It did not take long for people to work out that Darling’s proposed reforms mean that the rate is cut on short term gains and increased on long term business gains, the opposite of what you might expect. This puts the Treasury in its own hole - black or some other colour.

One of the few good things this government did when it came to power was to cut CGT to 10% for entrepreneurs setting up their own businesses and selling them after they had worked hard for years to build them up. It was a good pro enterprise move, which undoubtedly helped stimulate more business growth. These people after the introduction of this reform face an 80% increase in their tax.

I am not against cutting the overall 40% rate of CGT to 18%. That would take us closer to the average and to the rates of CGT in our main competitior countries. I want the Chancellor to rethink the tax on entrepreneurs setting up their own businesses, but hope he keeps a much lower overall rate for CGT than 40%.

There are three attractive options from here:

1. Abolish CGT altogether. That would make a great statement about this country’s attitude to enterprise and would probably increase overall revenues after a few years as more businseses were established and paid other types of taxes. To prevent the rich and sophistiocated converting taxed income into untaxed capital gains, all short term gains (say up to 2 years) would be taxed as income, reducing the first round revenue loss.

2. Set the new CGT rate at 10%, whilst taxing shorter term gains ( up to 2 years) as income. This would keep the present incentives for new business in place by a different route, would take the UK to having one of the best CGT regimes in the world from the point of view of encouraging jobs and investment, and would still bring in some CGT revenue.

3. Accept the Darling reforms, but add to it one complexity - a 10% rate for anyone selling a business where they have been both a shareholder and an employee or director for 5 years or more. This would be a relatively simple change which would not udnermine most of the simplificaiton advantages of getting rid of the taper regime. it would also meet most of the points of those who rightly worry these new proposals are unhelpful to new business set ups.

The Treasury will worry about revenue loss in the first year from 1 and 2. It is strange they do so, because they were happy to increase public spending by another ??2 billion this week,increasing forecast public borrowing to pay for it. However, as borrowing is now high in their forecasts, these changes could be paid for by identifying items of public spending which are not producing a better NHS or education service. Why not start by aboloishing all that unelected regional government in England we do not want. Abolishing CGT for entrepreneurs would be much better for my part of the world than the useless and expensive activities of the South East England Development Agency, The South East England Reegional Assembly, and the Government Office of the South East in Guildford. Darling could bring forward more of the savings of ??30 billion in admin which he has put into his forecasts for later years. The later years would see more revenue from the extra activity the abolition of CGT generated.

To: Prime Minister
From: Senior Political Adviser

I am glad we can now put behind us the unfortunate election speculation. As I warned, there have been a few days of fallout, but it is much better than fighting an election and running the risk of losing our majority. The polling simply was not good enough to go for a November poll.

We now need to consider out fight back, to re-establish you as a statesman of substance, who rises above the day to day turbulence and who is strong and intent on rebuilding trust in politics. Cameron may be better at jokes, but we need to show you as the serious architect of a new politics. As the Tories temporarily have the ear of the media and the initiative we also for once have to consider what they might do next.

It is likely they will try to develop Cameron’s pressure for a referendum on the EU Constitution, because you have to go to the continent to complete the details of the revised Treaty of Amendment. The Tories are likely to try to widen this into an issue of trust, claiming you have broken your word on a referendum. They will refuse to accept that this Treaty no longer follows the Constitutional format and is therefore different. This case has been made more difficult for us to sustain since the publication of the Commons Report where Labour MPs unfortunately appear to have agreed that the Treaty of Amendment is largely the same as the old constitution.

We have in the past followed two different strategies to try to keep the Eurosceptic majority in the UK from uniting and getting more MPs elected to represent their view. The first has been to claim it is not an important or interesting issue, and to keep it out of the newspapers. We have been successful at this for a lot of the time, and have had some success in portraying Tories who are keen on the issue as out of touch. Keeping UKIP in play has also helped. To win in 2005 your predecessor decided to offer the referendum, for that ensured the issue would not be debated during the election. I know you had reservations about this realising that there would then have to be a day of reckoning, but you felt you had to go along with it to ensure victory. We are not going to keep the EU out of the papers for the next week or so, given the conjunction of a probable Tory campaign with events on the continent.

The second strategy has been to pick issues where we know the UK veto or power is not at risk, or where we are sure we can get some special treatment, and stage a Eurosceptic argument to show the sceptical majority that we are on their side. This was never very convincing when your predecessor did it, as most thought he was very keen on the EU. Your reputation is different, so it has more mileage for you. I do recommend that you remind the EU about the importance of the red lines, and brief the press that you are going to fight to make sure they are effective.

However, I am afraid that our credibility on this issue has been reduced by recent events. I am very worried about the poor performance of Mr Miliband. He was weak again at FCO Questions this week. I had thought he did not have his heart in this European argument because he is still a Blairite underneath, but I fear this week he simply lacked the gravitas and confidence to carry off the clever arguments the FCO had equipped him with. He did not carry our own side convincingly, let alone the external commentators and press.

I am coming to the conclusion that you need to make a dramatic gesture to show that you are a different kind of politician from the last PM, and that you do take the public seriously. You could dig in on red line issues where the EU is not prepared to help sufficiently, and then tell them that you will need to hold a referendum if you cannot get your way. This would have to be a referendum where the government recommended No? to the Treaty so you could then win it. That way it is a win/win for you. It shows you have listened to public suspicion of this Treaty. If the EU partners give a lot of ground you are a successful statesman who can shift the EU. If they do not you could hold a referendum you can win, where the Tories will have to meekly follow in your wake and share a platform on your terms.

You are right to praise courage. It is unfair that your past bravery on many issues has been temporarily forgotten thanks to the election issue. This would be a way to wow them all. If you like it I will send you thoughts on the real issues where too much power is being transferred that we could resist to make it a worthwhile diplomatic initiative.

MPs have only just arrived back at Westminster following our lock out from the Chamber since July. Soon we will be shut out again in the days between the end of this Parliamentary year and the start of the next one. This government seems especially keen to minimise the time we have available to ask it questions and scrutinise its actions.

Instead of proposing that MPs should be able to queue jump when they are here, maybe we should meet more often so the queues could be shorter, spreading out the times when we wanted to shop or get a cup of tea.

Mr Darling’s concern over a small alleged Tory black holes could be compared with some actual black holes from the government:

2005-6 Overshoot on public spending of ??7.7billion
2005-6 Deficit on current budget - ??8.4 billion bigger than planned
2005-5 Additional public sector borrowing - ??11.1 billion

2006-7 Extra tax raised - ??2.6 billion
2006-7 Extra borrowing in total borrowing ??6.9 billion
2006-7 Overrun in Annually Managed Expenditure ??2.6 billion

I feel sorry for the postmen. Their frustration at the pension crisis, where the government’s tax and regulatory regime has done damage to so many people’s future pensions is understandable. Their leadership encouraging them to strike is making things worse,not better. The country is not grinding to a halt. More businesses are discovering they can do more by email and web, whilst others are using private sector competitor services for delivering physical items
It is difficult for managers to manage within each Post Office and local area,as they are told to cut costs but not given credit for growing the business and increasing revenue. This is bad for morale, as the way out is always seen as another cost cut rarther than winning new business. The strike will reduce business further, intensifying the managerial pressure for cost reduction. The sooner there are proper incentive schemes and a share scheme for employees the better. It looks very old fashioned to witness this Them and Us struggle. The losers will be all who work for the Post office if they go on for much longer.

According to Mr Darling, the two big issues yesterday were:

1. The alleged "black hole" in Tory tax and spending plans
2. Whether the Tories would match his spending plans on health and education.

It’s pathetic. He is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The "Tory spending plans" relate to years when he is likely to be in office as they do not want an early election. The size of the alleged "black hole" is considerably smaller than the actual black hole he revealed in government spending and tax plans - he put in an extra ??3.6 billion of "revisions and forecasting changes" to his adjusted 2007-8 budget and announced an increase in borrowing of ??4.4 billion.

His spending increase of ??2 billion represents just 0.3% of total spending, well below the usual error in the figures.

The "debate" in the UK under this government is just a series of silly postures by the Chancellor, trying to do damage to his political opponents. The debate we ought to be having would ask:

1. Why do taxes need to go up by 27.7billion next year?
2. How is the ??28 billion of extra spending going to be spent? How will it improve public services?
3. Why can’t the government squeeze the ??30 billion a year of waste out more quickly?

This would be more interesting than spending time arguing over the odd billion at the margin, which is mere poltical posturing.

The overall impact of the pre budget statement is to increase taxes. Specific tax increases include:

1. Higher CGT overall thanks to the abolition of taper relief. The proposal hits long term investors and people building their own businesses particularly hard, by raising their tax rate by 80%.

2. A new tax on business which can be levied by Councils to carry out specified improvements.

3. A new tax on developers when they obtain planning permission

4. Some new tax on non doms

5.Removal of national insurance contributions exemption

6. Various anti avoidance measures

7. Aviaiton duty

The pre budget statement raises over ??1 billion of extra revenue by 2009-10.
The total increase in taxes planned for 2008-9 is a whopping ??27,700 million, showing the impact of currrent tax rates on increased incomes through inflation and growth. We doubtless will also have to live with a very aggressive Inland Revenue constantly looking for new ways of extracting revenue within the present tax law, which is generating more complaints to MPs.
The issue is why did he need to spend all of the extra ??27 billion coming in? Why couldn’t he accelerate his ??30,000 million savings programme to give the taxpayer some proper relief?

Since the flooding in July of this year, the Rt Hon. John Redwood MP has continued to press both the Prime Minister and the relevant Government departments to provide answers as to why so many homes and businesses throughout the country and not least in his own constituency of Wokingham were so badly affected.

At least 48,000 homes are now known to have been flooded in June and July of this year. Mr Redwood understands from the Department for Transport that 32 different stretches of motorway suffered closure, none of which had had the benefit of the Highways Agency’s water containment procedures or pumps.

The Prime Minister has assured Mr Redwood that the review of flooding being undertaken by Sir Michael Pitt intends to consider a wide range of submissions from those involved. Mr Redwood is himself preparing a submission for the review, in which he endeavours to represent the experience of his constituents, and to suggest ways in which the impact of future flooding might be reduced. Sir Pitt will report on his initial findings by the end of the year.

Having raised the urgent matter of flood management in the River Lodden area, Mr Redwood has been informed by DEFRA that the Environment Agency’s Capital Programme does include the development of a flood risk management strategy for the area. Unfortunately, they cannot provide a precise date for its commencement (either in 2008 or 2009), and any possible improvements identified will be subject to the availability of funding and their priority on a national scale.

Mr Redwood also pressed DEFRA about the Environment Agency’s record on flood defence maintenance, and in particular on the flood defence assets that are owned by third parties and monitored by the EA. He has now been informed that, in April 2007, only 46% of flood defences such as raised walls and embankments owned by third parties were considered by the Environment Agency to be in a good or better condition. Regarding other defence structures, such as sluices and outfalls, this figure was 59%. The rest were considered to be only fair, or worse.

Speaking today, Mr Redwood said: ??˜A thorough review is urgently needed if it means the standard of our flood defence infrastructure is actually improved. All flood defences should be in good condition not less than half.’

??˜At the same time, we can’t simply wait with baited breath while Whitehall gathers evidence. What if there is continued heavy rainfall next week? I have constituents telling me that drains and gullies in their area are still blocked, months after the floods. Many simple measures could and should be taken immediately, not after months of deliberation.’

I am delighted that the government has decided to make a substantial increase in the IHT threshold to ??600,000 for all estates where the owner has been married, rising to ??700,000 by 2010. They were clearly impressed by the strength of feelings revealed when there was such a positive response to the Conservative Economic Policy report recommending abolition, and then to the Shadow Chancellor’s pledge to raise the threshold to ??1 million, to take most people out of the net.

The government has also announced an 18% Capital Gains Tax rate. This is good news and bad news. It is good news for those making gains that would otherwise have paid tax at 40%, but bad news for people and businesses making long term gains where they were paying 10% after taper relief.The overall impact of the measure means they plan to raise more money from capital gains tax, but the headline rate is better for the UK than 40%.

The government also claims to be willing to cut ??30 billion a year out of overheads and waste by 2010-11. This includes a planned 5% per annum reduction in administration costs. There will also be further sales under the ??30 billion asset sales programme 2004-5 to 2010-11. This just goes to prove the point that there is plenty of scope to reduce spending without damaging front line services.

This week the government has told us how much more expensive the public sector will be next year than this. As always, the Chancellor’s chest swells with pride as he recites very large numbers, all considerably larger than the year before, for spending on the main government departments. He assumes that all the extra money will buy better services, and implies that all the money being spent is being well spent.
He and his colleagues have bought the loadsofmoney? fallacy about government. In their world a Health Service that costs ??100 billion a year is twice as good as one that costs ??50 billion a year. Taking it up to ??104 billion a year means it will be markedly better than at just ??100 billion. Unfortunately it means so often they are taken for a ride with poorly managed computer schemes, dear consultancy contracts, disruptive and expensive reorganisation schemes, and all too many increases in box ticking, form filling and bureaucratic intervention.

What we, the consumers of public services want, is a timely high quality service available when and where we want it. We want our dustbins to be emptied at least weekly, with the lids placed back on and no rubbish left on the sidewalk. We want to know that any relative or neighbour who needs hospital treatment can get it in a clean and friendly local hospital with high quality treatment with little danger of catching a hospital infection. We want to be assured that local children have access to good quality schools which bring the best out of them.

We cannot be sure whether it takes ??96 billion, ??100 billion or ??104 billion to deliver a high quality health service for all. We would be more impressed if the government could do it for ??96 billion rather than ??104 billion, because then we need not pay so much in tax. It is not good to know it is getting so much dearer each year. It would be reassuring to know how much better it is getting so we can see what we buy for all the extra cash.

This government compounds the loadsofmmoney error in the way they talk about the problems. They tell us they are investing? ??100 billion in the Health Service, when they mean they are spending ??100 billion of our money on it. Investment is buying something that lasts for longer than a year the money they spend on new buildings and equipment is investment. Most of the money is revenue spending, because it goes on salaries, paperwork, management and supplies. All too often if I or a colleague raise problems with a public service in the House real problems to the constituents who have experienced them we are told there cannot be a problem because they have increased investment? so much. If only!

It’s high time we had a more honest debate on the good and the bad in our public services. We need government to pay much more attention to how they spend the money, rather than just boasting about the amount they spend. Spending more may be a good thing but only if it is spent on genuine improvements. When I go into one of my favourite shops I do not go because that shop is spending 5% more than last year. I go because they have the good or service I want a price I can afford. If it is cheaper than last year that is a bonus. I don’t turn up my nose and say that cannot be any good because its cost has not gone up by 6% more than last year. Indeed I am not concerned at all about how much the shop spends on administration, stock and staff. I just want a high quality product. Many people feel the same about a public service.

If only we could Ministers to see this, we might start to get better value for all the money taxpayers provide. They hurled too much money too quickly without insisting on proper reform. As a result we have bloated budgets, but we still do not have all the operating theatres, doctors, teachers and police we need. We are too stretched employing such an army of civil servants, quangoland employees, regulators and spin doctors.

Questions for the Chancellor on the day of his big give away?

Today the Chancellor comes to brag about how much the public sector will cost us next year. Any increase in spending will be presented as good, whether it is a genuine service improvement, or more of the same- more civil servants, more bureaucracy, more regulations, more spin doctors, more consultancy contracts, more paper chase partnerships, more managers in meetings and more glossy brochures.

The questions to ask include:

1. Why has borrowing overshot in the last year?
2. Why does the Chancellor spend time claiming the figures for the low cost Conservative tax cut proposal do not add up, when the margin of error in his own figures is more than the total cost of the Conservative tax cut? Shouldn’t he spend more time on his own sums?
3. What is the Chancellor hoping to buy for all the extra billions he is going to throw in?
4. Will he tell us clearly how much extra tax he is going to collect next year?
5. Why has he expanded quangoland and the civil service so massively? Will he impose an administrative staff freeze to start getting costs under control?
6. When will the full ??22 billion a year of Gerschon review savings be made?
7. Will he review the current threshold for Inheritance Tax and put it up?
8. What action is he taking to stop a ??6 billion overpayment on Tax Credits?
9. What action is he taking to cut benefit waste and fraud?
10. Does he realise how squeezed people feel by his high mortgage rates and high taxes?
11. Why isn growth slowing?

Sometimes life is frustrating as an MP trying to get some service for constituents out of government. Ever since the summer rains hit I have been trying to find out who is responsible for each of the main watercourses, culverts, ditches and drains that take surface water in my constituency, and to discover how well the owners have been doing at keeping them clean. I have also wanted to know from the Environment Agency what action they are now going to take to deepen or improve the main water channels that take water from the Loddon and other main watercourses they are responsible for.

I have asked for lists of all affected homes, lists of which homes were recently built on floodplain thanks to some Inspector overriding local wishes and which homes will still be at risk if improvements are not made. It is especially frustrating, as I raised the general question with the government many times in the Commons well before this summer about what action they were taking to make us better prepared for rising water levels and heavy rains. I have a another meeting with the Environment Agency shortly, and would be happy to hear from anyone whose home was flooded who has a bone to pick with the main anti flood body in England.

It is also uncomfortable being so close to the latest outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in neighbouring Surrey. When the crisis first hit I raised the issue of whether the exclusion zone was big enough around the outbreak and well enough enforced. We were told all was well, and heard Ministerial reassurances that it was under control. The recent outbreak, shortly after the government had given the all clear was unsettling. It is particularly worrying that the disease came upon us from a government and government contractor’s laboratory facilities, where everyone should have worked to the highest health and safety standards the Ministers should have taken action to maintain and upgrade facilities earlier.

The summer we have had floods, animal disease, and a run on a bank. Some in the press follow the government’s spin, and tell us our Prime Minister has done well, staying calm in these crises. I would say it is easy for him to stay calm, as he has the protection of Downing Street and the power of the state around him. His home was not flooded and his cattle are not suffering. I am not so impressed, when it was the government he leads that allowed the disease to escape, when it was the government and its quango that failed to maintain and improve our key flood defences, and when it was the government’s changes to the Bank of England which made it more likely we would have trouble in the money markets in a period of higher interest rates. They cannot escape all the blame for everything that happens on their watch, especially when they are crucial actors in each of the tragedies we have seen unfold this summer.

It was good last week to hear that my website, www.johnredwood.com had been chosen in a survey as the best MP site. It means I am getting even more feedback from readers.

One of the absurd consequences of Labour’s domination of the debate on the virtue of more public spending is the idea that reductions in cost are "cuts" in services. Yesterday I drew attention to the stupidity of a debate which concentrates on getting the total costs of the public sector up each year, and presents this as a caring triumph. Today we need to look a little more at the consequences.

If the Health Service started to take the government’s apparent concern about burning too much fuel seriously it could doubtless make a substantial reduction in its fuel bill. Offices and other facilities could be better insulated, better heating and air conditioning controls could be introduced, average temperatures could be set at more economical levels (with due regard to patient safety and comfort in wards), the vehicle fleet could be made more fuel efficient as vehicles became due for renewal. Let us supppose this was done and after a couple of years fuel use was down by 10%. If there were no other changes in the NHS budget at the two year stage spending would be lower by 10% of the fuel bill.

In Labour’s world this would be a cut - as they wrongly say a "cut in investment" in the Health Service.

Conversely, if several hospital trusts get into trouble with the media response to their "reconfigurations" of services, and decide to employ additional Spin doctors, and to spend money on media consultant contracts to help them present the closure of facilities as modernisation, this increases the amount the NHS spends. This is called by Labour "investment" in health.

Unfortunately the Conservatives in the last election were driven off the pursuit of waste, by Labour’s insistence that all public spending was good and more public spending is always better. I understand the polling background to the then Conservative position, but we now have time to develop a more sensible argument.

The argument should be:

1. There is massive waste in Labour’s public sector. They have built a huge bureaucracy, with a much expanded central civil service, many more and larger quangoes, more central targets and regulations, and many more spin doctors, consultancy contracts, bogus and genuine consultations, and poor direction of the large increase in spending on their watch.

2. The public sector in general has a long way to go to reach best private sector standards of labour productivity, fuel efficiency,quality and streamlining of process.

3. Instead of presenting a string of large and largely meaningless figures for spending each year on each department, the oral presentation should concentrate on telling us what service levels we are going to get for all the money, and what steps are being taken to spend the bulk of the money wisely.

The government concentrates on small sums of money (by public sector standards) which are called "new money", and suggests that magic powers will be afforded to the small additions at the margin that are not possessed by the large base budgets to which they are being added. This is nearly always the triumph of hope over experience.

The whole idea of "new money" is an odd one. All the money to be spent next year on Health is "new money" in the sense that that money has not yet been taken from taxpayers and has not yet been spent. Many politicians play a politicians game, in which "new" money is money that has not yet been announced or earmarked as money they intend to raise and pay in a certain way. They seem to think only new money counts.

Each year in a competitive business in the private sector good managements review total budgets and ask about each item of spending "Is this necessary?", "Can we spend this more wisely?", "How can we do more and better for less?".

In the public sector the institution starts from last year’s cost base. It then adds an amount for inflation to last year’s costs, and may also add something for "growth" to last year’s costs. It then presents this demand as the new base. If the Treasury suggests offering less than this inflated figure, then the Treasury is said to be "cutting" the budget or even said to be "cutting" spending. They are told normal services cannot be delievered. The war of the bleeding stumps begins, with both sides misleading the public about what is really happening. The Treasury claims it is being tough, when we all know spending will still go up (this time by around 4-5% in cash terms), whilst the other side portrays a series of horrendous service reductions they will have to make if they only get a 4% increase.

The public deserves better. We learn today of the growing squeeze on personal incomes thanks to stealth taxes and other taxes. It is high time the new Treasury team changed the language of debate, and shone some brighter lights into the wasteful corners of their massive public spending. Why not start with a staff freeze on the main bureaucracy of the civil service and the quangoes? Then follow that up with a target to halve the number of media handlers (last counted at 3259 press officers) to show they mean what they say when they say they want a more honest politics geared around debate in Parliament?

As if constructing a possible diversionary tactic to deflect attention from the botched reform of the Bank of England which lies behind the money problems this summer, the BBC is turning its attention to mortgage lenders who dared advance money to people who otherwise would have been unable to borrow and buy a home.

Apparently they have found that some loans advanced in the UK were risky. What a surpise! There’s no point in just lending to people who don’t need the money. The whole point is to advance to people where there is some risk, and to manage it on a portfolio basis. Sub prime lending is necessary - we can’t all be prime risks on BBC salaries suppported by the licence fee. I am glad some people who would otherwise not have enjoyed a mortgage have one, and many of them I am sure will be proud homeowners who will pay their bills .

The Northern Rock problem was not one caused by an excess of risky lending. It was caused by the drying up of liquidity in the money markets, for which the UK monetary authorites are responsible. That is the problem the BBC ought to concentrate on, to atone for years of trotting out uncritically how wonderful Gordon’s reforms of the Bank were. Clearly many people failed to understand why a Central Bank needs to operate in government debt markets and needs to have up to date information about the stae of commercial banks balance sheets. It can best do that it it has control over banking regulaiton and debt management, the two crucial functions Gordon stripped from them ten years ago.

Whilst the media are dining out on great General Election fiasco, and using the Tory spin for a change, we need to be getting ready for the next great spin from the Brown message makers.

Attention will move to the Spending Review - CSR. I guess we will be told:

1. "Great economic management" will allow extra money for Education and Health
2. The Tories oppose "extra investment" in public services

What we wont be told is:

1. Local government will be expected to raise substantially more money through the Council Tax
2. How the money is going to be spent to achieve something worthwhile

The truth about Gordon Brown is that he does believe spending ??550 billion on public services is good, and that spending ??560 billion on them is better. He buys the loads of money fallacy. I have listened to his many Commons statements over the years, and heard the same in private conversations. He never once pauses in his speeches to ask how is the money going to be spent to achieve a better outcome, and never considers the possibility that spending less in some areas might produce less waste.

It is true that the news of a Conservative James Review, subsequently rubbished by the government, triggered the Gerschon Review which the government is struggling to implement. That found ??22 billion of waste each year in its own government spending! However, there is nothing in the statements made by the PM and government which imply it is embedded in their thinking that value for money matters or can be influenced positively.

When I decide to go to a shop or buy a product I do not seek to find out which shop or which supplying company has spent most and then go to that one. I have no idea of the relative overheads or total cost of most of the businesses I buy from. My interest is in the quality and attractiveness of the product - where I want the best I can find and afford - and the price - where I want the lowest for the quality I seek. If business A decided to slash its spending on bureaucracy and waste and started selling its products at cheaper prices I would buy from it, not complain about the "cuts"!

Most people think the same about public services. Most are not be impressed that Labour is spending much more on health than some previous government, or that it is now spending over ??100 billion a year on it. That, after all, just reminds them of the cost or price they the taxpayers are having to pay. The aim should not be to maximise the cost. People will be impressed if, needing high quality health care promptly that is what the local GP or hospital can supply.

The whole political debate in the UK is mesmerised by Labour’s loads of money fallacy. In the Commons if I or others urge discussion of "outcomes" - the results of the spending - rather than of the amounts public services cost, and remind colleagues that dearer is not always better, there is grudging agreement. The debate then rolls on about how wonderful it is that this government has managed to increase the costs of public services so much!

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if this CSR was greeted not by pages of newsprint cataloguing the billions, but by some forensic comment on where so many of the billions have been wasted in the past, and some searching questions of how the money might be better spent in the future? Instead of announcing a list of large sums of money, the Chancellor could instead announce his shopping list of additional people and supplies he thinks the public sector needs, so we form a better impression of where all the money is going. I look forward to him reading out the list of extra management consultants,quangoes, bureaucrats, consultations, polling and reviews which makes up the content of so much of the actual increased spending of this government.

I want better public services. To deliver them we need the reform Blair promised but did not deliver. We need more choice for the users, and more competition in provision. It is time to end the farce of reading out a long list of extra sums of money, and then claiming all that would disappear if anyone else was in office.

On the day that Lewis Hamilton is on pole for a record breaking world championship title in his first year in Formula One, and on the same day that an underdog England team beat a much fancied Australian in the quarter finals of the Rugby World Cup, our Prime Minister was pouring over the polls and deciding he will not after all hold an early election.

Readers of this site will not be surprised by the decision and will know the reasons why!

If only his henchmen had spared him the embarrassment of overdoing the election hype, Gordon could have had a wonderful afternoon seeing his new friends, the English, win the rugby thanks to a magnificent pack who completely outplayed the Wallaby scrum. We saw two great kickers of the ball find it difficult in the wind and with all the tension, but watched an engrossing match where the sheer power of the English forwards was awesome and more than made up for the low score.

Well done England. That was a tremendous performance!

My "New Oxford English Dictionary" (1998 ed) does not have the word "blog" in it.

New editions need to consider the wide range of "bloggerisms" there can now be.
I give a few meanings, uses, and adapted well known phrases and sayings:

To blog: intransitive verb - to scribble the truth as you see it in a world of spin and publish it with no need for the BBC or other formal publisher to approve it.
Blog: noun - the words of a blogger appearing on an internet page

Blogger: one who blogs
At bloggerheads - a good argument on blogs

Cogito ergo blogo - statement of an erudite philosophical blogger who has heard of Descartes

We need to get that idea "blogrolling" - using blogs to get out a truth the establishment wants to ignore

Someone has gone "bloggo" - the state of total preoccupation with the blogosphere so the washing up remains undone

The blogosphere - the world of ideas, chat and comment on the worldwide web

More contributions to a collection of "bloggerisms" would be good.

I was not surprised the BBC and their partners were caught fiddling the news, although a little surprised that they thought they would get away with it by misrepresenting the Queen’s behaviour. It is is a regular part of the BBC’s approach to politics that they skew things to suit their view of the world. Let’s hope the departure of a senior figure leads to a cleaning up of their ways of treating news stories and interviews.

Let us consider the contrasting ways they treat two MPs interested in economic affairs, Vince Cable and myself.

Vince Cable is currently the Lib Dems Treasury Spokesman. I am currently the Conservatives Economic Policy Review Chairman.
Vince Cable was for two years the Chief Economist of Shell International (1995-7). The rest of his career was,according to his biography, spent as a "Finance officer, economics lecturer,Diplomatic service".
I have been the chairman of companies, including a large Stock Exchange listed industrial group, an executive Director of a bank, and an adviser to several overseas governments on privatisation and private finance. I am a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

Practically every interview I have heard with Mr Cable on the BBC includes reference to his being former "Chief Economist of Shell" (not "Shell International"), often in the introduction. The BBC try to position him as an indepedent expert who comes from the pedigree of a senior position in a large company. They usually buttress his authority by calling him Lib Dem "Shadow Chancellor" in an unusual inflation of titles.

They do not refer to him as "left wing", " Euroenthusiast", "interventionist" or other ways of describing his political position. I have never seen or heard him introduced with footage or references designed to belittle him or his party.

In contrast I have never been introduced on the BBC as a former senior industrialist/company chairman/bank Director,nor with reference to my current links with the academic world. I have never been asked to draw on my business experience to answer a question in a way designed to give me more credibility with the audience.

I am usually defined by a series of perjorative nouns and adjectives summing up the BBC’s rather distorted view of my political position. Why is it "right wing" for example to want to keep the democratic right to make most government decisions here in the UK?

I do not mind if the BBC does wish to knock or test the credibility of all MPs on air, as many in the audience like to see MPs being given a hard time. What I do object to is when different rules apply to people who come from different parties. The last person to be treated as well as Mr Cable was Sir Menzies Campbell as Foreign Affairs Spokesman for the Lib Dems before he became Leader. The one good thing about the large number of easy interviews he was given when he was treated as some kind of wise statesman outside normal party knock-about was it helped him end up as Leader!

The Adviser has been asked to put in his "final thoughts" to today’s Prime Minisetrial review of the evidence for an early election. They might go as follows:

To Prime Minister
From Senior Political Adviser

You have asked me to get under the skin of the public mood. I think it is very cynical about all three political parties, and it is too early for you to have changed the scepticism about what the government says and does after Tony’s spin dominated years. This has not been helped by the unfriendly response of the media to your morale boosting visit to the troops in Iraq and statement about withdrawal, nor with the newspapers hostility to your wish to handle the EU Constitution in Parliament rather than by referendum.

The polls are very volatile, with only one clear trend - the Lib Dems are doing very badly and will lose a few seats to us, but more to the Conservatives. With polls around level pegging we could within the margin of error lose our overall majority, whilst of course remaining the largest party. This could be spun as a bad result for the Libs - because they had fallen in numbers of MPs - and for the Conservatives because they had not won enough seats to take over the government, but in reality it would be a disastrous result for us as we could only carry on governing with the help of other parties. A wound licking Lib Dem party facing an immediate leadership election might not be very co-operative or have much moral authority to enter a coalition. New SNP MPs, probably more in number, would love to snub us. The Conservatives are unlikely to want to enter a national government nor would we want them. It would create an unstable position, and it might only be a matter of time before another election had to be called.

You should not underestimate the dislike of the main parties. Remember that in 2005 Labour only polled just over one in five of all voters, as did the Conservatives, whilst the Lib dems only managed one in eight. The latest polls show no surge in wish to vote, and suggest the main change to those figures is the Lib Dems now struggle to gain the support of one in ten. In such conditions it remains possible that differential swings in marginals, or a sudden national surge in the wish to vote for some reason or other, could produce an unpredictable result. What we must avoid is any mood developing which makes the electorate think it must stop a large victory by Labour, as the electorate could always overdo it and give us a Conservative government.

The latest polling confirms my strongly held view that you should not call an election. I think the Opposition will find it difficult to sustain their "bottling out" charge when you have been very careful to say nothing yourself and have got on with governing the country in your own inimitable way.

A few days before the 2001 Election the government announced design work on Crossrail.
A few weeks before the 2005 Election the government introduced the Crossrail Bill to Parliament.
Now a few days before the start of another possible Election we are told Crossrail is going ahead.

The Press Release I have seen is very short of details. It implies work will not commence until 2010. The questions to ask include:

1. Why such a long delay before the start of the project proper?
2. How firm is the Business Plan and Financing Agreement?
3. Who will be responsible for cost overruns?
4. In what circumstances could any of the parties, including the government, decide not to proceed, or to abort?
5. Why are they using technology that will only allow 24 trains an hour? Given the costs of tunnelling should they not be looking at technology that would allow substantially more than that? Are they aware even Network Rail’s Engineering Director believes more modern lighter weight trains can manage 30 an hour?
6. What impact will there be on the capacity of existing routes using the same feeder lines as Crossrail?
7. Why did this announcement fall to be made today?
8. Will Parliament have available on Monday the text of any Agreement which has now been entered into, binding the taxpayer?
9. What annual budget provision is going to be made?

When I tell people in the media Gordon Brown is an unlucky Prime Minister, with terrorism, animal disease, floods and a bank run in the first three months, they defensively tell me that is unfair as none of the crises were anything to do with the PM and he handled them well. There are no limits to the gullibility of some people.

Let’s look at the record.

FOOT AND MOUTH.
This occurred thanks to the release of dangerous pathogens from a government/government contractor laboratory. The government was responsible for the work and the health and safety regulation of the facility. A broken drain appears to be the source. The person most directly to blame is Mr Miliband, the Secretary of State responsible before the outbreak occurred, but the government as a whole has to take collective responsibility.
The PM took personal control of the outbreak when first notified, and was involved in the decision to declare the outbreak finished and to restore normal life shortly before further cases emerged. He has been less prominent in handling the second wave of the outbreak. Those of us who queried whether the first decision on a control zone took in enough of Surrey were said to be wrong by the PM and his team at the time.
In this case the government has to accept all of the blame for the disaster, and the PM has to accept that his crisis handling was bungled, as the disease broke out again days after he declared victory.

THE RUN ON THE BANK
Gordon Brown’s botched reforms of the Bank of England and the money markets in 1997-8 lie behind for the run on the bank. Some of us warned at the time - and subsequently - that taking responsibility for banking supervision and government debt management away from the Bank of England made it more likely they would mishandle money markets when conditions globally got more difficult. The PM and the Chancellor were deaf to the clear warnings from many in the city - and this blogsite - that money market conditions were far too tight this summer. They ignored the actions of the Fed and the ECB in making money available to their markets to prevent a similar bank run there.
The Chancellor spent one of the crisis Fridays on TV condemning me for wishing to see this government’s latest round of mortgage regulaiton removed, instead of grapsing the fact that we had no run on a mortgage bank before we had the regulation, but have had one now we have it! Effective management of the money market allied to effective regulation of banks requires the tasks of debt management, banking superviison and interest rate setting to be concentrated in Bank of England hands so they understand the markets fully and can make sensible judgements about how much cash to supply. It also requires the government to renegotiate the Brussels directives which they say prevented the Bank from organising a private sector solution to the problems of Northern Rock, once these had been created by undue monetary tightness.
In this case the PM himself has to accept that his reforms of the money markets have not worked and need changing.

THE FLOODS
Of course I do not blame the government for the heavy rains, but I do blame them for the failure to keep many of the ditches, drains and culverts clear of debris and vegetation which added to the floods in some places. I blame them for many decisions of government Inspectors to build on flood plain against local advice and wishes: in my area it was often new homes built in such circumstances that suffered. I do blame them for not taking more action over the last ten years to improve the flood defences of the country, both against river flood and sea flood. I have gone hoarse in the Commons saying we need to tackle the flood threats urgently.
Whilst the Environment Agency has been charming to me ever since I criticised them, they still have not come up with a responsiblity list for the flood defences in my area, nor with an action programme to improve flood defences for the future. Whilst the PM asked for my list of things to do, the letter that carried it to Downign Street rermains unanswered. That is the reaility of this government - all spin and no substance.

IN THREE OUT OF THE FOUR CASES THE GOVERNMENT IS EITHER TO BLAME OR PARTLY TO BLAME FOR THE CRISIS. IN EACH CASE THE HANDLING HAS BEEN INEFFECTIVE, WITH NO DECISIVE ACTION TO RESTORE PROPER MONETARY CONTROL OR PREVENT FLOODS IN THE FUTURE.

Come to think of it, I have been far too generous saying he is an unlucky Prime Minister. He look as if he is unable to run government effectively, and thinks that the main task is to woo the media.

To: Prime Minister
From: Senior Political Adviser

I understand from private office that you need more information before making up your mind concerning the General Election. In particular you have asked to be reminded of the historical record of different timings and results of elections.
I have been over the dates and results of elections for the last 60 years. The record shows that a Prime Minister is most likely to win by going after four years. Thatcher did this twice, and so did Tony. No-one has lost at around the four year mark.
Going after more than three years but before the four year mark produced one defeat - Heath in Feburary 1974 - and one victory - Eden in May 1955.
Running on to the end or near the end of the 5 year term has usually ended in tears. Douglas-Home,Jim Callaghan, and John Major (1997) all lost doing this. Only John Major in 1992 managed to keep a majority in the House, but a much reduced one.
Going early if you do not have a working majority worked for Harold Wilson twice, in 1966 and 1974.
No-one has tried going after two and half years when they have a good working majority.
History also reminds us that both Harold Wilson in 1970 and Heath in 1974 were confident they could win. The polls supported their view.
I think the verdict of history is inconclusive, but if anything it reinforces my advice. Electors accept the need for a government with a good majority to renew it once four years have passed, but are sceptical before four years and usually out of love with the government if the PM feels he needs to run right to the end of term.I think the best date is May 2009. By then the Constitution will be through, the US economy should be responding to lower interest rates, and we should have put floods and foot and mouth out of memory. My warning that the polls are very volatile has proved to be timely, as we see from the recent batch of polls, with one suggesting the Tories are now level with us. No Prime Minister ever willingly holds an election without a good poll lead. Please put the MPs in the marginals out of their misery quickly, before election fever does more damage.

States in both Asia and the Middle East are buying fewer dollar assets. Some appear to be selling dollar bonds, and some are severing their currency links with the falling dollar. The Fed’s decision to cut rates by 50 basis points recently will accelerate this process. Some commentators seem alarmed by these developments.

The falling dollar does not make the Fed’s decision wrong. There were good domestic reasons why the Fed needed to relax the credit squeeze. Overseas governments have to make their own portfolio decisions in the light of dollar interest rates compared to other possible investments.

It is healthy that the dollar falls somewhat, to help correct the US balance of payments further. The US needs to divert more activity into exports, which a softer dollar will do. Middle eastern countries worried about their own credit and money expansion will benefit from revaluing against the dollar, which will automatically tighten their monetary conditions to head off worse inflation. There also needs to be further appreciaiton in some Asian currencies to create better balance in the trade accounts with the west.

I would love an election before the dirty deal has been on the Constitutional Treaty, and before it is frogmarched through the Commons with support from the Lib Dems.

It will give us an added boost, offering people the chance to vote for a referendum and to kill the Constitution. The Sun reckons the two main parties are neck and neck if Gordon Brown continues to refuse a referendum. In the heat of a lively election campaign where we make the referendum an issue of trust it could swing more votes our way. Somehow we need to get across to the country that this is the last chance to stop a major transfer of power to Brussels, and to remind them that their sensible views on the EU are ignored by the current inbuilt Lab/Lib Dem federalist majority.

It is high time the Eurosceptic majority was represented by a similar majority in Parliament. The sooner the better to bring this about.

Next Thursday 11th October at 7pm, defending champions Bearwood College will host the first round of this year’s Wokingham Schools Parliamentary Debating Competition. They will be pitting their wits against The Emmbrook, Luckley-Oakfield, and The Holt Schools. On Thursday the 18th October, 7pm, host school The Willink will be challenged by Padworth College, Maiden Erlegh and St. Crispin’s Schools.

The proceedings will follow a Parliamentary format, and the motions for debate include the effectiveness of anti-social behaviour orders, school runs by car, and the hugging of hoodies.

Local businesses and the media are again giving their support to the competition which is designed to give Wokingham students confidence and additional verbal and reasoning skills when interviewing for university or for jobs.

Speaking about the competition, Wokingham MP John Redwood said: I’m delighted to be organising the fourth Wokingham Schools’ Debating competition. It is very important that we do everything we can to help our students succeed in their chosen futures. Debating and presentation skills are highly valued by universities and companies.

I would like to thank our sponsors: 3M, William Clark, Classicstone Properties, Clifton Ingram, Raphael Vive & Co and The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc for their generous support.?

Winners and runners-up of the competition are treated to a day in Parliament when they and their teachers can watch a Parliamentary debate. Local Member of Parliament, John Redwood, gives them a full tour of the Palace of Westminster and lunch. All participants receive prizes from the House of Commons and the wining school also receives a wonderful projector from 3M.

The Semi Final will be held on Thursday the 1st November and the Final on Thursday the 8th November, both in Wokingham Town Hall at 7pm. Tickets are available from Christine Hill on 01189 629501.