A merry Christmas to you all.....

Wow what a year it has been, not many pundits predicted that did they......

Who would have known we'd be on our way out of Europe and the 45th POTUS would be a certain Donald Trump, not many of us.

So let's start with the referendum which decided we leave the European Union. Now I'm not going to go over the arguments for or against that decision, it's been made, the public decided..so we move on.

Of course lets us not forget the real reason David Cameron called the referendum and passed an act of parliament to bring this about - it was not about you or me or Sid down the street, but all about the Tory party and keeping the waring factions within together.

So what do we now know - well it seems no one expected the result, this is clear from the fact no one had a plan, furthermore we decided a complex question;  which as the current Prime Minister said was more than a binary choice, on a question that was a binary choice. Go figure!

Moving forward, we now face what...a hard brexit or a soft brexit, or May's Red White and Blue Brexit (she alone decides that apparently, we must trust her).

Put simply...Low growth a gig economy, over reliance on the service sector and a expanding trade deficit does not make for a sustainable future.

We could suppose be like Norway, and yes we could, if it was a second best option, but good old Margaret Thatcher (and subsequent politicians) pissed that all away when she sold our gas and oil revenues down shit creek rather than what Norway did and invest it in the future.  

Lets be honest we don't know what the brexit future holds, nothing like this has happened before, the economist have no model to refer to, we can only hope for the better. One thing for sure we need to keep access to the single market, we need to be Norway lite, not an ideal situation,  but better that the other nuclear option a hard brexit.....

What does that mean, it means negotiating to have our seat at the WTO back, you know that democratic trade body with neoliberal globlisation at its heart....you remember the last time you voted for the WTO don't you?

It means imports to our country would be more expensive, as well as our exports, we would see less tax from the city as they move some of their operations abroad, we would have less corporation tax as we try and entice inward investment.

And what would those brexiters say when we still need the same level of immigrants to balance an every growing older population to keep our economy running? .... Don't blame the majority of migrants for the minority that are being exploited, blame those who are exploiting them!

The world is growing closer, lets not build false walls and leave ourselves behind.


                      

And so it begins...

It didn't take long for the nasty tory party to show their teeth, and remove that carefully manufactured image for election purposes only (sell by date 8 May, 2015) of a one nation caring sharing Conservative Party.

It was not surprising, that when the fawning political presenters of BBC News talked about the new government cabinet, they rather than analysing the new appointees ability to deliver their portfolios instead talked about how good they were in front of the microphone.

Style over substance then.

Take their grim determination to rid them of the 'budresome' European Court of Human Rights, that dares defend the human rights of us all. All because like the spoilt posh kids they are, when they can't get their own way they want to sulk and take the ball home.

Of course they could follow the recommendations of the Independent Commission On Human Rights that reported back in 2012 which said and I quote:

In accordance with the Commission’s terms of reference this conclusion is put forward on the basis that such a Bill would incorporate and build on all of the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the wider constitutional and political dimension is also of crucial significance in considering the way forward towards the introduction of a Bill of Rights, and it is essential that it provides no less protection than is contained in the Human Rights Act and the devolution settlements, although some of us believe that it could usefully define more clearly the scope of some rights and adjust the balance between different rights. [my emphasis]

I await with interest to see whether this comes about, but I'm not holding my breath, after all for such a change you would need someone at the Justice Department whom has a deep understanding of the both domestic and international law, a lawyer for example.

A former Justice Secretary and barrister Kenneth Clarke last year lambasted Tory plans to ensure that rulings by the European court of human rights (ECHR) are no longer enforceable in the UK, warning that future governments could make arbitrary decisions.

So it seems better appoint someone who will do as asked, and not raise important legal questions that cast doubt as to the principle or legality of their actions.

Someone like Michael Gove, he with an English degree and a background in journalism.

Yep you've guessed style over substance.

And wot was that cry again made by Call me Dave, something about the Conservatives being the new working man's party was it.

Lets see what Sajid Javid, the former banker appointed by David Cameron to be business secretary, has in store.

Lets begin with what he believes and as reported by the BBC:

"I believe passionately in free enterprise, that free enterprise is the lifeblood of any successful economy. My decisions for creating more jobs… crating investment in the economy will be looking towards free enterprise and what more deregulation we can have.”

“What we do know is that sometimes when government creates new rules and regulations they make things worse not better. We are clearly on the side of business and as a government we can help make a better environment for business because it’s those businesses by and large that create jobs.”

And there within is the failed neo liberal ideology of small government and private enterprise knows best, if you choose to gloss over the banking crash of 2008, which according to the rewritten history as presented by the defenders of the right wing, was all the fault of Gordon Brown for doing what they preach, and nothing at all to do with private business greedily corrupting the banking system.

The party of the working person did they say?....that's as long as you are compliant, and loyal and never say boo to a goose maybe.

But wot have they in store for the rest of us. Take their hatred of the public sector, that occassionaly exercise their basic human right to withdraw labour and strike for better terms and conditions.

The party that now governs with just 37% of the popular vote, wants to impose a test greater than that for when a strike can be called. Hypocrites is not the word for it, it's a word not used often in polite society rhymes with punts.

In any contract it's important that the rights of both parties are equal, or otherwise it is unfair. Some say that employment law already favour the employer side too much. This proposal by a party of deregulation to regulate (they can't see the irony in that) to make it even harder to strike is blatantly unfair.

But don't expect the red tops to point this out, especially the Desmond and Murdoch papers and shareholders in rival TV stations to the BBC. After all Murdoch assisted Thatcher to break the unions if you recall.

And talking of the BBC and the current review of its Charter. I'm not optimistic that we will see a better BBC by the end of 2020, but one radically different, with less choice and variety on offer.....After all, will Dave and co say no when the media moguls coming knocking and demand payback for their support. I doubt it very much.

We will have less rights, we will be spied on more, our jobs won't be as secure as before, and with BBC neutered it will be all style over substance.

I see dark clouds on the horizon, the future look pretty bleak for most.

It was an unexpected election result, that many, including me,  hoped we wouldn't get....to poorly paraphrase Monty Python "nobody was expecting a tory majority".  Even if Labour had not melted as rapidly as the ice caps of the North Pole in Scotland, they still would have lost.

And now who knows the horrors the triumphant Tory party will unleash onto the UK. Let's say I'm not optimistic at all, for all of Cameron's talk of one nation politics, we know he only means in reality England.

Boris Johnson it seems was ready when he purchased in advance them water cannons, for he must have had predicted the likely ground swell of anger that would rise even there, when Ian Duncan Smith is released to decimate the welfare state, and we find out where the axe will fall, and where the £12 billion in cuts will come from. When those who can least afford it are hit hardest and those whom don't need it are given a handout.

True, the Conservatives in Wales had their best result for aeons, as they defeated Labour in Gower of all places, and kicked Clegg further by gaining two seats from the Lib Dems. But don't expect this motley crew of Welsh Tories to stand up for Wales when the tories impose policies that favour England at the cost of us Welsh.

Not that I'm saying anyone one of them (the eleven welsh tories) don't have Wales interests at heart - in reality, they will be told where to stand and what to say...period.

I suppose if I was digging around for good news, it would be that maybe Cameron might keep his promise to devolve more power to Wales as he devolves more power to the English regions. Though what are the odds do you think that whilst the devolution of powers will be imposed in England, here in Wales he will want a referendum held first. And the result of a referendum on further welsh assembly powers is not a certainty by any means.

Oh and Nigel Farage wasn't elected, nor UKIP's Welsh leader and son of polish hiring family, Nathan Gill.

Now, and this is important. With the Tories making gains in Wales and UKIP share of the vote rising we need to start worrying about next years Assembly Elections.

Let's think what would happened if the Tories gained power here, that would be goodbye to many many things that we the Welsh feel justly proud of. It would be goodbye free prescriptions, free school  breakfast clubs, and the start of the end of the Welsh NHS as we know it, to name just three.

It would, in my humble opinion, be a disaster to most of us in Wales.  This is why, Plaid Cymru must keep on building on the momentum they got from the General Election and the good standing that it gave Leanne Wood; though not maybe in share of vote, by taking progressive politics in Wales forward, by reaching out to all in Wales, by being the true one nation party of Wales, there to represent the interest of Wales first, second and last as their priority, without having to first gain permission from party headquarters over the border.

And I hope Carwyn Jones, won't do a Miliband and refuse to talk coalition, that all parties that want a progressive Wales, a successful Wales, with social justice and social principles at its heart form an alliance now or soon before we all wake up to being a region of England.

Lastly for now, I am truly concerned as to the UK's future (not in terms of the current union, I've long argued for a UK Federal Republic) but for it's future economic prosperity. For now it's highly likely there will be a referendum on continued membership of the EU, and again the result of that is far from certain.

Most serious commentators be they politicians, academics or business leaders agree it would be a disaster if the UK left the EU. They only hope is that Cameron can pull it off again as he did last week and over the Scottish Referendum, albeit with help from Labour in the later....or hold on, thinking about it, in both cases.

If Brexit happens, it could truly spell the end of the United Kingdom as a union. What many feared with a Labour/SNP coalition, because master strategist Lynton Crosby scared them to think so, they have by voting in the Tories in reality made the prospect of it happening a greater likelihood than ever before.

Austerity isn't working?

The narrative we are expected to swallow by the Conservative led Coalition Government and those on the right, is that the UK had a massive structural deficit and that it was all the fault of the previous Labour administration, especially the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown for 'maxing out the countries credit card'. Therefore we were told that there was only one way to our salvation and that was strict austerity - things were so bad, we had to have an emergency budget. For example we were told that last government left the biggest debt in the developed world.

In order to sell the strict austerity package to you and me, we had to be convinced that it was really really bad, and that there is only one way to salvation -  that the reason for cuts in our working conditions, be that working hours or wages or health and safety or job security; or cuts to welfare - is to ensure all our future prosperities, we are all in this together remember, rather than a ideological driven neoliberal approach. See: The Guardian: The march of the neoliberals.

However, the deficit myth is simply wrong, but don't take my word for it, read what Conservative economist Ramesh Patel has to say:

Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise? Exposed! 

Osbornomics Via Childish Proverbs, Idioms, Soundbites, Tricks and Utter Bollocks!

Not that the previous Labour Government should escape blame totally, in the context that during his tenure as Prime Minister Gordon Brown had increased public spending by too much, based on overoptimistic forecasts of the economy. Although he cant be really blamed for not foreseeing the collapse of the world economy in 2008.

In the words of the IMF "[In 2008] [t]he financial meltdown originating in the U.S. mortgage markets reverberated around the world, and led to the deep retrenchment of the world financial markets and the largest global recession in living memory."

And then put simply; because I am in essence a simple man, the money dried up, confidence was lost, nobody trusted what the other said and economy stalled. This required a massive bailout by central banks and governments to stop the world economy falling into a deep depression.

I think it's important to remember that the financial meltdown occurred primarily because we had over leveraged private debt. And not as we are led to believe due to massive public debts....as Ramesh Patel says "Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction[..]. Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?"

In 2008 world confidence had collapsed, the world economy had in effect stalled -  it needed a kick-start to get going. But with private debt over leveraged and banks not lending to one another, it was down to governments to provide the stimulus to kick-start the world economy. And I'm not just talking about the bailout of the banks, but direct support to businesses to keep workers on during the difficult period etc...

In the UK we had a conventional Keynesian approach to a recession, increased public spending and tax cuts as a means of kick starting the economy. And as such I suppose you could say it was working,.for by the end of 2009 growth had returned, albeit small at 0.4%.

To paraphrase, the Keynesian Model is - you cut the structural deficit during the boom years, and you spend your way out of a recession. However, you cant carry on increasing public spending (in real terms) over the long term, because that could lead to the economy overheating resulting in inflationary pressures reducing the competitiveness of the private sector resulting in a lower GDP and lower tax take.

I think what is often forgotten is that had Labour won in 2010 they also had plans to cut public spending and lower taxes, but that they proposed to do it over a longer period than that proposed by the Conservatives. I recall reading somewhere that the difference between the two parties was around £5 billion, which in the context of GDP of over a trillion is a small drop in the ocean.

In essence I think, we had two approaches a Keynesian approach by Labour and a neoliberal approach by the Conservatives. Neoliberals believing in small government, low taxes and self regulating markets; and that how a person spends their well earned money should be left to the individual.

And in the 'emergency budget' of George Osborne, the Chancellor, the Conservative led coalition Government set in motion strict austerity measures, with an aim of restoring confidence, retaining the UK's AAA rating and eliminating the structural deficit by the 2015/2016 financial year.

Now and again put simply - a central premise of this approach is that by cutting public spending and red tape you make more money available to the private sector who then find it easier to invest which results in a growing economy. And there is evidence from history that shows that in certain circumstances this fiscal contraction approach does indeed result in growth in the economy driven by the private sector.

However, there is a growing consensus amongst economist; I think, that this is not one of those circumstances. Professor Robert J. Shiller gives a much more knowledgeable explanation in his post: Does Austerity Promote Economic Growth?

And it's evidential that Plan A isn't working as explained by Guardian Economics Blog.

'The only plan on the table' had at it's heart a need to inspire confidence in the private sector; especially from overseas investors, that the UK was a safe bet for which to do business with, that the plan was credible not only in the short term but also the long term, and that investment for the long term was also safe in the UK.

Now ask yourself this question - do you think the recent announcement by David Cameron that there is to be an IN/OUT referendum on EU membership in 5 years time, for which he would say YES to staying in the EU only if he gets some powers back, although we ain't sure which powers he's referring to, is it more likely  or less likely that overseas investors will see the UK as a safe bet?

If you want to see how bad the recession of 2008 was compared to others I refer you to the Guardian - Recessions compared: how does Britain's GDP compare to every recession since 1930?.

Not unsurprisingly following such a recession there is a period of low growth, as  you ain't going to recover over night. And growth is key, if you are going to reduce your structural deficit in the long term, you have to accept that initially your structural deficit will grow, by the very simple fact of growth being lower than inflation. (the Bank of England inflation target being 2%)

What you hope to avoid is falling back into recession, because then you will have lower GDP and lower tax receipts and rather than investing in infrastructure for growth, your paying the price for a failed economic policy.

We know there is plenty of private monies available, the Bank of England alone has dumbed £357 billion into the economy, and that large multinational are sitting on trillions, but there seems a reluctance to invest. We know this because lending to SMEs contracted in the three months to November, statistics from the Bank of England show - see Bdaily.

And if the private sector isn't investing, and public confidence is still low as well as disposable income, and export markets are weak and the service sector is still de-leveraging - where will growth come from?

What we need this time is not "austerity" but "investment in growth-boosting infrastructure measures." - not my words but those of Mayor Boris Johnson. 

The Common Market and the EU

Let me start by saying that I think we should remain a strong part of Europe, and that Europe is also stronger if the UK remains part of the European family.

In a 'landmark' speech; which I urge you all to read, the 'State of the Union' address of 1941 President Roosevelt said inter alia:

..there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic system are simple: 

They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others

Jobs for those who can work

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privileges for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living....

He also set out the four essential human freedoms:

In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere  in the world.

The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear – which translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion than no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour – anywhere in the world.

And in 1946 in another 'landmark' speech made by Sir Churchill at the University of Zurich, that I have posted about previously - The Council of Europe said:

...Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe....

I am going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the recreation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosperous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter...

And in 1949 he said:

Britain is an integral part of Europe, and we mean to play our part in the revival of her prosperity and greatness. But Britain cannot be thought of as a single state in isolation. She is the founder and centre of a world wide Empire and Commonwealth. We shall never do anything to weaken the ties of blood, of sentiment and tradition and common interests which unite us with other members of the British family of nations.

But nobody is asking us to make such a desertion. For Britain to enter a European Union from which the Empire and Commonwealth would be excluded would not only be impossible but would, in the eyes of Europe, enormously reduce the value of our participation. The Strasbourg recommendations [that is the first session of the Council of Europe] urged the creation of an economic system which will embrace not only the European States, but all those other States and territories elsewhere which are associated with them. (Source: Churchill by Roy Jenkins)

In 1957 the European Economic Community was formed, which the UK joined much later in 1974. The Treaty of Rome says in Articles 1 to 3:

ARTICLE 1

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.

ARTICLE 2

The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.

ARTICLE 3

For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein

(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect;

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries;

(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;

(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;

(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;

(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted;

(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;

(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market;

(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living;

(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;

(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development.

You see the above,  I hope, sort of throws a light on this idea that somehow we where tricked into or were lied about the European Union. As you can see what is sometimes conviently forgotten is that many things that people object to, such as movement of people goes hand in hand with an economic union, that for instance the free movement of people came about because of economic union, read Articles 48 to 51.

And let's be clear the economic union did concern itself with social issues see Articles 117 to 122.

Put simply our prosperity and peace depends on common policies with Europe, and we would be worse off outside it, and Europe would be worse off without the UK as part of it.

In a previous post I pointed out why we cant do a Norway... Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

And as for Switzerland this is what the CIA Factbook has to say:

"The Swiss have brought their economic practices largely into conformity with the EU's, to enhance their international competitiveness, but some trade protectionism remains, particularly for its small agricultural sector. The fate of the Swiss economy is tightly linked to that of its neighbors in the euro zone, which purchases half of all Swiss exports."

As for referendums which seems the to be in thing these days, aren't elections where you gain a fresh mandate? - this is what a Commission of the Conduct of Referendums had to say in a report in 1996:

....only 25 years ago referendums were regard as unconstitutional; they had no place in the political process....

The principal message of [their] report was:

"..referendums cannot provide a panacea for major political problems; but they can significantly assist governments before controversial legislation is introduced, and they can give greater legitimacy to new policies after legislation had been enacted..."

And in their lies the horn of dilemma for David Cameron, he knows that the UK should remain an essential part of Europe - but he also knows that his party is divided on the matter. Labour on the other hand should remain firm and say no to a referendum and seek a fresh mandate at the next election, by pledging to remain part of the European Union and grow and strengthen ties with it.

That is why UKIP and others want a referendum, because they know at the election ballot box they can't win.

I fear that in order to save the Conservative Party, they are willing to risk the unity and prosperity of the UK, and what of the consequence of this decision on next years Scottish referendum...you know one argument having being 'don't vote for independence cause that'll mean you'll be out of the EU...if now it has to be amended.... but you needn't worry we might be all out of the EU after 2017.

As the New York Times said recently:

"Domestic politics have regularly trumped broader European concerns throughout the six-decade-long history of the union and its predecessor organizations, to the dismay of those who want to see Europe live up to a commitment in the 1957 Treaty of Rome for an “ever closer union.”

But Mr. Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum on European Union membership threatens to elevate national political calculations over common interests to an extent that has alarmed even countries that often share British concerns."

A free press and regulation can go side by side.

One of Lord Justice Leveson's main recommendations is:

An independent self regulatory body should be governed by an independent Board. In order to ensure the independence of the body, the Chair and members of the Board must be appointed in a genuinely open, transparent and independent way, without any influence from industry or Government.

And in the Executive Summary, Page 17 paragraph 72 Lord Justice Leveson asks...

72. What would the legislation achieve? Three things. First, it would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on the Government to protect the freedom of the press. Second, it would provide an independent process to recognise the new self-regulatory body and reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met and continue to be met; in the Report, I recommend that this is done by Ofcom.(my emphasis) Third, by recognising the new body, it would validate its standards code and the arbitral system sufficient to justify the benefits in law that would flow to those who subscribed; these could relate to data protection and the approach of the court to various issues concerning acceptable practice, in addition to costs consequences if appropriate alternative dispute resolution is available.

And in there lies the answer as to why there is strong opposition to the Leveson Report, especially from right wing politicians and press - they hate Ofcom. After all before the last election David Cameron said the Conservatives would abolish Ofcom.

Lord Justice Leveson continues:

73. Despite what will be said about these recommendations by those who oppose them, this is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press. What is proposed here is independent regulation of the press organised by the press, with a statutory verification process to ensure that the required levels of independence and effectiveness are met by the system in order for publishers to take advantage of the benefits arising as a result of membership.

74. In the light of all that has been said, I must recognise the possibility that the industry could fail to rise to this challenge and be unable or unwilling to establish a system of independent self-regulation that meets the criteria. I have made it clear that I firmly believe it to be in the best interest of the public and the industry that it should indeed accept the challenge. What is more, given the public entitlement to some accountability of the press, I do not think that either the victims or the public would accept the outcome if the industry did not grasp this opportunity. Neither do I think the public would find it acceptable if I were to overlook the consequences of the industry doing so.

75. For the sake of completeness I have therefore set out in the Report the options that I believe would be open to the Government to pursue, and some views on the potential way forward, in that regrettable event: these include requiring Ofcom to act as a backstop regulator for those not prepared to join such a scheme. I have made no recommendation in relation to this situation, nor do any of the options in this paragraph amount to an outcome that I want to see.

Now I've already posted about how Finland has a self-regulating press underpinned by statute - Leveson and Press Freedom. and Finland jointly tops the Press Freedom Index 2011-2012.

In the index the UK is 28 and the Republic of Ireland is 15. In Ireland they have a self regulating Press Council and Press Ombudsman, which are independent of both government and media. See Press Council of Ireland.

And the legislation that underpins this independent body is the Defamation Act 2009.

In his reply to the Leveson Report the Guardian says ....[David] Cameron said he had "serious concerns and misgivings" in principle to any statutory interference in the media. He warned: "It would mean for the first time we have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into law of the land."

Cameron argued: "We should think very very carefully before crossing this line," warning that parliament for centuries had seen its role as a bulwark of democracy. "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

Although as I said in a previous post - Leveson and regulation of the press 'statutory interference' with the media can be found as far back as 1881, and the public interest defence.

Of course he is right we should be weary of any legislation that infringes free speech and free press. However, as Finland and Ireland have shown this is not a reason to stop any legislation that underpins self regulation and protects the principles of free speech and of a free press.

Supreme Court gives green light to historic bill.

The good people of Wales voted in a referendum to give the Welsh Assembly more law making powers. It made sense to simplify the way bills became law, removing the need to first seek permission from the Westminster Parliament and associated red tape.

It was fitting therefore that the first bill passed by the Welsh Assembly following this referendum was the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill, which made it easier for Councils and others to make byelaws, without the need to seek confirmation from any Welsh Minister. Again a sensible proposition....the removal of more red tape.

However, the then Welsh Secretary 'Sad' Cheryl Gillian decided that the bill exceeded the Welsh Assembly powers and refereed the bill to the Supreme Court. I posted about it at the time see: Sad Gillian wants to play byelaws.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled that the Welsh Assembly had the legislative competence to enact the Bill. You can download the full transcript from the Supreme Court's website.
Hat tip: Betsan Powys, BBC Wales.

The following are extracts from the judgement, highlighting the key issues:

LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Clarke, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath agree)....

48. In my view, this point highlights the way in which the Bill is structured, and, more importantly for present purposes, it tends to support the argument advanced by the Counsel General, namely that the removal by the Bill of the Secretary of State’s power to confirm byelaws under section 236(11) is indeed “incidental to, or consequential on” one of the principal purposes of section 6 of the Bill, which is, as section 1 states, to remove the requirement for confirmation by the Welsh Ministers, as part of the overall streamlining and modernising of the way in which byelaws are made in Wales.

49. The answer to the question whether a particular provision in an enactment is “incidental to, or consequential on” another provision, obviously turns on the facts of the particular case. The answer may to some extent be a question of fact and degree, and it should turn on substance rather than form, although, of course, in any well drafted Bill, the substance will be reflected in the form, at least in relation to that sort of question......

52. Section 6 of the Bill plainly is intended to have the effect of removing the need for confirmation by the Welsh Ministers of any byelaw made under the scheduled enactments. That is a primary purpose of the Bill, as is clear from reading the provisions quoted above, both in itself and for the purpose of streamlining and modernising the making of byelaws.......

61. The Attorney General’s argument is that section 9 would “confer power” on the Welsh Ministers “by subordinate legislation to remove or modify … pre-commencement function[s] of a Minister of the Crown”. Accordingly, he argues, by virtue of section 108(6)(a) of, and paragraph 1(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 7 to, the 2006 Act, the section is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.....

63. Although it is perfectly true that there are no express words in section 9 which limit its scope in this way, I am satisfied that it does have such a limited effect. That is because of the simple legal principle, identified by Lord Reed, embodied in the Latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet. Given that the jurisdiction of the Assembly is limited to removing, or delegating the power to remove, functions of Ministers of the Crown when the removal satisfies the requirements of paragraph 6(1)(b) of Part 3 of Schedule 7 to the 2006 Act, the Assembly cannot confer a wider power on Welsh Ministers. Accordingly, the wide words of section 9 must be read as being circumscribed in their scope so as to render the section valid.

I suppose to be fair to 'Sad' Gillian MP the judgement does not say she was wrong in one sense, but confirmed 'the terms on which she was prepared to give her consent to Section 6 of the Bill' - to paraphrase....as long as the bill did not confer onto Welsh Government Ministers additional powers outside the scope of the Welsh Assembly. Lord Neuberger says:

67. It should be added that, although this is a successful outcome for the Assembly and the Counsel General, it cannot be regarded as a setback in practical terms for the Secretary of State. Somewhat curiously, the conclusion I have reached as to the effect of section 9 is one which reflects the terms on which she was prepared to give her consent to Section 6 of the Bill.

Having said that, and in light of the Supreme Court judgement, you really do need to ask whether it was absolutely necessary to refer the matter to them in the first place. How much did this cost for starters, and the fact as David Jones, Welsh Secretary points out that..."it was entirely proper for the Attorney General to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court at that stage" does not make the decision to do so right or proper.

I find it ironic that the above judgement came out in the same week that David Cameron, Prime Minister promised a crackdown on judicial reviews of government decisions.

And finally we really need to question the purpose and function of the Welsh Secretary and associated expense -  is it a bureaucracy we can do without?

Obama and the UK media

Oh for fuck sake, I used to like John Snow...he of Channel 4, but his apparent shock that Obama won is a bit sad and mad...and also rather pathetic....

Apparently and allegedly Obama won 'cause of immigrants, sorry but putting aside the native Americans...all Americans will be descended from immigrants.

The narrative it seems is 'how could Obama win with the USA in a recession' although technically speaking the USA is not in a recession.

If the USA is in recession or about to fall into recession with growth of 1.3 and 2 for the last two quarters...then we here in the UK must be really really fucked.

And whilst the rest of the world were looking towards the USA and the presidential elections, where was our PM David Cameron....yes selling fucking arms to the Arabs....you couldn't bloody make it up.

Lost in translation - what does small government mean?

In Mondays Daily Post Dylan Jones-Evans (the economic adviser to the Welsh Conservatives Party) has an article with the headline "Small Government, not Big Society, should be the focus of Coalition".

A conclusion he reaches is "if a real difference is going to be made to the delivery of public services within such constraints, then the real focus of the UK Government needs to be on encouraging and supporting its own employees to develop bright ideas to make our public sector not only the most innovative in the World but, more importantly, the most cost-effective."

And what is the Coalition Government doing to encourage its own employees to achieve this, um would that be cutting pensions rights, freezing pay and making it easier to sack them - yep go figure.

He also spouts the usual right wing clap trap "that the public sector continue to have low productivity, be risk adverse and focused more on managing process than outcome".

Which may be true for some councils but not all councils, take for example Gwynedd County Council and their contract to maintain the A55 Expressway across the island - see Gwynedd Council A55 Partnership Leads the Way?

And “This is a unique agreement, whereby a public sector workforce undertakes an operational and maintenance service for a private sector company,” said Gwyn Morris Jones, Gwynedd Council’s Head of Highways. “It is also unusual to have such a long term – 18 years – contact in the civil engineering sector.”

Returning to the Prof's headline that the Conservative led coalition government should focus on small government [or small state for it's from the USA] rather than the big society, I got slightly confused because according to one website -  RationalWiki

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has helped to reinvent the concept of Small Government™ in the minds of the British people through his Big Society™ program. The Sunday Times remarked that it was "an impressive attempt to reframe the role of government and unleash entrepreneurial spirit." Through this campaign, Cameron demonstrated his advanced knowledge of Small Government™ by repackaging it for the British public. Because the Brits are socialists, they love Big things, especially government. Thus, they simply cannot understand the benefits of Small Government™ (this is likely due to socialist indoctrination at state schools). Because all government is simply a sliding scale between Small and Big Government™, cuts in government programs aren't just making government smaller, they're making everything else bigger! Hence, the Big Society™!

Rational Wiki who are they you may ask? - from the website  It's best to think of RationalWiki as a bunch of drunken skeptics down the pub pointing at bullshit and loudly shouting "BULLSHIT!" and then returning in the morning to add their references, maybe. Our good stuff is great, though.

To finish, it seems to me this idea of a 'Small Government™'is really a right wing concept from the United States, and Dylan Jones-Evans does really like to point out this or that from the United States in his articles.  I suspect though that should you;for example,ask the majority of the poor of the USA, who did not have nor could they afford health insurance, they may say they have hope now because big government had intervened.  

Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

Norwegian oil field

There is a growing call for a referendum on whether the UK remains an integral part of the European Union, or leave but remain part of the European Economic Area (the YES/NO question). In a recent article in The Telegraph Harriet Alexander reported that Last week, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron raised the possibility of a referendum on Britain's membership. And Norway is often cited as a perfect example of how to leave the EU, yet still thrive.

Also "People worry that if Britain left we would lose access to the Single Market and not be able to travel freely," said Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group think tank. “But that is not the case. Britain can cancel its membership of the EU and retain the trade benefits, following Norway’s example. The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense."

But is Norway a perfect example for the UK to follow? - for a start take it's population of around 4.7 million which is more akin to the population of  Scotland.

The following is from the CIA World Factbook (my emphasis):

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's second-largest gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $500 billion in 2011 and uses the fund's return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-11, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.

It has around 5.7 billion gallons of oil in proven reserves compared to UK of around 2.9 billion. And it has has around 2 trillion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, compared to 256 billion in the UK.

Norway has prospered well, by careful management of its natural resources. Robert Oulds said above "The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense." but Norway still contributes sizably to the EU budget and the government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises.

Possibly not what the neoliberals and free-marketers of the right had in mind exactly.

No I don't think the UK could use Norway as an example to follow, although it could be a model for Scotland? - after all Scotland with a population of around 5 million and some oil left, with it's close links to Norway through the oil industry, are already practically neighbours.

A fair tax system and Vodafone.

To delay the introduction of the 3p rise in fuel duty the Chancellor needs to find around £500,000,000 from somewhere. But where will this money come from? - we are told over and over by the Conservatives that there is no money left.

Maybe it would help if we had strong and clear tax laws, that clamped down on companies using tax havens or dubious tax avoidance schemes as a means of  reducing their tax liability. After all large companies go out of their way to show how green and ethical they are, but still think it's OK to employ tax avoidance schemes.

At the end of March 2012 BBC News reported - In his Budget speech, Chancellor George Osborne spoke of his disdain for tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, describing both as "morally repugnant".

And what sort of aggressive tax avoidance are we talking about?

An article on Reuters website by Tom Bergin -  Insight: Vodafone in new 1 billion pounds tax "scandal" , alleges that Vodafone has shaved at least 1 billion pounds off  UK taxes over the past decade.

You remember Vodafone whom back in 2010 denied they had a tax liability of £6bn to the UK. A spokesman for Vodafone speaking to  BBC News at the time denied the tax bill reports, adding: "We pay our taxes in the UK and all of the other countries in which we operate."

Although if Reuters is correct whilst Vodafone does pay it taxes in the UK, in 'other countries' such as Germany and Spain they pay more. And before you start saying how lower taxes makes a country more competitive, do read the above Reuters article and their comparison between Germany and  UK and Vodafone investment.

We wait to see details of the Chancellor Treasury's plans to introduce a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), which aims to deter abusive tax avoidance schemes, by reducing legal uncertainty around what constitutes aggressive tax avoidance as opposed to legitimate tax planning. And whether in addition to stronger powers, HRMC will be given adequate resources to make a difference in clamping down on tax avoidance.

But seeing that David Cameron recently said at the G20 summit "If the French go ahead with a 75% top rate of tax we will roll out the red carpet and welcome more French businesses to Britain and they will pay taxes in Britain and that will pay for our health service, and our schools and everything else." I wouldn't put too much weight on the chances of it (GAAR) succeeding. See also the Guardian report  In wooing French tax exiles, Cameron makes a mockery of democracy by Richard Murphy.

The state we are in, and of the economy.

Puzzled why David Cameron was keen to engage us in a big discussion about welfare benefits? - even though he said no changes would happen now, but may be included in the Conservative manifesto for the next general election, most likely (unless the Coalition falls apart) in 2015. Surely you would think they'd be working hard on a plan to generate growth, that we need, to drive the economy out of recession.

Or why George Osbourne rushed out on TuesdaIsy to announce a delay in the introduction of the proposed 3p rise in fuel tax.

Let's think, me thinks....a suggestion did it have anything to do with the dire state of the economy by any chance?

The Office for National Statitics today published details of the state of public sector finance for the month of May, 2012:

The main statistics show, that in May 2012, for measures excluding financial interventions:

• the public sector current budget was in deficit by £16.9 billion; this is a £2.7 billion higher deficit than in May 2011, when there was a deficit of £14.2 billion
• public sector net borrowing was £17.9 billion; this is £2.7 billion higher net borrowing than in May 2011, when net borrowing was £15.2 billion
• public sector net debt at the end of May 2012 was £1013.4 billion (65.0 per cent of GDP). This compares with £921.3 billion (61.3 per cent of GDP) at the end of May 2011
• The central government net cash requirement was £13.3 billion, a £2.5 billion higher net cash requirement than in May 2011, when there was a net cash requirement of £10.7 billion.

A report by Reuters - 'Public borrowing rises in May as income tax falls' by Fiona Shaikh and Matt Falloon says -  Tuesday's figures cast doubt over the government's ability to meet its deficit target of 92 billion pounds in the 2012/13 fiscal year - a total which includes the asset-transfer effect.

Even Mervyn King the Bank Governor can only see dark clouds on the horizon, "We are in the middle of a deep crisis, with enormous challenges to put our own banking system right and challenges for the rest of the world that they are struggling with," King told parliament's Treasury Committee. See Reuters - 'Gloomy BoE sees outlook darken'.

And finally for an alternative narrative on David Cameron recent attendance of the G20 summit read  'Cameron G20 missteps point to wider UK problems' an article by Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent of Reuters.

In a damaging rebuff to the Prime Minister former Clinton official Kupchan said to   Reuters -"London's relevance on the world stage seems to have declined since he became prime minister. Part of that might be inevitable given the circumstances ... but Cameron's statecraft is also leading to self-isolation."

A joke Jimmy Carr style...

Jimmy Carr told an audience on Tuesday: "I pay what I have to and not a penny more." - how we all laughed   "you are joking" we said, now pay your fucking taxes we all replied.

An investigation by the Sunday Times alleged that Jimmy Carr was using a Jersey based K2 scheme to avoid paying what many of us would think should be his proper share of tax. Even our Prime Minister, David Cameron said the tax arrangements of comedian Jimmy Carr was "morally wrong".(see  BBC News).

Let's think what's more important, a decent living allowance for disabled people, or the tax avoidance of a posh kid who made his money by being abusive to many, especially the disadvantaged in society?

Not that I'm trying to censor what he says, I have discussed freedom of expression before, in my post  Former Cllr Calver and human rights.  Mr Justice Collins, in his ruling on Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England said :-

"However offensive and undeserving of protection the appellant's outburst may have appeared to some, it is important that any individual knows that he can say what he likes, provided it is not unlawful, unless there are clear and satisfactory reasons within the terms of Article 10(2) to render him liable to sanctions."

But freedom of expression doesn't mean you can avoid paying your proper share of tax..

Talking of freedom of expression....So there I was faced with a choice, one of which would have meant certain death - should I abuse a disabled person or fuck Jimmy Carr, I choose to fuck Jimmy Carr.....

Unemployment - a price worth paying?

Norman Lamont famously said on 16 May 1991, "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."

In 1992 a young Conservative named David Cameron was his special advisor.

Yesterday, the latest unemployment figures published by the ONS estimates that UK unemployment rose by 114,000 between June and August to 2.57 million - a 17-year high.

A main plank of the Conservative led Coalition Governments austerity plans was a belief that jobs created in the private sector would more than make up for the jobs lost in the public sector.

Stephanie Flanders, BBC Economics Editor says in her blog: "For some time, we were able to say that employment growth in the private sector was outweighing the loss of jobs in the public sector. That is no longer true. The public sector lost 111,000 over the three months to June (97,000 excluding temporary jobs for the census), while the number of jobs in the private sector rose by 41,000."

The official government line: The Employment Secretary, Chris Grayling, said [to BBC News] that what the UK was now seeing was "the impact of the international financial crisis".

David Cameron at Question Time also defended the Governments Plan A, and as reported by the BBC:

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, rejected the criticism and said he would stick to his plans to reduce the deficit of nearly 10%.

"These are very disappointing figures that have been announced today and every job that is lost is a tragedy for that person and for their family and that is why this government is going to do everything it possibly can to help get people into work."

One worrying aspect of the latest unemployment figures has been the increase in the number of young people out of work. The BBC highlights today a survey by the Association of Colleges which claims, almost half of England's further education colleges have seen a decline in student numbers - with the drop blamed on the scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).

Whilst the Department of Education defended the more closely targeted £180m bursary scheme, which replaces the EMA, which had cost £560m per year. It says that under the new scheme students who would have been eligible for free school meals could receive up to £800 per year.

The shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden said,"These findings are underlined by today's devastating figures on Youth Unemployment which show their failure to have a strategy for growth which will start remedying this."

Returning to the Conservative led Coalition Government, they say 'another reason why we need to stick to Plan A, is to keep international confidence in our economy, which has resulted in record low interest rates. This will benefit us all in the long term.'

In other words "Rising unemployment and a recession will be the price that we have had to pay to keep interest rates low, cut the defecit and get inflation down. That price is well worth paying"

In logic a pure neoliberal statement, but in these days of media savy politicians not one you will hear any of them declare soon.

David Cameron - the new Tory Flashman?

David Cameron, we are told, has been advised to tone down his 'Flashman' tendencies at Prime Minister Question Times.

But who was the first 'Tory' Flashman? - this from Wikipedia:

"Sir Harry Paget Flashman VC KCB KCIE (1822–1915) is a fictional character created by George MacDonald Fraser (1925–2008), but based on the character "Flashman" in Tom Brown's Schooldays (1857), a semi-autobiographical work by Thomas Hughes (1822–1896)."

"In Tom Brown's Schooldays he is called only Flashman or Flashy. Fraser gave him his first and middle names, a lifespan from 1822 to 1915, and a birth date of 5 May. Flashman's first and middle names appear to be an ironic allusion to Henry Paget, 1st Marquess of Anglesey, and one of the heroes of Waterloo, who cuckolded the Duke of Wellington's brother Henry Wellesley and later - in one of the period's more celebrated scandals - married Wellesley's ex-wife.

In Flashman, [Harry Paget] Flashman says that the family fortune was made by his great-grandfather, Jack Flashman, in America trading in rum, slaves and "piracy too, I shouldn't wonder." Despite their wealth, the Flashmans "were never the thing": Flashman quotes the diarist Henry Greville's comment that "the coarse streak showed through, generation after generation, like dung beneath a rosebush." His father, Henry Buckley Flashman, appears in Black Ajax (1997). Buckley was a bold young officer in the British cavalry, who was wounded in action at Talavera in 1809. He then tried to get into "society" by sponsoring bare-knuckle boxer Tom Molineaux (the first black man to contend for a championship) and subsequently married Flashman's mother Lady Alicia Paget, a fictional relation of the real Marquess of Anglesey. Buckley also served as a Member of Parliament but was "sent to the knacker's yard at Reform". Beside politics, his interests were drinking, fox hunting (riding to hounds) and women."

Read more:
Independent - Cut out the Flashman act, aides tell David Cameron
Wikipedia - Henry Paget 1st Marquess of Anglesey

Who will be the next Conservative leader?

'Thing is it ain't going according to the script', his economic policy seem flawed, his reforms of the NHS are going pear shape, and he is likely to see his party suffer heavy defeat at the polls in May. But worse of all the squeezed middle are beginning to revolt. David Cameron made a big mistake, he told them to grow up, and they did by discovering their right to protest.

We are told the NHS reforms are the largest since the NHS was founded. But they can’t be can they? - as these current reforms only affect England, whereas when the NHS was founded it improved health service throughout Great Britain.

Some say this the beginning of the end of the NHS as we know it, and that it will eventually lead to a privatised NHS, something the Conservatives fervently deny.

In a previous post, I said the NHS reforms were a big gamble for David Cameron, and it seems I was right. Now instead of listening to the people, many of which are unhappy with the proposed reforms, he and his mate Nick Clegg are about to embark on a sales drive, where they will tell us that they are right and we are wrong.

'Trust us' they will say, 'these reforms are right and necessary'. An often repeated phrase in the face of opposition - its right and necessary, or code for we are right, you are wrong.

In terms of the economy, even senior Conservatives are talking about a period of stagnation; Ken Clarke and Oliver Letwin to name just two, before 'hopefully' the economy begins to recover.

The difference in 'cuts' between what the Conservative led Coalition Government are implementing, and what Labour proposed (over the life of the parliament)- not that great, especially as a percentage of the governments overall debt (which will not be reduced, just that its rate of increase its hoped will be slowed.)

The Conservative led Coalition Government want to eliminate the structural deficit (that’s the difference between how much our government spends and collects in taxes) one year earlier than they needed too. This is the key Conservative led Coalition Government economic policy, front loading the greatest burden of the cuts and tax increases on the early years. The important element, a growing private sector, to replace the jobs lost.

In other words another gamble, Labour’s gamble was that increased public spending would be matched by more taxes from a growing economy. This seemed to be working, until is that is the banking sector collapsed, and we realised the mistake Gordon Brown had made, over-reliance on the business and service sectors.

The Conservatives gamble that the jobs lost in the public sector would be replaced by jobs in the private sector, and a growing economy. And that is the unanswered question by both parties, where does this future growth come from?

As to my question ‘Who will be the next Conservative Leader?’ other than David Cameron, who else is there? – and that may be the Conservatives party 'big problem', a strong leader without a serious contender to act as a counter measure and bring balance to the party.

NHS - we remember Aneurin Bevan

Listening to David Cameron yesterday, talking about the dismantling of the NHS as we know it, with a top to bottom reform (even though in their manifesto they said they would not) made me question whether the veneer has finally started to crack on that polished image the Conservatives have tried to portray.

Is the nasty ‘Tory’ party back, is it their way or the highway. What happened to constructive dialogue and the big society? - instead it seems we were told anybody that doesn’t agree with the ‘Leader’ needs to grow up - or what we ask, is he going to take his football home?

Luckily for us the Lansley NHS reforms are for England only, or are they – will the Welsh Conservatives follow the lead of their leader?

Anyhow let me remind you of the days when politicians were politicians with this extract from an essay by Aneurin Bevan about the NHS from 1952

"When I was engaged in formulating the main principles of the British Health Service, I had to give careful study to various proposals for financing it, and as this aspect of the scheme is a matter of anxious discussion in many other parts of the world, it may be useful if I set down the main considerations that guided my choice. In the first place, what was to be its financial relationship with national insurance; should the health service be on an insurance basis? I decided against this. It had always seemed to me that a personal contributory basis was peculiarly inappropriate to a national health service. There is, for example, the question of the qualifying period. That is to say, so many contributions for this benefit, and so many more for additional benefits, until enough contributions are eventually paid to qualify the contributor for the full range of benefits.In the case of health treatment this would give rise to endless anomalies, quite apart from the administrative jungle which would pe created. This is already the case in countries where people insure privately for operations as distinct from hospital or vice versa.

Whatever may be said for it in private insurance, it would be out of place in a national scheme. Imagine a patient lying in hospital after an operation and ruefully reflecting that if the operation had been delayed another month he would have qualified for the operation benefit. Limited benefits for limited contributions ignore the overriding consideration that the full range of health machinery must be there in any case, independent of the patient's right of free access to it. Where a patient claimed he could not afford treatment, an investigation would have to be made into his means, with all the personal humiliation and vexation involved. This scarcely provides the relaxed mental condition needed for a quick and full recovery. Of course there is always the right to refuse treatment to a person who cannot afford it. You can always 'pass by on the other side'. That may be sound economics. It could not be worse morals.

Some American friends tried hard to persuade me that one way out of the alleged dilemma of providing free health treatment for people able to afford to pay for it would be to 'fix an income limit below which treatment would be free while those above, must pay. This makes the worst of all worlds. It still involves proof, with disadvantages I have already described. In addition it is exposed to lying and cheating and all sorts of insidious nepotism.

And these are the least of its shortcomings. The really objectionable feature is the creation of a two-standard health service, one below and one above the salt. It is merely the old British Poor Law system over again. Even if the service given is the same in both categories there will always be the suspicion in the mind of the patient that it is not so, and this again is not a healthy mental state.

The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged."

The above extract and much more of his words can be found at:
Aneurin Bevan and the foundation of the NHS