy a swim I will pay. Unbelievable actions by this government!!!!

Been free for the over sixties in Glasgow for the last two or three years.
The chap is just pinching other peoples ideas.

Swimming Pools and Playing Fields are being, respectively, knocked down and ripped up all over the country. These people do not inhabit the real world.

Hope there's a decent pool nearby, there certainly isn't where I am. Perhaps it's all a ploy to let those not wanting to sink with New labour to at least swim with them.

There are no public pools left for us to enjoy for free (which only means you pay bigger council tax, whether you use the pool or not anyway). I live in the City Centre and the City Pool is a disgrace, it's smelly, dirty, cold, and a complete eyesore (starting with the sign over the door which has read CITY POO for years now). When I lived in Australia there was a sports ground with an Olympic sized swimming pool, fields for both cricket and football (with nets) a restaurant, paddling pool, heated child pool, spectator stands, huge changing facilities that were both warm and clean, and where you didn’t have to play "Guess That Smell" all for AU¢20 (9 pence!!). For the amount of money being spent on the Olympics, the whole country could have benefited from free, world standard sports facilities in every town and city.

With all the big problems and issues on the go - this is a big, idea ??

And practical ? What happens if there is a big take up when (if!?!) it rolls out ? What's the betting that there won't be enough pool capacity to cope ?

What about local authority fitness facilties, the fee for which incoporates swimming ?
Bureaucracy beckons. Oh well, at least it's there is no intention to means test it - yet.

Link to the Olympics - spurious or what ?

First - it is an England only initiative sitting along side a British Olympic event and team

Second - why over 60s as the place to start a bid increase sporting activity before 2012 ?

This is a headline seeking missile of mass distraction.

After Labour doubled the tax on the poor, raided my pension funds, whilst gold-plating their own, mired the country in massive debt, started illegal wars based on lies, corrupted our education, straight-jacketed our police with PC (you cannot chase the minorities) backwards racism, leaving our streets to the ferral youths to run amok. broke our armed forces, gave our law giving capacity to Brussels, via the Lisbon Treaty and drove our nation to the brink of complete destruction, you know, the idea of a free swim will really make me vote labour. NOT!

Gosh. Lucky old England. Our cup runneth over.

Not quite as good as free prescriptions or free care for the Elderly though is it?

Good thinking. Healthy people are more productive and less expensive on the health services. Healthy people are also happier. But I hope the recent heavy rainfall and flash floods have not inspired this initiative. I live near a river and much as I enjoy swimming I don't fancy swimming home on a regular basis.

Hmmm... I think if I'd wanted to go swimming I'd have gone anyway. But that's me. Still this does all have the air of a bright idea that chucks social and health and inclusivity issues and what not into the same pot, in the typically unfocused way that has made one rather cynical.

Something like a national tariff of concessions (including zero charges) might have been a nifty bit of management that could do good, but this measure is a bit sweeping, a bit gestural and as posters are pointing out more than a tad costly in the context of pressing needs elsewhere.

Free swimming is a nice idea, but at the moment the country needs the money for more pressing things, like allowing its people to have enough money to feed itself and so that people can get to work without going bankrupt.

This'll cost a fortune to the tax payers, and drive leisure centres out of business when they find that they have to give free access to people but they only get paid a fraction from the government of what it costs to run the pool.

It'll be the same as the free bus pass idea; a nice thought but not backed up with enough money for it to be viable; it'll just drive people out of business. And if it was backed up with enough money then there'd be such a gaping hole in public finances that we'd have to save money somewhere else more important.

The biggest national debt we've ever had, in the middle of a massive recession, no tax revenue put aside as a buffer, nobody can afford to go anywhere, growing unemployment, nobody can get a mortgage, and they announce something like this. Are they completely mad?

They've truly lost the plot.

It isn't cost that stops me swimming as much as I would like - I have the sea on my door step.

What stops me taking more exercise is the fact I have to work all hours to pay all the stealth taxes, and save to replace my stolen pension.

Cut taxes, I can cut my hours, and I can get away from my desk and computer occasionally.

The government spending my money for me on stupid frivolities means I have to work all the harder to earn it, and have all the less time to benefit from it.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

# 12

Does have a point, especially with respect to Australia, which is a place that I have visited.

This is something I've pondered over for a long time.

Starting way, way back when I was a child and local people were living in Nissen huts on the common.

For some reason, English people have never taken wholeheartedly to 'communal' services when provided by 'the authorities'.

It is a bit of a puzzle, but might be partly historic, in being class-based, e.g. Council Houses were provided but the people living in them tended to be 'looked down upon'.

Not by my family I hasten to add, our situation was even more precarious, being totally dependent upon the whims of the local feudal Tory MP/landlord.

Things have improved a lot in England since those far off days, but there are obviously places such as where #12 lives, where the local authorities, by definition, do not appear to care very much about their community.

They, if asked, will almost certainly respond .. .we are controlled from 'the centre' ... i.e. Central Government, especially regarding funding and so our hands are tied.

This is the usual reason my local authority uses when people complain about a lack of facilities.

I have long suspected that both Labour and the Tories have been misusing taxpayers funds by redirecting them to their favoured client groups, often marginal constituencies.

We English simply need to regain proper control of our country, then we can deal with these matters.

re: posting 7
I'm surprised too; I've never gone on a demonstration before, but if such a march on parliament happened I'd be in there no question.

2 years is a long time to wait for the next election; I think the proven negligence and lies and the pending anti-freedom laws mean that we all have a duty to gang up against them and physically kick them out of the building before that 2 years is up and force an immediate general election. (having an unelected dictator in charge doesn't help them either).

count me in!

A good tactic by Burnham to grab the headlines and position himself as a successor to the Clunking Fist, especially when he knows there isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that it will come to pass due to Labour's impending immolation. What else does Andy do when he's in the office?

What really irks me about this is the way it's being spun as a "legacy of the 2012 Olympics". It has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Swimming could be made free perfectly easily even if there were no Olympics. And if there were no Olympics, there would be an extra 9 billion quid to pay for it, as well. I imagine you could build quite a few new swimming pools for that.

#purpledogzzz 14 What a sad outlook you have on life, while the rest of us are enjoying the many good things in life, now added to that free swimming. You must be a joy to be around with all the many complaints you have against the government ,some real some imaginary. I cant see what fun you get, unless your pleasure is waiting for any move by labour good bad or reasonably good so that you can use it to further your pleasure. I can I think assure you that you would not be welcome in the labour party and I doubt that with your miserable outlook on life in Britain not in any other party.

What a great idea. Now all we need is for councils to stop closing swimming pools!

Surely though any service free at the point of delivery has to be paid for some how, yest people in the UK still want low taxes and high quality (free) services. The maths don't work!

Why are most of the posts on this blog condemning the free swimming, does that mean that they did'nt approve of free musuems either, why cant they accept that thousands, or perhaps millions of people will get a lot of pleasure from this move. I guess many of those complaining are non swimmers or perhaps like myself to old to take advantage of this, that does'nt stop me from being really pleased that others will get pleasure from a weekly swim in the safety of a pool. For goodness sake stop picking holes in every thing Labour does. You say they dont do this or that and then they do something that I would have thought pleased everybody but no, the lets trash Labour brigade are back at it . If you want to pick holes have a go at the son of that great man Sir Francis Chichester, or is that going to be swept under the carpet.

Blimey, are the government drunk? What the hell are they talking about? I just spent 50 quid to fill up a Fiat Punto and they're offering free swimming?


"... people want to know we're listening..." Yes people do indeed, yet the message coming back from Whitehall is barmy.

#26 - don't peddle the bogus line about the public wanting 'good public services'; and also wanting low taxes.

If people want anything it is 'good value public services'.

Leave the money in peoples pockets and they can choose whether they want to swim or not.

Opaque monopolies deliver services inefficiently. And that is what the state specialise in - Inefficient opaque monopolies.

free swimming is a great idea, shame that they arent making swimming lessons compulsary to all children as its one of the very few things at school that would actually help save a childs life.

My folks, who really enjoy swimming will be very happy.

Free Museums, Free Swimming (well to no one but the over 60's for a while) and Sure Start

Thats three very good things.

Unfortuantely the economic mess, Northern Rock, Cash for Peerages, 10p tax and this vehicle excise duty con out weighs them considerably unfortunately.

Can someone explain to me how retrospectively raising Vehicle tax will be environentally friendly? If you cant afford the vehicle tax, you're unlikely to be able to afford to buy a new car

comment 9 - How has it worked in Glasgow, i.e. takeup amongst over 60s?

This is a huge lost opportunity for NuLabour to demonstrate its true understanding of Joined Up Government. They could have used this initiative to

* Promote ID cards as the only way to provide free access while maintaining the highest levels of poolside securty

* Trial lane charging systems to control peak time usage, in preparation for the next tax on motorists

* Impose 42 day detention without trial for under-age swimmers trying to impersonate over-60s.

* Introduce new regulations to replace chorine in with a new chemical that destroys knives hidden inside swimming trunks.

Oops I forgot. Joined Up Government was a Blairite policy. Beanites don't do policies...

# 26

Re: 'the maths don't work'.

For politicians the maths work perfectly, in the sense that the political answer can be skewed to deal with the situation in hand.

For example, as you state 'You want some service or facility for free? Well, we don't have the money and would have to put up taxes etc'.

However, for a marginal constituency or to keep some client group e.g. the Northern Irish pacified ... new sports/communal centre? No problem, we will 'find' the money.'

Do not ever believe them when they say they 'do not have the money'.

Right now, for example, I suspect that they are bank-rolling the whole financial system in the UK and you don't get a bigger 'spend' than that.

Government extract more than enough money from English people and businesses.

They do waste stupendous amounts of that money ... but that is a different issue.

Bottom line ... the maths always work if the political situation at hand demands it.

purpledogzzz@14

or is it "wolfie smith"?

A few days ago you were ranting on about Gordon Brown being a bookburning fascist.(Premier performance purpledogzz@72 if anyones interested).
In this post you accuse him of being a PC liberal who can't keep order on the streets.

Good luck with revolution!
__

Back on the subject a good Idea, when it comes to the health service, prevention is much better than cure. Does it really matter why it is being announced if it is a good thing.

It's a bit late surely to start tarting up the Olympic project with the myth that we're (you're/they're - I'm in Scotland) such a dashed sporty lot. One wonders what Phase 2 is going to be. Hide fat kids down old mineshafts? Introduce a blood-pressure tax? Take the logos off the fag packets? Ah.......


Yes, well, now we know.....

# 7/ 21Johnathan Cook, Getridofgordonnow.
I think that neither of you have any Idea of what people in this country think, no more than I or any body else, the General election when our absolutely legal Prime minister Gordon Brown decides when there will be an election he will tell us you are behaving like a couple of school kids. Just because you won a by election you think that the whole country have turned to the Tories for sucour, but you wrong there are already signs that the tide is turning. Now that the feeding frenzy of the press against GB is fading they are starting to take a closer look at Cameron and have began to realise there is no substance there. They have already sussed out Gideon Osbourne and without those two what other new faces have they got. I'm afraid if you were ever stupid enough to march you will find that you would be walking into a wall of Labour voters who are not going to put up with all this bile and spite for much longer.

How about the one thing that really matters;

FREEDOM

Something that costs nothing but this motley crew are determined to fight tooth an nail to remove from the citizens of this country just as fast as it can.

Free bus passes; councils reduce the number of buses.
Free swimming; councils will close the swimming baths.

"Free" prescriptions; this Government will restrict the drugs you can have then not allow you to use the NHS if you pay for them yourselves (even if the same drug is available for "free" in Scotland".

FREEDOM is something that we should not allow the government to take away and worth more to us all that a free "wash and spin". They really don't get it.

This is fantastic news, but it is all very well providing free swimming but where will these people have learnt to swim? If they aren't competent in the water this will put pressure on the lifeguards and other centre staff. Some children are only taught to swim at school and some aren't even lucky enough to get that, we need to make sure people are able to access the basic skills before we allow them to jump in the water. More commitment to swimming in schools and family sessions is where some of the money needs to go.

talking of the NHS - thanks to Good Hope Hospital's Casualty and Fracture clinic.

Havent got a bad t hing to say about them, appointment for 10:15, seen at 10:17, an outrage :) especially considering I damaged myself on Wednesday.

So this is the Brown fight-back.

Burnham (another of the "never-known-anything-apart-from-politics" wunderkind) will have the old, then the young, then all of us swimming for free. (Well those able to access a pool.)

It does raise one or two issuettes.

If this is part of the proposed "Olympic legacy", is the money coming from the billions in funds already designated to cover the Games? A sort of early cash-back payment to sweeten the soaring cost of the Games?

If people live miles away from a decent pool, can they claim back the cost of travel to those locations? With our present transport provision, there will be plenty of folk who could spend half a day getting to a pool.

With all of us able to gain free access, the numbers will no doubt rise. Will Burnham provide funds for new systems, so that pool management can "pre-book" individual visits, to avoid overcrowding and ensure that people have a reasonable chance of a quick dip?

I am all in favour of encouraging activity. And support the idea of the London Olympics. (Although appalled by the financial ineptitude of the Blair/Brown combo who allowed completely misleading estimates to be put in from of the IOC and tax-payers. Having said which, doubling or tripling costs seems to be the norm for this Government.)

I recall Blair playing head-football with Kevin Keagan, to demonstrate his youthful exuberance, his enjoyment of sport and commitment to the young. Just how many school playing fields have been sold off over the last 11 years? And how many children have therefore been deprived of the possibility of popping out for a variety of sports?

If each individual gained (say) UKL80,000 p.a., then for 600 MPs, the cost of their expenses would be around UKL 48Million.

So Burnham thinks that this great leap forward should cost about as much as we are charged to keep MPs in the style to which they are quite obviously accustomed.

Big deal.

It won't even count as a rounding error in terms of Government expenditure.

Being fair, I have to welcome any effort to engage people with exercise. (Maybe a little hard labour for Ministers during the summer recess.)

All too often we get statements (which Ministers seem to equate with action).

Let's see what actually happens.

Of course, all this initiative will do is create a two-tier swimming system.

Those who can afford to will pay to swim in a privately run pool with clean floors, lifeguards and working lockers. Those that cannot afford to pay will swim in council run facilities with algae on the walls and PCSO on duty who will issue ASBOs if someone gets splashed.

A Labour government will try to prevent this by taxing those who swim privately by tracking their swims using the latest satellite technologyand charging at 10p per length. Speedos and other elitist swim gear will be subject to 200% VAT.

Free swimming pools will have a maximum depth of 3.5inches as a Health and Safety measure to prevent drowning.

And so it goes on.

Scott , the take up for the over sixties is good, if my husband and his mates are anything to go by.
It is a Glasgow city thing ,so those living in the leafy suburbs of Bearsden still have to pay as far as I'm aware.
I'm a landlubber myself, have never been attracted to water of the cool variety and without bubbles!
Scotstoun Sports Centre offer a variety of pastimes for the over 50s either free or at a reduced price and many a grey or bald head attends!

re: Posting 36
you're entitled to your views, but I think you're in the minority with them and I think that'll be proved at the next general election if not before. If you can't see that the vast majority hate not just Brown but also labour for stealing and then wasting all our money and taking away our freedoms, then the only thing that'll convince you will be the result of the next election as no rational argument would sway you.

36 Grandantidote

I am geniunely surprised people haven't taken to the streets to protest. The recent by-election is just a side show compared to the governments record since 1997.

If I think of their 'gold plated ' real achievements I'd go for Bank of England Independence, Peace in Ireland and the big wheel outside parliament. That is it.

Their other achievements seem hollow to me: No more boom and bust, minimum wage (1'000's of people are out there earning less), House of Lords refrom (botch job), Hospitals (zero change apart from you can die of MRSA), Schools (standards still slipping), Removal of Iraqi WMD's, Regional Parliaments (break up of the union).

I think that because they can't fix the things that matter, the government are focusing on the easy things - restricting peoples liberties: Smoking Ban, Fox hunting (not that I like hunting), 42 days, ID Cards, 1'000's of new crimes etc..


Can anyone think of any other 'gold plated' achievements of this Government????

Well this little idea should keep all those oldies off the streets and it should keep their minds off the fact that their pension has been stolen and they can not afford to eat or live.

Well done Nu(Improved)Labour.

From the press release...

"A new £140 million fund to boost sport and fitness through free swimming for the over 60s was announced by the Government today as part of a drive to get two million people more active by the London 2012 Olympics.

The fund, announced alongside a new strategy for sport in England, will encourage local authorities to open up nearly 1,600 publicly owned swimming pools free to over 60s. More than 10 million older people in England stand to benefit from the move.

It will also be used as a challenge fund to encourage local authorities to offer free swimming to under 16’s and to rejuvenate and maintain pools."

This £140 million fund appears to be a one off - who picks up the ongoing cost of the initiative, is the Government committed to providing future payments or will it come from the Council Tax?

Who will fund the under 16 swimming where this "challenge fund" encourages local authorities to offer free swimming to under 16's?

The words "challenge fund" and "encourage" suggest the expense, at least longer term, will fall to Council tax payers. Yet the government seem to be spinning it that whilst they are funding the over 60@s first, the under 16's will follow.

#36

You're now the third choice party. If you think there has been a press feeding frenzy; wait unitl your candidate loses his deposit in Henley.

This is what your absolutely legal prime minister is facing next. And he knows it.

If he wants the respect of the 'British' he should step back immediately from the entire 42 day issue and preserve the freedoms for which our forebears fought and died.

As for the enormous quantities of calls and data being cited as the reason the police need these powers; have they never used the 'search' box on a computer? MI5 already has key words that are picked up on every one of our telephone calls.

Modern technology didn't just speed up for the criminals it speeded up for the prosecutors too. Use it please.

This is exactly what the government should do as a matter of both policy and connecting with the electorate. It's simple, clear, and powerful; and practical and social. It gets attention in a goodway and is a great teaser for the Prime Minister's keynote later in the year.

Swimming is an excellent leisure activity, good for all over body fitness, and helps people reclaim public spaces. It ticks all the goals, teamwork, and long-term boxes. Why waste a fortune fixing damage when prevention can help avoid that damage in the first place?

Alternatives to swimming are walking and Tai-Chi. Both help calm the mind and gently boost physical fitness. The increase in personal happiness and long-term savings in healthcare is off the dial. Dog homes are currently bursting with people trying to offset the cost of running Chelsea tractors.

As for people who are moaning and arguing, all they're doing is getting themselves angry and adding to their risk of disease in later life. The Tory benches at PMQ's are the most miserable bunch I've seen in my life. Perhaps, they may like to take advantage of "joyous endeavor" instead of always busying their minds.

43 GetridofGordonnow.The important words you use are "I think". I have no reason to believe that the vast majority of people hate GB or the rest of labour, Just because you Tories say they do repeatedly it does'nt make it so.
As I say one by election does'nt change a goverment as the old saying goes "one swallow does'nt make a summer"Followed by another "dont count your chickens before their hatched".why is it that you Tories think that your argument is rational and yet everyone else's argument is'nt.

I'm really looking forward to Gordon Brown's offkey note speech.

Will it be preceeded by the pre-offkey note speech?

I am a Tory through and through, blue to the core.

However, on this issue, Labour have done good. I don't care whose idea it was first, just so long as it gets put into practice.

When I were a lad (late 70's/early 80's), my local council - Tameside, East Manchester, had a policy of giving free passes to any child who had completed the Gold level of the old (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Honours) swimming proficiency scheme. It was a brilliant idea, and a real incentive to learn lifelong and useful swimming skills. People value free things by what they cost, Tameside's scheme might have been free, but you had to earn your right to the free pass. And getting the Gold level at age 12, like I did, was far from easy.

#47 RobinJD . do you realy think that Labour expect to win at Henly its been a safe seat for the Tories for years, why would they expect to win. Now that the clown has gone perhaps they will get a decent MP albeit a Tory.

I'm afraid if you were ever stupid enough to march you will find that you would be walking into a wall of Labour voters who are not going to put up with all this bile and spite for much longer.

Prescription drugs are not allowed free in Scotland - thats Wales your thinking of! Although the SNP administration is slowly lowering price toward adopting that policy in 2010 (following the example of Labour in Wales).

I find the whole situation very amusing.

Economy going down, house reposessions up, petrol, gas and electricity at record prices, thousand of soldiers risking their lives in a war no one wanted and yet the best our 'Leader' can come up with is free swimming!!!

What a pathetic, cynical attempt Gordon.

And claiming it's an Olympic legacy is a load of tosh!!!

Forward 50 years... telling our grandkids... "we'll always remember the great olympics of 2012.. it was the same year we got to go to the swimmers for free!!!"

There's no such thing as a 'free public service'.

Productive people pay for these services via taxation.

So, either the government will cut back an existing 'service' to pay for this scheme, or taxes will have to rise.

In this instance I believe this 'initiative' will be forgotten long before 2012. Pity we can't 'forget' the Olympic Games too....

Can anyone think of any other 'gold plated' achievements of this Government????

CEW

Surely the better analogy for Labour would be to compare them to Microsoft Vista.

They promise the earth but despite frequent booting they still wont work properly!

Well, Labour's come a long way from Kinnock's 'Couger'. I guess, we're all just waiting to see what the big reveal is with Gordon's keynote. Could it be the *gasp* rumoured iPolicy?

Nothing wrong with a free swim, but there are many other more urgent issues that need funding.

Why for example can't people with Alzheimer's get the medication they need? The drugs only cost £2.50 a day, but need to be taken as soon as possible. Although not a cure, it slows down the progression for many people.

This uncaring government has decided people can only have the medication once their condition has deteriorated to a more advanced stage - by which time much of the benefit has been lost.

Lack of care for the elderly in this country is a disgrace and a scandal.

Nick,

There are lots of free opportunities for people to get fit. Likewise, anyone wanting to compete at a future Olympics should join a club, and campaign for more 50 metre pools. However, to trail this initiative as representing free swimming is just a typical con. Nothing provided by the government is free. Someone always has to pay. So if we look at this in another way, taxes will either have to go up, or cuts will have to be made in services elsewhere. Perhaps the bold Andy and his good for nothing boss would like to enlighten us as to how this will work in practice.

As for this being the great idea to save Labour, is it not in fact Gordon waving for help as he goes under for the third time?

Finally, for the posters on the blog discussing the fact that GB was not elected as PM by the electorate. When people highlight this fact, they are questioning his legitimacy, not suggesting that he is not legal. Please remember this, as I would hate to think that Brown might get arrested for not being legal.

All the best

Re #36
"Their other achievements seem hollow to me: No more boom and bust, minimum wage (1'000's of people are out there earning less), House of Lords refrom (botch job), Hospitals (zero change apart from you can die of MRSA), Schools (standards still slipping), Removal of Iraqi WMD's, Regional Parliaments (break up of the union)."

At what point has any Tory government produced 11 years of low inflation, low interest rates and practically full employment? (Harold Macmillan anyone?) Under no circumstances do we have the return of boom and bust as we used to know it. The last 11 years are characterised by stable growth - the antitheses of "boom and Bust".
The minimum wage was opposed by the Conservatives without reservation.
The NHS and Education has been transformed and those working in it are all paid a decent wage too. This is a record to be proud of. It is record built by Gordon Brown a man of substance and intellect. It could never be achieved by Bullingdon Boy Dave and his cronies.

I have not mentioned Iraq and Devolution. Here you have a case. Were the Tories against the War in Iraq? Do they intend to repeal the creation of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments? I know the Tories are waging a personal war against the Prime Minister. Other than that they have no agenda at all.

re 63:
11 years of stable growth? That was an illusion created by 11 years of
overspending/waste of public money; the underlying fundamentals have been an increasing national debt (even during boom years) which now leaves us in a situation where there's a huge recession and no money left; the country is basically bankrupt.

The only time that waste was relatively small was in the early years when Brown stuck to Tory spending plans; thereafter the whole country started going to the wall.

All the "positive" aspects from the economy over the last 11 years have happened despite Gordon Brown/Labour, not because of him, and have mostly been a facade hiding the true nature of what was happening in the public finances.

We're now facing the cost of this because we're in a recession with no money left.

Any government could make things "appear" good for a few years, the problem is that they were creating a false economy that would inevitably end up crashing due to the national debt and mis-management and waste.

#64: getridofgordonnow

You neglected to add that due to the policies you mention and the current state of the world economy that things are gonna get a hell of a lot worse before they start to improve.

Yep I agree, due to Mr Beans incompetence we are ill equiped to face the oncoming economic storm.

Oil now 139 dollars per barrel, predicted to rise to 150 dollars next month. Previously predicted to rise to 150 dollars by the end of the year.

But I, and others, can take solace in the fact that Mr Bean assures us that there will be no infalation, after all the rev counter is well and truly stuck at 3 percent.

In principle I like the idea because I am retired although I would worry how it would be funded. There would also be the question of how it would be organised as many swimming pools cater for school groups who tend to take up numerous time slots.

Is his the best that this NuTory Gov't can offer? wake me up when they're booted out zzzzzzzz

The moderation here scares me a bit; why was posting 63 referred to the moderators? It was a benign/un-offensive posting as far as I could see.

I didn't agree with the arguments used in it, and it took a swipe at my posting and a couple of others, but they've still got a right to say it; if people aren't allowed to see both sides of the argument then what's the point of having a blog?

come on auntie beeb; play fair and reinstate it; I might not agree with what it said but it's not fair to block it.

Can't remember what was in his comment but people definately need to knock off the trolling and flamebait. Discussion is fine but when people start trying to argue like amateur lawyers or use it as their personal social club things take a nose-dive.

CEH - if you can't remember what was in my comment why the trolling jibe?
Sticking up for the PM's record when someone else has directly had a go is not trolling.
I recall making comments about growth and stability over the last 11 years and saying DC couldn't hope to match it. It was a direct response to #44.
I did call DC "Bullingdon Dave". Maybe that is too much for the House rules.
I suspect Gordon Brown has been called much worse by other bloggers though!

When I mentioned 'free' parking in hospitals and railway stations earlier, it was because these charges exemplify a meaness towards the people that is breathtaking.

One, hospital parking charges - the people coming along to visit are relatives and friends of the sick and distressed.

Why on earth should they have to worry about finding change for some wretched machine in the hospital car park, when they are probably already very concerned about more pressing matters i.e. the patients they are visiting.

Two, railway car park charges, people are often very stressed by the time they get to the railway station and obviously do not want to miss their train.

Why should they have to waste time grubbing around for change for car parking machines, which are often not working anyhow.

It is the simple lack of humanity about these things, the venal money-grabbing (a variation of the politicians notorious 'co-payments' in the case of the hospitals car parking fees) that one despairs of.

All very un-English to my mind and hopefully to become just a bad memory when we English finally get our country back.

Come on Nick, don't pretend to be naive, now!

Ask yourself this question - Who has been and still is in power since 1997?

Then you can answer who came up with and implemented the following.

Free bus tickets for the elderly
Discounted train tickets for the elderly.
Free TV licences for the elderly.
Help with heating bills for the elderly.
Free house insulation in Wales.
Free swimming in Wales.
Free prescriptions in Wales, now that's a lot.
Now, free swimming in England for over 60s.
Free swimming for all by 2012.
There's more Nick, but I am going out for a swim.

This is not to bring new blood to vote Labour, but simply for the well-being of us lazy buggers drinking beer and watching TV, but would it not be nice to ask boy Dave if he would keep all the above if we have the misfortune to have a cowboy for PM!

That wasn't too hard now, was it Nick? Good night Nick.

NuLabournohope_2

Are you comparing Gordon Brown to Mr Bean like Vince Cable, Ontheperipheral and Nulabournohope did?

Does this mean that David Cameron is the driving the blue 3 wheel van?

Brown doesn't control the price of oil only the tax! if fuel tax is drastically cut. The difference will be made up quickly as the demand increases. You'll just end up paying extra profit instead of tax.

Get yourself a little green Mini to save the planet and help preserve our precious oil resources.

At 6:15 pm on 06 Jun 2008, stephenni1971 wrote:
CEW

Surely the better analogy for Labour would be to compare them to Microsoft Vista.

They promise the earth but despite frequent booting they still wont work properly!



You can get a patch for Vista!

Good idea free swimming, IF you can find a pool that hasn't been closed by the local council.

This is an ill thought out inatitive that will only have marginal success and be a waste of this money. It will even cost more unseen. Let me explain:

Find 10 friends that do not swim very often if at all. Ask them if the cost of a swim in the pool is the reason they do not swim. I guarantee very few will say yes.

Swimming in England is already good value for money. People do not swim because they are not motivated to. All this will do is give free swimming to people already swimming. In turn this will further reduce income for local centres therefore costing even more money than stated.

No, the problem here is that this niggling idea is not big enough. Free swimming pools is so prosaic. No if a failed Party like New Labour are to revive their flagging fortunes, then let's go for something really big, something that will really increase participation in the saving graces of sport. Instead of offering free admission to putrid pools, lets offer free admission to all football grounds. That's right, throw open the gates at Old Trafford and the Emirates Stadium, et.al. and let 'em all in for free! Now theres a sure vote winner! The punters have been complaining for years about the high cost of admission ain't they? They don't want to go to the pool if they can go to the match do they! How can anyone lose an election on a platform like that?! And don't go bothering on with all that anti-Soviet rubbish about how are we going to pay for it? We got plenty of economists on staff that are paid fancy salaries to look after such boring details, ain't we? The point is it's a big idea, a really BIG idea!

I live in Oxford - population in 2001 134,000 minus half students=123,000
Total public swimming pool area- about 1204 square metres
if open 14 hours a day 16856 sq metre hours
so that's 0.1255 sq metre hours per person, 7.5 sq metre minutes.

Not much room to swim!

All very un-English to my mind and hopefully to become just a bad memory when we English finally get our country back.

Instead of offering free admission to putrid pools, lets offer free admission to all football grounds. That's right, throw open the gates at Old Trafford and the Emirates Stadium, et.al. and let 'em all in for free! Now theres a sure vote winner!

All very well and good for people to complain about free swimming on offer.
Has it occured to anybody, just for one minute, sitting with a very nice comfortable life-style that there are people out there who just cannot afford the entrance money?
As that cash is required to keep body and soul together, in some households.
Everybody does not live in the comfort of cosy suburbia, some actually have to go without.
If people do not require this perk in their most cosseted of lives, then pay, but do not deny the privilege of free swimming to others who cannot. Why deny it to those who could not afford to pay?
After all it could be a possible Olympic gold medalist you are denying of the chance. Or a youngster prevented from joining in gang related activities.
Or could it be that people would deny this to the less fortunte, for the sheer hell of it, because one can?
Have we become this selfish in our society that we would deny the less well off something that is only sweetie money to the rest of the poulation? Think of others for a change, instead of the selfish British disease of ME! ME! ME!

79:
'Has it occured to anybody, just for one minute, sitting with a very nice comfortable life-style that there are people out there who just cannot afford the entrance money?'

I would agree that helping those with little spending money is philanthropically welcome and would go down well with them but I also agree with 75 that there are many more people who are just not motivated to do so merely because they cannot be bothered to interrupt their present lifestyle. Unless it is somehow means tested it would be using tax revenue to line the pockets of the very people who actually can afford it and would then be given a free handout at our expense. Why stop at swimming pools by the way. Why not extend the scheme to tennis access and other fitnness inducing sports? The cost of joining a tennis club is now well beyond the means of hard up individuals. I'm also not sure that the scheme would help to prevent obesity. People will still eat and also eat to excess in their spare time whether they are provided with free swimming time or not. What is needed is a more radical approach to the problem in schools and the media so that people are properly educated as to the dangers of poor physique brought on by poor consumption habits. I think what I am trying to say is that although the initiative might be well intentioned its delivery and success criteria is doubtful and very costly. It is also an issue that should command the need for cross party support and is therefore not a party political matter to be debated heatedly on this forum.

80:
corrections:
(fitness - line 12)
(people will still eat and also drink - line 15)

79#

If the purpose was to keep youngsters away from gangs or produce Olympic medalists, why start with over 60s ?

This "initiative" sounds like another gesture designed to sound positive, but adding nothing to the nation's resources.

Most of us would like children, the more elderly - indeed all the population - to have cheap (or even free) access to swimming pools.

But the policy won't add to the number of pools. If councils decide they can't or won't "invest" to maintain pools, this doesn't help. It certainly doesn't provide capital to build new pools.

Future Olympians need to be encouraged. If the government said unequivocally that NO school playing fields would be sold off, that would be a real benefit.

(Maybe they could buy back some of the spaces children need to enjoy. And encourage more competitive sport under some proper teaching regime. Not leaving it to the Saturday and Sunday clubs, where parents too often goad their kids into aggression.)

Keeping fit is good for everybody.

C_E_H seems breathless, waiting for a Brown keynote that could include revelations about an iPolicy.

Would that be "i" for integrated? That would be a start, after a decade. (Possibly meaning that when old folk have to get a bus - if it exists - to a distant Post Office, they find it close to a swimming pool, so they can pop in for a quick dip?)

Or "i" for invasive? Well, we have enough of that to be getting on with allready. Maybe we'll have wheelie bins with cameras?

Or "i" for intelligent? Fat chance.

(I guess there has to be a little doubt where a keynote would be delivered. Since the Labour Party has handled its own finances the same way it's handled the nation's, they could be insolvent soon. A keynote delivered in a garden shed doesn't have a lot of impact!)

I should have added that I appear to have answered my own question.

I presume Brown's possible "revelation" of an iPolicy means "i" for insolvency.

I rather think that, if UKplc were measured by commercial criteria, it would be accused of trading under false pretences.

This "initiative" sounds like another gesture designed to sound positive, but adding nothing to the nation's resources.

Whilst the current initiative in itself is commendable, it is far too little, far too late!

To tackle youth crime, gang membership and obesity we need a joined up initiative across all government departments. Unfortunately the terms 'joined up' and 'NuLabour' do not sit well in the same sentence.

I dont know whether its me being cynical? But are Mr Bean and NuLabour attempting to commit suicide?

Notwithstanding the 42 day fiasco we now see they are set to transfer contentious major planning decisions to a non-elected, non-accountable quango. Once again more erosion of our democracy.

In the Britain that I grew up in people had rights and responsibilities. In Britain today NuLabour are rapidly dismantling the former and instituting a culture that does not even know what the later means.

Whilst I would agree that planning laws do need looking at, I feel saddened that once again NuLabour have adopted the path that leads to a less accountability to the electorate!

But hey, I guess that’s what NuLabour do best - set up unaccountable quangos.

Hardly the results of a listening government!

I have just read the survey from the LGA with regards provisions for our Elderly Health Care across Britain for the new financial year.

Help with basic daily tasks, such as washing and eating, is increasingly available only to those with the greatest need.

Three quarters of councils now only provide personal care to elderly and disabled people who have greater than 'substantial' needs.

I suppose that NuLabour thought that floating free swimming for our elderly would in some way bury this report. Sick really!

6 billion shortfall over the next 20 years, chicken feed really when you stack that figure against what we are ploughing billions into NR and Iraq and other the other black holes that NuLabour have poured our taxes into.

Who is it that is really paying for these initiatives - looks like our elderly population!

Free swimming lessons are the last thing these people need.

They just need basic help! Sadly NuLabour has let them down!

88:
I would concur with this. I had to look after my elderly mother for four years after a spinal operation went wrong. I had to be on hand 24/7 in case she fell and injured herself. In spite of many falls by her inside her home and many attempts to obtain more specialised care for her I was told that she did not meet the criteria.

Behind organisations and resoruces are policies and people, and behind that is how people think and feel. It's fantastically simple and costs nothing to get behind a better approach that everyone can agree on. The rest takes care of itself.

People want great demonstrations, swelling crowds, and results today but this is only the grasping of ego. The more they wind themselves up the worse the outcome, the greater the misery. The Brown Doctrine, Peter Hain's essay on diplomacy, and the swimming pool initiative are a good start.

There's a mischievous piece in today's BBC Online that is contrary and negative, and attempts to grasp the whole problem but misses everything by a mile. It's a clever and persuasive piece but doesn't go anywhere. Really, it would've been better if it hadn't been written but this is, in itself, a useful lesson.

I don't move my fist, my fist moves itself, etcetera.

It's not that free swimming is a bad idea - but there are so many other services that need urgent funding, including proper care for the elderly.

As usual, Brown gets his priorities wrong. He slips further down the ratings, oblivious to the fact that his unpopular policies are to blame. (Congestion charging for Manchester will be a real vote-winner!)

It's ironic that a drowning man should be offering us free swimming lessons!

#90: DistantTraveller
Congestion charging for Manchester will be a real vote-winner!
-----------------------
Greater Manchester is currently a Tory free zone. NuLabour must be getting bored.

Believe me it sure is a vote winner - for the Tories!

89. At 4:49 pm on 08 Jun 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
Behind organisations and resoruces are policies and people, and behind that is how people think and feel. It's fantastically simple and costs nothing to get behind a better approach that everyone can agree on. The rest takes care of itself.

People want great demonstrations, swelling crowds, and results today but this is only the grasping of ego. The more they wind themselves up the worse the outcome, the greater the misery. The Brown Doctrine, Peter Hain's essay on diplomacy, and the swimming pool initiative are a good start.


Charles, the intiative is a good idea, but a bit hypocritical since councils (all parties) are closing swimming pools for lack of funding and selling the land to private developers.

London is hosting the Olympics and Glasgow is hosting the Commonwealth Games, yet the whole of the UK is sorely lacking in sports facilities, and those that exist are expensive in most cases.

Free swimming is a minor gesture, a small and inexpensive tool to make the Prime Minister appear to be in touch.

If this is the Brown Doctrine (as you call it) in action, then it really is time for a change.

If this is the Brown Doctrine (as you call it) in action, then it really is time for a change.

NewLabour have been the government for eleven years.

If 'Britain is in such a state' then NewLabour are to blame.

No one accepts responsibility for anything becasue their govenrment has set them this example over eleven years; they are never responsible for failure, only for success.

This attitude has become endemic largely thanks to NewLaours shoddy example and ridiculous culture of 'rights' rather than responsibilioties.

Brown was CFO of this experiment and could have stopped it if he wanted.

Instead we are now p[resented with the brown 'doctrine' - precisley the wrong approach. People have had enough of doctrinaire, authoritarian, splashy spending, grandstanding, mis-allocating, big govenment becasue it fails over and over again.

The Berlin wall fell because of the failure of this style of government and the NewLabour walls are now crumbling.

The USSr and Eastern Europe, in common with Gordon Brown, blamed the USA for their problems shortly before their collapse. This ridiculous pinning the blame in the Americans for our current woes is turning our odest ally against us. Big mistake. Gordon Brown's biggest mistake so far, in fact. He's alienated the whole of Europe and the US. Who exactly does he think he can rely on? Certainly not his own party.

Not Flash, just no cash; that's Gordon.

People have had enough of doctrinaire, authoritarian, splashy spending, grandstanding, mis-allocating, big govenment becasue it fails over and over again.

Brown has squandered the cash on trivialities such as the NHS-Crumbling Hospitals, extra Doctors Nurses and support service. On Crumbling School buildings extra teachers. Children having their own books instaed of sharing the. Fruit provided for the infants. Nursery places, plus minimum wage just to name a few, help for the eldery with free bus passes, winter fuel allowance, Christmas bonuses, free TV licences for the over 75's. What a shame Brown did not use that money wisely, such as giving tax-cuts to the rich and providing cash back for those that wished to provide their own health care. Now that would have been money well spent.

If swimming was free, I wonder how many of us would actually be able to swim more than about 5 feet, in a pool absolutely crammed with people getting something for nothing.

Charles: (89, 93)

Britian doesn't make anything? It takes 5 years for an 'entity' to make significant change? An organisation takes the same time? That's not Gordons fault it's ego?

You really should qualify these statements. Your problem is that you are the master of throw-away comments. We make steel and cars, and chemicals, don't we? 5 years to change? Where did you get this from? I think I can guess, from some pop management book written by some 'guru' from the USA. Why 5 years, why not 10, 20? The point is this is just nonesense. New Labour have been in power for over 10 years. Think about it a while, not 5 but over 10 years.

Also: I do wish you'd stop this 'it's all 'ego' stuff. It's akin to a kid writing a story but failing to tie it up at the end and reverting to: 'it was all a dream' as the solution. Ego as used by you is just an abstraction, it says nothing, and reveals nothing. Like it or not someone is to blame for our current woes. Using ego to tie up you posts is tedious and a fraud.

# 94

We need not worry overly about the Americans turning against us because they will not.

However, Senator (and soon to be President) Barack Obama kindly lets us know precisely where 'Great Britain' stands in the grand scheme of things.

In his book 'The Audacity of Hope', disccusiing American international projections, he tells the reader that "we {the USA} cannot round up Great Britain and Togo" to assist us in future military adventures.

I winced a bit when I read that ... but Senator Obama is only speaking an uncomfortable truth.

America's defence budget is bigger than the next 30 countries combined.

Our politicians need to stop pretending that we can push other countries around anymore ..we cannot and it is leading to humiliation when we try e.g. in Basra, Iraq.

# 98 doctor gloom." Britain make steel and cars and chemicals dont we" Well I'm not to sure about chemicals but we make a hell of a lot less steel since Maggie sold the steel industry and what were you saying about cars, the only cars I see about are the French, German and Eastern countries production, sprinkled with a few Italian motors. what production we have in this country[not cars] 62 per cent goes to Europe and the conservatives are hell bent on getting us out of there, at our Peril.