Cllr. Gavin Ayling

What a wonderfully varied week this past one has been when it comes to local politics.

On Monday I attended a party committee which concerns itself with the organisation at a very local level of the party machine. The people who do all the work to support the three of us at that meeting who are elected by the general public (two District Councillors – Debbie Kennard and myself – and the County Councillor – Clive Williams).

Tuesday was a Council committee meeting of the Housing and Central Services committee. And an entirely frustrating rubber-stamping exercise it was. All of the decisions we had to make were no-brainers: Increase Council home rents because the government’s slapping us with a negative subsidy or (you’ll love this) burn our reserves and increase them by even more next year? I think you’ll agree there’s no choice.

And the same was true of all the other agenda items – we had a choice but it was a non-choice.

But the variance came into play tonight with two of Adur District’s and Worthing Borough’s joint committees meeting one after the other. At these meetings we discussed the budget for the shared services (the refuse and recycling collection service and the joint management structure) as well as a report on coastal erosion.

The first item was great news. The Councils have saved, already, £67,000 through being able to buy fewer vehicles because of shared efficiency and we effectively did not have to pay for the new bins because of savings due to economies of scale in the procurement process as well. We have also saved £32,000 in the nine months to the end of the financial year that the service has been running just because of the increased quantities of recycling that are now being collected!

But I cannot be all positive. There was something much more important that came out of this evening’s meetings. The first meeting was of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Worthing Liberal Democrat members did not have a single negative comment to make about the services or the savings. They did, momentarily, suggest that Worthing’s Council tax payers are being subsidised by Adur (which isn’t true), but they could not see anything wrong with the savings etc. being made.

It didn’t stop them making a fuss though. And when it came to voting on the recommendation before them, they decided to abstain even though they did not disagree with the recommendation and, as I say, could not find anything negative to say at all.

As a result of this experience I want to make a plea to the residents of Adur and Worthing who may be reading this: Please don’t vote Lib Dem in May – if they win seats the members elected will just be a nuisance and if they win one of the Councils they won’t do a better job because they cannot see anything being done that they would do differently!

Vote Conservative at the local elections in May 2008 and ensure that your Councils continue to run smoothly and efficiently despite the government’s obsession with attempting to run the country’s Councils remotely.

M&S’s architects had some displays in the lobby of the Holmbush centre on Friday evening and during the day Saturday to get the thoughts of local people on their plans to extend the existing building and to improve the internal layout.

As I am on the planning committee, and because I received a written invitation, I took a trip along there and I must say the plans look very interesting. We must wait, now, and see how the application that is finally submitted responds to the public’s comments.

My thoughts focussed on accessibility for pedestrians but it appears M&S have some draconian ideas about how to free up parking spaces currently used by employees of M&S. I shall be attempting to help M&S employees not to be forced into parking in surrounding areas or, worse, into using public transport which is woeful in Shoreham.

The road to hell, says DK (of the excellent Devil’s Kitchen), is paved with good intentions. And he’s right. The NHS is a stinking tax vacuum which, if left in the hands of the socialists, will one-day become the largest employer in the world (rather than just in Europe).

But in a previous post I also criticised the US’s can’t-pay-then-die system which is, to put it simply, wrong. In a civilised country it is right that provision of healthcare for those who cannot afford to pay is made from general taxation. If that makes me an impure libertarian then so be it.

But this system does not have to be the NHS. It doesn’t even have to be in place somewhere else. So here’s what I propose:

The railways in the UK were privatised by the last government in the most awful way. Ticket prices are not set by individual operators and so if I buy a ticket from Brighton to London it effectively does not matter which company’s trains I use. This ruins the point of privatisation — competition.

Oops, I just lost some of my audience by talking about privatisation; well come back will you?

The NHS needs genuine competition. The way I propose to introduce that is to allow half of all hospitals in each area to be run privately. Whatever the state spends per patient, the private hospital in the same area would get the same money. The incentive, then, would be to attract patients to your private hospital in order to receive some of that funding. Money that is not required to provide patient care is then made available to the private hospital’s shareholders. The drive for efficiency to create profits would be balanced by the need to attract patients and so be better than the NHS hospital.

The private hospital would be free at the point of use (because it receives matching funding from the state) and would be heavily regulated in the same effective way the financial services sector in the UK is (and which is clearly not working in the US).

Alongside this revolutionary healthcare system would be a change in incentives for drugs companies. Currently there is a clear conflict of interests whereby drugs companies can make more money from treating illnesses than from curing them. So the drug companies need an incentive to attempt to cure ailments. This should be done by using a competitive prize system where prizes are larger than the likely profits from symptom-relievers. I challenge some philanthropist to start up a charitable foundation to fund these prizes — I would happily contribute to that fund!

And finally, let’s be clear, Sicko is not even as unbiased as the BBC; it is a propaganda work which sits on a body of fact and then changes aspects to suit the maker’s own ends. I enjoyed Sicko, I found aspects of it (that are true) disturbing and I found aspects of it laughable. The reactions of British patients and doctors was clearly genuine — Brits do tend to laugh at that sort of question in a way that Americans do not.

I watched Michael Moore’s Sicko the other day. It’s a fantastic film; not completely free of Moore’s inevitable bias, but there’s so much less bending of the truth this time because, ultimately, there’s little controversy in what he is saying.

But loads of people have seen this film — what can I possibly add that will be interesting?

Well, I just had a cup of tea from my office’s coffee shop and, on the side of the paper cup, there is a ‘Rainforest Alliance’ logo. This logo “guarantees that the farms meet demanding, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABLE standards” (capitalisation as in original). It continues “workers are… given access to education and medical care…”

So the Rainforest Alliance requirements are more demanding than the social conscience of the world’s richest and, apparently, good country?

Quel surprise.

The NHS isn’t perfect, but it’s infinitely more humane than the US system. Infinitely. And any reform of the NHS must maintain that fundamental requirement that is fairness (and especially free at the point of use).

Regardless of how we decide to proceed with the application, it cannot be denied that it is exciting to see applications like this. Click the red star in the middle to see a list of documents including PDFs showing perspective mock-ups etc.

Exciting stuff.

By the way, if you think that demanding 1/3 of homes built by developers should be provided for social housing is wrong, tell your local Councillor. I think it’s wrong, but no-one’s ever told me that they think so too. Surely it increases the price of homes for those who actually work and want to buy one by a third?

Still, that’s enough of going against the Council’s policy…

I have noticed a lot of things change about me recently. A friend tells me, for example, that our tastebuds and so our tastes change every seven years. Whether or not this is true — and if it is whether it is definitely seven years for everyone — my tastes have definitely changed recently.

Last year I started to like apples. Earlier (maybe two years ago) I started to like cabbage and this Christmas, for the first time ever, I liked brussel sprouts.

And it’s not just food, last week I slept much less than normal (and didn’t feel tired). Come Thursday I decided I must just not be noticing the tiredness and so went to bed early. The result? I woke up at 4am on Friday morning feeling fully refreshed!

It’s also extended to politics and religion. On this site in the past I have been strongly against religion. I continue to be frightened by people who will do things in the name of God that I hope normal people would not do in the absence of His influence. But I can also feel sympathy for those people who do believe. I can feel what Dawkins has described — a feeling that God exists — which can be explained by biological means.

So, like all things, religion is not black and white. There are fundamentalist nutters at one extreme, a violent version of Richard Dawkins at the other and myself sitting nearer Richard Dawkins than Bin Laden, closer to the Dalai Lama than the Archbishop of Canterbury and closer to a vicar than a priest.

Why am I telling you this? Well, at almost regular intervals (perhaps the seven-year thing), I have come to see another aspect of life as grey rather than black, or as grey rather than white.

It’s a shame, with these newly discovered shades of grey, that we no longer have the diversity of political parties we once had. SDP, Liberals, Whigs, Radicals, Tories and Independents have now been replaced, to all intents and purposes by the Conservatives and Labour. And neither of these parties, for all their minor differences, reflects the opinion of more than (at a guess) 5% of the population. The so-called centre-ground, is actually the swing vote — a part of the population which has a particular opinion but has not bothered to make a firm decision about whether people should be taxed a lot or a little, and whether people should work hard or have a ‘right’ to the dole.

There’s another problem with the party system. I know Libertarians who would never vote UKIP or Tory even though they ought to be their natural home; and I know socialists who could never vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats because of other policies.

In France, as I was discussing with a colleague the other day, the president must be elected, eventually, by more than 50% of the population through run-offs resulting in just two candidates. But why couldn’t this work when electing a parliament too? It would guarantee a working majority for a particular party (which I believe is important) while not disenfranchising the 66%-ish who do not vote for the eventual winner in most English elections (assuming the FPTP system we currently have provides a reasonable impression of the intentions of the electorate; which is doesn’t).

Yesterday I missed the January planning meeting because of traffic on the A23 — a crash near Pyecombe which, according to Southern Counties Radio this morning, involved five cars. Hopefully everyone will be okay.

Apologies, then, to anyone who missed me or who might have relied upon my vote!

Surely this is an indication of the dire state of the transport infrastructure around Brighton. Sort it out please Government.

But the thing that has motivated me to post in this era of non-committed parties with illiberal policies where they should be liberal and liberal policies where they should be conservative, is this from the BBC: Tories plan ‘work for benefits’ .

As the person who sent me an email pointing out the story said “Finally, a Tory party we can be proud of?”

Bearing in mind that my comments here are before reading the full proposal, but it gave me goosebumps!

Update BBC’s Have Your Say is suffering from traffic. This could be for one of two reasons: People are angry and want to disagree; People are delighted and want to show their support for common sense at last.

You know what I think.