CentreRight

Dan Munford: Why Europe is to blame for the economically damaging over-reaction to the volcanic ash cloud

By Dan Munford, a former candidate for the Welsh Assembly.

Will there be political fallout for the Lib Dems in the decision to close our airspace? 

Europhile Nick Clegg's bubble may burst this week when UK voters begin to realise that a European body is mainly responsible for what increasingly looks like a massive over-reaction to atmospheric ash and the pan-European closure of our airspace.

The closure of the UK's airports and the disruption of transatlantic and European air travel by ash fallout is now becoming a major business and economic disaster.

Eurosceptics will think it's Christmas when they discover that this "health & safety" decision was taken by an organisation called Eurocontrol - the "Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre" (I'm not joking).

If it wasn't for the fact that UK businesses will start to go under and that gaps will begin to appear on our supermarket shelves, we could all sit back, enjoy our clear blue, curiously ash-free skies and laugh that Eurocontrol's corporate tagline is, unbelievably, "our mission is to keep you moving".

However, our problem is that if this continues much longer, Eurocontrol may achieve something that unrestricted submarine warfare didn't in WW2 and bring the country to its knees.

The well-publicised incident of the BA flight over Indonesia involved the crew not being able to see the wing tips from the flight deck. There has always been volcanic ash in the atmosphere, the key question that Eurocontrol have fluffed is "What density is significant?".

Every year we have several incidents where huge volumes of Saharan dust blow up into the stratosphere, clearly visible on all the satellite images, swirl around in the Atlantic and dump on Portugal, or France, or even here in the UK. Regular flights pass through these clouds without damage  - and unfortunately the world has come to a standstill because of some ash at a density too low to show on normal satellite imagery.

The only glimmer of hope on our radar screens was the news yesterday that the airline KLM have carried out a test flight in Dutch airspace with their president and CEO, Peter Hartman flying as an onboard observer. Let's hope the Dutch see sense, because the co-incidence of this crisis striking during a UK election campaign leaves us leaderless to find our way out of this dangerous and unnecessary ecomomic crisis.

By Dan Munford, a former candidate for the Welsh Assembly.

Should the Conservatives have an industrial policy?

The Tory manifesto declares support for a more balanced economy, but a dispute has opened up between the think tanks about how best to achieve it. In a recent report, Policy Exchange advocates among other measures, the winding up of Labour's Strategic Investment Fund, which has given Rolls-Royce a grant to build a new factory in the UK and Nissan a grant to develop battery technology. This policy is denounced as slipping back into 'intervening in markets' in ways that could 'distort the allocation of capital'.

Civitas has just published Prosperity With Principles, available from Amazon or as a free PDF from Civitas. It argues that our government needs an industrial policy if we are to avoid further economic decline. It lists 22 measures:

1. Set an exchange-rate target consistent with a higher-level of manufactured exports, subject to a monetary policy aimed at achieving sound money.
2. Reduce government debt as rapidly as possible to reduce the cost of borrowing so that investment can be increased.
3. Aim to move towards a main corporation tax rate of 15% within a few years. Preserve and extend R&D tax credits. Move towards 100% capital allowances.
4. Cut personal tax and inheritance tax to increase the funds available for private investment with the intention of encouraging a renewal of private and family-owned enterprises.
5. Apply a moratorium on all new business regulations in the legislative pipeline.
6. Aim to abolish employment tribunals and all related laws, and in the meantime, place a cash limit of £5,000 on all employment-related compensation awards.
7. Abolish business rates on empty property.
8. Restrict all climate-related measures to those that are consistent with keeping the UK within the top three most competitively priced energy markets in the EU and the G20.
9. As an extension of the export credits guarantee service, provide an exchange-rate hedging service for raw and semi-finished materials imported for use in manufacturing, and for exports of finished products.
10. Use public procurement more effectively to incubate innovative companies.
11. Increase taxpayer support for basic research when financial constraints permit.
12. Preserve and extend the Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme.
13. Develop an Industry Bank, modelled on the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation.
14. Encourage saving and enterprise banks modelled on German savings banks.
15. Transform regional development agencies into arms of the Industry Bank.
16. Maintain a list of strategic industries, including defence, support them and prevent foreign takeovers.
17. Make vigorous use of WTO reciprocity rules.
18. Encourage the WTO to permit 'adjustment protection' for a time-limited period.
19. Ensure that importers are not placed at an advantage by home taxes and regulations. If necessary equalise the burden.
20. Examine all substantial foreign investments to ensure compatibility with competition law.
21. Place apprenticeships as far as possible under the control of employers, and whenever feasible provide the prospect of a job at the end.
22. Repeal the 2002 Enterprise Act to allow the relevant Secretary of State to intervene to protect the public interest in cases of acquisitions, mergers and other potentially anti-competitive activity.

Gordon Brown's tax credits disincentivise work. They discourage commitment. They encourage fraud. They exaggerate earnings variations.

Harry Benson runs relationship courses through Bristol Community Family Trust, an independent charity, and co-wrote the family sections of Breakdown and Breakthrough Britain for the Centre for Social Justice. He is the author of Lets Stick Together, the relationship book for new parents.

Tax credits. The flagship Labour policy, through which 600,000 children have been “lifted out of poverty”, has become accepted mainstream thinking. But the whole concept of tax credits is rarely discussed, let alone challenged. Maybe it’s because the system seems so horribly complex. More likely it’s because politicians and Today interviewers alike have no personal experience of tax credits. And yet Gordon Brown’s tax credit system, as it stands, should utterly offend anyone genuinely interested in reducing poverty. Here’s why.

The core idea of tax credits sounds good. If you’re on low income and you have children or you work, you receive a boost to your family income that is intended to make life a little more manageable. Think of it as a negative tax. Instead of earning just the minimum wage of £5.80 tax free, you end up with more than this in your pocket. So far, so good. Poverty relieved.

The problem comes when you try to escape from this support system. In effect, you can’t. Ever. If you’re planning to work a bit harder to earn a little more money, forget it. You’ll barely notice the difference. If you’re thinking about taking your relationship onto the next stage, either don’t do it or don’t admit it. Certainly don’t get married. Commitment will cost you tax credits. And if your earnings are likely to fluctuate, prepare for tax credits to make the swings in your income more boom-and-bust than you could ever imagine.

Now for some examples. As part of the research for Breakdown Britain, I interviewed a lady with three young children. She was receiving a net income of over £21,000 per year through various benefits and tax credits. It was striking to hear her state very clearly that she would never have left the father without such a safety net in place. So much for welfare not influencing behaviour. Four years later and her situation is little changed. The big win here is that she has survived those years without living in poverty. But now her youngest is about to start school and she has the opportunity to get back into work. She’s dynamic and intelligent and will undoubtedly find work. The work will do much for her self-worth. But it will do very little for her bank balance.

How about if she gets a part-time job earning a few thousand a year? Her initial marginal tax rate will be an astonishing 96% (see page 18 of the excellent CSJ 2009 paper “Dynamic benefits”). This means that for every extra £1 she earns, she loses almost the exact amount in combined housing benefit, income support and council tax benefit. How about earning a bit more? Job seekers allowance cuts out while income tax and national insurance cut in. She is still being taxed at over 90%. But the poverty trap is long and deep. Woe betide she gets a decent full time job. If she increases her earnings up from £10,000 towards £30,000 per year, she will be taxed at 70% all along the way. This is where tax credit withdrawal does its dirty work. For every £1 she earns on low to average income, she will be paying 20p income tax and 11p national insurance. But she will also lose 39p in tax credits. 20p + 11p + 39p equals 70p. She’ll work more. But she won’t feel better off.

Labour is loving the LibDem surge

There are now at least three post-debate election polls out, and all show a signficant increase in LibDem support, at the expense of both other parties. Two of the three even have the Liberal Democrats overtaking Labour.

Obviously, we will need to see whether this is sustained, but it is my view that there are two points we should be making, and also the link between the two:

1. That despite the apparent "surge" in LibDem support, it is Labour which benefits in terms of seats. e.g. even the ICM breakdown, which is the best for Labour, putting them in 2nd, not 3rd, is as follows: Labour 282 seats, Conservatives 257 seats, LibDems 74 seats. So here is the empirical proof for any assertion "vote Clegg, get Brown". Labour is the biggest party and the LibDems have agined a paltry 11 seats. Now, the LibDems may cry that it isn't their electoral system of choice, that this backs up their call for PR, but it doesn't stop it being a fact.

2. That one would expect Labour to be devastated by the thought of being in 3rd place, unheard of for a sitting Government. But far from it - Labour is wallowing in this. Check out the interview with Alan Johnson in today's Times. I haven't seen a Labour politician smiling so broadly since the Summer of 2007. The Labour twitterers have been very upbeat the last 48 hours. Ed Balls has said that "fortunes have turned". Now, you don't have to be a political junkie to be suspicious of a Party celebrating the fact it has moved from 2nd to 3rd?  Of course, the connection is back to point 1 above, that a LibDem surge now seems to be the only way for Labour to cling on to power.

Now, I think one can make these two points without going negative on the LibDems. I am not saying we shouldn't go negative, and there is definitely a case for pointing out, as Michael Gove put it, some of their more "eccentric" stances, but there are risks in attacking the LibDems, not least in the remaining two debates. There is much less risk in pointing out the two basic facts I have done above.

Pointing out Labour's reaction to the Clegg surge helps to remind people that the only way to get rid of Brown is to vote Conservative.

Nick Clegg's expenses hypocrisy

In the Party leaders TV debate Nick Clegg declared:

There are MPs who flipped one property to the next, buying property, paid by you, the taxpayer, and then they would do the properties up, paid for by you, and pocket the difference in personal profit. They got away scot-free. There are MPs who avoided paying Capital Gains Tax. Of course, you remember, what was it, the duck houses and all the rest of it. But actually, it's the people, the MPs who made these big abuses, some of them profiting hundreds of thousands of pounds. I have to stress, not a single Liberal Democrat MP did either of those things, but they still haven't been dealt with. We can only turn round the corner on this until we're honest about what went wrong in the first place.

An outrageous breach of BBC guidelines on political reporting

I rarely get into the realms of attacking the BBC for its political coverage.

But there is a story running on its website today which beggars belief.

Bear in mind the BBC's editorial guidelines are especially strict during election time and state:

"News judgements at election time are made within a framework of democratic debate which ensures that due weight is given to hearing the views and examining and challenging the policies of all parties."

And then read this story on the BBC News website written by Sarah Bell, who conducts a straw poll of six voters in one constituency - all of whom are voting Lib Dem. Outrageous.

A poll lead isn't a Ming Vase. It's a horse.

According to Mary Riddell: "Tory strategists say that winning this election is like carrying a Ming vase across a room. One stumble, and the treasure is smashed."

We have heard this election-lead-as-Ming-Vase talk before (see here and here). It is badly, dangerously wrong. If this is still the mindset inside CCHQ it needs to change. Today.

 Ming vases may be precious. But they are fragile, easily smashed, brittle, hollow, static, inert and need wrapping in lots of cotton wool before being taken anywhere. They may look beautiful, but they are cool to the touch. You can admire even covet them, but they don't engage the heart. You cannot have a relationship with a vase. There is absolutely nothing in common between a Ming vase and what it takes to get in front and stay ahead in an election race.

Look down the road from Manchester to Aintree. Think horses: race horses, and steeplechasers in particular. They need to be nourished, exercised, trained, stretched, galloped every day. They have to take jumps, at speed. There's risk involved, but if you don't face the risk and overcome it you'll never win. They need guts and stamina. They are organic, dynamic, living creatures that capture hearts as well as heads.

An election's a race, not afternoon tea in a well-appointed country house. It's not about a precious vase full of pretty orchids; it's about being Desert Orchid.

You can campaign as if you are cradling a vase that you are terrified of dropping if you want. But you won't win, nor will you deserve to. And it doesn't smack of hope optimism or change. But if you acknowledge the risks and make sure you jump them and stretch every sinew until the end, you have every chance.

The weird world of UKIP candidates

It seems that every day there is a news story about that peculiar species, the UKIP Parliamentary Candidate.

Today, we have the good news that their candidate in Rochester and Strood is to stand down and instead support our excellent Conservative PPC there, Mark Reckless.

Yesterday, we heard that the UKIP candidate for Wells will not stand down, despite being asked to do so by his own Party, against a genuine Eurosceptic David Heathcoat-Amory, who has also been, in my view, the most effective Conservative Eurosceptic in Parliament in recent years. We have sat on the European Scrutiny Committee together. For all of us who believe we need more democracy in Europe, David's defeat by a Liberal Democrat, thanks to UKIP votes, would be a disaster for that cause.

Yesterday also, their candidate in Gloucester  slammed the Party's own posters, describing them as "highly offensive".

Two days ago, thair candidate in Ilford South resigned over offensive comments about the Queen

And on Tuesday night, their candidate against me in Chelsea and Fulham made an eye-catching election pledge at our first hustings - to move to Britain, if he is elected! To be fair to him, he is quite open on his own website that he does, in fact, live in Paris with his French wife.  

Now, that is 5 parliamentary candidates hitting national headlines in just the last 3 days. Is this a deliberate strategy, or does it show what we have always thought, that this is a Party in chaos?

Big Brother Watch manifesto

This week Big Brother Watch, which I founded and is run by Alex Deane and Dylan Sharpe, released an election manifesto (to see the full document please click here) - a list of achievable legislative pledges that would go some way to rolling-back the surveillance state; give the British people greater freedom to live their lives without state interference; and end the persecution of the law-abiding British family.

The legislation we tackle in this document range from the huge showpiece bills of this overbearing government - like the National Identity Register and the Independent Safeguarding Authority - to those laws that make up the avalanche of legislation - over 4,300 created since 1997 - that intrude into everyday life, creating criminals out of people who are simply trying to live their lives without government interference.

Looking at the recent party manifestos, it is clear that the Labour Party are not willing to make any effort to correct their legacy of intrusive government - albeit having the cheek to declare they are "proud" of their record on civil liberties.

The Conservatives, by contrast, have devoted a whole section of their manifesto to the issue of privacy and freedom. We are delighted to see that they have adopted a policy of cutting back on the intrusive powers of entry that allow state inspectors into our homes – an issue Big Brother Watch tackled in our second major report.

And we also welcome the scrapping of unnecessary state databases like the National Identity Register, ContactPoint and reform of the DNA database; taking innocent people off the system and putting on the thousands of violent criminals caught before DNA technology was introduced.

At Big Brother Watch we think it should be a priority of an incoming Conservative administration to introduce proper consultation on any new CCTV system - with full scrutiny of the cost implications - and a firm commitment not to introduce “pay-as-you-throw” technology into our rubbish bins.

Longer term, Big Brother Watch would like to see a stop in the transfer of police powers to private security firms and the removal of powers to issue ‘on-the-spot’ fines from council wardens. We would also like to toughen-up the laws allowing our data to be shared with other EU countries and the introduction of a European FOI Act, so we can find out what Brussels knows about us.

To read all of the 30 pledges please go to http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/manifesto.pdf

Brown the clear loser; Clegg's success creates a LibDem dilemma

Brown had to win tonight and he bombed. He was wooden; his prepared jokes fell really flat (agonising to hear them repeated); his smile was a rictus; he interrupted much more than the others; he was boring.

Clegg won on energy and passion, as reflected by the instant polls. But what do the Lib Dems do now? The Seer Vince, last week, positioned himself close to Labour; tonight Clegg distanced himself from Brown's increasingly desperate "I-agree-with-Nick" ploys. The Lib Dems need to work out their position: do they exploit Brown's weakness and turn their fire on Labour, or do they stick with the Vince strategy and try to keep close to Brown? The Clegg approach is not the same as Cable's. How does this impact on their strategy for the rest of the campaign - do they defend in the South West, or attack in the North? On tonight's evidence, they are better placed to take votes from Labour than position themselves close to Labour.

Cameron did OK; his closing remarks were his high point, but he never caught fire. He missed some openings - he never tried to explain his most radical and exciting policy - Gove's school reforms (even though Clegg gave him an opening by praising the Swedish system). Nothing on the Broken Society (again Clegg used Conservative language abiut the conveyer belt to crime, which Cameron could have developed) . He didn't mention his big idea of the Big Society until the very end. He didn't communicate his hunger to change Britain. He didn't challenge Brown on his ridiculous assertion that opposing the NIC rise is to take money out of the economy.

For all of them: anecdotes about people they have met ("some of my best friends are...") are not the same as their personal experience of the system. David Cameron sounded authentic when talking about his own experiences of the NHS. But he needs to build on his performance tonight.

The debate on the economy will be vital. Some clearer announcements about the debt and deficit  over the next couple of weeks may be needed to boost Cameron's supply of arms and armour. At the moment too many people blame it all on the bankers. We need to explain how much is Brown's debt, and how much is the Banks'.

Dave’s growing number of 'Friends in the North'

An opinion poll by YouGov last week slipped almost unnoticed into the maelstrom of the carried out last week and yet it reveals a trend of national significance—the sharp decline of sharp Labour in its heartlands since 2005 and an equally steep rise in support for the Conservatives. The poll showed that Labour’s support had fallen more in the North East than anywhere else in the UK; in the North East of England Labour support was down 10% on 2005, Conservatives were up 7%. This finding is reflected across the north of England and resonates with actual results on the ground over recent years:

• Across the three regions of the North of England Conservatives are controlling 31 councils compared with Labour, 19 and the LibDems, 19. The Conservatives control more councils in the North West and Yorkshire than Labour and the Liberal Democrats put together. The Conservatives can rightly now claim to be the Party of local government in the north.
• In 2008 Crewe & Nantwich became the first Conservative gain from Labour in a by-election for 30 years;
• In 2009 European Elections Conservatives topped the poll in both Yorkshire & The Humber, North West and in the North East the Conservatives were the only of the three main parties to increase their share of the vote; and
• In 2009 Conservatives took control of a Metropolitan Borough Council (North Tyneside) in the North East for the first since they were created in 1974.

There is no doubt that this opinion poll is reflecting a feeling by traditional Labour supporters that they have been let down badly. The north has been hit more harshly as a result of Labour’s great recession with unemployment rising more steeply and the economy contracting more sharply than elsewhere in the UK. Moreover the wealth and income gap between the north and south is re-opening. The disproportionate number of failing schools in the north and widening disparities between property prices have resulted in social mobility going into reverse in the north.

The fact that a greater proportion of the jobs in the north are in the public sector is often used as an argument against a Conservative advance. Yet this time, we are seeing that those in the public sectors are re-assured by David Cameron’s strong pledges on the NHS and at the same time they are the ones experiencing at first hand the top down micro-managing and wasteful culture of Whitehall. Moreover, the rise in National Insurance is a stealth tax on every school, hospital and police force and amounts to a pay cut for public sector workers and yet the Unite Union utter not one word against it.

There is a further cultural reason for the shift in the polls and that is that the towns and villages of the north have always prided themselves on their strong bonds of community. Being more physically remote from London they have had a lingering suspicion of ‘Whitehall knows best’ solutions. Hence, the political paradigm shift from ‘Big State’ to ‘Big Society’ and encouraging co-operative approaches  goes with the grain of core northern belief and practice.

Finally, there was one other finding of the YouGov poll which is worth noting and that is the decline in the Liberal Democrat vote (since 2005) down 3% in the North East, down 6% in the North West and down 1% in Yorkshire. This reflects a growing feeling that we need real change to tackle the problems and exploit our opportunities: That there is a straight choice at this election between David Cameron and five more years of Gordon Brown. That faced with that choice many will conclude that a Liberal Democrat MP is a luxury the north can no longer afford.

Survey details can be found here.

The Unintended Humour of the Lib-Dem Manifesto

There are some lovely comedy moments in the Lib-Dem manifesto launched, today.

Two random examples.

Firstly, they want to abolish HEFCE, which is the body that pays out money to universities for teaching and supporting activities. Apparently, this is a grossly inefficient quango. In my day job, I deal with HEFCE quite a bit and have to say they are a model of how to get it right! There are only about three people you ever have to deal with there, because there are only about three people, and they handle a huge budget and ask for light-touch reporting that actually asks only if the job is being done that should be being done and does not look for loads of stupid measures that do not indicate anything useful (unlike the regional development agencies, for example). Per employee, it must be one of the most cost effective arms of government.

Scrapping it just sounded good.

So, too, must the idea of a "regional" points based immigration system. Under their plans, if you manage to get into the UK, you would be allocated to a region. That means that if you come to the UK without a job, you are more likely to be placed in an area that has (relatively) higher unemployment (meaning not in London or the greater South East). This means that we will add to the competition for jobs in areas where it already high and not see the labour cost benefits in areas where wages are high. Thus, all the main benefits of immigration to the UK (of which there are lots!) are negated in one crude policy move.

This was not a manifesto, it was the script for a farce, in which a group of muppets get hold of a country and mismanage it completely. Hold on... maybe that makes it a documentary of the last five years?

NOW... Three Labour ministers caught 'red handed' using parliamentary expenses for Labour Party campaigning

Yesterday I revealed that two Labour Ministers had been (mis)using parliamentary expenses for Labour Party campaigning.

Now make that three Labour ministers caught doing so just hours after the Labour Party launched its election manifesto telling us all how quickly and decisively the present Labour government had acted to clean up the parliamentary expenses scandal. Although it is noteworthy that Gordon Brown himself broke the rules by launching Labour's manifesto at an NHS hospital.

Pensions minister, Anglea Eagle joins the sorry ranks of Transport minister Sadiq Khan and Labour whip/Deputy Minister for the East of England Bob Blizzard in having had been caught using parliamentary expenses for Labour Party campaigning.

Miss Eagle is reported to have used House of Commons stationary and prepaid envelopes to write unsolicited letters to voters in her Merseyside constituency on the very day Gordon Brown called the general election.

Parliamentary rules specifically forbid the use of House of Commons stationary for any unsolicited letters, as well as strictly forbidding their use for party political purposes or to help MPs gain re election. Yet Miss Eagle even sent a letter to the home of a former voter who had been dead for five years, something that has been reported to have caused significant distress to the man’s widow.

Not a very satisfactory start to an election that was supposed to be about cleaning up parliament...

Optimists vs Pessimists

The University of Essex is a truly ghastly place, a monstrous carbuncle despoiling a glorious area of parkland once painted by John Constable, an essay in 1960s architecture that was deemed so bad - even at the time - that development plans for 29 towers were cancelled after the first 6. Within its concrete walls run a rabbit warren maze of corridors linking often windowless and confusingly numbered rooms (there are 3 different systems), creating a mind-boggling and unmappable network. Urban legend has it that the architect responsible ended up in a physiatric hospital, and that wouldn't surprise me, as no sane mind could ever create such an oppressive, unpleasant and inhuman environment - let alone one so confusingly arranged. I never found out who he was, he obviously decided to stay quiet!

Now if any building in the land was in need of something cheery hanging on the walls, the University of Essex would I'm sure you agree - even from my brief description above - more than be a candidate. However the University of Essex has a particularly left wing reputation, sadly resurgent despite the best efforts of myself and other members of Conservative Future, and this leaning is manifested in art. In the deepest depths of the University the Department of Government is identifiable by two things - the skirting boards and doors suddenly turning [blood] red as you turn the corner, and the fact that everywhere you look there's art. But not just any art, oh no, only the most depressing, oppressive, pessimistic and socialistic art will suffice here. All in greyscale and starring out from the wall are terrifying looking beggars, tearful children without shoes, women sobbing, broken down elderly folks and other similar images of suffering, which I believe are from South America and make Haiti look like Henley.

These artworks - if you can call them that -are however I feel illuminating in an unintended way; they carry to me not the artist's anti-capitalist message, but a message about the artist and his socialist kind. And that message is simple: socialists are pessimists. About human nature they are pessimists in that they see us all as either the oppressed, as featured on the art, or the oppressors, the unseen bogey-people responsibile. Never to them could we have the capacity and moral fibre to be neither the oppressed nor the oppressor, without of course the State. About the economy they are pessimists in that they doubt our ability to develop without them leading the way. Not apparent to them are humankind's unlimited talent, creativity and enterprise. To the socialist it's never sun, always rain: something becomes successful - that's inequality; something ends or changes - grab the violin. In a carnival of joy they'll find the child who lost her balloon, and rather than hope she gets another one, decide instead to ban balloons. (I'm stretching it a bit but you get my point).

What makes this election so interesting is the starkness of contrast between the parties in terms of Labour pessimism and Conservative optimism, and the choice of direction facing Britain. Labour has always been on the side of pessimism, of socialism, and Conservatives almost always on that of optimism, of freedom, but the clear blue water between the two in these terms has widened dramatically. It has become a choice between a Labour Party that believes in only the State and a Conservative Party that believes in people, between trust the masters and trust the people. Some find trusting people rather than the supposedly magical government to be uncomfortable - as reaction to the manifesto has shown - with fears that "ordinary people" (as opposed I assume to the magic pixies of the LEA) will be incapable of running schools or managing their own choices. It's a pessimism in ourselves that Labour plays on, just as they played on fears when BA, BP, British Gas, BT and other nationalised giants were denationalised. It makes the election not only a choice between Optimism and Pessimism, but a referendum on ourselves. Are we capable of making our own choices, or would we just rather be told? Let us hope optimism wins through.

Not just California dreaming

There isn’t a precise definition of what constitutes a ‘national treasure’ when talking about a person, nor an application process or selection procedure. People just become ‘national treasures’ by stealth – the precise moment often unknown – after being in the public eye for a sufficiently long time and having garnered enough respect from the public to be almost universally well regarded to the point of being all but untouchable by criticism. Joanna Lumley has probably crossed that line, her impressive and honourable campaign for Ghurkha veterans sealing the deal, and as proof of this new political near-invincibility is her recent interview in Saga Magazine.

Ms Lumley told Saga Magazine that Britain has lost the ‘zing’ factor which once made the country so great and cited the loss of the Empire as a contributing factor. Generally any mention of the E-word in anything but a wholly negative sense leads to instant savaging, however using her new ‘national treasure’ status Ms Lumley survived unharmed. I must however disagree with Ms Lumley, just a little, in pointing the finger of blame regarding Britain’s lost “zing” at the end of Empire. Britain in the ‘80s had “zing”, Britain in the swinging ‘60s partly had “zing”, and throughout history Britain has had “zing” – whatever “zing” actually is – but when asking where that energetic, innovative, imaginative and aspirational “zing” has gone we need only look at the government.

In every field the Labour Government since 1997 has had an unbelievable lack of energy and imagination – worse even than previous Labour governments – and this poverty of aspiration has stifled Britain in the most depressing of ways.

In foreign affairs it is perhaps most telling, Labour pursuing a dual policy of subservience to the US and the EU that betrays not only Britain but also those very partners. America does not want or need a poodle partner, as Blair was in many ways aptly portrayed. They loved Margaret Thatcher – like Churchill before her – because they want and need a strong partner with a strong will. America has so resolutely shrugged its national shoulders at sycophantic Brown, desperate for their attention and love, because his government isn’t the strong ally they need. Closer to home but similarly uninspired is our bizarre relationship with Europe. Labour’s poverty of aspiration for Britain – seeing an ever closer Europe as our “destiny” – combined with our national Euroscepticism has left us as a Victor Meldew like passenger complaining endlessly yet offering no alternative before reluctantly agreeing in the end. But Europe does not want or need an unwilling yet unimaginative passenger, and nor do the British public want to be it.

Back in Britain the abysmal Labour mindset has drained our energy and set our sights low in a similar fashion. Whilst Hong Kong and Osaka built grand new airports on artificial islands, with flight paths far away from population centres, Labour plans to add an insufficiently sized third runway to a badly designed airport located in the wrong place. Plans for high speed rail are equally lacking. Once upon a time great engineers such as Brunel designed with not only the ambition to build the best but the plans to do so. They built grand termini and impressive infrastructure, projecting their vision through company names declaring that greatness – Great Western, Great Eastern, Great Northern - but whilst Sir Edward Watkin set out to build a railway from Manchester to Paris in 1864, Labour in 2010 thinks a line between London and Birmingham is ambitious. The sheer contrast is evident in the names – Watkin built the Great Central, Labour proposes the unexciting “High Speed 2”.

Now if Labour’s poverty of national aspiration was confined to these areas then that may be manageable, but we know that it isn’t. In education, healthcare, the economy, and every other policy area, Labour has failed not just on delivery but ambition. There is however another way...

Today David Cameron launched the Conservative Party’s manifesto. In the pages of this unassuming book, bound in deepest blue, are what are I believe to be the most radical blueprints for reform ever published by a major political party. Californian it may be, but its mantra of empowering people and transforming the state into the servant of the people is also instinctively Tory. It’s a manifesto that says we as a society can do whatever it takes to build a better future – just as Churchill proved we could do whatever necessary to defeat fascism – and that says we as individuals are best placed to govern our lives – just as Thatcher proved we were best placed to govern ourselves in the 80s. It’s a manifesto not to get rid of government, but to make it work with us rather than over us. It’s a manifesto that announces that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams, a manifesto that believes in us as a country and in our capacity to achieve great things. It’s a manifesto that doesn’t just sound Californian, it sounds like one particular Californian.

Those on the Left will call it unrealistic, over-ambitious and idealistic - some on the Right will say the same - but the truth is together we can and will resolve the problems we face just as we have before. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that, we're Conservatives?

We're all in this together - at home and abroad

Foreign policy doesn't usually win elections, but as I found when I stood in the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election, it is a "barometer" issue. As Oliver Letwin told me, it is a test of values and if people perceive your foreign policy values are wrong, they definitely won't vote for you, while if their perception of your foreign policy values is positive, it may help influence their attitude.

When I stood in 2005, I was a Cameroon before David Cameron became Leader, and a modern, compassionate Conservative before that phrase took root in the party. Throughout the campaign five years ago, I talked about social justice - at home and abroad - and although it did not win me the seat, it helped to change perceptions. When people found out that I am a human rights activist, when I spoke about my visits to the conflict zones of Burma, when I talked about my work with refugees and genuine asylum seekers, and when I held a public meeting to give two brave and inspiring individuals, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, an opportunity to put forward their vision of peace in the Middle East, it made a difference. Not a day went by in 2005 without at least one person coming up to me and saying either "I have never voted Conservative before, but because of what you are saying, for the first time in my life I am going to" (not many) or "I'd really like to vote for you because I like what you are saying, but I can't bring myself to vote Conservative" (many). Most greeted me with a look of astonishment, saying either "I can't believe you're a Conservative" or "I have never met a Conservative like you before."

Reading the new manifesto, Invitation to Join the Government of Britain, it is clear that five years on, the Conservative Party has many people like me. It has changed, radically. On domestic policy, that is especially clear, with a much more diverse range of candidates and many candidates who have a proven track-record of commitment to social justice. But there are many, like me, who enthuse about international human rights and tackling global poverty. Just look at Project Umubano. I am the norm, now, and no longer an exception.

Two Labour ministers caught 'red handed' using parliamentary expenses for party political campaigning

As an aid worker one of the things you become acutely aware of is government corruption – such as government ministers diverting tax payers' money for their own party political campaigning. But, for it to happen in 21st century Britain should be profoundly shocking to all of us.

In their manifesto launched yesterday, Labour claimed (section 9:2):

"We acted swiftly to clean up politics…And we will take further measures to restore trust in our politics. We face a deep crisis of trust in politics following the parliamentary expenses scandal. Faith in our political institutions was seriously eroded by the abuses of the expenses system. Only radical change can begin to renew our democracy."

The tragedy is that even before the print was dry on this section of Labour’s manifesto, at least two Labour government ministers had been caught ‘red handed’ (mis)using parliamentary expenses for party political campaigning.

Transport minister, Sadiq Khan is reported to have sent out thousands of unsolicited letters to voters in his marginal Tooting constituency in South London just days before parliament was dissolved for the general election. The letters on House of Commons stationary and sent using parliamentary prepaid envelopes detail his achievements as their MP and told voters how to contact him during the general election. The House of Commons rule book ‘The Communications Allowance and the use of House Stationary’ repeatedly states that such parliamentary stationary:

"should not in any circumstances be used...for the benefit of a political party or supporting the return of any person to public office."

The Tories have moved from 'giving us a hand-up' to 'enabling us to step-up'

People power is set to be the central theme of the Conservative Manifesto being launched later this morning. And this is the clear contrast between the Tory Party and the Labour Party: the Tories have moved from giving us a hand-up to enabling us to step-up; Labour have remained as the hand-out Party. And the stepping-up opportunities in health will come in different forms, from facilitating John Lewis style partnerships in healthcare organisations to demanding the publication of outcome data instead of process targets to inform patients, to real budget holding for GPs and patient-held records.

2020health itself was instigated as a response to me and my NHS colleagues’ despair at being utterly disenfranchised when it came to using our expertise to improve healthcare. Capturing the talent of the workforce and opening up opportunities for patient-professional-public collaboration is the re-enfranchisement that we have been waiting for. Yet I can hear the howls of opposition already, from the blinkered jobs-worth and the mediocre manager, previously sheltered and sure of a job and pension for life, turning wild-eyed to their union reps at the prospect of being held accountable by the people they purport to serve and having to account for their role. About time, but public sector employment terms and pensions are also in need of serious overhaul and as yet we don’t know if this will be mentioned.

Yet as I wrote in our own What Women Want Health Manifesto in March, there are still ‘demand’ giants to be slain in the NHS – neglect, risk, drift, commoditisation and conflict – and unless and until we tackle these, the NHS remains on a course of unsustainable expansion. Interestingly as the 2020health GE2010 Health Policy Tracker shows, at this stage there seems to be an emerging consensus between Tory and Lib Dem health policy. This may change tomorrow with the latter’s manifesto, so watch this space.

Someone else's sigh

I'm just behind Matthew, on the 3rd floor of the council block. He's moved ahead because he recognises the voter at the door, stretching out his arm in greeting.

- Hello, we've met before, haven't we, it's Mr Smith, isn't it?

- Oh yes, hello, how are you, how's it all going?

Mr Smith is maybe in his late 50s, thinning black hair, large spectacles around sad dark eyes, large mouth, open wide, smiling. He spends his life smiling, I think, he's got that smiley aspect that genuinely kind people wear, a smile that makes your own mouth smile back. Old suit trousers. Slippers. Shirt. Clean and tidy front door. He doesn't need to say anything else, you know at once that: he's sad, he's open, he's generous, he's tired. I can tell what's coming. So -

So -

So I move away to let Matthew talk to his constituent. I'm looking down from the third floor of these flats that overlook the West Reservoir, on the far edge of which people are messing about in canoes, their tinny squeals of enjoyment carrying over the still air. They're happy, I guess, at least today they're happy. But I listen to Matthew and Mr Smith.

Day One, Year One, A long time ago

Time puts things into context. Last week we dusted down a couple of documents that managed freakishly in retrospect to combine Cool Britannia and the Government’s level of interest in army helicopters. Today, with the launch of the Labour Party manifesto, let’s flip back even further.

A week is a long time in politics, so 672-odd are well nigh antediluvial. But on 1 May 1997, the very dawn of his electoral triumph, Tony Blair took the opportunity to lay down his EU policy motif in the pages of The European. It was a speedy declaration and a pointer of priorities.

“I want Britain to be one of the leading countries in Europe,” he explained. “We have the leadership, a sense of purpose and the policies to give Britain back its confidence and its influence.” There followed a diatribe against the EU policies of his predecessor, and a swift slash of the cane against anyone considering withdrawal from the EU as an option. Then he turned to the New Labour approach.

“On qualified majority voting we will consider an extension to areas where it is in Britain’s interests to do so, while retaining the veto in areas where that is essential.” So, you can’t say in retrospect he didn’t give some warning; under Mr Blair more vetoes were dropped than under all of his predecessors combined.

Then onto the votes; “We would press for the re-weighting of the voting system to give more equitable say to larger countries such as Britain.” Well, even acknowledging that enlargement scuppered that pledge, it turned out that Poland, Malta and Belgium would be the countries that fought that corner.

Next on the incoming New Labour hit list was “reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. A new Labour government can use the opportunities provided by enlargement and the World Trade Organisation negotiations in 1999 to bring about real reform.” We know how that one ended in tears.

Another priority was unemployment and social legislation. The new Europe Minister’s first task, delivered by a worryingly rictus-grinning Doug Henderson, was to sign away the UK opt out on the Social Chapter. You can argue the policies from the Right and from the Left. They are both irrelevant to the point. The opt out provided an opportunity to decide at a national level; and even if the economics could somehow be justified, a major bartering chit was handed over for free.

A pledge “to make our foreign policy co-operation real” would prove equally flawed in the eyes of history;  “We will still need American support and involvement, but Europe needs to show it can be more self-reliant.” After Kosovo and the St-Malo Accord, the theory however ran amok while the practicalities drifted across the Atlantic.

Fidesz's unhappy challenge

As predicted, Fidesz - the Hungarian Civic Union - have won the country's parliamentary elections. 

Commenting on Fidesz's victory in the early hours of this morning, President Laszlo Solyom rightly noted that it was "unprecedented for a winning party to secure such a clear and broad-based mandate" and that their victory "signals fundamental shift in Hungarian politics".  He's right.

While counting is still going on, the party have secured an outright first-round victory in 119 of 176 constituencies and appear to have secured more than half of the 152 proportional representation top-up seats.  In power since 2002, the Socialists have been reduced to a rump of only 28 seats - two ahead of the ultra-nationalist Jobbik Party who secured 26 mandates.  It was a painful night for the once-powerful Hungary Democratic Union, our party's allies in the European Parliament, who failed to clear the 5% electoral threshold for representation in the Országház.
 
The challenge for Fidesz in recent months has never been winning the election - but rather about articulating a convincing plan to pull Hungary out of its current malaise.  Preferring platitudes and outlining only the vaguest of policies, this is something Prime Minister-elect Orbán and his party have sadly failed to do. 

Fidesz inherit a shattered - even bankrupt - country.

As a result of his own electoral strategy, Viktor Orbán is likely to quickly find himself a victim of what can loosely described as an "expectations/delivery deficit". 

At present, Hungary is bound by more than €20 billion of loan obligations to the European Union, World Bank and International Monetary Fund - loans conditionalised on the basis of the country committing to a austerity programme which has been implemented by outgoing Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai and his predecessor Ferenc Gyurcsany. 

Publicly, Orbán has denounced the current loan agreement which limits the country's targeted deficit to 3.8% per annum, pledging to negotiate international agreement to increase this figure to 5.5%.   Public spending programmes, Fidesz has promised the Hungarian public, will be ring fenced.  Even if - and it is far from likely - Orbán obtains permission for such a deficit increase, economic realities will leave his government with no option other than to renege on their manifesto commitment not to implement savage public spending cuts.  Their hands are tied.

Hungary's economic problem are matched only by the scale of social problems manifesting themselves in an increasingly ugly fashion on the streets of Budapest, Debrecen and Szeged.

There can be no better illustration of these social problems than the 17% vote for the Jobbik Movement for a Better Hungary yesterday.  Jobbik, with their anti-Roma, anti-Semitic, xenophobia rhetoric, fits every possible stereotype of a far-right Eastern European party.  

While weak in the liberal urban centres, Jobbik came from nowhere to secure a strong second-place finish in the largely impoverished rural areas along the country's eastern borders with Romania and the Ukraine.

Support for Jobbik, just as with support for all other far-right nationalist movements in Europe, has little to do with racism and far more to do with frustration with the political process and established politics.  The party has successfully skewered both the ruling Socialists and Fidesz for perceived corruption, the vagaries of their public spending policies and their failure to offer solid commitments on job creation.

Jobbik are thugs.  For starters, their leader Gábor Vona has already vowed to wear the sinister uniform of the outlawed Hungarian Guard to Parliament.  

In the Országház Jobbik will care little for the niceties of parliamentary democracy, instead preferring to focus "salty" personal attacks on Orbán and his supporters.  If, as expected, Orbán is forced to slash public spending and fails to speedily turn around the economy, we can only expect Jobbik's cancerous influence on the Hungarian political process to continue to grow.

Fidesz have been handed a powerful mandate for change and enter office with a burden of expectation entirely disproportionate to what they are likely or able to achieve.   For now, Orbán’s challenge must be to manage those expectations.

Fidesz face an unhappy challenge in the months ahead for which I can only wish them the very best of luck.

The Debt Clock goes on the road

Today is an exciting one for the TaxPayers' Alliance - our UK Debt Clock starts its 1,300 mile tour of Britain, highlighting the vast scale of the national debt to taxpayers right across the country.

For many years now, there has been a clock counting up the USA's National Debt in New York, acting as a constant reminder to people how much the Government is borrowing for taxpayers to one day pay off. Inspired by that, we have built what we believe to be the biggest digital clock in the world to do the same for the UK national debt.

Seven metres long, and one metre tall, mounted on the back of a 14 metre lorry, the TPA Debt Clock drives home exactly how vast Britain's national debt now is. To get an impression of its size, have a look at the first photo of it here.

The national debt is run up by politicians in Westminster, but has a hugely damaging impact on taxpayers right around the country - as well as equating to a bill of over £30,000 per family, it is threatening to undermine our credit rating and destory investor confidence in Britain. Therefore we have made our clock mobile, so we can take the message to the people.

After its launch today in Westminster it will visit the Bank of England and then go on to the Millennium Dome before leaving London and travelling around the country. It will be stopping off at:

Oxford, Tuesday 13th April
Bristol, Wednesday 14th April
Cardiff, Thursday 15th April
Birmingham, Friday 16th April
Manchester, Monday 19th April
Edinburgh, Tuesday 20th April
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wednesday 21st April
Hull, Thursday 22nd April
Peterborough, Friday 23rd April
Norwich, Monday 26th April

and you can get full details of each stop on the tour from www.debt-clock.org

Even if the clock isn’t passing through your neighbourhood, you can get your own debt clock to embed on your own website or blog. Our online debt clock counts up the national debt in real time at the same pace as its full size cousin:

To get your own debt clock widget, click here and copy the code to your own site.

The national debt can be a bafflingly large figure - particularly in an age when billions and trillions are bandied around so readily. To help put it in context, here are a few facts about the debt, which currently stands at over £781.5 billion:

- The Bank of England holds £21.669 billion in gold bullion and foreign currencies as the national reserve.  The Government borrows that much money every seven weeks.

- The Millennium Dome (now the O2) cost £789 million. That is equal to 1 day, 18 hours and 24 minutes of the national debt’s increase. 

- Using the existing debt you could buy some remarkably lavish things (if you so wished). For example, you could more than afford an exact replica of London's HMS Belfast, made of gold, at £673.3 billion. Similarly, building the whole Royal Navy fleet out of silver would cost £590 billion.

The message is clear - politicians must wake up to the scale of the national debt.

For more debt facts, information on the Debt Clock tour, media coverage of the clock and other information, visit www.debt-clock.org or follow the Clock's http://twitter.com/debt_clock.

In praise of Peter Tatchell

Peter Tatchell is once more in the news today which reminds me to write the blogpost I have had in my mind for a few weeks now. Normally, one would have to be careful here, as Peter Tatchell is an active member of another political party (the Greens), and may even be a parliamentary candidate, so this post should not be read in any way as an urge for readers to vote for him!

No, the reasons I have admired Peter Tatchell for some years are these: his consistency of approach to the issues which are important to him (notably gay rights, but human rights more widely as well), how his principles help him avoid the other tangles other Leftists seem to get themselves into (e.g. unlike, say, Ken Livingstone, Peter Tatchell speaks out strongly against homophobic Islamists) and his fearlessness (for example when trying to arrest Robert Mugabe.).

Peter Tatchell regularly emails all MPs with his campaigns. Most MPs will tell you they never read round-robin emails addressed to all MPs, but I almost always read those coming from Peter Tatchell, and he has recently highlighted the appalling new laws in Uganda against gays, as well as a myriad of other causes in recent years. I can't say I've agreed with every one of his campaigns, but he is often there first to highlight a forgotten injustice somewhere in the world.

Most of these campaigns have been in the public domain.

What I can tell readers is that this campaigning zeal has been going on for 30 years or more. ConHome readers will know that I have had my own run ins with the East German authorities in the years 1985-1990. Indeed, I still owe the East German government over 400 Deutschmarks for breaking their rules. 

Published and unpublished information in various East German archives has in recent years been of some embarrassment to British politicians, and not all of the Labour Party. The GDR kept substantial files on a surprisingly large number of influential people in Britain.

Good luck to the Hungarian Democratic Forum

Amid the clamour of the start of the British general election campaign, Sunday will see Hungary’s ten million citizens go to the polls to vote in the country’s general election. The incumbent Socialist Party government has trailed in the polls for more than three years – sometimes by margins of more than 30% - and is certain to be defeated by the populist opposition party Fidesz.

Certainty of a Fidesz victory aside, there’s only one party worthy of the support of British Conservatives: the Magyar Demokrata Fórum (Hungarian Democratic Forum).

The MDF’s Prime Ministerial nominee is Central European University economics professor and former Chairman of the Budapest Stock Exchange Lajos Bokros who sits with our party’s MEPs in the European Conservatives and Reformists Group.

Bokros' decision to withdraw his party from the EPP in favour of the ECR was a major coup for the group; bringing with him a legendary reputation as the Finance Minister whose mid-1990s ‘Bokros Plan’ “attacked head-on the thankless job of dismantling the socialist welfare state, radically downsized the public sector, cutting expenditures, and increased revenues”.

Founded by Hungary’s first post-communist Prime Minister József Antall, the MDF offer a solid free market programme which stands in sharp contrast to that of the main opposition party Fidesz who are often lazily described as a "centre-right" party by large parts of the European press. The MDF’s manifesto is a compelling one which, among other things:

• Focuses on supporting small and medium-sized businesses.
• Offers a ten point “clean hands” anti-corruption plan introducing transparency in party funding, public contract bid tendering and judicial decisions.
• Advocates deep cuts in public spending in order to increase economic growth by more than 3% per annum.
• States a commitment to keep the budget deficit below 3% of GDP during the party’s term in office.
• Implements a long term plan to reduce Hungary’s debt to less than 40% of GDP.

During the course of the campaign, Fidesz leader and former Prime Minister Viktor Orban has struck a sharply protectionist note not dissimilar to that deployed by the theoretically right-leaning Nicolas Sarkozy.

On the issue of Hungary’s ban on the foreign purchase of agricultural land (which will become illegal under EU law from 2011) Obran declared that "foreigners will never buy arable land in Hungary" and that "every Austrian farmer who bought land in Hungary should feel pleased to have got away with it". When it comes to government procurement programmes, Fidesz promise to impose quotas to ensure a ‘closed shop’ for Hungarian companies on 70% of public tenders. The core of the party’s economic policy is based around persuading the IMF to accept an increase in the country’s targeted deficit from 3.8% to 5.5%.

The left-leaning, anti-market policies offered by Fidesz in this election are nothing new. Indeed, at the time of the 2006 general election, one witnessed the bizarre spectacle of then-Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány’s Socialist Party advocating PFI initiatives, Atlanticism and improved conditions for foreign investment while the supposedly centre-right Fidesz advocated price controls on energy and a programme of renationalisation of former state assets.

It's no secret that this is a difficult election for the MDF who have seen their support base eroded by the vapid promises of Viktor Orban and Fidesz - but they are fighting a innovative and eye-catching campaign (see the poster to the right!) designed to maintain their representation in the Hungarian Parliament.

Polls conducted over the past three weeks show Fidesz to be in a commanding lead with more than 50% of the vote while the ruling Socialists and far-right Jobbik are scrapping it out for second place with roughly a fifth of the vote apiece.

At present, the MDF is hovering just below the threshold required for parliamentary representation.

Balint Szlanko, writing in Bloomberg’s Business Weekframed the final days of the campaign well:

“There is little daylight between Fidesz and Jobbik ideologically. They are both inheritors of a right-wing tradition that, lacking the possibility of open debate for decades, has improved precious little since the 1930s. They are both characterized by strong anti-liberal and anti-capitalist impulses, stuck in an old-fashioned, blood-based nationalism that is suspicious of most things foreign, and with a strong ethos of authoritarianism.”

With the growth of populist political rhetoric in the form of Fidesz and the bigoted extremism of Jobbik on the far-right, it’s more important than ever that Lajos Bokros and the MDF have a seat at the table.

Good luck to our friends and colleagues in the MDF on Sunday!

Csak az ország!

A better NHS does not require more money but local innovation

By David Botham, Intern, Reform

Saving money and improving care will be the holy grail of health reform in the next Parliament. At a Reform seminar this week leaders from University Hospitals Birmingham explained how they achieved quality and efficiency.

Rather than spending more or driving attempts to drive change from the centre. University Hospitals Birmingham brought real reform to the front line. Two initiatives made improvement possible. First, clinicians were made responsible and accountable for the care they delivered. This was rigorously enforced. The hospital has sacked more consultants than the rest of the NHS put together, including six in one go. Second, the hospital invested in an in-house designed IT system for prescribing information and patient records.

Now all staff have access to up to 1200 electronic patient charts at any one time through hand held tablet and mobile PCs. The benefits are clear and immediate.

In all instances errors are prevented at the point of decision:

• Improved infection control. Anyone testing as MRSA positive is immediately flagged by the system and automatically prescribed the appropriate drug therapy
• Patient charts show when a drug is being prescribed and by whom.

The IT system also monitors quality and efficiency through “clinical dashboards”, digital displays of up-to-date information on the running of hospital wards.

• These “clinical dashboards” allow efficient use of beds, as well as monitoring a patient’s length of stay and have allowed Birmingham’s Hospitals to reduce waiting times.
• Staff activity and efficiency is carefully monitored. Making clinicians accountable for their performance.
  
• There is also the capability of getting real time feedback from patients about the quality of care they are receiving.

 Birmingham Hospitals’ information revolution paved the way for increased productivity and reduced waiting times. Accountability and IT enabled clinicians to deliver better care and control costs.