|  |
Home |  | |
Events | | |
Contact Us | | |
Links | |
|
In this section
- News RSS |
|
Friday, 21 August, 2009 
We’re just about to set off in the van on our holidays to France. We’re on the 7am ferry tomorrow and will be back in two weeks. Spain or Venice is the ultimate destination this holiday.
See you after the holiday.
PS. I forgot to say, you can read David Cameron’s speech on the NHS in the news section and I think it’s disgraceful that Mr al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber was released. It was an insult to all the families of the people he murdered. You can read David’s comments on this in the news section also.
Sunday, 16 August, 2009
The news has been full of stories in the last few days about the NHS following comments by MEP Dan Hannan in the USA. What he said, and it may have been that he was misquoted, is not only at odds with Conservative Party policy but is also different to what most party members, myself included, believe. Whether you agree with him or not some of the responses to his comments which have accused him of being unpatriotic or insulting to the 1.4 million NHS employees in the UK have been absurd. The problem with debate on the health service, like debate on immigration, is that it is becoming very hard to voice dissenting views without being accused of secretly having a plan to dismantle the NHS. This does not help in an informed debate, which we need to have in the UK. As a nation we need to spend more on health, due to the aging population and medical advances but at the same time we have a huge debt crisis and very simply the money is running out. It is quite possible to subscribe to the underlying principles of the NHS, as I do, whilst believing the system could work better. The principles are that: health care should be free at the point of delivery, the same level of health care should be available in all parts of the country and that health care should be on the basis of need not ability to pay. In the UK we fund this through the taxation system, which I don’t think anyone is saying should be dismantled. What is a topic for debate is how this health service is delivered and whether our current system is working as effectively as it could do.
To claim the NHS is perfect is palpable nonsense, no organisation is perfect, and the NHS like any large organisation has room for improvement. This does not devalue the dedication and skills of the workforce and it does not imply that they are causing the problems. All organisations learn and new ways of doing things are developed which are better than the old ways. If the NHS was perfect then we wouldn’t have some of the problems we have heard about most recently, for example the problems in Staffordshire or the continuing battle against MRSA. The simple fact is that all organisations can get it wrong from time to time and the NHS is not exempt from this.
We do need a debate on health spending, and we should be prepared to because there are some big questions for the future, for example:
These are big questions, and there are many ways of answering them. Only through informed debate can this be done and people with different views should not be shouted down by the majority.
What is clear is that a debate that is just about ‘my support for the NHS is bigger than your support’ will not help. So let’s have a real debate about facts, respect dissenting views and reach for a broad majority agreement.
Friday, 14 August, 2009
William Hague was at the International Institute of Strategic Studies a few weeks ago (21/7) and gave a speech entitled ‘The Future of British Foreign Policy with a Conservative Government’. The Times, described it as the "best speech to date on the Conservatives’ foreign policy" and I think it is an important speech that is worth reading and one I have been meaning to blog on since then. Hague makes many points but the central thrust is that the world is changing, with economic power moving eastwards. This means, as new powers grow economically, then the relative power of the existing powers declines and with it our ability to influence events. Add to this the rise of Islamism, nuclear proliferation, climate change and resource scarcity and you have a world that is very different in a few decades time to it is now.
He asks what should our response be?
Should we have a strategic re-alignment that sees us withdraw from seeking to influence events, and instead be influenced by them or should we continue to try and influence events?
William Hague answers this as follows:
“The United Kingdom has engaged before in major, conscious acts of strategic shrinkage, such as the withdrawal East of Suez after 1968. But the Conservative Party’s answer to whether further such shrinkage will be right for Britain’s international role in the decade to come is no. Tue, as a nation we will have to accustom ourselves to there being more situations which we dislike but cannot directly change but it is our contention that Britain must seek to retain her influence wherever possible and in some places seek to extend it”
I agree with William, it is in our own interest to remain engaged with the world and to try and influence events where we can, rather than just be influenced by them.
There are some who say we are too small to influence events, or that we can only do so if we subsume ourselves as part of an EU super state. They are wrong; we can try to influence events, whilst being conscious that our relative economic position and size, and the rise of other powers may mean that we may not always succeed.
As regards the EU being able to influence events, it faces a declining share of world output , it has a serious lack of capability to intervene and a lack of will to actually try and influence events, so to put all of our faith in this body would be very risky. There is also a tendency by some to view foreign policy only in terms of the EU and William reminds us, as a global trading nation, we need a truly global outlook. Rather than subsuming ourselves completely in the EU we should forge better relationships with others countries beyond Europe, and revitalise links with nations and institutions that have been neglected.
Some forget that we depend on free trade and the transport of goods around the globe (90% by sea) for our well being. It is in our own interests to ensure these trade routes remain open, and we cannot rely on others to maintain them
William has sketched out a worldview that sees Britain continuing to be actively engaged in the world. He holds up a vision of a confident country, able to try and shape events, able to stand up for its values but recognising that it will not always be practical to get others to share these.
It is a compelling vision and one I share
Thursday, 06 August, 2009
Readers of this blog will know of my keen interest and support for the future carriers. This entry will not repeat the arguments for carriers which I set out on this blog on 30th April.
Quentin Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence) has been on the Today programme talking about a report in today’s Daily Telegraph regarding Rolls Royce. The report claims that up to 750 jobs are threatened because the MOD is going to decide to buy the F35C Conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft for the future carriers rather than the F35B Short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) jump jet. Rolls Royce is responsible for the vertical take off part of the engine for the F35B.
I am sceptical of the this story and the jobs threat because the MOD was only ever planning to buy up to 150 F35B but the US Marines itself will buy many more, so I think any decision by the MOD to pull out would not threaten production of this particular engine.
Of more importance is the statement by the Minister that he hasn’t in his “own mind reached any final conclusions on this” and that he is “still in the process of examining the evidence”. In other words, the jury is still out on whether we should buy the STOVL F35B or the CTOL F35C.
I find this an amazing statement given the history and design assumptions that the future carriers would be STOVL. The reason for this is that the F35B is more expensive than the F35C and has range and payload limitations because of the STOVL capability.
STOVL offers many advantages, in terms of being able to fly in worse sea conditions than conventional aircraft, higher sortie rates and flexibility to operate from platforms other than the carriers. This has been proved time and time again by the Harriers currently operated from Royal Navy carriers. The Harrier was originally designed to operate from dispersed areas in the event of a Soviet attack on Europe, where the vertical take capability was a huge bonus. The trade off was always shorter range and lower payload and you have to ask if the need for STOVL has now passed.
The future carriers are planned to be in service until 2050 and will outlast the F35 aircraft. It is for this reason they are designed in such a way that catapults and arrester wires can be fitted at a later stage to allow them to fly future aircraft that may not be STOVL.
Does this now offer us an opportunity to rethink and configure the carriers as CTOL from the outset?
The key points to consider are:
All in all the arguments are finely balanced and I think the Minister is right to say that he is still gathering evidence. At some point, very, very soon the time for thinking will be over and a decision will need to be made.
For what it’s worth, based on what I know now, I say build conventional carriers.
Incidentally, the first of the new carriers ‘Queen Elizabeth’ is due in service in 2016 and construction has already started. There would be an amazing irony that when this ship comes into service it is a CTOL carrier because 2016 will be 50 years from 1966. It was in 1966 that the last CTOL carriers for the Navy were cancelled by Dennis Healey, and the first of these ships was to be called ‘Queen Elizabeth’. If this happens I am sure there will be a few retired sailors with a wry smile at the turn of events.
You can read the DT article here:
Tuesday, 04 August, 2009
None to report...it seems to be working. How long will it last?
Monday, 03 August, 2009
| |
Blog RSS feed
