CentreRight

The inspirational Peter Davies

The more I read about Peter Davies the more I like him.

He is the directly-elected mayor of Doncaster and is responsible for the local services of just over 250,000 people.

He has ordered budget cuts across the city of 10pc to 15pc. Decades of monopoly Labour rule have convinced him that the savings can be found.

He is planning a 3pc cut in council tax.

He has already cut his own pay in half to £30,000.  Next he wants to cut the pay of his own chief executive in half. That would save £85,000 more.

He wants to cut the number of councillors by two-thirds to just 21.

He has ended Doncaster's twinning with five other cities.

Another £80,000 has been saved by leaving the trade union of local councils (otherwise known as the LGA).

He believes immigrants should learn English and has scrapped the translation services that were slowing integration.

His war against political correctness is also evident in his cancellation of funding for gay and race pride events. He says they can go ahead with his blessing but not with money from Doncaster taxpayers. Also on the way out are community cohesion officers.

He may have scrapped the chauffeur-driven car he inherited but he is otherwise very positive about the motor car. He is increasing the number of parking spaces because he wants Doncaster to be business friendly. Incidentally he does not believe that Doncaster has a duty to save the planet from global warming but it does need to provide jobs for its people.

This retired RE teacher wants schools to run themselves.

What a guy.

I am indebted to Gerald Warner, Harry Phibbs, Robert Hardman and Wikipedia for the content of this blog.

Megrahi: The British people deserve to be told the truth

David Lidington MP is a Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister.

It is intolerable that we have to rely on leaked documents and Whitehall spin to find out what British Ministers said and did in our name in their negotiations with Colonel Gaddafi.

A week ago, Lord Mandelson told us that he found “offensive” even the slightest suggestion that the government allowed the case of Mr Megrahi to be linked to broader discussions with Libya about better diplomatic and commercial relations. Yesterday, Jack Straw admitted that he had bowed to Libyan pressure to ensure that Megrahi would be eligible for transfer to Tripoli under the UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement that eventually came into force this year.  (It’s worth noting that Mr Straw did not volunteer this admission but was forced to make it after the damning correspondence had been leaked to the press). Today, the Times reports “sources close to” the Justice Secretary as pinning the blame on Gordon Brown personally for acceding to Libya’s demands. The Prime Minister himself just says as little as possible on the entire affair.

Labour’s curtain of secrecy is lifted a little – and each snippet of information gives rise to yet more questions. Why did Colonel Gaddafi thank the Prime Minister personally for his role in securing Megrahi’s release? Was there, as has been claimed in Washington, a clear understanding, now breached, that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity would serve his sentence in Scotland and not be transferred to Libya or released early? What were the “overwhelming United Kingdom interests” cited by Mr Straw as his reasons to abandon the position of excluding Megrahi from the Prisoner Transfer Agreement? Why did Ministers rush that Agreement through Parliament, over-riding the concerns of the Select Committee on Human Rights? What representations were made by Whitehall to Holyrood about Megrahi’s application to be transferred back home? Did the Blair or Brown government suggest to Libya or give Libya cause to believe that Mr Megrahi might be sent home as part of a wider deal?

Chris Grayling must move on from "shallow" soundbites

Chris Grayling became shadow home secretary as a reward for his attack doggery. He was part of the "pub ready" reshuffle that also saw the elevation of Eric Pickles and Mark Francois. Attack doggery and pub readiness is not what the party needs six months on. It needs gravitas and a preparedness to govern. Chris Grayling hasn't caught that change of gear. He is still in the soundbite phase. The left wing media has leapt on his dodgy references to The Wire television series (as you would expect) but Janet Daley has joined in with an attack on Grayling for "shallow" politics. Wiregate (sorry) comes on top of his derided promise to give the Nokia generation a 21st century clip about the ear. Mr Grayling must put the soundbite politics behind him. He is a better man than this.

Sun journalist says John Prescott right about the BBC

David Wooding has just Tweeted this:

I wonder if a certain James Murdoch approves of The Sun's Whitehall Editor's view.

The Beatles, Oasis and the demise of Labour Governments

It's an August bank holiday weekend, so please forgive me a short, tenuous post linking politics and popular culture.

Oasis have always enjoyed being compared to the Beatles. So how's about this for a parallel?

The Beatles came to prominence in 1963 and a year later a Labour Government was elected, with the band coming to represent the spirit of the Swinging Sixties. The Labour Prime Minister even arranged for them to be awarded MBEs - although John Lennon later returned his in protest at the Government's foreign policy. Paul McCartney quit the band in April 1970, and just over a month later the Labour Government was thrown out of office at a general election.

Oasis came to prominence in the mid-1990s, and after a Labour Government was elected in 1997, they were deemed to be ambassadors for what the new regime branded Cool Britannia. The Labour Prime Minister even invited them to a party a Downing Street, although Noel Gallagher later attacked the Government over the Iraq War. Today Noel Gallagher has quit the band... and here's hoping it's not too long before the current Labour Government is given its marching orders..

That said, I dare say there can't be too much which occurred under the Conservative Government elected in 1970 which a potential Cameron Government should be seeking to emulate...

Daniel Kawczynski MP: An open letter to David Miliband demanding that he meet the mother of PC Yvonne Fletcher

Daniel Kawczynski MP, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Libya, writes an open letter the Foreign Secretary

Dear David,

Following the release of the Lockerbie bomber to the Libyan authorities, I am sure that you will agree that the time has come to press the Libyans for the release of the killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher. 

I have been in contact with PC Yvonne Fletcher’s mother, Mrs Queenie Fletcher, and sister and they are very keen to meet with you. Regrettably, their previous letters to you on this urgent matter have gone unanswered, leaving them very disappointed and disillusioned with the Foreign Office.

I am sure you will agree, that our country must send out an unequivocal message that any murder of a British police officer will lead to a determined resolve to bring their killers to justice, at any cost.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly to arrange this meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Kawczynski MP

Michael Martin's peerage was quietly announced today

I am not a regular reader of the London Gazette, so am grateful to the Twitter feed of Nigel Fletcher, who alerted me to the news in today's edition that the man who was the first Speaker to be ousted from that job for three hundred hears has nonetheless been rewarded with a peerage.

That's right, Michael Martin is to take his place on the red benches and be known as Baron Martin of Springburn, of Port Dundas in the City of Glasgow.

The Telegraph reported a variety of voices in the Upper House as opposing his elevation to the Lords back in May, although later reports suggested that the peerage was in the gift of the Queen and that it would indeed be forthcoming.

Not a good day for the House of Lords, then. Rewarding failure in this way will do nothing to enhance its reputation.

Keep Laura Kuenssberg blogging!

Laura Kuenssberg has been writing 'Nick Robinson's blog' while the BBC's Political Editor has been away.  She's done a grand job.  There's been a healthy mix of humour and analysis.  I'd particularly pay tribute to the analysis.  Too much political coverage is of the 'who's up, who's down' variety but, for example, in Wednesday's blog on worklessness she has really informed her readers.  She has now stopped in anticipation of the big man's imminent return.  Why can't we have a BBC politics blog rather than Nick Robinson's blog (and I say that without intending any criticism of NR)?  Nick is often on the Today programme and TV bulletins throughout the day when a big story blogs.  A site with the likes of Laura, Iain Watson, Norman Smith and James Landale also contributing would mean the blog would always be on top of the news.

Whatever happens on this front Laura Kuenssberg is about to start Twittering.  Follow her here.     

Stealing Satnavs? Breaking into houses? What are the police up to?

Law and order has always been at or close to the top of the public's concerns. Given the continuing problems with organised gangs reaping the profits of the drug trade and the recent boom in knife and gun crime, proactive policing has rarely been more in demand.

Irrespective of the views of Home Office civil servants, quangocrats or unelected Police Authorities, the public who live at the sharp end of the crime problem know full well that what is needed is a tough focus by real police officers on catching criminals.

It beggars belief, therefore, to see some of the absurd schemes targeted at the innocent rather than the guilty that police forces are pursuing.

A couple of months ago, Northamptonshire Police introduced a tactic of shouting "Lock your doors" through a megaphone at innocent householders.

In July, PCSOs in Hove started climbing through windows into people's houses with no invitation or warning in order to lecture them about home security.

And now we learn that Police Officers in Richmond are breaking into cars that have unlocked doors or ajar windows, taking the owner's valuables and leaving them a note saying they have to come to the police station to reclaim them (and be given another lecture, naturally).

This kind of nonsense is not just a waste of taxpayers' money and police officers' time, it is genuinely hazardous to the standing and enforcement of the law. The law rests on the consent of the law-abiding majority, and even more crucially their co-operation.

Will Andy Burnham say Claire Rayner is "unpatriotic" for her criticism of nurses?

Claire Rayner today (BBC): "I am sickened by what has happened to some part of my profession of which I was so proud. These bad, cruel nurses may be - probably are - a tiny proportion of the nursing workforce, but even if they are only one or two per cent of the whole they should be identified and struck off the Register."

Back to work in Brussels

The European Parliament begins work this week after the summer break. It’s perhaps worth pointing out that MEPs have a much shorter holiday than MPs at Westminster. If I was seeking to provoke I would say, tongue-in-cheek, that this is because MEPs have more of a legislative and constituency burden than MPs as there is one MP for every 700,000 people. But I don’t want to divert this piece away from its primary purpose – to look ahead to the new legislature now that Conservative MEPs are part of the new European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).

Of course, the ECR very nearly died a death before its creation. After so much hard work by Mark Francois and Geoffrey Van Orden to get the project off the ground, it was immediately put into jeopardy by the unfortunate antics of Edward McMillan-Scott. I don’t intend to rake over too much old ground here, because it has been covered extensively by Tim and others on this site. I would simply say, however, that this episode caused a great deal of anger in the Tory delegation and a great deal of incomprehension among the new batch of MEPs. Like those of us who served in the last legislature, they had expected the post-election period to be a time of unity and purpose because we had finally settled the EPP question and had all pledged to make this new group work whatever our individual opinions about leaving the EPP-ED.

I believe the friction caused by this regrettable business has now dissipated and that our allies in the ECR can see it for what it was. In any case, it is absolutely essential not to dwell on the past because the forthcoming legislature will be crucial in terms of enabling Conservative MEPs to articulate their message of reform and restructuring of the European Union. The ECR is the only mainstream parliamentary vehicle through which to seek to achieve that wholesale change. Now that the group is a reality there is a definite sense of excitement among Tory MEPs about the future. We may not be leading the group, which had been anticipated in the carefully negotiated package between national party leaders, but we are the largest delegation by some way and therefore the most influential. Significant numbers of Tory MEPs also hold key committee positions, allowing them to shape the development of EU legislation in their particular areas of expertise.

Transport matters matter

Yesterday's announcement from National Rail of the proposed new high-speed rail link along the West Coast route, is an apt prompt to think about transport policy. This may bore many people senseless, but those that know me well enough will tell you that I have a little propellor on my head that goes round when the subject of transport comes up for debate and have written elsewhere on this before. I should stress that I am not a Lord Adonis-type, train spotting my way around the country for fun. It is just that I believe that as an area of public policy, whether it is about investing in national infrastructure as a key part of being a competitive economy or just at the human level of getting to work and to see family, transport really, really matters.

There is a need for better transport policies

Numerous surveys of the general public show this to be a general view. Transport regular ranks in the top-five most important issues for a large majority of voters, along with the NHS, the economy and education and generally ahead of immigration, Europe and seemingly more sexy topics, such as foreign affairs.

This matters more than it might, partly because politicians have surprisingly little to say on the subject that is really new or has the power to swing electoral votes. Calls for an "integrated transport policy" are common and fair enough, but it would be an idiot who didn't think that different modes of transport should be integrated if anyone is to make use of them. Rail stations and airports need car parks and roads to allow people to get there. Trying to get people to get people off over-crowded roads in urban centres means spending money on public transport. These examples of integration are from the school of the blindingly obvious but count for policy commitments in some quarters. Nor is it all about public transport; roads are a key part of any serious national transport strategy.

So why is it so hard for politicians to offer us anything genuinely radical in the transport department? 

The light at the end of the [congestion] tunnel?

Plans proposed today by Network Rail for a £34 billion new rail line between London and Edinburgh, also linking Heathrow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow to the capital and Channel Tunnel Rail Link, should be welcomed with a mix of enthusiasm and disappointment. Enthusiasm because evidently it has been realised that such infrastructure is both needed and beneficial, and disappointment because it shows a decidedly 20th Century view of the railways.

The plans have been framed as a way of rivalling domestic air travel, indeed the proposed routes (see diagram) are specifically designed with such an aim, linking city centre to city centre. The proposed route would indeed be attractive to current domestic air passengers (it would do Birmingham in 46 minutes, Manchester in 1 hour 6 minutes, Liverpool in 1 hour 23 minutes and Edinburgh in 2 hours 9 minutes, and mean no airport hassles), but so would any decent North-South rail link. To devise a line with this trade foremost in mind, indeed solely in mind, misses the massive potential of such a construction – to compete with the roads.

Now I am a firm believer that, for long distance travel, you can never compete with the roads. Unless the train station is walking, tube or reasonable taxi distance from your destination, even those of us sympathetic to the railways and who enjoy rail travel will reach for the car keys. It’s a no brainer – it’s door to door.

But if you can’t beat them, why not join them?

Taxpayer funded lobbying and political campaigning abroad

In our recent report on taxpayer funded lobbying and political campaigning (PDF) we highlighted some of the key problems with government spending money on lobbying and political campaigning.  In particular:

• "It distorts the public policy process in favour of the interests and perspectives of a narrow political elite.
• It slows adjustments in the direction of policy in response to changing circumstances.
• It increases political apathy among the public, particularly because taxpayers are forced to fund views they may seriously disagree with."

Recently, some examples have come to light that show this isn't just a matter of politicians and bureaucrats using taxpayers' money to push their agendas at home.  They're also trying to influence debates in other democracies with messages that the British public are unlikely to care about or agree with.  There are a number of examples:

• According to a YouGov poll (PDF) for The Economist, 74% of British people are in favour of the death penalty for murderers in some or all circumstances.  Yet, the Foreign Office see it as a fundamental part of their work to go around the world trying to convince countries, even democratic allies like the Republic of Korea, that they should abolish capital punishment.  Regardless of your views on the issue, I'm opposed to capital punishment personally, we live in a democracy and the idea that the public don't just not get what they want on this issue but have their money spent advocating a cause they don't believe in abroad is incredibly troubling.

• At the TPA, we've put out a press release with the CEI today attacking the Carbon Trust's foreign ventures.  An organisation funded by British taxpayers is trying to expand into new territories as if it is a multinational company.  The Carbon Trust has always been among the worst examples of unaccountable government bureaucracy, financed with taxpayers’ cash but not subject to public scrutiny through vital democratic tools like the Freedom of Information Act.  Now it’s trying to export that model to other countries, using British taxpayers’ money to lobby foreign politicians to fund its new franchises abroad.  Our release was reported in the Daily Mail, who say in their leader that Gordon Brown should "start with the Carbon Trust" if he is looking for public spending cuts, and I've fisked the Carbon Trust Chief Executive's response on our blog.

• The Foreign Office have funded a report on the activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with having a debate over the conduct of the IDF, and there was a serious inquiry in Israel after the war in Lebanon, but the idea there is any pressing British national interest in funding one side of that debate is absurd, particularly when doubts have been raised over the veracity of the research.  Dan Kosky sets out some of the problems in an article for Comment is Free.

This is an area we're interested in looking into at the TPA, can any commenters think of any other particularly telling cases?

This is all part of the same trend as funding for domestic campaigns, from Demos to the Campaign for Better Transport.  Our political elite clearly have no respect for the fact that they are playing with other people's money and have no right to use public resources to further their own political agendas.

The post duck-house age

Tim Montgomerie's article in The Independent the other day prompted me to drop a few lines which rehearsed why we shouldn't only talk about the change the country needs - but also level with the public about the scale of the task any Government will face in the next few years. It strikes me that there are three other reasons why talking more frankly about the size of the challenge in advance of the General Election will help build stronger foundations for the challenges which will face the Government afterwards.

The first is that a large section of the population is still too insulated about how bad the current position is. Anyone under 40 was too young to remember the winter of discontent - but it was crucial in giving the incoming government in 1979 a mandate for change. In  consultancy we sometimes call it the 'burning platform' - clients often need to see the compelling reason for change. Quite often the guys at a top of an organisation can see the need for it - but those lower in the organisation can be hostile - or just act as 'roadblocks to reform' - so we'll sometimes need to help the senior team to create and communicate the compelling reason for change. This is so relevant right now because in contrast to 1979 the rubbish isn't piling up in the streets and the dead are being buried. If you have a safe job you might actually feel quite  affluent right now - mortgage interest rates are cheaper than ever and all is right with the world. If you have a public sector final salary pension scheme so much the better. In short, a large number of our population don't see the need to fix the economy because they can't see its broken.

Do not mourn for Edward Kennedy

On a day when many undeserved eulogies will doubtless be written, I take a contrary view.  My position on "Sir" Edward Kennedy has been expressed before, so I simply say this.  Let us go so far as to put aside his apologism for IRA terrorism, his tacit and not-so-tacit approval for the "Irish-American" extremist lobby who held nothing but sympathy for the murderers of many British subjects, and gave succour and support to them, without which the IRA would never have been so "successful".  Instead of those who were therefore indirectly his victims, let us simply remember Mary Jo Kopechne, whom he left to drown in the waters of Chappaquiddick, whose death he never explained and for which he was never punished.  Lord David Owen was stupid enough to say on the Today programme today that Chappaquiddick was a "profound personal tragedy" for Teddy Kennedy.  To state the obvious - the tragedy was Kopechne's and her family's, and Kennedy caused it.  Death doesn't change that.

"The key to Ted Kennedy is that he grew up with both a rich kid’s sense of superiority and a youngest child’s sense of inferiority."

A tribute to Ted Kennedy from the Conservative MP for West Chelmsford, Simon Burns.  Mr Burns argues that Ted Kennedy will come to be remembered as one of the US Senate's greatest ever members.

The sad death of Senator Edward Kennedy after a long battle with brain cancer will deprive the US Senate of one of its finest and longest serving members. When the history of the Senate is written he will be remembered as one of the greatest of US senators in its long august history, on a par with the likes of Daniel Webster.

For those who are under-privileged in American society, who believe passionately in a fairer system of healthcare provision, in civil rights for all citizens regardless of faith, colour or gender or a fairer deal for the mentally ill, they have lost a towering champion who it will be difficult to replace.

It was a mark of the man, who was surrounded by wealth and privilege since birth that he decided to devote his whole life from the age of 30 to public service as a US Senator when he could have aimlessly frittered his life away. A recent story in the Boston Globe summed up his commitment to serving the people. About two years ago he was sitting on the porch of his sprawling Hyannis Port home chatting to his old friend and father in law, Edmund Reggie. Reggie told him he was crazy to beat himself to death on the floor of the Senate. He went on to point out that ‘passing a new law won’t be any more glorious for you than the reputation you have made. You have all this. You and Vicki (his wife) love to travel. Why are you beating your brains out?  You’ve got all the money you need and your kids are raised.’

But Kennedy wasn’t buying it. ‘No’, he said, ‘I don’t think so. I’ll stay in the Senate.’

How We Fight, and How the MOD Reacts

Michael Yon is an independent war reporter.  He has embedded with British and American troops over the past five years or more and covered the day-to-day life and, sad to say, deaths of the soldiers he lives with in a way no other reporter that I know of does.  This is the sort of high-quality, in-depth reporting that we should be paying for when we purchase a newspaper or are forced to turn over our TV Licence fee.  But Michael Yon survives on the donations of his web site's readers.  I can't think of a more stinging indictment of the current media setup than that, but that is beside the point of this post.

Most recently, Michael has been embedded with the British regiment 2 Rifles in Helmand, Afghanistan.  His most recent dispatch is a wonderful example of what he does, and echoes the authentic voice of the soldiery:

While Axle worked, I asked about times when he “smashed” the Taliban.  British soldiers like to use the word “smashed” when talking about the Taliban.  When Axle would finish talking about one fight, I would ask about another.  Finally, Axle said, “You Yanks are great.  You like to hear stories about us smashin’ the Taliban but people at home want to know how much we miss our families.”  We both chuckled, and I asked, “Really?  They don’t ask you about smashing the Taliban?”  “That’s right,” then Axle said something like, “They only want to hear how sad we are.” Axle and I got along great because I didn’t care if he missed his family and he didn’t care if I missed mine.  This part is about smashing people who would help those who smashed the World Trade Centers and blew up people in London and Bali and Jakarta and Israel and Spain and the Philippines and anywhere else they can reach.  There is a crucial development and governance aspect to this war, and still a crucial smashing side.  Sometimes you’ve got to swap hats for helmets.  Mullah Omar is still alive, apparently in Pakistan, and he needs to be killed.  Just on 20 August I heard a Taliban singing over a walkie talkie that Mullah Omar “Is our leader,” and they were celebrating shooting down a British helicopter only twelve hours before just some miles from here.  There will be time to hug families later.  Now is a time for fighting.

Apallingly, after reading this latest dispatch, the MOD cancelled Michael's embed. If you appreciated Michael's reports from our troops, you might want to donate to Michael's cause and perhaps write to your MP, asking them to ask the MOD exactly why they canceled the embed when no possible advantage could have accrued to the enemy from it.

UPDATE: Of course, EU Referendum has more.

Racial profiling

A telling incident provides an update on the state of racial profiling in US customs procedure, as carried in an insightful article by Sahil Mahtani over at the excellent City Journal.  His piece ends:

Putting aside questions of the system’s merit, one can at least say that Khan’s experience was utterly predictable. Americans have decided that they want to keep a tight watch on potential terrorists and are doing so partly by monitoring Muslim travelers. Muslims, for their part, find this humiliating, because it suggests that they are a heightened security risk (which is certainly true statistically). Neither reaction should come as a surprise. The Khan affair is not an unfortunate cultural misunderstanding, but rather a case of cultures understanding one another perfectly—and not liking what they see

What do we think?

(Oh, and extra kudos to City Journal for the article title's Star Trek reference :))

Balanced and evidence-based debate will lead to sensible NHS reform

By Dr Paul Charlson.

Doctors for Reform has always had the interests of the NHS at its heart and is willing to stand up and make its views public which is the reason why I joined the organisation in the first place.

DfR believes passionately in a health service that provides high quality services to everyone in society regardless of income. Whilst the NHS has many virtues we believe that it could be improved. The current system is unfair and often disadvantages the least able in society.

The current economic downturn has sharply focussed the need to achieve greater efficiencies in public services. The NHS faces enormous challenges in the next few years. If efficiencies are not found then services are bound to deteriorate and important gains over the last few years could be jeopardised. The poorest and most disadvantaged in society are likely to be the biggest losers in a deteriorating system.

To continue to survive and improve in its quality the NHS must not only become more efficient it in how it supplies its services it must also act on demand. This means increasing the public’s responsibility for its own health both in the use of services and in leading healthier lifestyles. Government can only lead the horse to water.

Right wing words

I've just noticed this graphic on a Wall Street Journal blog.  It provides a list of words for Obama to use and not use.  Obama is advised to use "public" whereas conservatives want to talk about "government" and "politicians".  Obama should employ the words choice and control - rather than competition.  Conservatives want to talk about "regulations" while Obama is advised to talk about "rules".  Words have power.  Conservatives, for example, should talk about tax relief rather than tax cuts.  'Death duty' is a more powerful candidate for abolition than the 'inheritance tax'.  Renaming Margaret Thatcher’s ‘community charge’ as the undemocratic-sounding ‘poll tax’ was one of the left’s greatest rhetorical victories of recent times.

The ‘forgotten’ war we must win

“Win the war against drugs and you will win the war against terror—they are two sides of the same coin" that was the view of the Colombian Vice Minister of Defence as a small British parliamentary delegation toured the former coca plantations of La Macarena on the frontline of the battle against FARC guerrillas.

Seven years ago Colombia was the most violent country on the planet: Its murder rate was 32 times that of the UK and today it is still 50% higher than Iraq. Decades of appeasement by government ministers of the terrorists/drug-traffickers had created a lawless country, a collapsed economy and grinding poverty.

Then Alvaro Uribe was elected as president, who, with US support took on the FARC attacking them at source—the coca plantations which the terrorists had operated with impunity through fear and corruption.

These coca plantations were not a ‘Colombian’ problem they were a ‘global’ problem as they spewed their produce onto the streets of affluent countries chiefly in the United States and Europe (the UK being the largest market in Europe accounting for 40% consumption).

Carrying its twin diseases of violence and anarchy through illicit drug routes in West Africa and Mexico, cocaine is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and many times more through the networks of crime and gangs which live off its proceeds. This compares to total deaths from terrorist attacks around the world of 15,765 (2008).

Is it not unfair that an American online campaign is seeking to boycott Scotland and the United Kingdom?

With no sign of a let-up in the anger at the SNP-run Scottish Government's decision to free the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, in America an online campaign has been set up, BoycottScotland.com.

Except, when you go to the site, it immediately becomes clear that its aim is to "Boycott Scotland and the United Kingdom" in its entirety.

The justification given for wanting to boycott England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well is that "the government of the United Kingdom has washed its hands of the entire affair, allowing the Scottish government total freedom" to take the decision to free al-Megrahi.

Whilst it is true that the refusal of Gordon Brown to give a view on the matter is absurd in the extreme (and other serious questions remain unanswered, including those about the role of Lord Mandelson in the affair), the fact remains that this is a devolved matter and the responsibility for taking the decision lies with the devolved body - much in the same way that the federal government in the US cannot be held responsible for the decisions of individual State governments.

So (regardless of the rights and wrongs of boycotts) is not unfair of this campaign to target the UK as a whole?

If central government rescinds power to a lower level, it surely has to be able to sit back and let those to whom it has given that power make the relevant decisions and take the consequences. Otherwise, you are effectively saying "we'll devolve power to you - until you take a decision with which we disagree", which renders the whole concept of decentralisation and devolution as meaningless.

PS Before anyone accuses me of in some way seeking to justify the freeing of al-Megrahi, I personally completely disagreed with the decision.

Don't judge an article by the headline...

I've written for The Independent this morning.  My basic argument is that pre-election candour will make the job of governing a lot more straightforward for David Cameron and George Osborne.  The full article is here but the key sentence is: "Candour might not make much difference to the outcome of the next general election but it could be crucial to the chances of a prime minister Cameron being re-elected."

Having said that candour won't make much difference to the chances of winning the forthcoming election I was a little surprised to see this headline above my piece this morning...

The Independent has kindly changed the headline of the online edition but it's a warning not to judge an article by the headline that it is given!

Cameron is right on NHS spending

I don't often differ wildly from the ConservativeHome editorial line. I don't often stray too far from the mainstream views of Conservative members, save being a bit more obsessive than most about individual liberty and a tad more open to reform. But on this rare occasion I must disagree with 63% of you and support David Cameron's plans to "ring fence" NHS spending and continue to increase it at an above inflation rate.

You see it's not because I believe savings cannot be made in the NHS without directly cutting services. Savings can be made, lots. Billions upon billions. Local pay deals, better contracting, an end to Labour's bizarre management style and the introduction of more business like management - with greater use of the private sector - would and indeed will save a fortune. But all such savings will soon be gobbled up by the benign but extremely hungry health monster. New drugs, new treatmments, and an ever greater need for staff to administer these life saving marvels will be compounded by the aging population.

As more and more people live longer lives, and as more and more people live years on medication - perhaps from childhood in some cases, middle age in many more - the costs will continue to tick up. Here we are not alone, America - which spends 15.6% of its GDP on healthcare compared to our 8.3% (2005 figures) - expects to spend one-fifth of GDP on healthcare by 2018. Hopes of returning money from the healthcare budget to taxpayers or using it to partly plug the budget black hole just aren't realistic, and we'd be both fooling ourselves and worrying voters if we banked on it even as an option. In healthcare we must at least walk briskly to stay still.