Brighton Council have announced they will award scarce places at good schools by lottery, to stop energetic and concerned parents doing better at getting their children in.

Many in Labour want to engineer a world where children from poorer backgrounds have a chance of a place at a better comprehensive miles away from their homes. The Brighton scheme does not do this, as many of the children from the poorer districts will be allocated places at their local school, whose results are often inferior to the schools in the richer parts of town.

What should we think of this idea?

It??is good that the governing party at last recognises many children in the world of comprehensives they have created get a rough deal. It is good that they want to offer something better to the children from the poorer districts.

The problems with a lottery scheme which did move children from poorer areas to better schools elsewhere include:

1. Stopping some children in the better areas going to their local school, and forcing them, to go to a worse school further away

2. Increasing the amount of travelling for the school run

3. Thwarting some of the efforts of active and concerned parents to deliver a better schoool place for their?? children

4. Reducing house prices near the better schools – prices which have been bid up by parents buying themselves into the catchment areas

5.Increasing the pressure on parents on middling incomes??to send their children to better performing private schools

??The big problem with the government’s permission to go ahead with place lotteries is it does not in the short term tackle the underlying problem – too few places at better performing schools.

Parental choice is more likely to deal with this than lotteries. If we allowed all state schools greater freedom and independence, and no longer guaranteed them children to fill their places, we would find choice then started to drive standards up, creating more places at better performing schools. Poor performing schools?? would find it increasingly difficult to fill their places. They would have to reform themselves to stay open. It is a pity the government abolished the Assisted places scheme which allowed children from low income backgrounds to go to fee paying schools. We need an extension of scholarhship systems to allow the best minds from whatever background to go to the most successful academies.

We live in a snooper society. More and more cameras appear daily on our streets and in our stations, in our shopping centres and on the estates. Some may help the law abiding, but many have become ways??of extracting more money from the motorist who has misinterpreted the increasing complex speed and parking restrictions. We have to weigh our words carefully for fear of the thought police misconstruing robust debate for an offence against political correctness.

??The problem with the loss of freedom under this government is that it happens slowly and piecemeal. We are almost as free today as we were yesterday. You only appreciate how much freedom you have lost, if you dare cast a look back through ten years.

Do you remember when you could drive into London without having to pay ??8??? Remember when you could use the outside lane of the M4 in?? a car??? Remember when speeding was enforced by uniformed officers making decisions about when speeding was hazardous and worthy of punsihment? Remember when there was just one speed limit in a?? built up area, instead of constantly changing speeds that you have to notice? Do you remember when the parking instructions were simple, instead of half a dozen different regimes on the same London street requiring time and attention to work out where you might be able to park legally.

Do you remember when you put some money in a Building Society without having to take a utility bill and be screened in case you’re a money launderer? Do you remember being able to travel to Scotland without needing your passport for the check-in? Remember when you could joke about someone’s religion or age without fearing arrest? When teachers could lay a consoling arm on a young child without being accused of sexual motives??? When you could promote??who you liked??without fearing a?? discrimination case????? Remember when A levels distinguished the very good from the good and when few people got grade As at O level? Remember when local Councils employed officers who designed roads, ran social services, organised schools, without needing an army of consultants to do the difficult things for them?

??I could go on. Not because I yearn some distant golden age. The past is a foreign country, and many who led it are no more. I welcome a less snobby and more diverse Britain. I welcome a richer Britain. I don’t welcome a less free Britain. I do not like the constant assault on our democracy. Today Parliament is hollowed out. Our rights to free speech and to answers from the executive have been limited. We need a more modern government which can understand that the world of web and the internet is a world where people’s individuality should be respected, and where more latitude is given as people seek self fulfillment and self expression. The present government seems rooted in 50s and 60s socialism, where central control encourages a dull uniformity of view on pain of sending round the thought police.

It is typical of the peurile level of so much British political debate, that David Cameron is accused of denigrating single parents because he has said he wishes to make it easier financially for two parents to be together.

Most young children want to know both their mother and their father. They are likely to have a relationship with both, whether the parents live together or not. Many single mothers have gone on record saying their children need good male role models, as well as good relationships with their Mums.

David Cameron is making a modest positive proposal – to make it a bit easier and more worthwhile for families to stay together. I have never heard him running down single mothers. The one does not follow from the other.

A more intelligent response to his comments would be to ask How much difference can a tax break really make? How big would it have to be? What about families where the father would be a very unsuitable role model? At what point does the state have to step in, if the home is disrupted by violence and drugs?

Politicians also have to take into account the growing unhappiness??of some hard working single people, who see the workplace offer more flexible arrangements for those with families and now perhaps see better tax arrangements as well.

I do think we need to help fathers and mothers both contribute to bringing up their families. This is not just a question?? of money. It also needs a review of divorce law. It will take much more than mere political action, for it requires many in society to create an atmosphere where it is both natural and desirable that fathers remain engaged with their children.

Of course the railway industry needs to improve its performance in mending and maintaining track. It would also help if more level crossings were replaced by bridges and underpasses, to reduce possible conflict between trains and other vehicles.

It is sitll, however, likely that from time to time trains will derail. If passengers at Ufton Nervet had had seat belts, and if luggage had been properly restrained, there would have been far fewer serious casualties. Derailment is likely because the running speeds of trains are so high – in this case there should have been a severe speed limit imposed as the points had a stretcher missing.

Why do you think trains are so different to cars and planes, where luggage is restrained and seat belts are mandatory?

Many Councils still seem to think that we, the taxpayers, are keen for them to spend more. Most taxpayers I meet are worried about how high last year’s tax was, let alone how high it is going to go this year.

It’s true that some Councils have been given a poor settlement by the government. National tax still pays for more of our local services than the Council tax, so a low grant from government can make things difficult.????On average??the government contribution keeps going up, as well as the Council taxpayers contribution. Councils need to treat other people’s money with more care, and to get much better value for that money than they do.

We can all ask the spendthrift Councils some tough questions when they have a whip round for more of our money:

How much are they spending on consultants? Why can’t their own staff do more of the work, instead of farming so much of it out? Or if the consultants are so much better, do we need so many on the Council’s payroll?

Do they have in place a staff freeze? Administrative manning levels in most Councils are higher than the equivalent private sector organisations.

Do Councils need to offer subsidised competition to the private sector leisure industry? Couldn’t they just buy the rights for special groups like schoolchildren and the disabled to use the appropriate facilities?

Do they need to keep on changing the road layouts, putting in and taking out humps, putting in aggressive kerbs, and littering the roads with so many signs and lines?

Do they need to have so many staff telling headteachers and teachers what to do? Wouldn’t it be better to leave the professionals freer to make their own judgements?

Do they need to conduct so many surveys and so-called consultations? Surely Councillors are there to tell the Council what we the public think, without having to pay for so much?? polling?

Do??Councils need to send out so many glossy brochures and press releases telling us how wonderful they have been? Again, Councillors are there to appear in the local media and to keep us informed. We will all form our impression of the services by our experiences of them, rather than??from ??a glossy presentation of them.

Wouldn’t it be better and cheaper to answer an incoming letter promptly, instead of going to the expense of sending out holding replies first?

Do they need all the property they currently own? Councils often hoard land and buildings.

Has the Council put in proper heating and lighting controls, low energy bulbs, good insulation – being greener cuts energy bills.

Do they need??to leave the street lights on all night everywhere? Couldn’t they be switched off in the less busy places at midnight?

Do Councils need Chief Executives and deputy Chief Executives? Councils have Leaders backed by a majority group of Councillors from a single party, or by a coalition of Councillors who have agreed a strategy. In a business the CEO is responsible for working out a strategy and carrying the Board with it. In a Council that is the Leader’s job. Before reorganisation in 1973 Council staffs were led by the Council Secretary ( a lawyer) and/or the Council Finance Officer. It delivered services much more economically than today.

There are many other ways of saving money. All too many Councils spend their time thinking up new ways to spend money, not to save it. They are out of touch with what electors want.

??

No, the FTA does not have a massive input into "Tory roads policy". As one of those constructing a transport policy, we draw on a wide range of sources including the FTA.

My main conclusion is that we need more capacity of all kinds, including railways. I would love to find ways to divert much more freight onto trains – that requires the railways to want more freight. It means single waggon marshalling, more spur and branch lines into industrial parks, and a much more freight friendly approach by rail, which has only really been interested in train load traffic from the coal, aggregates,oil and other?? very large industries.

<p>I could not believe it when Bob Crowe of the rail Union told me on Sky that crashes were the result of privatisation. The figures show the privatised railway has been safer than its nationalised predecessor. This latest crash was most probably caused by track mistakes made by a government financed monopoly company which took the maintenance back in house.It was poor taste to try and turn a discussion about how we can make the railways safer into a spat over privatisation. It was foolish to do so when it is likely that a company that is effectively a nationalised concern is probably responsible for the tragic mistake.
</p>

<p>Like many of you I would like the train to take more of the strain. Today only 6% of all passenegrs and 6% of all freight goes by rail.</p>
<p>We make life especially difficult for the railway in the UK by trying combine an express railway, a freight railway, a commuter railway and a cross country railway in the same tracks. These types of train have very different timetabling requirements. The very fast trains and the very heavy freight trains greatly increase the strains on the tracks, requiring much more maintenance with the associated downtime. It is very difficult to run high speed trains in the UK because there are many curves and gradients on the UK railway. It is difficult to sustain high speed with gradients and curves, given the lack of grip of steel on steel technology, and given the danger of derailment as the amount of wheel on a steel track when going round a curve is very small, increasing the likelihood of serious damage to the track.</p>
<p>There is a way of increasing the capacity of the commuter railway which could make a great difference. There are many more people who would like to use a good service into the main cities in the mornings, and out in the evenings, if the capacity was available. The present railway is trying to expand capacity modestly by a combination of lengthening platforms to lengthen trains, and improving signals to cut the gaps between the trains on the tracks (reducing the safety margin). At the moment typically only 24 trains an hour can use a given piece of track. These measures will increase that marginally, and will increase the number of passengers on a busy train by the number of extra carriages they can add.</p>
<p>The Paris Metro has grip problems on lines with gradients. They have placed some rubber wheeels?? on the trains on these lines, to give greater acceleration and braking to allow sensible timetabling. We should look at making these additions to our commuter trains. It would abolish worries over the wrong kind of snow, leaves on the lines, rain and ice. It means we could run many more trains, because they would accelerate and brake so much better, allowing many more trains an hour. We could keep the same safety margin as present, and increase service frequency, making trains a more attractive option for many.
</p>

<p>Several of you have sprung to the rescue of the trains – just think about it a bit more and cool down! I’m not anti train – I want them to be better, safer, and to take more people.</p>
<p>The main reason railways are safer than roads is the draconian regulation of trains.</p>
<p>1. No-one is allowed to walk or bicycle by a railway line, though they are on non motorway roads</p>
<p>2. They enforce large distances between each train on the same track – usually two miles – to make collisions difficult, whereas we allow bumper to bumper running on busy roads</p>
<p>3. Trains travelling in different directions have segregated track – like motorways, and unlike all single carriageway roads.</p>
<p>4. They have signals which set lights at red if there is any train too near to another on the system. Traffic lights do not perform a similar function on the roads, usually being timed but not traffic sensitive.</p>
<p>We accept much lighter regulation of the roads to avoid complete gridlock – we could not possibly segregate and slow up all the cars to conform to rail standards of safety. We also acknowledge that cars are better able to cope with more congestion than trains, because they have rubber wheels allowing faster braking, and they can be steered, giving chances of avoiding obstacles.</p>
<p>My two modest proposals for trains are the bare minimum to give people a better chance in a crash. I cannot understand why the government does not immediately order the restraint of luggage, which is done on all airplanes, cars, lorries and long distance coaches. It would not be very costly to put nets in across luggage racks. Of course high speed trains should make sure everyone has a seat with a belt, just as all cars and all planes have to provide seats with belts for all passengers.</p>
<p>I agree we need to have higher standards of track maintenance – and train driving as there have been?? too many cases of passing signals at danger. There will still, unfortunately be the occasional crash. Passengers who have no control of the vehicle would like the reassurance that every sensible precaution has been taken.</p>
<p>??
</p>

Yes, it would be sensible to turn VED into road pricing if you want to go that way – so we don’t pay twice, and we strengthen the pay as you drive part of vehicle tax.

Yes, I do want to see prosperity and business spread out better around the country. The reason why London and the south east contribute so much more and the rest of the country receives money from taxation is that London and south-east have so much more enterprise and business, with many more better paid jobs. it will require different atitudes by plannning authorities to new building and roads in the less favoured?? parts of the country to make it more attractive for business to go there. it would be possible to have low tax/regulation zones in the parts of the country needing more enterprise to kick start it. it also requires more imporvement in the educational performance of the less successful areas.

<p>How many more people have to die or be injured, before the government does the obvious and brings train safety closer to road safety? I called for action following the tragic crash in my constituency at Ufton Nervet. Still there has been no urgency to learn the lessons.</p>
<p>There should be an immediate requirement that all luggage on a train is secured behind luggage doors or nets, just as it is on an aircraft. Anyone sensible puts heavy luggage in the self contained boot of a car to avoid it injuring??them in a crash. This requirement would not cost that much to implement and is fundamental. Loose luggage on a train can injure people badly.</p>
<p>There should be a requirement that all current express trains should have seat belts fitted, and all new trains of any speed should have seat belts. People can be thrown around??the carriage??when a train derails at high speed, causing injury.</p>
<p>There should be a requirement that all new train carriages should have soft surfaces everywhere where someone might be thrown, just as all modern passenger cars have soft surfaces inside the cabin.</p>
<p>I was horrified by the crash scene at Ufton Nervet which I went to see. The images have stayed with me ever since, of the impact of 350 tonnes of metal leaving the rails at high speed. In that crash some of the windows broke and some people??may have been ??pushed??through the window.</p>
<p>It looks as if there were several??circumstances in this latest tragedy which have mercifully spared many lives.</p>
<p>Firstly, the strong steel structures of the carriages worked, so the carriages stayed intact. One cheer for rail safety.</p>
<p>Secondly, the ground was?? soft with all the rain??so the windows appear to have survived, keeping people in the train?? where the carriages fell on their sides.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the train was not full, limiting the number of people in the most damaged carriages who were at risk.</p>
<p>Legislators insist on limiting road travel to 70 mph, although many production cars are designed to travel safely at speeds much higher than that. Those same legislators often press the railway industry to travel at ever faster speeds, without pausing to consider the position when things go wrong. It only takes one mistake with the points or signals, or one relatively?? minor imperfection on or with the track, to derail a train. A train cannot steer round a faulty points or a block on the track in the way a car or bus can avoid an obstacle.??The very least legislators can do, if they want to carry on with such high speeds, is to give people on the trains more of a chance of escaping without injury by requiring higher safety standards inside the carriages.</p>
<p>Of course we need to know what caused this latest accident. But before we know that we surely can see that it would avoid future injuries and fatalities if we secured the luggage and people on fast trains?
</p>

??This week I read the latest figures which show just how the London economy (and to lesser extent the south-east) has detached itself from the rest of sluggish Britain. The fast growth and high incomes means that London??now pays far more in tax than it gets out in public spending, with the balance being sent north and west to pay for the rest of the country.??

The property specialists I met this week were high on the pace and level of the market. One told me the market no longer had its hotspots – the central districts are now "white hot". The market is well into its anecdotage, talking of the fabulous riches of foreign buyers, amazing prices, rapid fire deals, sealed bids at dawn,??with stories of ????people who bought a few months ago and have already turned a profit by selling on.

For months now the experts on commercial property in London have been telling clients and potential clients the market has gone far enough. It has been a great ten years for the London commercial property market, culminating in the extra movement upwards in values thanks to the government’s introduction of Real Estate Investment Trusts. Yields on property have tumbled, as more and more money has piled into the sector. Many professionals warned their clients not to buy more, and took themselves off to the continent to seek value there.

Today some of them are having just a little second thought. The property funds still seem to have plenty of money to spend in London. There is no longer a huge amount of new space being built. More importantly, there are signs in the best districts of rental growth, as hedge funds, private equity houses and others expand and look for more space.

The government could kill all this by regulating too much and taxing more. In the meantime it is good news for those who have stakes in London’s business and property sectors, and for the rest of the country who are living off the proceeds of this success courtesy of the London taxpayers.

The government has created this two tier Britain, by failing to give a favourable tax regime to domestic entreprenuers and hard workers, whilst rightly allowing a favourable regime to apply to non residents who congregate in London.There would be one thing worse than having London doing so much better than sluggish Britain – that??would be?? London doing as badly as the rest!

??

If you look at the All Share Index you will see the point I was making about equities.

Over the last five years since the market decline the total return on the All Share Index has been 51%. The return on world government bonds (Citigroup index) has been a tiny 8.4%, and on UK property a massive 145% (EPRA/NAREIT total return commercial)

Of course pension funds and others would have done even better if they had sold their equities before 2000 and bought them back in 2002/3.

<p>The Labour inclined media think they have done their cause good today by capturing a photo of a hoodie making a threatening hand gesture behind David Cameron. They will probably keep repeating it, believing it will damage??him.</p>
<p>I don’t think the image will do David any harm with most voters. It does not after all reflect badly on him, but on the young man misbehaving. Only warped journalists could turn this into a bad news story for David.</p>
<p>The attitude and manner of the hoodie speaks volumes about the problem David wants us to tackle. He has asked why do young men behave like that? How can we help create a society where young people have a more positive approach to life?</p>
<p>He was right to say some young people would benefit from more love and support at home. He is not saying that if they become criminals we should then let them off or be soft with them. He is saying we need to look at what has gone wrong in the cases of those who become criminals, and see if we can learn how to handle things better in the future. He is also saying that he does not have all the answers, that these problems cannot be solved by a new Act of Parliament or by super Asbos. That is quite refreshing.</p>
<p>Listening to single mothers being interviewed I was struck by their constant refrain – our boys do need positive male role models. Some of the mothers think the natural father of their child would not be a positive model for their son, but they would like an uncle,grandfather, teacher, or sports organiser to do what a father would otherwise do.</p>
<p>Labour, of course, castigates David for daring to say it is good if both father and mother can be involved in bringing up their child. They claim this shows he is prejudicied against single mothers, or is making "attacks" upon them. What nonsense. David has gone out of his way to say he admires many single mothers who offer their children love and support. It is still the case that if fathers could help, and could provide a positive male role?? model, that would be good, not bad.</p>
<p>??
</p>

<p>The regulatory system is helping destroy what remains of our once great pension fund system.</p>
<p>A pension fund is like a bath with both taps on and the plug out. In a healthy growing fund money is pouring in from the investment tap, as the investments produce income and gains, and money is pouring in from the contribution tap, as members and the employer make their payments each month for future pensions. Money is also going out of the plug hole, as members retire and need pension payments.</p>
<p>The art is to keep enough money in the bath so it does not run out, until?? all??entitled to money from the scheme??are dead.</p>
<p>At any given time it is a matter of argument how much money needs to be in the fund to be able to pay future pensions. No-one knows for sure how long pensioners will live, how much will be earned on the investments,?? how much future contributions will amount to, and how much people will be earning in the years ahead.</p>
<p>The regulators require actuaries to make an intelligent guess on a regular basis. In the 1990s actuaries generally concluded that pension funds had too much money in them for future requirements. They told the funds to put less in or nothing in to try to adjust. This decade actuaries are telling most funds they have insufficient to pay future pensions, and telling them they have to put large extra sums in.</p>
<p>Why have they changed their minds so much?</p>
<p>1. They have decided based on the evidence that people are now living longer, so funds need more money to cope with that.</p>
<p>2. In the period 2000-2002 stock markets fell sharply, reducing the value of many funds. Shares fell more in the UK than in other major markets, because the UK government introduced large extra tax burdens, especially on dividends. This clearly affected funds badly.</p>
<p>3. The loss of susbtantial tax relief has a?? negative impact.</p>
<p>However, other real things went the other way. Since 2002 stock markets have performed very well, and are now in?? the UK and US up to new high levels. Pension funds in many cases have cut their risk by stopping new members, or agreeing less generous terms in the future for members. Large extra payments have gone in to most funds.</p>
<p>So why haven’t all the deficits gone away?</p>
<p>There are two main reasons.</p>
<p>The first is that the actuaries and regulators urged the funds to switch out of shares when they were low, into bonds (government debt) after they had gone up. This crass piece of advice has meant many funds have not regained so much of the lost value from the market decline, because bonds have performed?? badly in the last three years when shares and property have done so well. I doubt if the actuaries and regulators who did this ??will say sorry or pay compensation!</p>
<p>The second is the way actuaries and regulators?? calculate the numbers. They value the liabilities – their estimate of how much money is needed to pay all the pensions – by reference to the prevailing rate of interest. Because interest rates are very low by historical standards the actuaries tell funds they will need much more money to pay future pensions. If interest rates rose, the actuaries would tell the funds they now needed less money for the same task.</p>
<p>The actuaries and regulators have created a vicious circle for the pension funds, which is a magic circle for the government. They tell pension funds they must buy more government debt. This drives down the rate of interest the government needs to pay on the debt. This then according to the actuaries means the funds need even more money to pay future pensions, which means the funds have to put more money in and buy even more government debt!</p>
<p>??So what should be done?</p>
<p>1. The regulators and actuaries should stop pressurising Trustees and pension managers into buying government debt and driving the rate of long term interest down too much. Pension liabilities are long term and growing – they rise as earnings and prices rise. Interest on ordinary government bonds does?? not go up with wages or prices. Dividends on shares and rents on property do go up rather like?? earnings.</p>
<p>2. The actuaries should look into smoothing their calculations of the liabilities, so we do not get big swings when interest rates change. They may well have underestimated the money needed by funds in the 1990s, when interest rates were on average higher. They may similarly be overestimating the amount of money needed now that interest rates have been on average lower. These deficit calculations are judgements, not right answers. Big swings makes it difficult for fund management, and makes it likely there will be unfairness between generations.People earning well in the 1990s probably underpaid for their pensions. People earning well today are probably overpaying.
</p>

Pensions have become one of the most regulated areas of life. Over the last 10 years they have become much more heavily regulated, and at the same time many more people have lost out. It is true that heavy regulation of funds began under the last government post Maxwell, but it has got far worse since 1997. Some have been told their funds cannot pay the pensions they had been promised. Some have been told their funds are closing down so they cannot contribute in future. Many new employees have been told the pension fund enjoyed by older memebrs of staff is not open to them.

??

None of this is a good advert for regulation. The Regulators will say, "Don’t blame us, it wasn’t our fault." Some regulators privately blame the government for taking around ??5,000 million a year of tax out of these funds, which did a lot of damage. Some say companies took pensions holidays in the 1990s by not paying more money in, and this left them short of money to pay future pensions.

??What they fail to point out is that the regulatory and tax system made many companies take tax holidays. The rules stated that if a fund according to the actuaries had more than enough money to pay the pensions the company could not go on putting money with the accompanying tax relief into the funds. The Treasury wouldn’t allow it and the actuaries told the companies not to. They only took pension holidays if the funds were full up.

??So what is the use of regulation if it cannot deal with these kind of?? mistakes or threats??? Why didn’t the regulators protest when the government took the ??5 billion a year? Why did we not hear them warn that this was bound to damage the solvency of funds? And why didn’t the regulators go to the Treasury in the 1990s and say that they should allow companies to put even more money into the funds, if that was what was needed? It’s?? no good having regualtors who are tough on the Trustees or the investment managers if they aren’t tough on the main villains, in this case the government.

When I first became a government Minister I was made City regulation Minister in the DTI in the days when the DTI regulated the insurance and investment industries. I was keen to reduce unnecessary public spending, and supported a Prime Minister who was famous for cutting wasteful and marginal spending. It was not good news to discover shortly after arrival that Barlow Clowes, an??investment company, had let down its customers and lost them a lot of money. It was even worse news to discover that this was a regulated business,and my predecessor as Minister, Francis Maude,??had personally given an award to people for selling lots of Barlow Clowes investments. The Ombudsman found maladministration by the regulator.

I had no doubt what I had to do, although it was the last thing I wanted to do. I had to press the government to compensate the victims, as it was quite clear that the regulator had failed to protect the investing public. I am pleased to say my colleagues from the PM down agreed we had to say sorry. We?? paid up.

This government is far more guilty over pension funds than we were over Barlow Clowes. Barlow Clowes was a failure by the regulator to see what a private company was doing wrong. The pension crash is partly because the government itself took so much money out of the funds! There has been an Ombudsman finding against them, and a court verdict against them, and still they refuse to admit their mistakes and compensate victims.

Instead of doing the right thing they play silly politics. They point out that some??of the "misleading" statements about pensions predated this government, without also pointing out that before this government arrived there weren’t all these pension shortfalls. They claim that it would cost ??15 billion to put right the problem. Everyone else thinks the cost of the immediate victims would??be far less. The industry and the opposition are prepared to explore using other money like unclaimed funds to help bridge the gap. What’s stopping the government?

The regulatory system included a Minimum Funding Requirement. People were led to believe that this would take care of their pension if their company went bust. Trustees thought they were doing their job if the actuary told them their fund met the MFR. If people are not getting their pensions, they are entitled to ask what was the point of all this Minimum Funding requirement business?

Bloggers to this site are right to draw attention to the relationship between poor parenting and yobbish behaviour.

The land of the ASBO has not been notably successful at being tough on crime, and Mr Blair is still trying to find out the causes of crime that he needs to tackle.

Labour thought that if they showered enough benefits??on low income families there would be a miracle cure. The truth is problem teenagers come from all backgrounds that have one thing in common – a lack of family support, love and authority.

Neither party has yet come up with all that is needed to tackle this problem. Labour lays stress on benefits to deal with poverty. Conservatives sympathise with tax breaks for married couples, in the hope that will help them come together and stay together. Both these approaches have some merit.

The Labour approach has the downside that it can take away incentives to work and for fathers to be involved. The Conservative approach does not do anything for those on very ??low or no incomes.

All adults in a community have a responsibility to help where they can, to give the next generaiton belief and hope. If we communicate to young people our loves – for doing well, for building businesses, for playing sports, for listening to music,??for learning new skills – we can help direct youthful energy into?? more positive lives.

This government has made much of that more difficult by too much political correctness. Decent adults feel they cannot hug a child in need??of support for fear of misinterpretation. They fear they cannot chastise a youth??in case??of legal action.

Children and young people need both love and rules. They need inspiration. They need adults who will organise the local football game, run the local dance classes, and train the young?? musicians. Broken communities do not do these things, and so life there degrades and falls apart. The state cannot substitute for good parents, good grandparents, good teachers and good neighbours.

Labour’s road pricing proposal has been shot down in flames on the Downing Street website because it is same old Labour, same old extra tax.

People know they are already paying too much motoring tax, without being told the answer to congestion is to charge them some more.

The main objection is the fact that road charging is on top of everything else. People also dislike the lack of any improvements in the roads and transport system for all the money they are contributing. Some object to more spies in the sky – and on the street corners – with all the extra cameras road pricing will bring. Under Ken Livingstone only the rich can go by car.

??If the government said it would reduce other motoring taxes in line with increased revenues from road charging it would have helped. If they had promised to improve the roads and public transport at the same time that would have helped. Instead they invited the public to debate their nasty proposal. The public has?? told them loudly and clearly they don’t like it, so the government just blunders on as if nothing had happened. No wonder people are fed up with democracy as practised by the present administration.

??Is there a road charging scheme that would make sense?

Much of our freight goes on foreign lorries. These vehicles pay no Vehicle Excise Duty and often fill up on the continent to avoid the high UK diesel tax. If we cut domestic taxes on domestic lorries, and imposed a road charge on all lorries we would collect more by taxing foreign vehicles, and balance things up a bit for the hard pressed UK haulage industry.

??

Does that make sense to you?

??

Iain says I have changed my mind on an English Parliament in my latest Independent interview.

Not so Iain. "English votes for English issues" is shorthand for the proposal you first read on this site – Westminster MPs from English seats meet as the English Parliament some of the time, and meet with the rest of the MPs as the Union Parliament the rest of the time.

That puts the English parliament where it should be – at Westminster – and saves the taxpayers another load of salaries for extra representatives.