A summit stock-take

I won't beleive anything that comes from the G8 until I see it.

Nick the people who love these summits the most and have a great time are the press TV an their entourage.I'll bet you cant wait for the next one, and who could blame you.

Nick says "Real business was done at the G8", but if that's the case there has been a real problem reporting on it.

Mugabe condemned but no sanctions against AU leaders for doing nothing. No change, then.

Conditional promise that the US will think about carbon emissions by GWB who will be long gone anyway before it's properly discussed let alone implemented. No change, then.

No sign of aid to or trade with Africa being linked to good governance so that some of it might benefit the people instead of their rulers. No change, then.

To be fair, Brown was no worse than the rest for once so perhaps deserves a C- instead of his usual D.

The intentions as stressed by Brown are admirable.

But back at home he is still the "Crisis? What crisis?" leader who seems to be utterly out of touch.

Big black holes in funding next year. Glasgow East. Scottish 2010 referendum. Probable backlash if Obama wins and the Iraq sleaze surfaces. Similar if Maliki does not renew the UN mandate to expire in 2008. Party funding crisis. No activists after 10p and 42 days. We have already had one announcement that we will be pulling out of Iraq. When will the next one be? Housing crash.

I cannot believe he has survived this long and assume its only until the autumn.

Gordon Brown will no doubt use the opportunity to check the dustbins and find out how much food is being wasted. It doesn't bear thinking how much money is being wasted sending Brown to Tokyo. On the positive side, it's a good punishment for the whale killing Japanese to have GB inflicted upon them. Perhaps they can use him as another souce of raw meat for their dreadful sushi!

Nick asks "Wouldn't it have been easier to pick up the phone?"

Not only that, it would have bought The Supreme Leader just a little more credibility at home and a few more than "the usual suspect" might even have applauded his "Kitchen Prudence" routine instead of berating him further for saying one thing whilst doing the opposite.

Same as ever - only commit to doing something AFTER they have left office/politics or better still after counties, not represented, have taken action. A climate change CO2 target in 42 years time - how ridiculous!

Take steps NOW.
1. Get freight (back) onto the railways.
2. Make it far more expensive for employers to employ staff who live a long way from work.
3. Real incentives to buy low emission vehicles and penalties if you don't.
4. Encourage insulation of old and new houses.
5. Restart the nuclear energy programme.

But none of these will happen because they are all tiny little men and women and all afraid! So move to a hill top and learn to love gardening!

Gordon always thinks chucking a lot of money at a problem is worth while. So no change there then.

But now its back to the reality of beans on toast and a drizzly old London in a country full of people who want an election now.

I thought my post holiday blues were bad, wouldnt want his.

It must be a relief for Gordon Brown to escape the accursed Blighty and hob-nob it in his 'comfort zone' at the G8, Davos and other international settings.

But he has to return and all those pressing 'domestic' problems are crowding in.

In one sense, these senior politicians have the years of endurance and stamina to handle the unremitting pressure of that level.

But when you reads in the media of early morning phone-calls with lots of shouting and swearing, you do wonder when will Brown reach the tipping point and begin the short step to political oblivion.

Maybe sooner than we expect.

#7 John_from_Hendon:

A fascinating list of suggestions. But four of the five are already government policy, and #1 and #4 have been implemented for many years now.

I am intrigued by #2. In a free country, how exactly do you tax business in such a way as to penalise them for having an employee who chooses to live at some distance from their work?

It has been a very expensive away day for all the leaders. Yes - it is good for them to meet up - but the cost is astounding!

Gordon has now done a bit of playing the backroom international statesman - and has probably been quite good at that. His problem is his lack of ability as a domestic leader.

Once back in the UK there are no more imposing-statesman-on-the-lawn photo opportunities. It is back to forced smiles on GMTV, dodgy PM Questions performances and Glasgow East.

Re 7 John_from_Hendon

Some good points there.

Your point 2 re excessive commuting is good but should be balanced by incentives for employers and staff in favour of "home" working - something now perfectly practical for many current "office" workers.

I'd take issue with your nuclear strategy until/unless someone can properly address the waste issue.

Right now, I bet you would prefer to live next to a wind farm than another potential Chernobyl or a nuclear waste dump.

Re #8 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2

Very True. Right now, I'd prescribe a short visit to the bracing air of the Clyde valley. I believe there are some friends of his on the eastern fringes of Glasgow who'd love to see him.

The value of face-to-face negotiation is incalculable (although the Russians do a good job of nodding and then forgetting) so travelling for one-to-one talks will never disappear.

What does grate is the sheer superiority of the suits constantly lining up to show they are "the most important people in the world". If they were, then I'm sure we would know that already... Q

Brown: Welcome to this week’s cabinet meeting everyone---
Darling: (interrupting) Absolutely no Tories allowed.
Brown: There aren’t any Tories here Alistair. Now, I hope you’ve all got your thinking caps on.
Blears: I’ve got my taxing cap on.
Brown: Excellent Hazel, that’s just what we need, because it has come to my attention that we are not taxing people enough.
Miliband: But the papers… They’re calling us thieves and liars! They say we’ve taken far too much in fuel duty alone!
Brown: But we have no money.
Miliband: But…
Brown: And since we have no money, how can we be taxing too much?
Hoon: HOOOOOOOOOON!
Brown: Stop that! Go and sit in the corner. (Hoon goes to the corner)
Blears: How about the window tax? We should bring that back. I like that one.
Brown: Ooh yes. I like that too. It’s cruel, but we can spin it like mad and say it’s to punish the rich.
Darling: Those damn Tories.
(A knock on door. Enter Ruth Kelly, wet and dishevelled)
Kelly: Sorry I’m late.
(Silence for a moment)
Kelly: Are we thinking up taxes again?
Brown: Aye.
Hoon: HOOOOOOOON!
Brown: For fu… Can someone get him out of here?
Miliband: What about a tax tax?
(Blears gasps)
Brown: Go on.
Miliband: Well, they pay us tax right? Why should that tax be tax-free?
Blears: It shouldn’t. Pass me the caviar Alistair.
Darling: (His mouth full) Mmf.
Kelly: I like it.
Brown: What should we call it?
Blears: Erm… Community support tax? We could tell the plebs we’ll spend it on community support officers.
Kelly: Hmm that’s too easily verifiable.
Brown: Have you learnt nothing from government? We can simply doctor the figures and tell them anything.
Darling: YES!
Miliband: Good stuff. I’ll order some more caviar.

Nick, I really think you're being over optimistic.... based upon progress made at previous summits, we can't feel to hopeful.

Of course, G Brown must have felt like he was in his element, but not because he was plotting small steps on the road to bigger ones. Here he got to eat good food with some kindred spirits (fellow lame-duck leaders - Bush, Bling-Bruni as he's essentially lost the support of the nation, Medvedev as he's already being over-ruled by those at home) eating good food and drinking good wine which he can't really be criticised for (he didn't lay on this pointless soiree).

Plus he got out of PMQs today, I'm sure he must hate being hammered week in week out and having to resort to the same old boring justifications of his existence.

Actually, it was great without him, Harman v Hague pt II + Harman v Dr Vince.

#10

jim

They may be policy but that is no there is no action!

It is also easy to implement taxation variation of of employers by how far employees live from work as all the data is already collected in the PAYE system - the employers and the employees post codes. From post codes you can determine a distance and hence a tax modification charge. No new data and no impact on 'freedom'.

(
I have written to the Treasury and various ministers several times over the years setting out the ideas as an effective and cheap to implement congestion charging alternative.

But because it can be done NOW they do not want to know!
)

Breaking News re my #13

Heartened by the possibility of his visit, a loyal cadre of comrades from the sleepy hamlet of Baillieston have been collecting past sell-by date eggs and tomatos from the fridges of the the enemies of the people. They hope to present these to The Supreme Leader in the traditional way as a token of their belief in his stirring address to the nation on the perils of wasting food.

PS - Hello, jimbrant, glad to see you're posting today.

I've noticed that your IMF justification for New Labour has been a theme for a while. So, for your inforamtion, the general consensus is that the IMF success record is perceived as limited. Whilst it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or reputedly most of the Fund's membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more.

This, of course, doesn't mean that the IMF are rubbish, it simply makes the point that the IMF is not the one and only reliable indicator available, and yes, they sometimes do get it very wrong.

Perhaps this is why the government have stopped using the May 08 report as an indicator of their success.

It all sounds boring and ineffectual, and as others have stated, great fun for those that could attend. Not really anything in their for the UK but just guarantees of more aid to a continent that seems to hold us in contempt and fully supports corruption, violence, vote rigging, dictatorships.


Not sure what the point of it is and wish things were looking rosier in Britain, as they most certainly look everything but!

15. power_to_the_ppl wrote...

Something very very funny

But scarily credible


Have you been eavesdroping on Cabinet meetings?
Naughty Naughty, only the government is allowed to spy on people!

As someone recently said, the G8 is just a business club. Why on earth should anyone believe any promises made by its members when they have little effective influence over the affairs they seem to think they should discuss (or, indeed, any particular desire to do anything other than make a few empty promises). After all, what do they care if Zimbabwe is in trouble, if climate change is a real threat now (not in 42 years time) or if the global economy is in serious trouble? So long as they can still make money in the midst of all this (and they can), they won't change anything. Perhaps we should just all stop listening to the G8. Ignoring a buffoon is usually the best way to deflate their oversized ego.

15 Power-to-the-ppl

Thanks to Spitting Image whenever I think of John Major, I think of a grey man who likes peas. Thanks to internet videos, when I think of Gordon Brown I can only think of the time he was caught picking his nose and eating it in parliament.

Now, however, thanks to you I can only think of Geoff Hoon shouting 'Hooooon!' in meetings! Classic image.....!

#19 extremesense:

I am using the IMF Report quotation as the equivalent of an expert witness to set against unevidenced statements to the effect that the past decade has been one of economic incompetence. Of course the IMF is not infallible, but their views are of significance.

Now, where is your evidence for your claim that they are wrong in this instance?

The Prime Minister talks about us being a "minute from midnight" on trade. I seem to remember someone else from his party saying something along the lines of "24 hours to save the NHS". GB's ego has probably reached overdrive as he struts around for photoshoots with all the other statesmen/women. This man has the substance and strength of a used tea-bag.

If our Ministers paid more attention to the appalling state of our economy and less to attending junkets and jolly's, we could probably save several million pounds.

Nick, are you extrcting the urine?
Can you imagine the field day you would have had ripping into GB if he had stayed at home and used the phone! Remember the fun you boys in the Tory press had when he didn't go to the signing of the ratification treaty!

Reading some of the comments here ("boring and ineffectual" #20; "same as ever" #7) and elsewhere makes me yawn. What do people expect? G8 states to recognise the error of their ways and devote their entire tax take to development assistance and environmental amelioration for the next decade?

The reality is that government - all government - is about making a balanced programme work where the spillovers and side benefits are taken into account. So, no, Greenies, we can't immediately adopt an 80% cut in carbon emissions and no, 'Sir' Bob Geldof, we can't immediately reduce poverty in Africa to zero. There are other demands on our time, money and will.

#17 John_from_Hendon:"They may be policy but that is no there is no action!"

But there is. Risking boring everybody, I point to:

Network Rail press release 05/09/06:

"Over the past five years, the level of freight traffic on the rail network has already
increased by 22%."(No doubt there is a more recent stat, but I haven't time to find it. They were forecasting a further 30% increase by 2016)

And from the YouGov site:

"Warm Front is a government-funded initiative that provides a package of home insulation and heating improvements.

If you're aged 60 or over and own your own home or rent it from a private landlord, you may get a maximum Warm Front Plus grant of £2,700 if you receive one of the qualifying income-related benefits. If you are installing an oil-fired central heating system you could receive a grant of up to £4,000."

I had cavity wall insulation and extra loft insulation installed at a subsidised price about five years ago.

Ridiculous to talk about picking up the phone rather than attending a summit.

As someone who spends a lot of time on trans Atlantic conference calls I can say with certainty that you only get a fraction of the benefit of meeting face to face.

Yes - spending a fortune on lavish banquets, etc may be slightly excessive but suggesting that this people should skimp on meeting in the same room for the sake of an airfare when the dicussions are about such important subjects is nonsense.

The only thing that is a 'minute from midnight' I think we can all agree, is Gordon Brown's career.

@28
Jim Jim Jim

£4000 for an oil fired central heating system, wow thats a bargain with the current low oil prices where do i sign up

And as for rail freight, 22% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.

You fell into the Labour trap of using percentages instead of absolute numbers

I see they are back down to 9 people in the picture today. did they airbrush out puppet master barrosa

#12 Brown

Nuclear Energy produces very little greenhouse gas - if global warming is as risky as it is made out to be perhaps we need to balance the risks out.

I read that flat screen TVs are very risky too in that they produce NF3 gas in the production process and this is highly (30x CO2) damaging to the ozone layer. Life is a risk!

Wind is not reliable as a continuous source of energy and has to be part of a wider energy production scheme so cannot be taken on its own.

If they really want to help Africa why don't they start by looking at what they can control if they really wanted to? Find the tens of billions hidden by corrupt African leaders in western banks and give it back.

Whilst I am very sympathetic to the plight of many Africans I can see little point in Western Governments providing further billions to offset a different set of billions that have been and are still being syphoned off by corrupt administrations. All that effectively does is take money from western citizens and ends up with it being deposited in another western bank, the average African never sees any difference outside of a few projects for window dressing.

By all means sort out better trade arrangements if Mr Sarkozy will allow us to but start showing that corrupt African administrations can't get away with wholesale plunder of their own citizens, whom they then expect us to help.

# 24 (jimbrant) here's one from the FT:

Reputable forecasters such as the IMF accompany their forecasts with health warnings. In its World Economic Outlook, the IMF resorts to a fan chart to spell out the risks. The Bank of England has been using these fan charts since the 1990s to quantify the uncertainty inherent in inflation forecasts. They show us how uncertainty increases as time progresses and they attach probabilities to different scenarios. Unfortunately, fan charts imply that we have some degree of control over uncertainty – which is not, in fact, the case.

Forecasting is especially hazardous at a time when an economy has gone past the peak of the business cycle. The magnitude of an economic slowdown will depend on factors the large models find difficult to predict. One of the clouds hanging over the global economy at the moment is the US housing market. The difference between the benign scenario of a soft landing and a collapse in house prices with a spillover to the financial sector is enormous.

If everything goes well, the forecast may stand a chance to be proved roughly right. If not, it will almost certainly turn out to be totally wrong.

-----------------------------------

Might I suggest that your 'expert witness' simply cannot be referred to in such a way simply because of the enormous conflict of interest - we're one of their main sponsors.

You may say that it's preposterous to suggest that the IMF are never going to say anything bad about us for that reason. However, there is certainly precedent of it happening where other similar conflicts of interest are involved (dodgy witnesses?).

#28

Jim

If here is such a large increase in rail freight why are there so many more more 40 ton lorries on the road? Like the one in-front of me now.

Warm-Front - nice scheme but keeps running out of money and the benefits are been reduced. I know a man who they came to and offered cavity wall insulation. He saw what they did to a neighbour and sent them packing. The pointing in the neighbour's walls was so badly shaken out by the drilling he is having to have his walls repointed at vast cost!

But I do take you point that they are making a start.

# 28 jimbrant, you quote Network Rail as your source?

Oh dear, another dodgy witness I think.

I get the impression that certain bloggers on this site are closely involved with the Government.

If I am right and they draw a salary paid for by the taxpayer I consider that a misuse of taxpayers money.

I don't pay my tax to NuLabour or the Conservative party.

#27 Wounded,

Re your comment about my "same as ever" summary.

I am not implying that is was at all likely that anything of substance was ever likely to emerge from the summit, but just comparing the rhetoric of our 'leaders' with the likely results.

I am no 'greener' that average I think but I do still have an optimistic view of the World and I hope that we can pass-on a World that still can support life in the way in which it supports us.

I am sorry if this makes you yawn.

#31 Pot_Kettle :

"And as for rail freight, 22% of next to nothing is still next to nothing"

I am sorry to keep upsetting your prejudices with evidence, but please see the facts as published by the (private) organisation Freight on Rail:

"In the past ten years rail freight has grown by 66 per cent; in the year 2005-06 rail freight moved 22.11 billion net tonne kilometres, a level of traffic not seen since 1977. Rail has 12% of the UK surface freight market (i.e. road + rail) with the industry's measurement of net tonne kilometres showing an increase of 7.5% in the year 2005/06 over the previous year."

Now 22.11 billion net tonne kilometers may be next to nothing to you, but I suspect that many would not agree. And you will note that it's not a percentage.

Why do you find it so hard (well, impossible) to recognise that progress has been made? Say that in your opinion it's not enough if you like;or that it costs too much; or that somebody else could do better. But don't just gainsay facts. It makes your whole position much weaker than it need be.

"Gordon Brown believes it's been worthwhile".

Well, thats one who thinks it's been worthwhile ...any advance on one? ..anybody?

Nick

Big issues but small steps. I suppose this is inevitable given the different interests of the G8. Mr Brown has done as much as any PM probably could.

#35 extremesense:

Your extract from the FT refers to forecasts, not judgements about what has already happened. I ask again, where is your counter opinion to that of the IMF that the performance of the UK since 1997 represents "an exceptional achievement"?

Your allegation about the IMF is unsubstantiated, and I recall that a previous report led to a Labour government having to devalue.

Gordon Brown needs to get an urgent grip on the notion that charity begins at home.

It's pointless grandstanding about global agreements that we cannot oblige anyone to stick to.

This is our country and we should act.

The reason that London is full of beautiful parks and plane trees is that our forebears had the foresight to plant them. I'm sure that the Victorians did not need a global summit to do something about the environment; they specifically chose plane trees for their robustness in the urban environment.

Less grandstanding more pragmatism.

He flies around the world eating copious banquets preaching a green wasteless agenda and sets the most awful example himself.

He raises the heat with Russia rather than find a solution, he promises a trade deal he can't hope to deliver and yes #38, I too get the distinct impression that certain posters here are either closely involved with government or government itself trying to defend indefesible policies and positions.

They take us for fools. Sadly, for them, we have the facts at our disposal.

Just a thought, but considering this was a meeting about biofuels, electric cars, enviroment, food, yadda yadda yadda.

Who's brilliant idea was it to hold this summit just about as far away as they possibly could from by far the majority of the member nations?

Had it been held in say Switzerland, they could have all gone by train (we'll forgive George Bush on this occasion).

A meeting to discuss resources while creating as big a carbon footprint as they can and making pigs of themselves.

Hardly leading by example one would say!

Re #33 John_from_Hendon

Life is indeed a risk and we certainly need to balance the risks out.

I'm not against nuclear power per se but to put all our efforts into it when we don't know how to dispose of its waste safely is exchanging one risk for another. Science will provide a solution sooner or later but until then we should proceed with caution.

I agree that the wind does not always blow but overall it was reliable enough to drain most of Holland and East Anglia at the same time as building a few overseas empires. Used in conjunction with tidal and wave energy it is stupid not to take advantage of it, but I agree it is only one piece of the jigsaw.

Incidentally, combined wave/wind scheme for the Severn and Thames Estuaries could not only provide energy but living and agricultural space too, as the Dutch Zuider Zee project has done and is still doing.

The increase is 7.5% of the 12% of the total so that is a 1.65 Billion tonne increase out of a total of 183 Billion tonnes. Its not a lot to shout about.

Sorry to call you selective as well but you didnt answer the sarcastic point about oil fired heating. But I will let you off that one as it isnt really a defendable scheme in the current climate. It would have been nice if you had acknowledged the point though

#36 John_from_Hendon: "If here is such a large increase in rail freight why are there so many more more 40 ton lorries on the road? Like the one in-front of me now."

Could it be to do with the signal (!) lack of investment in the 20-odd years up to 1997 do you think? After all this sort of large-scale infrastructure investment does't pay off over night, especially if you have decades of backlog to catch up on.

#43 (jimbrant), referring to #38 (skynine) and #44 (RobinJD), of course, I should have spotted that you're 'one of them'.

I can remember your vast experience of hospitals and your nothing but positive views of them. You described how this is all down to our wonderful government, now it just happens that you've had the free home insulation, as well as benefiting from so many other things that no one else could receive. Plus you've read the IMF report in great detail and stick by the first paragraph of its Executive Summary like a man possessed.

We get the same sort of thing from the Labour benches day in day out..... clinging to meaningless statistics not because they think we'll believe them but because we lose interest in arguing with them.

Oh by the way, I'm clean, I voted conservative in the council election (most commited candidate), Labour for London Mayor (most experienced candidate), Lib Dem for London Assembly (balance) and Lib Dem for Parliament (I like Vince Cable).

By the way, I think you're definitely scraping the 'expert witness' barrel by using Network Rail (ever tried travelling on a train at the weekend). I think this jury might just have some difficulty in taking them seriously!

#47 Pot_Kettle:

Right. So 1.65 billion tn kilometeres increase in a year is next to nothing. You will forgive me perhaps if I don't agree.

I didn't mention your snidish comment about oil fired central heating because it seemed to me to be comment enough. If you were an OAP living in a house without a gas supply (and there are many) you would not be so ready to rubbish a very valuable scheme. Oil fired CH is still a lot cheaper to run (especially with the subsidised insulation that YOU didn't mention) than an electric fire, and it keeps you warmer.

#47 Pot_Kettle, yes, I've found the approach somewhat selective too over the last few days and it's not just about 'snidish' comments (see #50).

#48

name ONE infrastructure project, road, rail, bridge or power station commissioned and completed in eleven years of NewLabour.

Not one exists. Every single road, bridge, power station, rail link that has happened under NewLabour was already in the pipeline or commissioned and agreed when they came to office.

All this grandstanding about nuclear and wind and not one proposal for the manner or method by which they will be built. All hot air. Ask any wind technology company and they laugh at the UK 'targets' for wind power as thereiosn't a sinlge planning approval.

Surprise, surprise we are already backtracking on runway three at Heathrow yet no support for Thames Gateway airport - so what is the plan? There isn't one except pay yet another consultant to come to a conclusion you'll conveniently ignore.

Incompetence and excess and intellectual arrogance. Not an attractive combination.

#49 extremesense: Yes indeed, I am "one of them".

An OAP who has seen his pension increase faster than earnings; who has experienced the NHS hospitals and primary care that you seem content to rubbish; has seen more police on the beat, more local policing, and less crime; who has been proud of my country's lead in trying to tackle the problems of international development and climate change; and who has lived through the longest period of sustained growth and improving living standards in my relatively long lifetime.

As for Network Rail, please see my response at #48, and my quote from Freight-on-Rail at #40. I'm still waiting for the evidence for your caims about the IMF, so I suppose it would be otiose to ask you for actual evidence to back up your refusal to accept the Network Rail figures.

Actually all governments since the war have focussed on roads rather than rail, its not just an issue of 20 years or so. There was a modest level of investment ( relative to the scale of the railways) in the 50's accompanying the move from steam to electric and diesel trains but also soon followed by Beeching's axe on the network as a whole.

Perversely I used to live at one end of the proposed Cross Rail when it was first mooted in the 1970's and now live close to its proposed other end. I think I'm the only bit that has made any progress in 30 or so years. Not only that but its still a half baked proposal focussed on London. It will pass within a mile or two of the ever expanding Heathrow and still will not provide a much needed direct public transport link for those who wish to get there from the west. Actually rather more than the population of London. And why have it finish at Maidenhead when just a few miles further along it could terminate at the by then newly rebuilt Reading station where it could integrate effectively into the four major lines which branch from there. But then of course integration mean joined up thinking , perhaps with a bit of vision. Have we seen that from any government since the war?

Has anybody got something of real import to say today, really this latest debate is rather stale.

Especialy from JIMBRANT

Be good to see Nick back blogging on more interesting issues.

(Just testing to see whether the moderater is having a blocking frenzy or just on a tea break. I've studied the rules and can't see that I've broken any, haven't been e-mailed either).

50 jimbrant, Their ganging up on you Jim but believe me your more than holding your own. your making some of them appear to be schoolboys perhaps they are, try to be patient with them, they dont want the truth no matter what the subject, they would be a little more credible if they just once admitted they were wrong but they wont there all disciples of the Daily Mail and Telegraph and follow the same mantra.

#50 Jim,

The warm front scheme and other schemes by energy providers have had minimal take up. This is mainly due to a lack of understanding by householders. Another issue is landlords are unlikely to uprate the insulation as they see no economic benefit in doing so. A worthy cause but without compulsion it will do little in its current form.

I have to take issue with the statement that oil fired CH is cheaper and warmer than electric. Electric heating can be cheaper, provided it is not resistance heating, than oiil heating and the issue of warmth is more to do with your heat emitters rather than an inherent problem with the fuel source.

On the issue of rail freight, my only question would be at what rate has freight grown over the same period for the figures you state? If total freight has doubled in the last 10 years but rail freight has only grown by 66% then it would have been a relative decline.

Thanks

My wife and I spent today looking after our 8-year-old grandson who is off school, ill.

I happened to look in on him watching CBBC at lunch-time, when he asked me to pass him the tv controller so that he could turn the programme off, with the words 'look at that food being wasted - African children could eat that'. At least there is a message getting through to them by us, as grandparents, when we ask our grandchildren to finish their meals.

He was right, the waste of food (baked beans as it happens) was horrendous. The food being wasted there could have fed a whole African township for a fortnight.

Now, BBC, get off your high horses, and practice what you have been trying to preach in Bottler's propaganda about food wastage.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you see fit to present that as childrens' entertainment.

#46 Brown

I'm a bit of a Physicist myself and also worry about nuclear waste as I do with many other forms of environmental pollution.

I have myself done the sums for tidal power (and have been engaged in promoting it in the past) - I personally liked the idea of a Channel Barrage joining the UK and France as there is huge tidal energy from the North Sea and the Channel to be exploited (to say nothing of the tolls to be extracted from ships going to and from Hamburg and Europort! - Also the channel shipping trade hated it, but curiously the local MP quite liked the idea!)

But alas these are always downsides, such as the flooding of low lying areas (parts of Belgium and Kent etc.) and the destruction of habitat. And as I recall with the Channel Barrages solution the criticism of the Department of the Environment included - the 'increase in the turbidity of the water column' - yes that was one of their main comments. (The proposal used garbage as the barrage core instead of taking it to land fill.)

Nick,

Picking up the phone would indeed have been a good option.

Personally, I'd like to have seen the whole entourage congregated in Harare.

Give them all say 20 million Zim dollars each and the afternoon off to do their own food shopping, and whatever they can rustle up would be cooked for them in the evening.

It would certainly have been a reality check and a humbling experience, and who knows they may even have decided on something that went some way to justify their existance and expense. Well, perhaps not, hey.

KwH

The whole things been a complete waste of money. Oh and by the way cheese-me-too 29, Its bound to seem there are greater benefits from meeting 'face to face' than from doing it the digiway. All those lovely freebies tripping over to the USA, wink wink nudge nudge, if you know what I mean. Wonder what splendour's been handed out to the great and good at this meeting. What do you think? A nice DNKY goody bag a few ipods, a boots gift card, or maybe a free weekend to see the Blackpool lights. Perhaps even, given the price of food over here, a doggy bag laden with all that lovely top nosh (good even a second time around)? Licking my lips just thinking about it. Mmmmmmm.

54 yewlodge: "Actually all governments since the war have focussed on roads rather than rail"

Quite correct I think - until this one.

#63 ..........and perhaps 1945-51?

#53 (jimbrandt), good cover story, however, you ruined it with the spin.

Hmmmmm, remind me, when exactly did I rubbish the NHS, jimbrandt???????

Number 52

I think that Labour can claim the dome.

#58 sickofspin: I'm sure that what you say about the WarmFrontscheme is accurate. However, whatever scheme is funding it I know that almost all my friends have had cavity wall and loft insulation installed under a government subsidised arrangement.

Equally you are very probably right about oil v electric central heating. However I specified an electric fire, and I don't think that is anything like as efficient as either.

And for the hat trick you are of course right about the possibility that there has been a relative decline in rail freight. I don't have the stats to know. But in any event, even if true, it would not invalidate the fact that the relative decline would have been greater without the absolute increase in rail freight. If you see what I mean!

And apologies to flugart if this is all not exciting enough for him. I know he'd rather be brushing up on his aircraft recognition.

The G8 process has had some benefits in encouraging more pragmatic groupings and collaboration to help circumvent and undermine the blockages in the anachronistic wider UN system which remains stuck in old post-colonial and Cold War blocs and attitudes. However, the more it has expanded its ambit as it has been seized on by governments, NGOs and the media as the focus for campaigning and ambitions the less value it is adding. It has become characterised by over-ambitious and unrealistic ambitions across too wide an agenda. It has become an expensive platform for spin, rhetoric and grandstanding rather than a space for informal exchanges and relationship-building to help encourage cooperation and compromise.

re: 61

I like the sound of that! Should be a one-way ticket as well, the greedy little piggies!

Re: talking, decision making and action.

Just caught the end of an item on the evening news.

A family man who lost his legs in the London underground bombings a full three years ago asked for a ramp to his house. He was told that there was no money in the kitty in that financial year; any money would have to come from the following year.

A clear case where action was needed.

#65 extremesense: "when exactly did I rubbish the NHS, jimbrandt???????"

If you haven't I apologise.

Now, where's that evidence?

re: 66

I laughed so hard tea came out of my nose! Don't think even the Nu-Labour stooges jimbrant and grandantidote can defend that one!

jimbrant
63

I am not sure that not building roads is the same as focussing on other forms of transport.

Have they done anything else? - T5 and the high speed link to the Channel Tunnel spring to mind, but given the planning delays, perhaps they were started by the Conservatives.

#73 Wopitt: The high speed Channel link was given initial clearance by the government in 1996, though nothing was actually done until 1997 or 8 I think.

The focus has been on bringing the rail infrastructure up to scratch, rather than building new routes.

And your #66, for what it is worth it was the Tories who started the Dome - remember Hezeltine?

#57 grandantidote: Yes, I had noticed the increasingly strident assaults. But it has been a very wet afternoon, and I wanted a break from reading (biography of Richard III) so I have had a bit of fun.

As Corp Jones used to say, "They don't like it up 'em!".

re: 74

Maybe so, but I think you'll find that it was Nu-Labour that turned it into the devouring black hole it became

75. jimbrant

Just checked .. God Jim, do you get any sleep.

Im starting to think youre actually a team of 10 at labours central office.

If youre not I suggest you apply, just think of the salary, not to mention the expenses and I hear the food is rather good.

At least someones getting value for money out of this government.

#72 powertotheppl the one thing that Labour can definately not claim to have commissioned is the Dome I think you will find that the dome was a product of John Major And William Hague but was completed by labour,unfortunately they used Hague's asessment of how many visitors they would have on a daily basis, his figures were 50% out hence the failure of the Dome to succeed,since labour came to power they have built schools hospitals renovated many more they have rebuilt hundreds of thousands of homes that had been in need of repair for many years, I am sure that there are people much better qualified than I to tell you of all the progress in the London area. At this moment in time they are widening the M4 on the welsh side of the river the Tories were told that it wasnt wide enough,this improvement is probably as expensive to put right as the M4 cost to build.

# 71 (jimbrant), let me make it quite clear, THE NHS IS NOT RUBBISH.

In fact, under this government (New Labour), I think there has been a dramatic improvement.

Sorry don't have 'lies damned lies and statistics' to 'prove' my point, however, I have a great deal of experience as a patient (I've spent over a year of the last 8 in hospitals) and am truly greatful for the care I've received. I am currently hooked-up to machines at home and receive daily assistance from the NHS).

However, I hate PPP, in my experience it ultimately fails the end user (eg - Metronet for one). I also believe that as a result of PPP, the benefits to private companies have far exceeded those received by the end user (patients in the case of the NHS).

What's more, I think the government (in their actions not their words) do not show the staff the respect the deserve.

jimbrant
74

So who can claim them?

As this Government is so keen on "delivery" I guess they get to notch them up.

test

Hmmmm, so, jimbrant I'm guessing is New Labour's central office, grandantidote..... DUP's?????

Now, hasn't that happened before?

#60 John_from_Hendon: For some reason I can't understand the board won't let me respond to your very intersting post, especially the Channel barrage idea.

Is there anything on the web about it do you know?

#79 extremesense : OK - I have already apologised.

You will not be surprised that I very largely agree with you. The reason I have so much time to devote to this blog is because I also have a lot of experience of the NHS, though in my case it has been largely (but not exclusively) on account of my late son, and my wife. I concur entirely with your opinion that the system has been much improved, and is much better than is frequently claimed on here.

I am not yet decided about PPP. It clearly has its dangers, but in the end I think that it is the 'Service free at the point of delivery' that really matters, and to some extent it may not matter how that delivery is organised. But I also have a view that the commitment to public service that you find in the staff (most of them) of the public services like the NHS is never replicated when the service is provided by a private company.

If you want to read a horror story, look at this link to a Washington Post article about the collapse of private health care in New Jersey (if the board will let me post it)https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602334.html?wpisrc=newsletter

#84 (jimbrant), thank you for that, I read it, yes, you're absolutely right, it's a horror story.

Yes, I also agree with your point that public service staff commitment is never replicated when the service is provided by a private company.... some years ago when I was first diagnosed, I had private health insurance through my company when still able to work and chose to have my surgery and some treatment at a highly respected private hospital (top 5 in the country). I found staff moral to be pretty rock-bottom and experienced two mistakes made by staff who weren't under pressure or learning the trade let's say - these both directly lead to the length of my stay increasing by several weeks.

Suffice, to say what little private treatment I had after that (the insurer decided I would no longer be eligible for cover as a 'chronic' patient') was carried out undeer an NHS roof albeit on a private ward - successfully.

Thank God for the NHS, and as you say, with its 'Service free at the point of delivery'.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your evening (are we allowed to be polite sometimes)?

If the NHS fired a bunch of managers and replaced them with the same number of janitorial staff the service would be significantly better and save money.

It is a monopolistic bureaucracy that happens to deal in medical services, the same way that airports are shopping malls with aeroplane parked outside, or Railtrack was a property management company with trains running on their property.

This is not a criticism of all the good people that work in the NHS, nor of the NHS in concept. Can we all agree that issue is the implementation that is the issue.

#42 has it about right.
People have to have realistic expectations about what is likely to be announced directly after a G8 meeting.
Seems pretty obvious that Brown has conducted himself well also.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#86 Wopitt: I don't agree. If anything my experience is that there are too few managers in the NHS, not too many. However, that is only my opinion.

There is some objective independent evidence to support my view, though. The leading US independent health system research organisation, the Commonwealth Foundation, recently (2007) did a large-scale study of the health care systems in the USA, Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. The NHS came out as the best system overall, and in particular as the most efficient. Yes, the most efficient. It was also ranked best for quality, coordination, and equity of care.

So comparing like with like, the NHS managers (who represent only 3.6% of the workforce remember) have to be doing a lot right.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

re: 89

You said: "I don't agree. If anything my experience is that there are too few managers in the NHS, not too many. However, that is only my opinion."

I presume you don't work in the NHS then!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

jimbrant

I think that we are going to have to agree to differ on this one. I wouldn't trust an audit over my own experiences, but reading your previous posts I know how much store you put on reports such as the one you mention, which I fully admit I have no intention of looking at.

Audits can say whatever you want them to say, it all depends on who you ask, what questions you ask and how you weight the results. The US has the best medical care in the world, but equitable it aint. Fortunately I was one of the lucky ones with good medical insurance, but the paperwork was killing. I forgive the NHS many sins just for not asking me to fill in a form every 5 minutes. The Australian medical services were pretty competent, but my vote has to go the NZ service.

That said, the audit process in each of the countries was probably equally flawed, so it tells us something as just as a relative measure.

There is a theoretical level of efficiency that is impossible to achieve and overheads always grow unless ruthlessly controlled.

Theoretical dilemma: Hospital contracted infections.

Scenario -

The cleaning is sub-contracted to a supplier who pays minimum wage, and proves what a good job it does by producing reams of audit and checksheets. Employ a contract manager to manage sub-contractor. People get ill.

Do you:

A. Have a series of meetings with the sub-contractor who promises whatever it takes. Then purchase additional services from the contract for deep cleans. Then hire a few more infection specialists to provide a focus for infection control, hold press conferences announcing targets, deadlines for delivery and a media campaign telling people to wash their hands.

or

B. Fire the lot of them and appoint a janitor for each ward who is responsible for hygiene, minor maintenance and providing direct assistance to the medical staff.

A will cost a lot more than B
B will give better results quicker than A

but you will have to fire yourself if you choose B.

Another half-blown passion play is played out.

They deliver according to their scripts, you report according to yours.

The public see your report of the play and some like to beleive that it is real; others continue to live their real lives.

89 Jimbrant

Too few managers in the NHS!?

NHS staff have increased by 20% since 1997 (good). The number of managers, however, during the same period doubled from 20,000 to 40,000.

That means between 1997 to 2007 - we have gone from 12 NHS beds per manager to less than 5 NHS beds per manager.

The 'NHS confederation' in 2007 said that this balance was value for money since they actually needed 195,000 managers - which luckily nobody took up because that would have meant we had more managers than NHS beds.

(Source: David Craig's book)

"When I grow up I want to be a manager of 5 beds" - made up quote.... by me.


........ even you Jimbrant...... even you (I know you are a decent guy at heart)... must wish that a large chunk of the money spent on 'managers' was invested directly into hospital infrastructure, nurses, doctors, medicine, research.......... anything but wasting our taxes on 'middle management'........

The quality of the NHS is irrelevant.

I am force to pay for it regardless.

If it were accepted to be rubbish would it be shutdown, or would more money be thrown at it (to sort itself out)?

If it were accepted that it was good woud its budget be pinned, or would more money be thown at it (to extend its good works)?

OK, so in practice there is no circumstance underwhich the NHS would receive less funding or be disbanded - hardly an incentive for it to bother to do anything worthwhile ...

20,000 managers on an average of £25,000 = £500,000,000 a year.

You could build a Scottish Parliament for that.

If this figure is even close to accurate, then we really have no hope.

Even if we reduce it to £100,000,000 it is still impossible for there to have been a corresponding increase in productivity to offset it.

The Kings Fund ( on Newsnight) came up with the comment that most of the money spent of the NHS in the last 10 years was wasted and productivity was down.

Thousands killed every year by MRSA and C Dif. most of them pensioners.

But then I suppose I could put my rose coloured glasses on and find something positive about that.

Re 63 Jim Brandt

Whilst this government may have put a tiny bit more emphasis on rail than most predecessors since the war they are still doing it in a very short sighted way, saving a little bit of the total expenditure and getting half the potential value as my Cross Rail Example (54) illustrates.

Here we have a government screaming "get out of your cars and switch to public transport", allowing a huge expansion of Heathrow and yet making no provision for public transport for the 10 million or so who live to the west of Heathrow ( nothing meaningful currently exists) even though they are proposing to build a new railway which goes right past Heathrow. There is no planned direct connection from the west , nor will the new railway integrate into the main railway hub west of London, Reading Station , for which a major rebuild is currently planned.

I'm sorry Jim but in some respects this government is even worse than many, it spends loads but fails to properly join up the thinking so it delivers very poor value and extremely large bills.

Interesting that The Kings Fund should own up to the fact that most of the money spent in the last ten years on the NHS has been wasted and productivity is down.

That's 97 billion pounds a year wasted vs a budget they inherited in 1997 of 33 billion.

So if 64 billion has been wasted that 64 billion of tory cuts we can look forward to saving when NewLabour is finally ejected from power.

Then there's the billions we can save on useless climate change initiatives when actuall the evidence has started to go into reverse - there's been no increase in global temperatures since 2000 despite substantial rises in CO2 and in fact, the northern hemisphere has recorded some record cold winters.

That will mean we can address the urgent need to build power stations as at current rates of nuclear and cola fired decommissioning the UK will lose 40% of it's generting capacity by 2015. Gordon Brown has done nothing whatsoever about this jsut like NewLabour have done nothing about the decaying infrastrucure of this country for eleven years.

For the record, the high speed rail link, the dome, terminal five and all the other things that have been completed under NEwLove-in were all commisioned by the tories.

NewLabour has not comissioned and signed off a single infrastructure project in eleven years. Not one.

So if NewLabour are not interested in maintaining the fabris of the country how exactly are they proposing we go about doing business on a daily basis?