"The department's Internal Audit Office concluded that there was a lack of comprehensive information to allow a robust analysis of the problem."
Roughly translated: "Please don't ask us how much we have lost, because we don't know."
We can only hope the Lords organise to crush it out of sight - they've done this for most of the government's loopy schemes, so they can damn well do it for this one. After all, one advantage of being a Lord is that you're never up for re-election so you're free to tell a government of your own colour to go and stick their ideas where the Sun don't shine.
It's stating the obvious but every person who publicly opposes this Bill will help to create a little more doubt in the minds of Ministers as to the wisdom of the plans. I'd strongly recommend being one of those people. If this passes into law, it is never, ever, going to go away.
Casualties suffered by the coalition have levelled off at around 18 per day. This has been stable for the last 10 months or so and is lower than the higher rate of 26 per day experienced from April - November '04. That's not totally bad news but it's not really good news either. The figures for Iraqi casualties tell a much grimmer picture. Iraqi casualty rates have risen steadily since January 2004 (with one blip), going from 26 per day then to 63 per day now. According to the US military's own figures, the insurgency is causing more than twice as many Iraqi casualties now as it did in January 2004.
And it is important not to forget that each of these numbers represents a real person with their own family and their own friends and their own favourite TV programmes and their own hopes and dreams for the future. Each of these statistics represents a real person dead or injured. The limbs of real people are being blown off, the skin of real people is being burned off their bones. Families are being torn apart. These things are happening in Iraq every day. The situation is desperate and it's getting worse by the week. Something has to be done.
Anyway. Is this how New Labour dies? Of shame, laughter ringing in its ears? I can't remember a single policy idea put out by this government since the General Election that hasn't been hung, drawn and quartered by pretty much everybody with an opinion.
...
All this thinking out loud in the newspapers and half-arsed legislation gives the impression less of power with purpose and more of a fug of pot-addled students fantasising about starting a band when none of them own instruments or have any musical ability.
I, for one, can't wait to see what's next. My money's on bed by eight with only one story for those on incomes under £20,000 a year.
The Guardian, Telegraph and Daily Mail all turn to the news of an increase in the sale of morning-after pills. Can you see where this is going?
The Daily Mail opens with a characteristically misleading headline - 'Soaring morning-after pill sales a health risk'. While the number of women choosing to buy the morning-after pill over the counter has indeed risen, the total number of women using the morning-after pill has remained the same - around seven percent of women between 16 and 49.
The issue of whether this might constitute a specific 'health risk' is rather more a matter of opinion.
Essentially, the morning after pill floods your body with a host of (vaguely targeted) poisons in order to stop any embryo implanting or, should it have implanted, kill it. My lady friend was shaking, vomiting, feeling listless, ill, irritable, depressed and, frankly, never wanted to touch the damn things again.
| What Your Underwear Says About You |
 When you're bad, you're very bad. And when you're good, you're still trouble! You're not afraid to lay around resting your hand in your pants. |
| You Are Creepy |
 Serial killers would run away from you in a flash. |
| You Are Somewhat Machiavellian |
 You're not going to mow over everyone to get ahead... But you're also powerful enough to make things happen for yourself. You understand how the world works, even when it's an ugly place. You just don't get ugly yourself - unless you have to! |
| You're An Alcoholic |
 Time to go back to step one. |
John Reid, the Health Secretary, yesterday dismissed the demand for a blanket ban on smoking as "an obsession of the learned middle class".
Speaking at a Labour Party event, he said he was reluctant to use compulsion to outlaw something that was a source of pleasure, particularly to working class people.
...
Mr Reid, a former chain smoker who has now given up, said it was best to provide people with information and let them decide what to do for themselves.
"You have to be very careful that you do not end up saying to a 75-year-old that you will be better off if you are not going to be able to go to a working men's club to smoke," Mr Reid told the group.
"I just don't think the worst problem in our sink estates by any means is smoking. But it's an obsession of the learned middle class."
In a reference to New York's smoking ban, he said: "In New York it's very unhealthy to smoke. No one is allowed to do it. But everyone is allowed to have two machineguns."
One participant objected quite strongly, telling Mr Reid her mother died of lung cancer.
President Ahmadinejad, elected in June, was addressing a conference in Teheran entitled "The World Without Zionism", attended by about 3,000 conservative students, who chanted: "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!"
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "As the Imam [the late Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map'… The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."
I have to say that tonight's BBC 6 O'Clock News report on the result of the referendum seemed curiously optimistic. The acceptance of the constitution was presented as a significant positive step and there was almost no attempt to qualify that judgement. That's peculiar in itself but there was also not one word of coverage of the reaction of Sunni politicians to the "yes" vote.
It is well known that the insurgency is predominantly being waged by Sunnis. If there is to be peace in Iraq, it is vital that the Sunnis accept the result.
The UN has said that it is confident of the result so these claims might well be unfounded. Whether they are or not, they undoubtedly represent a serious problem for the coalition strategy.
The official line is that the constitution was accepted by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis. This is basically true (78% voted yes and only 21% voted no) but like all the best spin, it is only part of the story. Now that we have the full results, it's clear that the referendum actually came pretty close to rejecting the constitution. This would have happened if three provinces had achieved a 67% "no" vote. In the end, two provinces voted no by large margins and a third, Nineveh, voted no by a small one.
So, although the constitution was supported by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, the final result of the referendum is far from overwhelming.
If the Sunnis do not accept the result and if their objections are swept aside, they could withdraw from the political process altogether. If that happened, it would almost certainly be disasterous for the stability of the country. Iraq is currently on a very precarious knife edge and the next few weeks are going to be absolutely vital. One slip and civil war will probably become inevitable.
It might not come to that and I hope it doesn't. The Sunnis could accept the vote and put their efforts into campaigning for the elections in December. This might start to have some effect on the strength of the insurgency.
Tony Blair yesterday invited the European Union to extend its reach into a sweeping range of new - and sensitive - policy areas, from company taxation to university reforms, a "common energy policy" for Europe and the management of immigration.
Mr Blair said it was time for a common European energy policy, including "common views" on the possibilities of nuclear power.
"For far too long, we have been in the situation where in a haphazard and random way energy needs and energy priorities are simply determined by each country according to its needs, but without any sense of the collective power we could have in Europe if we were prepared to pool our resources," he said.
A JAPANESE artist has been paid £5,000 of taxpayers’ money to attempt to drink 48 cans of beer and then fall off a wooden beam.
The “performance”, which took place at the Chapter arts centre in Cardiff, has outraged members of the local council and caused bafflement among the public, many of whom do exactly that without getting paid every Friday and Saturday night.
...
David Davies, a Conservative member of the Welsh Assembly, said the show was “probably the biggest waste of money in the world”.
Mr Patel, a Labour councillor for the Canton ward, said: "I don't agree with any binge drinking, regardless of what it is.
"I think it is inappropriate that a performance of this nature is staged in the public bar area - it should have been behind closed doors."
He added: "If she was drunk then that concerns me and it sends out the wrong message. It is an arts centre but it also has a cinema and it is all open, so if young people were to walk through the main door they would've seen that."
A spokeswoman for Alcohol Concern said: "We don't comment on individual cases such as this but we are always concerned when people drink to excess and put their health and safety at risk."
But the general refutation is that the govt will obviously only support a scheme that works. The govt would be utterly stupid to foist an over budget, technically flawed system that is open to abuse, on the public...
I suspect that we have a number of factors to consider here. Firstly demographics: bloggers are not representative of the population at large. They think about things a bit more. They are better informed (because they do things like finding the original research rather than relying on news reports) and are likely to have suffered a bit more education.
Secondly, it is just possible - crazy idea here, but I shall float it anyway - that ID cards are a bit like the EU constitution: the more you know about it, the more you begin to see that you don't like it...
YouGov supports this:
Do you support the introduction of ID cards? 42% No
Is it worth spending £6B on their introduction? 66% No
Is it worth spending £19B on their introduction (a more realistic figure)? 81% No
Do you have any confidence that this will not be an inconvenience? 84% No
Bloggers have looked at it more carefully than the population at large (remember your MORI poll with the 80% support? you know, the one where 73% said they knew little or nothing about ID cards) so their view is more likely to concur with the response levels once all information is taken into account.
Perhaps the solution is to run the ID system entirely within the private sector (I'm thinking: one huge software/integration company), within the bounds of the Data Protection Acts, albeit giving government officials special levels of access, plus special hardware and software.
Frankly I'd feel reassured about the use of the data, and I'm convinced that not only would the cost savings be great, but the capacity for costs to spiral would be lessened.
This begs the question: what's in it for the private sector? Paying them out of the public purse would hardly be a solution, as it would be far too great a temptation for both sides. The alternative is that the private company be able to run the system for profit (albeit capped and regulated).
How, though? They could be restricted to making a profit on the sale of new/replacement ID cards, though this may make the things too expensive for ordinary people to afford. What other opportunities could they exploit, that would allow cards to be affordable to all? By showing targeted advertisements when people use their home card-readers to view and amend their details? One-click purchasing of the company's other online products?
I can imagine making myself unpopular with this line, but perhaps it could give us an ID system which was cheaper, reduced the risk of snooping, satisfied people about intrusion and tracking, and which opened up opportunities to ordinary cardholders that the current proposed system seems determined to deny them.
I could comment along the lines of the publicly funded anti-business organisation, the Equal Opportunities Commission is cock a hoop, regardless of the wider implications of some numpty laws that militate against staff recruitment but first lets look at a few of the case facts as me’learned friends see them….
(a) Michelle Langton worked for Herbert Smith, earning £36,600 p.a. for working 2 ½ days a week, of which ½ a day a week was undertaken from home after having a baby. (Nice work if you can get it, eh readers?)
(b) She was made redundant while she was pregnant with her second child having refused to go back to work full time.
(c) Mrs Langton was awarded £40,000 by an employment tribunal & her employers, Herbert Smith were ordered to re-employ her on a part time basis.
Gleeming, if you are an employer, you clearly no longer have the right to actually ask your employees to do anything as mundane as to actually turn up for work. You can call me a tad old fashioned in this respect, but asking someone whose book cost to the company on an annualised basis is probably in excess of £200,000 to actually show up at the office 5 days week, doesn’t really seem altogether too unreasonable.
I know that I have said this before, but trust me, this is worthy of repetition. Having children is a lifestyle choice, not a right. Not since Uncle Adolph got kicked out of office & the kybosh was put on his Aryan breeding programme has anyone HAD to have children – although the Chinese & Singaporeans are making a decent fist of it from time to time. If you want to have nippers go & have them - if you don’t, don’t. If your employer wants to keep you on or offer you a part time post, great. If not, tough. It’s a simple function of how your employer prices & values your contribution to the company.
Idiots like the [Equal Opportunities Commission] & ‘litigious’ Langdon just introduce market imperfections, inefficiency & hence extra costs. Extra costs in a world where purchasers can buy services just about anywhere is bad for British business.
Neil is continuing to hold the line on ID cards, despite Tim Worstall's assertion that he is the only blogger out there who is doing so. It's a nigh-on impossible task and, all in all, an extraordinary situation. All 99.9% votes are suspicious, and even I - an optimist, and someone with a better-than-average understanding of database issues - can see possible benefits.
Given the desirable situation is for every school to be a good school, we're left wondering exactly what criteria will be used to exercise 'choice'; it's inferred that this might mean 'specialist' schools or religious schools, but for a document stating a new principal for education it's still left tremendously unclear. There's a curious blend of comprehensive values ("excellence for all") - and free marketeering ("individual choice for all") that has yet to be resolved in any coherent fashion.
Neil said: Further to this, everyone will have access to their own entry on the database and even information of who has been using it to verify their identity.
Spyblog was, last night, looking closely into this claim and, in particular, into the exact wording of Tony McNulty's comments on this issue, which from the comments, were:
"Mr. McNulty: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says about static as opposed to ever changing databases. She makes an entirely fair point. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) offered a lot of comedy about the Domesday book, but it is not a fair interpretation of the Bill to say that the Secretary of State can change anything in the database that he likes, and insert whatever he wants to. That is not the case. We want people to be able to access secure web sites, by means of their PIN number, so that they can adjust and change data on the register."
As someone with more than 20 years dealing with IT both professionally and personally I can full concur with spyblog's comment:
"So "hackers" or "phishers" or terrorists or criminals or foreign intelligence agencies etc. will be able to steal or muck around with NIR data without any of the security provided by Biometrics at all !!
How long before a computer virus brute force attacks your, by definition short PIN, and either compromises your information, and that of millions of other people, or causes you to have your NIR view/edit/update account to be locked or disabled - a Denial of Service ?
No doubt you will then be accused of tampering with the Register and sent to prison for 10 years, since it will be impossible for most people to prove that their IP address was hijacked or faked."
- The Inland Revenue tax credits system which locked up for 15 minutes at a time and led to staff walking out. After ten months, 220,000 cases were unresolved and 400,000 people got their money late.
- The NIRS2 national insurance system that came in years late and massively over budget - costing £85 million in compensation and £68 million to put right.
- The electronic personnel management system in the Inland Revenue that can only be used by managers on a Monday to ensure that demand doesn't cause the system to fall over.
- The on-line PAYE system that hasn't been sufficiently well-tested.
- Five million tax records lost by the Inland Revenue.
- Problems with the Swanwick air traffic control system.
- The Security Service's new SCOPE computer, which is running three years late and 50% over budget for an underpowered system.
- The HR system for the Northern Ireland Office which cost £3.3 million and didn't work after nine years.
- A lack of performance monitoring on NHS IT, criticised as 'an appalling waste of money' by a parliamentary committee.
- The BOWMAN military radio project, which came into limited use over a decade late at a cost of almost £2 billion.
- The new Child Support Agency system which went massively over-budget and over-schedule.
- The complete cock-up of the payment card system that swallowed £1 billion before it was scrapped.
- The immigration document handling project that was scrapped after £77 million and a delay of years.
- The CRAMS system for the probation service that went 70% over budget.
[List above courtesy of the excellent PoliticalHack]
I've yet to find the part of the white paper that directly addresses this problem beyond the commitment to 'ensure there are more good schools'. No shit, Sherlock. This is the big idea? There aren't enough good schools, so we'll create some more good schools - an approach which rather seems to contradict the 'hands off' notion that we'll let 'market forces' (i.e. leagues tables and parents discovering their children are failing because their school is shitty) sort it out. Maybe that's not what is meant. I just can't tell and I've been reading this damn document for over an hour.
There's an impenetrable tract about parents being empowered to start their own schools
As for New Labour being in favour of congestion charging, that is a joke. They fought Ken Livingstone all the way, even rigging an election so he couldn't stand for them. Now he has made it work, they have climbed on the bandwagon.
New Labour are trying every fudge they can to avoid a complete ban on indoor smoking. First the 'no food/no ban' idea, now the 'sealed room' thing.
Facial biometrics and fingerprints will be standard across Europe on all passports regardless of whether we have an ID card. This is why it is such a good time to introduce ID cards at the same time, to save money.
ID cards can give civil liberty benefits. Like they say; 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.
You are just arguing for the freedom to have a false identity. That freedom is to the detriment of all our civil liberties.
Anoneumouse has no problem sharing his fingerprint biometrics with the whole world. Which just highlights how petty the opponents' argument about biometric privacy is.
Monjo points out that he has been supporting ID cards since May, though he does have some very worrying views on other issues (especially the age of consent).
On the face of it, it seems an obvious and ridiculous thing to have to say, but the crux of those arguing against immigration rests on implying that people born abroad are inferior.
It is not something you will ever hear them say directly but my god, they leave you with no doubt that this is what they mean. Of course, quite a lot more than this can usually be read into what they say because for immigrants read black or brown skin, which is the real cause of their distress.
The reason that large scale immigration is not desirable is because it causes confrontation. It actually doesn't matter whether you think that it should or not: the fact is that it does. Unfortunately, we are seeing the results of this culture clash in, amongst other things, the Tube bombings.
...
The culture clash becomes greater the more equal the size of the opposing cultures. In the end, there is no point in saying that in an enlightened world it shouldn't happen because, when you get down to brass tacks, it does.
You [i.e. me—DK] give examples of why this 'cultural difference' is a problem by citing the Burnley riots.
Of course this totally ignores the fact that it was poverty that was the main cause of those riots, not people being 'culturally different'. Otherwise, why does the most diverse cultural city in the world, i.e. London, not have riots every day?
My impression is that many lower paid jobs (cleaners, maintenance) are outsourced so these would skew the average private sector figures downwards.
To fill in, the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary was sold to the private sector for £12m then leased to the NHS, so the latter could make a quick buck. The hospital then became a 'prime piece of real estate' and was sold for SIXTY MILLION POUNDS!
I'm told the new hospital, Little France, is tremendously clean and friendly place to be, but what good is that, as DK so rightly points out, when any benefit is literally and economically bled away getting there?
Which of these policies are New Labour?
- Proportional Representation for Westminster.
- Incentive Voting.
A Citizen's income.
Legalisation of all drugs.
Congestion Charging.
[Yes—DK]
Complete Ban on workplace smoking.
[Yes, under Scottish NuLabour anyway. With the bizarre consequence that I won't be allowed to smoke in my own flat because I work from home—DK]
Ban on alcohol advertising.
Amnesty for all illegal workers in UK.
Automatic place at Oxbridge for brightest pupil at each secondary school.
Triple council tax for second home owners.
Re-emphasis on restorative penalties not prison sentences.
[Definitely—DK]
Widen council tax bands to make it less regressive.
Free local bus travel for local council tax payers.
I've argued for all these on my blog and more. I don't think anyone can justify calling me authoritarian if they read my blog posts.
On the bloggers point, I wasn't going to ignore the orthodoxy of the bloggers being against ID cards. I acknowledge a lot of concerns raised by bloggers, I share them as well, but they are not actually relevant to the ID card debate. ID cards do not increase the govts access to personal information.
As for your criticisms on being able to view who had accessed data, I clearly state (even in the quote you have used) that Terrorism/benefit fraud investigations would be exempt for obvious reasons.
The NIR number can be on the card, but doesn't have to be on the NIR (or vice versa), it can be stored elsewhere.
Doing a quick blog search, I found hundreds of bloggers commenting on ID cards, not a single one was in favour.
This made me think of two scenarios, either I am totally deluded in supporting ID cards or there is something unrepresentative about bloggers (remember opinion polls find a majority of the population in favour of ID cards).
The fact that I couldn't find a single blogger blogging in favour of ID cards tells me that this force is powerful enough to unite both conservative and liberal bloggers. It also presents me with an unexpected opportunity to be a pioneer blogger in outlining a detailed case in favour of ID cards (admittedly with a number of important reservations).
Generally it is the more conservative, authoritarian types who favour ID cards and the liberal ones who oppose. People who know this site shouldn't have much of a problem with my claim to be a libertarian (my score on political compass was -6.7 on the libertarian/authoritarian scale).
So what is this force uniting bloggers on this subject?
Well firstly and foremostly, conservatives who might otherwise have supported ID cards, have a Conservative party who have seen a populist issue to win votes on a subject that is no cost to them.
The overwhelming majority of the public are just concerned with the practical benefits. I predict that the controversy over the security and cost of biometrics will subside as the technology advances and the government refines its objectives. Although 3 biometrics have been proposed, just facial recognition followed by fingerprinting are likely to be initially used. Less reliable iris scanning might be a while into the future. As the system is proved to work both here and abroad, then the opponents will change tack, but it will be too late. Opponents know they have to win the argument early on or the facts will overtake them.
Because the Tories have popularised being anti-ID card from a right wing perspective, it has been very easy for the liberal bloggers to find voice and support for liberty issues that otherwise would be killed off by the right wing media. This combination in right/left motivation coupled with support from the centrist Lib Dems has led to an unstoppable orthodoxy amongst political bloggers. It also fits nicely with popular perception of the govt as being illiberal.
Firstly it has to be said that a lot of the criticisms of ID cards are aimed at the foreseen failure of the technical aspects of biometrics and the lack of organisational capability of the govt rather than at the concept of ID cards themselves. This immediately makes me very suspicious of motives. If it is the restrictions on civil liberties that is the main reason, opponents should say so loud and clear, but also explain how this restriction outweighs the benefits of ID cards.
Some of the claims of opponents of ID cards have included the following;
1. That the govt and potential hackers will be able to track your movement around the country, view your medical, criminal, social security, bank, credit, supermarket, ISP and mobile phone details.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with ID cards, the govt has categorically stated that none of these details will be included on the cards or the National Identity Register (NIR). If the govt wanted to access any of these details, they wouldn't need to set up an ID card to do it.
2. It is unsafe to keep biometric and name/address data on cards and on a central database rather than on a number of secure databases.
There is no need to put the actual biometric data on the cards or have someone's NIR number on the database. Technology is available to distort biometric data on cards, rendering it useless for anyone else to read. The central database will be high security. This is the safest and cheapest method, its the same principle as banks keeping money in a safe rather than leaving it in the till.
3. We won't know who is checking our identity and for what reason.
Under the Data Protection Act, you would be able to ask for these details. It is understood that (apart from the fight against terrorism and benefit/tax fraud), anyone accessing your data would need your consent.
There will be no compulsion to carry the ID card. The police will have no new powers to ask you to prove your identity.
The govt have stated that the cards and NIR will carry only the information your passport does. It would need primary legislation through parliament to add to this. Then would be the time to object.
The EU has passed standards on biometric travel documents that include face recognition and fingerprinting, the deadline is in 2006. Because of these standards and similar US requirements on travel documents to come into effect next year, the costs of incorporating biometrics are already being incurred.
Nearly every country in the EU has ID cards (21 out of 25 countries, only the UK, Eire, Denmark and Latvia do not).
"Argumentation about identity cards is largely limited to anglosaxon countries. In most countries where an ID system is present, it is seen as a commonplace item that nobody argues about."
ID cards are claimed to have a positive impact in the following areas;
Preventing illegal immigration and illegal working. Tackling Identity theft, benefit fraud and abuse of public services. And finally aiding anti-terrorism measures and enhancing a sense of community.
Both ID card opponents and enthusiasts largely agree that there will be a positive impact in all these areas with the introduction of ID cards.
Illegal immigration and working:
People will still enter Britain using foreign documents - genuine or forged - and ID cards offer no more deterrent to people smugglers than passports and visas. Employers already face substantial penalties for failing to obtain proof of entitlement to work, yet there are only a handful of prosecutions a year.
Benefit fraud and abuse of public services:
Identity is "only a tiny part of the problem in the benefit system." Figures for claims under false identity are estimated at £50 million (2.5%) of an (estimated) £2 billion per year in fraudulent claims.
Identity fraud:
Both Australia and the USA have far worse problems of identity theft than Britain, precisely because of general reliance on a single reference source. Costs usually cited for of identity-related crime here include much fraud not susceptible to an ID system. Nominally 'secure', trusted, ID is more useful to the fraudster. The Home Office has not explained how it will stop registration by identity thieves in the personae of innocent others.
Hopefully as the costs and practicalities become more clear, and as the cards are gradually introduced, public support will strengthen and the anti-brigade will fade. This gradual introduction and lower cost is why ID cards should not become the Labour poll tax. Once people see the benefits and efficiencies ID cards bring both here and abroad, opposition should quickly fade.
First Tim Lott who manages to wow us with the revelation that Britian is a little bit complicated, sometimes repressive and at other times not. Well stick me in a floral dress and call me Susan, who would have guessed? Surely anyone who's been following Lost knows that when you crash 60 people on an island, liberty and oppression, tolerance and prejudice flow back and forth with every new generic plot incident. Now, times that by a million (the people and the generic incidents) and he thinks this is commentary?
What's more annoying however is his repeated 'these aren't facts but I'm saying them anyway' attitude to journalism.
However, he has touched only tangentally on the truth. Let us assume that a private sector employee, with hopes of career advancement and rising salary, is good at making profit for his company. Public sector employees are not so good at making profit. Their career advancement, we hope, is through competency in his chosen office. Any differential in competency we can put down to lower wages and fewer opportunities for promotion in the civil service (although the latter is changing).
Salary increases in the public sector under Labour are outstripping those in private business, prompting warnings that Scotland’s economy will suffer as a result.[Emphasis mine—DK]
Figures from the Scottish Executive show that, between 1999 and 2004, average wages in the public sector rose from £19,670 to £23,650, up 20 per cent. Over the same period, salaries in the private sector rose by only 18 per cent, and the average wage still lags behind at £20,000.
The Executive insists the salaries paid to public sector workers are in line with Treasury guidelines.
However, David Bell, an economics professor from Stirling University, believes the increases in public sector salaries are in danger of stifling the economy.
Prof Bell, who heads the Scottish Economic Policy Network, an independent economic think-tank, said: "People in the public sector get paid more and they are likely to have more job security and better pensions.
...
"The potential impact of the difference is that the public sector becomes a more attractive career option and the long-term consequences are that the private sector suffers. The private sector generates tax revenues so we want people to go into careers in the private sector to increase the rate of growth of the economy."
However, let us underline that the private sector is there to make profit. All other aims are subsumed to this one ambition. As a result markets created through privatisation (wholly/fully) will have a structure to further this end. This will maintain no matter how many government regulations/targets/inspections are carried out.
For services such as education and healthcare this is an extremely worrying prospect. The only antidote to such a situation is so much government monitoring so as to make efficiency gains questionable.
