Bel is thinking

I wrote some time ago about Alan Johnson’s harebrained scheme to allocate school places by picking names out of a hat. Today brings news that Labour-run Brighton and Hove council has chosen to implement this mad idea.

What the Government and this misguided council must realise is that the problem they are trying to address is entirely of the Government’s own making. This Government has gone out of its way to block access to good schools for clever, poor pupils. The abolition of the Assisted Places Scheme, the policy of open hostility to grammar schools, and the abolition of grant-maintained schools (which, incidentally, the Government is trying to reverse), are clear examples.

The answer to the problem is not to resort to random methods of allocating places. Rather, this is what the Government should do: sit at a table with all the education measures it has passed since 1997, and begin to reverse all the harmful changes it has made. Not sure where to start? Then hit the streets and start listening to parents for once. It is time to give substance to all that empty talk about ‘parental choice’.

In the meantime, concerned parents in Brighton and Hove are not taking the schools allocation lottery lying down. They are heading to court to challenge the council. Here’s wishing them all the best

A film director claims to have discovered a tomb containing the remains of Jesus, along with proof that Jesus had a son.

The central tenet of Christian belief is that Jesus rose from the dead, so this director’s claims go directly to the root of Christianity.

And what has been the reaction of Christians to this? Generally, quiet disagreement. Or at most, dismissing his claims and ‘laughing him to scorn’, as the Bible would put it.

That’s right, no burning flags, no burning effigies, no threats to kill, no violent demonstrations.

Hope the islamist extremists in our midst are taking note. That’s the way we do things in the civilised world, OK? Besides if you believe your God is real, you don’t need to fight any battles on his behalf.

Human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce on Sky News today. That can only mean one thing, a terror suspect is bringing a law suit for one thing or another.

And sure enough, it was Abu Qatada, appealing unsuccessfully against a deportation order.

Why is it that people like that who hate the western way of life so much will fight tooth and nail to stay here? I would have thought he would be cock-a-hoop at the prospect of being returned to Jordan. But no. He is worried that he faces torture or death if deported. So now he turns for deliverance to the courts system of the country so despised by him and his ilk.

Unfortunately for him, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was not swayed by his protestations, and barring any further legal moves, Abu Qatada should be on a plane home some time soon.

On your way now, Abu Qatada. You will have a good time far away from the contaminating influences of western society. Keep yourself ‘pure’, and if ever you feel tempted to return here, you must do your utmost to resist.

This snippet from the Daily Telegraph leader article amused me no end:

If Labour MPs were interested solely in winning the next election, they would be casting around furiously for an alternative. Voters have never much liked Mr Brown. Many see him as cold, morose and selfish, and were put off when he attacked Tony Blair privately, while backing him publicly. His new habit of grinning randomly at every fourth or fifth word has unsettled them even more. Until recently, Mr Brown had one advantage to set against these many handicaps: his record as Chancellor. Yet this, too, is now evaporating.

But what’s the betting Labour won’t take heed? They seem to have been brainwashed into believing that Gordon Brown is their best option, despite everything that suggests otherwise. I am not exactly overwhelmed by David Cameron’s performance at the moment, but faced with an opponent like Gordon Brown, things are definitely looking better for the Conservatives.

I have noticed that this page is taking a few seconds longer than usual to load. Please bear with me as I wait for my host to sort it out. All should be back to normal soon.

The Daily Mail tells the story of Mrs Taylor, an unemployed mother of five, who had four of her children while receiving benefits. She has now been ordered to look for a job or have her benefits drastically reduced. Her husband is also unemployed.

Together the couple collect £501 a week in benefits – £179 child tax credit, £64 child benefit, £90 job seeker’s allowance, £126 housing benefit, £24 discretionary housing payment and £18 towards their council tax.

They also receive free school meals and around eight pints of milk a day, making an annual total of £26,052, or the equivalent of a £33,000-a-year salary before tax. [Emphasis mine]

There are two things at work here. The first is the so-called “benefits trap”. It is not Mrs Taylor’s fault that the Government has made it more advantageous in certain cases for people to claim benefits rather than work. She is simply taking advantage of the system in place. The second factor is down to Mrs Taylor herself. If she is in a position where the only work she can get would attract the minimum wage, that would most likely be because she lacks the relevant skills, training and experience to get a better paying job. For that, she should take some responsibility.

Anyway, what shocked me most was not even the size of the benefits payments,  but Mrs Taylor’s reaction to the ultimatum by the council:

“The world’s gone mad,” [she declared] “What’s the point of going to slave your guts out for 40 hours? What do you get for it? Absolutely nothing.”

Yes, darling, the world’s gone mad. Only not in the way you mean. It is a truly mad world which pays you more to sit at home than people with a lot more skill, learning and experience than yourself can hope to earn. These people traipse to work everyday, work as hard as they can, suffer heavy burdens of taxation, and make financial sacrifices. They do all this in order to deliver to you a lifestyle even more comfortable than that which they have. Yes, the world has gone mad. Isn’t it great that you have, up until now, been the beneficiary of such madness?

She is lobbying her local MP to help her make her case. As she lives in the Camborne, Cornwall area, I take it that her MP is the Lib Dem’s Treasury spokesman, Julia Goldsworthy. Perhaps Goldsworthy will deliver a few home truths to this deluded woman. Then again, judging by the Lib Dems’ general approach to public finance, perhaps not.

Remember those poor pensioners who lost their pensions after relying on dodgy advice in a Government leaflet?

Even though the Parliamentary Ombudsman had ruled that the advice contained in the leaflet was “inaccurate, incomplete, unclear and inconsistent”, the Government looked the other way and refused to compensate them.

Good news for them. The High Court has today held that the Government was wrong to reject the Ombudsman’s report. This means that the Government will now have to revisit the Ombudsman’s report and consider how to resolve the situation. This will most likely lead to some form of compensation for the pensioners.

The Government had previously refused to countenance compensation, instead uttering some laughable, sanctimonious drivel about its fiscal responsibilities. This from a Government that has ‘excelled’ in inefficiency, waste, confused tax policies, and all-round economic incompetence.

Far too many people have suffered the consequences of this Government’s ham-fisted and incompetent approach to finance; pensioners, tax credits claimants, Railtrack shareholders, small businesses, investors, the ordinary taxpayer, all have suffered. Tax credits are overpaid, and then reclaimed all at once, causing hardship to claimants. Misleading advice is given to investors, who suffer loss after relying on the advice. Tax laws are made, and then just as quickly changed, causing uncertainty, and in many cases, loss to people who have laid out money in reliance on the law. Sometimes, changes are made with harmful and far-reaching retrospective effects, so that people are then forced to go back and undo financial arrangements they made many years ago, even before this Government came into office.

What a  risky and precarious climate in which we now do business and invest, and it has been created by Labour. In most cases, the Government has simply shrugged its shoulders and let the losses lie where they fell. That should not happen this time. Even though it will have to dip into public funds to do so, the Government must compensate these pensioners. It is surely the right thing to do.

John Prescott’s office is being given an additional £587,000 to assist him in his ‘duties’. What duties, may I ask. Ever since Prescott was stripped of his ministerial duties last May, he has been struggling to find relevance in one way or the other. The stark truth however remains that Prescott occupies an office without a job.

This bonus payment brings the total annual budget for Mr Prescott’s office to £2,547,000. Needless to say, the Conservatives have attacked the 30 per cent increase.

Leaving aside the fact that this is public money being so wasted, I wonder how much of this ‘excessive bonus’ Mr Prescott will be giving to disadvantaged communities. Perhaps Peter Hain might like to have a word?

An ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph reveals that 73 per cent of respondents believe that City bonuses are excessive. Also, 43 per cent believe that Britain has become more selfish under Labour.

Ian Gibson, a Labour MP, is furious. Here are his words, as reported by that newspaper:

“I don’t think people should have bonuses at all. They are unacceptable. I think it’s got worse. If the Labour Party recognised this problem then they would have more support today.”

No bonuses at all? Really? So he sees incentives for productivity as an ‘unacceptable’ thing? Interesting. It feels me with dread that people like this have been given the mandate to legislate on our behalf.

Debt relief campaigners are unhappy that Zambia has been ordered by the High Court to pay back a debt to a private company.

The story appears in summary in the Telegraph, but I have also had a look at the case reports.

It all began in 1979 when Zambia borrowed £15m from Romania to buy agricultural equipment. (Nowadays it’s hard to imagine Romania as a lender country, but that was a very long time ago, obviously.)

In 1999, Romania sold on the debt to Donegal International, a private company, for £2m. In 2003, Donegal International and Zambia sat down and worked out an agreement as to how Zambia would pay them.

Zambia agreed to make 36 monthly payments. They agreed that if Zambia defaulted on any monthly payment, Donegal could, within 21 days of the default, terminate the agreement and sue to recover the outstanding amounts.

That is precisely what happened, and both parties found themselves before the High Court. Zambia claimed that they should not have to repay at all, but after considering all the legal arguments, the judge decided that Zambia should pay. However, he ruled that the amount of interest stipulated in the contract was punitive, so they will not have to pay that. Small comfort for Zambia.

Critics are up in arms. This case is being described as having exposed a loophole whereby private companies can enforce payment of debts from poor countries which are currently benefiting from debt cancellation.

I do not see what all the fuss is about. This debt was obviously not written off by Romania, as they would then not have been able to sell it on. To the extent that this is described as a ‘loophole’, I disagree. If a private company chooses to take the high risk of buying debts against poor African countries, then as long as it acts within the law, I do not see the problem. True, Zambia is a poor country, and much has been made of how that money could usefully have been spent alleviating the poverty of the Zambian people, but I would submit that that is not the problem of Donegal International.

There are sound economic reasons against debt forgiveness. While desirable for the debtor nation, it often does not relieve the suffering of the ordinary citizens of that nation. So many times people blindly advocate debt forgiveness without stopping to consider the long term effects on the debtor nation. This is grossly irresponsible.

At the moment, critics of the court judgment have restricted themselves to heaping abuse on Donegal, for instance calling them a ‘vulture fund’. I do not believe that emotional blackmail should be used against a private company conducting its business within the limits of the law, but that is a sign of our times, and I have learned to live with that. However, what I would really not want to see is a clamour for legislation to make it illegal for British companies to buy debts in this way. It cannot be too long before someone starts advocating that.