Boom bang-a-bang economics?

In 1969, the UK saw Lulu representing it in the Eurovision song contest with that well known piece, “Boom Bang-a-Bang”.  As contestants gear up for tonight’s annual music extravaganza in Dusseldorf, Germany, the Boom Bang-a-Bang could now be a term best associated with comparing the UK and EU Economies.

In April, figures from the Office for National Statistics suggested that growth in the UK in the first quarter of the year was just 0.5%, which served only to cancel out the 0.5% fall in output in the previous quarter. And  predictions by the Governor of the Bank of England , Mervyn Kings now suggest that annual growth will by 2.9% in 2 years’ time, compared with the 3.1% predicted just three months ago, at the same time he predicted inflation growing to 5% later this year.

Compare this with the recent news that growth across the Eurozone for the first quarter was 0.8%, fuelled by surprisingly good growth figures of 1.5% in Germany and 1% in France. Indeed, even bailed-out, debt laden Greece, constantly highlighted by Chancellor George Osborne as the country that the UK could become if it followed Labour’s policies saw higher growth than the UK at 0.8%.

Unsurprisingly, this has all be too much of an open goal for Labour, with Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls declaring: 

“Britain’s economy has gone from the economic fast lane to the slow lane. As our economy has flatlined with zero growth over the last six months, countries like France, Belgium, the Netherlands have overtaken us while Germany is powering ahead.

“All these major economies were hit by the global financial crisis and so have a big challenge to get their deficit down and they also face the same high world oil prices as us. But while they are now growing strongly, our recovery has been choked off.”

On Eurovision night therefore, the opposition’s message seems pretty clear – continental Europe is seeing the boom and the bang-a-bang is being felt in the UK.

For more on this ludicrous Eurovision metaphor to describe the European economy, have a look a BBC Chief Economic Correspondent, Hugh Pym’s report on last night’s Ten O’clock News.    

A Royal bounce down under?

As both the UK and the rest of the world prepare for Friday’s wedding of the year between “Wills and Kate” as they have come to be known, among those preparing themselves to attend will be Australia’s Governor General, Quentin Bryce and Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. As they do so, they will be well aware of new polling putting the number of Aussies in favour of ditching the monarchy as their head of state at a new, 17 year low.

Support for a Republic in Australia is at a 17 low, but does this represent a "Royal Bounce" down under?

The poll, carried out by Newspoll for the Australian newspaper found:   

• Overall support for a republic stood at 41%, compared to the pre-referendum peak of 51% in March 1994.
• 39% said they were against the idea of Australia becoming a republic, whilst one in five had no view either way.

Polling also revealed:

• Support for a republic was highest among those aged 35-49 and men were more likely to be in favour of abolishing Australia's monarchy than women.

But does this represent a Royal bounce down under ahead of the big day? Not necessarily as the survey further found that 48% of Australians would back a republic with Prince Charles on the throne and his wife Camilla as princess consort, while the proportion opposed fell to 34%. Prince William and his bride-to-be Kate Middleton were found to be more popular, with 45% of respondents saying they would be in favour of a republic if William became king, while 39% said they would be opposed.

Unsurprisingly, the figures sought to reignite the debate over the future of the country’s constitutional make up, with the pro and anti monarchy camps seeking to have their say. For the pro Royal, Australian Monarchist League, Philip Benwell responded:

“It's very, very unlikely that we will see a plebiscite (on a republic) in the foreseeable future.

"When you just had the queen (Elizabeth II) and Prince Charles, they're bot.

"Prince William also bridges the gap between Charles and Diana. The republicans in many ways have missed the boat."

The pro republican movement however were not so convinced by the poll, with Mike Keating, Chair of the Australian Republican Movement arguing on ABC Radio:

“The most reliable reporting and polling that we've had in the last 12 months or so says that somewhere between 60 per cent and 80 per cent of Australians want to pursue the issue of a republic."

For political leaders, whilst the issue of the country’s constitutional future has been an on/off subject, little of significance has been said following 1999’s referendum which saw the country vote against it becoming a republic by 55% to 45%.

Responding however, Prime Minister, Julia Gillard sought to strike a diplomatic note, whilst also making clear her belief that the country would become a republic at some stage in the future. Ahead of her visit to London, she explained:

“The Australian people have a variety of views about the future constitutional arrangements for our country.

"There are many republicans in Australia. There are also many Australians who want to see our continued ties to the monarchy.

"I think that will happen at some time, that we will make that decision to become a republic.

"But to date Australians have expressed their view and we haven't had a republic proposal accepted."

The news from Australia comes as polling for the Guardian in the UK found that 67% felt the monarchy was relevant to British life today, although just 37% reported being interested in Friday’s wedding with 46% saying they were not. 49% said they were more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding. 75% believed that the event will serve to cheer up Britain, not doubt music to the ears of the Government as they head into next months’ local and devolved elections. Interestingly however, 46% felt that the crown should pass directly to Prince William instead of his father, against 40% who disagreed. 63% meanwhile felt the UK would be worse off without the monarchy.  

Outlining the broad findings of the poll, Julian Glover explains:

“The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself.”

Good deeds are good, but....

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade."

These words, written in the book of 1 Peter 1 provide one of the clearest explanations of the Easter message, that God sent his only son, Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and rebellion against him. But by his ressurection through Jesus we have the hope of eternal life and the ability to once again form a relationship with God.

For Christians around the world, the Easter message is the most important time of year, a time to remember the centre of the gospal and the good news it brings. And it is for that reason that in a society in which talking openly and publically about your Christian faith can sometimes lead to accusations of being a bit wiered or slightly crazy, much of the media roll out the "big guns" for want of a better phrase from the established Church of England. And so it has been this Easter.

On Thursday, it was the turn of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowen Williams to use an appeareance on "Thought for the Day" on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme to call for laws to compel politicans to spend time each year helping the poor and needy.

On Friday, it was the turn of The Rt Rev John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford and Chair of the Church of England's Board of Education to urge CofE schools to allocate no more than 10% of school places o practising Anglicans so that the could better " serve the wider community."

And during a visit to Norfolk today, I learnt of an initiative being led by the Diocese of Norwich to use church spires as the focal points for new wifi signals to better support the roll out of high speed broadband to rural areas. Outlining the move, David Broom, Director of Operations for the Diocese remarked, "This is an exciting new venture for the Church and one which will help us to serve our local communities."

As an Evangelical Chrisitian, it is not that I am against reaching out to communities and doing good deeds. Indeed, I find it a laudable aim. Where I have concerns however is that good deeds alone do not explain the gospal. Whilst calling on people to serve others more is something we should all encourage, as Christians we should do so with a firm grounding in the bible, what it tells us and the hope it brings. My fear is that recent announcements and comments seem to have forgotten to explain to the world that good deeds don't earn us a place at God's side, but are a result of Jesus' commandment in John 13:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

And so, at this the holiest times of year for Christians, let those of use privileged enough to share our faith do so with wisdom, explaining the biblical purpose of good deeds. To do otherwise simply becomes a case of doing good deeds for the sake of it without properly sharing the hope that comes from knowing how and why we are saved by God.

Warnings of “carnage” to London Ambulance Service

After having been forced, to pause his controversial health reforms for a period of reflection, Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley is once again being forced to eat his words.

Following yesterday’s  assertion by the Royal College of Nursing that  half of all redundancies being faced by the NHS are likely to hit front line medical staff, the London Ambulance Service (LAS) has today announced a programme that will see 890 jobs lost from the service over the next five years as part of efforts to make savings of £53 million. To put that in some perspective, with a workforce of 5,000, almost 20% face job losses, with 560 jobs lost among what the London Ambulance Service itself calls “those responsible for direct patient care”.

The announcement comes despite repeated assurance from the Government that front line posts would be protected. Furthermore, the cuts will begin to bite during the Olympics, a period in which the need to respond to a possible mass casualty terrorist attack will be at its greatest.

Announcing the move, Peter Bradley, Chief Executive of the London Ambulance Service   explained:

“Unfortunately we are not immune to the financial pressures facing the NHS. This means all areas of our business will face closer scrutiny as we look for ways to make savings while improving the care we give to patients. But with nearly 80 per cent of our budget spent on staff costs it would be impossible to make the savings required without removing posts.”

Given the Government’s commitment within the  Coalition Agreement  (page 24) to protect health spending, today’s developments will heap yet more pressure on the Government and Andrew Lansley in particular as talk of protecting spending and front line services become increasingly unbelievable.

Speaking for the public sector union, UNISON, its regional organiser, Phil Thompson responded:

“This is being forced on the service by the Government. These cuts are so deep they may not heal. If allowed to be carried out they will put at risk the many Londoners who rely on the LAS every day. With demand escalating and nearly 1,000 fewer staff no one can now be sure of a safe service."

Geoff Martin meanwhile, Chairman of the lobby organisation, London Health Emergency was equally critical of the government, warning:

“These cuts will mean total carnage right at the heart of London's ambulance service. There is no question that lives will be put at risk as people dial 999 for an ambulance that just isn't there. This is the Con-Dem health cuts in the raw."

Andrew Lansley – the weakest link?

Watching David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Andrew Lansley giving their presentation at Frimley Park Hospital designed to hit the pause button on the coalition’s flagship Health Bill to allow for a time of reflection, I couldn’t help but me reminded of an episode of the Weakest Link as they lined up side by side behind their respective podiums. The question that kept going round my head was who is the weakest link?

I speak with no inside information, but merely a hunch that it is Lansley who will be sleeping less comfortably than either the PM or DPM.

Having been forced to announce the decision to the Commons on Monday, with no other cabinet minister present for support, the omens for Lansley do not look good.

In the Guardian, the signs are that Cameron is fast loosing confidence in his Health Secretary, with the Wintour and Watt blog explaining:

“In public the prime minister expresses support for the hapless minister. In private few are left in doubt that the minister has been placed on the naughty step or, in the case of Andrew Lansley, on the you-have-had-the-political-stuffing-knocked-out-of-you step.

“Cameron thinks that Lansley is guilty of a spectacular failure of communication. The prime minister believes that a year ago Lansley was rightly lauded as a highly respected – and long serving – shadow health secretary devoted to the NHS.

“A year later Cameron is exasperated by Lansley's failure to deliver a key message – that the NHS cannot stand still as it copes with an ageing population and a tight budget. He fears Lansley's failure to explain that basic message has created a space for opponents to accuse the government of planning a backdoor privatisation of the NHS, jeopardising years of hard work to prove the NHS is safe in Tory hands.”

Over at PoliticsHome, James Dwyer has made public what many in Westminster have been speculating on in private, namely that the current Chair of the Health Select Committee, and former Health Secretary, Stephen Dorrell is being tipped for a return to that post, no doubt confounded by his less than clear cut response on the  Daily Politics earlier in the week when challenged whether he was about to make a return to the cabinet. Given that Dorrell himself has called for the Government to “significantly change” its proposals within the bill, installing him as Health Secretary would provide the Government with the opportunity to give a visible sign that it was prepared to change in light of the criticism it has faced. It would also have the added advantage of the Health Secretary not being weakened, as Lansley would be, probably severely, if the ongoing period of review results in significant changes to his plans.  

And finally, its probably worth having a listen to this evening’s PM programme in which Lansley himself gave what can only be described as a lacklustre performance when pressed by Eddie Mair over whether it was time for him to consider his own position.  

We await to see if it will be a case of “Andrew Lansley, you are the weakest link, good bye.” I suspect that it is more likely than not.

April Fools – some highlights

April 1st – the day that media outlets across the country have a bit of fun at their viewers, listeners and reader’s expense by publishing the sorts of stories that make us all ask ourselves, that can’t be true, can it? Take for example the now infamous spaghetti on trees report by Richard Dimbleby in 1957.

If any of these prove to be true than I really will eat my hat, but here’s some highlights from today.

Over at the Guardian, in an editorial, the paper has been outlining its coverage of the royal wedding, telling its readers:

“Beginning today, the Guardian announces a raft of changes designed to ensure that our royal coverage is unrivalled by any other media organisation. We begin an unprecedented month-long, 24-hour royal wedding live blog, offering minute-by-minute coverage of the preparations. We will be recalling correspondents from some less newsworthy parts of the globe, such as north Africa and south-east Asia, so they can focus on palace matters instead. And we will shortly be making available to readers a range of attractive commemorative crockery.

“The marriage of a prince to a commoner – a true bridging of class divides, if ever there was one – represents the perfect moment for progressives to commit again to the promise of hereditary monarchy. Great philosophers, from Burke to Andrew Morton, have argued powerfully for the institution's value. In any case, it would be churlish to fight the tide of excitement and optimism currently flooding the nation. It is time to put away the cynicism, and get out the union jacks.”

At the Telegraph, all the excitement seems to centre around the marriage of Ed Miliband to his partner, Justice Thornton, with the paper’s Consumer Affairs Editor, Harry Wallop explaining:

           

“Labour party members have been urged to celebrate the forthcoming wedding of Ed Miliband and Justine Thornton with street parties, trifles and bunting, according to a secret memo seen by The Daily Telegraph.

“the email, which was sent to various Labour councillors, asks party members to mark in their diaries May 27th as a "red letter day", which should be enthusiastically celebrated.

“The email sent from Flora Lopi, a Labour Party official, who is understood to be one of Mr Miliband's closest advisers, said: "As you will now all be aware, Britain will be celebrating an event even more important than the Royal wedding in London on April 29, namely, the civil ceremony uniting Ed and Justine, on May 27.

"Labour members, let's make this a red letter day, when we can show to the world that we are truly the party of unity, family and fun. In the face of swingeing Con-Dem cuts, I would like all Labour councillors, PCCs and party members to organise a street party.

"I have enclosed a ten-point plan to ensure this event runs as smoothly as possible, including ideas for catering and merchandising opportunities to help raise funds for the Party.”

Meanwhile, the Today programme this morning had a look at the future of radio, with reporter, Nicola Stanbridge, looking at the development of 3D radio.

And finally, over at the magazine, “Inside Housing” it is being reported that Housing Minister, Grant Shapps is to release a charity version of The Clash’s ‘Should I stay or should I go?’ to publicise the government’s housing benefit reforms. The Minister has told the publication:

“The song poses a question that families on benefits who are paying extortionate rents should be asking themselves from today.

“If they go, there might be trouble, but if they stay it will be double.”

A week of history in Northern Ireland

This week, the Assembly at Stormont was formally dissolved ahead of May’s elections in a week full of history.

It was historic because it was the first time, since the Good Friday agreement that the Assembly has been able to complete a full term without accusations of spy rings and sectarian tensions causing direct, London rule to be re-introduced. As Speaker, William Hay so clearly concluded:

“This is the first devolved assembly in a generation to complete a full term and this is an achievement and something that members should be very proud of.

"It's a very historical achievement for politics in Northern Ireland."

It was historic as the UK Government published, for consultation its proposals to better support the Northern Ireland economy, including the possibility of devolving powers over corporation tax. It was perhaps a sign of the sheer progress made in Northern Ireland, that the leaders of all its political parties were united in support for the proposal. For many, it doesn’t take a long memory to remember a time when it would be impossible to get agreement between all parties on anything.

And it was historic as the two previously arch enemies, the DUP and Sinn Fein clearly showed that they had not just become colleagues, but friends.

Speaking as he stepped down from Stormont politics, that great giant of Northern Ireland, Iain Paisley spoke not of his opposition to Sinn Fein but of having “reconciled a lot of enemies.” And Martin McGuinness equally responded to Paisley’s retirement with the kind of tribute that made you want to pinch yourself to make sure that this was the same man who had previously been Paisley’s nemesis. He remarked:

“I thank him and his good wife Eileen. I regard them as huge friends of the peace process and I regard them as friends of mine.

"I have been very honoured not just to work with Dr Paisley, but with Peter Robinson through these momentous four years."

And so, although Northern Ireland continues to face major challenges, the end of this, the first full term of the Stormont Assembly since the Good Friday agreement has been momentous as politicians of all parties have been prepared to take tough, and sometimes unpopular decisions to reach the ultimate prize of peace.

Perhaps the most poignant word this week however came from Iain Paisley’s final contribution to the Assembly. Speaking of the many Presidents, Prime Minister’s, Secretaries of State and Taoiseach’s he had met, he explained:

           

“My message to them all was the same: Ulster would have stable government only if all parties, irrespective of our differences, signed up to supporting the rule of law, the institutions of the state and the police.

“I was, of course, told that that was impossible. I was told that republicans would never agree to that. I was told that it could not be, but I proceeded to advocate it, and, eventually, it has come to pass. It has come to pass because all of us were prepared to put our country before our political past, and that has been good for us all.”