GOVERNMENTS SHOULD LEARN TO DELEGATE PROPERLY.

All modern governments thrive on reorganisations of just about every public service that exists and the current one is no different. Local Government, the NHS, the welfare system, education and so on are all being turned upside down in a supposed search for efficiency, economy, better outcomes etc, etc. Sadly, none of the changes are likely to achieve anything of lasting value and the next lot, whoever they are, will undoubtedly change everything again, all at the cost of us, the taxpayers of the country.

 

One of the great wheezes used by governments as they try to convince us that their latest scheme will actually work, where the failed schemes of their predecessors didn't, is to establish arms-lengths and supposedly autonomous bodies which take over the responsibility for implementing the latest government policies. Of course, these organisations are actually tied hand-and-foot by their political masters, having their every action determined by central dictat.

 

'Local Enterprise Partnerships' (LEPs), whatever they are, recently caught my eye when reading an accountancy magazine. There are, apparently, 39 of these spread around the country and they are a creation of the curent mob in Westminster. They are "intended to help councils and local businesses work together to stimulate growth across an area", or so it says in my magazine. They are supposed to develop plans for submission to the Treasury; the Treasury is then supposed to assess the plans and decide how much of a central pot of cash to award on the basis of the relative 'quality' of the plans. Unsurprisingly, many in the world of local government are unhappy with the idea of money being allocated on such a basis and simply want to be given a 'wodge' based on population numbers.

 

Why we need these LEPS at all is my first question; if they are any good, why should they have to submit their plans to the Treasury  for approval is my second. Aren't local councils and businesses good and professional enough to know what is right for their areas ? Can't they make such decisions for themselves ? What would be wrong with a 'first come, first served' basis of allocation with subsequent penalties for any council or LEP which is shown to have wasted their funds on poor or worthless schemes ? Why does central government need to be so involved in essentially local matters ?

 

Whenever governments talk about 'regionalism' or 'localism' or, in the case of the EU, 'subsidiarity', you can be sure that this is no more than meaningless rhetoric. The power and purse strings remain held firmly at the centre; perhaps, if they learnt to delegate properly, things would be better, but there's faint hope of that ever happening.

DANCING ON THATCHER'S GRAVE IS NOT ON.

Apparently there have been parties in a number of UK cities specifically to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. Quite rightly, this behaviour has been criticised and condemned by the current Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and also by former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

 

That anyone should behave thus is disgusting. Sadly, it is also a mark of the ingrained hatred of certain elements of left wing political belief for anyone who has contrary views to their own. George Galloway, that well known fair minded man, has also made remarks which are less than pleasant and well beyond anything that one political figure should ever say of another.

 

No one from the right wing of politics, other than those of very extreme views, would ever be so ungracious as to make nasty, spiteful and derogatory comments about any political rival at such a time. The behaviour of these left wing fanatics should be a lesson to all of those who vote for them; you upset them at your peril.

 

Did anyone from the right make any move to dance on the graves of Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan, the 2 men most responsible for the appalling mess that Mrs Thatcher rescued us from ? Certainly not and neither should they have. Unfortunately the political left is very different from the right, being full of hatred and bile. How sad it is that they cannot grow up and behave like decent human beings.

MARGARET THATCHER : GREAT BRITON.

The death of Baroness Thatcher yesterday brings to an end one of the great lives in modern British history.

 

Thatcher was an extraordinary woman who came to power at a most difficult time. The nation was on its knees after Labour and the trades unions, aided to some extent by Ted Heath, had all but destroyed the economy and devastated our society. Margaret Thatcher's government changed much of this, restoring some health to the conomy while ending the stranglehold which the unions had imposed on both industry and the public sector.

 

Today, some still hate and despise what she did. These are almost all supporters of old style nationalised industry and massive public services who found themselves deprived of excessive wages, protected conditions and easy lives. The 'closed shops', outdated practices and unwillingness to change of many industries are what destroyed them, not Margaret Thatcher. Those for whom Thatcher's legacy is all bad and hateful really should take a long hard look at themselves and the lives they have today - little of it would have been possible without her.

 

Not everything that she did was right and some people lost out, but most of what was done was essential and laid the foundations for Britain to become a modern, competitive economy. No one else came forward to lead this revolution, though others clung to her coat tails, and she can truly be credited with being both the architect and engineer of the UK's recovery. She was a great woman, human being, Prime Minister and Briton, and we shall be very lucky to see her like again.