The TaxPayers' Alliance - Burning our Money

Dependent Watchdog

"As the independent gas and electricity watchdog, our mission is simple: to get the best deal we can for energy consumers."

So says energywatch [sic]. And over the last 24 hours they have been sounding off mightily over the hike in British Gas prices. Indeed, Campaign Director Adam Scorer has just laid into Centrica for daring to increase prices while still in profit:

"Prices are going up because £992 million profit in six months isn't enough. British Gas customers, still reeling from 35 per cent price hikes, might have expected Centrica to be losing money. They will be staggered at the rude health of Centrica's half year profits. Customers will be outraged to learn that while they ponder how to make ends meet Centrica’s shareholders are enjoying an increase in their dividends."

Well, that's fair enough you say. Independent consumer watchdogs are quite entitled to put their case, even if it is little more than a left-wing anti-market rant.

Well yes.

Except that energywatch is not independent. It is a tax-funded quango which costs us £15m pa (2006-07 Report and Accounts). Its rants are entirely dependent on us taxpayers for their funding.

It gets better. In 2006-07, Campaign Director Adam Scorer got paid no less than £75,000 (including pension accrual). His boss Allan Assher got paid c £125,000 (including pension). Of our money.

Do you want to pay for this nonsense?

No, of course not.

That's another £15m pa saved.

(Let's hope George Osborne is keeping a note of all these cost cutting ideas).

Non-job of the week

The trend continues, with another drop in government jobs on offer this week.  Our non-job of the week comes from Lambeth:

“Enviro-Crime Enforcement Officer
£29,241 - £30,774 pa

You care about the environment… More than that, you want to achieve change: make this city a cleaner, greener safer place. That’s what we want. Come and join Lambeth Street Care in the fight against grime and environmental crime.

Lambeth is the fastest improving Council in London, having achieved a 3 star CPA rating. These posts are central to achieving our commitment towards improving and maintaining the quality of life enjoyed by residents across our diverse, vibrant multi-cultural borough.

If you share our concerns and objectives and believe you have the skills and temperament required to make a difference in this challenging and important role, this is your opportunity.

We currently have a vacancy for a high calibre individual who can demonstrate a clear understanding of the relevant environmental issues.

You’ll join an experienced team of enforcement officers, utilising a wide range of statutory powers to tackle environmental offences such as fly-tipping, littering and unlicensed street trading. An in-depth knowledge of the relevant legislative framework needs to be supported by experience of working in a similar enforcement related role.

For an application pack please call the Lambeth Recruitment Response line on 020 7926 7000 (24 hrs) quoting the appropriate reference, or request the pack by email from lambeth@wdad.co.uk CVs will not be considered.

Lambeth is committed to Safer Recruitment and aims for quality services and equal opportunities for all.”

If you liked Robocop, why not apply in Lambeth to become Envirocop.  Complete with a set of Council issue sandals, you can use ‘statutory powers’ to fine people for dropping crumbs or cigarette ends…

It’s sadly been noted over the months I’ve looked for these non-jobs that government seems to be more concerned with making more things ‘criminal’ rather than dealing with serious crime.  All I can say about this job is that it’s your money being used to appease soft-headed Greenies in the political class.  You think that’s a price worth paying?

British Energy - Another Giveaway?

Taxpayers heading for a second bad deal?

The imminent £11-12bn sale of British Energy is something taxpayers need to watch very closely, because we own 35% of the company. And our interests are in the hands of a panicky discredited government that is desperate for money.

Regular readers will recall that taxpayers have already suffered one bad deal over BE (see this blog). Back in 2002, the company virtually went bust, and was only saved by the government chucking in a large wad of our cash.

As the National Audit Office subsequently reported, the DTI not only bailed out the company- which nobody else would have done- but it then led a financial restructuring that left taxpayers holding a £5.3bn nuclear decommissioning liability, while the majority de-risked ownership stake was left with the original shareholders and creditors. It was a dismally naive Simple Shopper deal, only partially rescued by the subsequent sharp rise in energy prices which gave taxpayers a windfall additional share allocation (cf the abysmal sale of Qinetiq - see previous blogs eg here).

So here we are again. EDF is currently bidding to buy British Energy so it can acquire the sites and rights to build our new generation of nukes. And there are some BIG question marks.

For one thing, EDF is owned by A Foreign Power, and as Oxford's Professor Dieter Helm asks, "do we want to hand over our nuclear the British nuclear industry to the French government?" Yes, of course, Waterloo was a long time ago, these days we've got the Chunnel, we love their cheese, and we're all friends together. Marvellous. But does anyone think the French government would permit the same thing in reverse? It certainly needs discussing out in the open.

Second, British Energy is currently our largest independent electricity generator - ie the largest wholesale electricity supplier that is is not part of an integrated retail/generation company. And as today's report from the Commons Business and Enterprise Committee details, there are growing concerns about the competitiveness of the wholesale elecricity market, where the Big Six integrated firms (EDF, Npower/RWE, Centrica, Eon, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern) produce 55% of the output themselves.

If British Energy now disappears into EDF, EDF's output share goes up to 27%, and the Big Six controls three-quarters of our electricity generation. Which means that the residual wholesale market becomes little more than an illiquid rump, rather than the place where demand and supply meet to set the fair market price, like the textbooks say is supposed to happen.

Does that sound like a good idea for taxpaying consumers?

The Big Six vehemently deny any price collusion, but we do know their top executives meet together regularly, carrying with them "a laminated print-out" reminding them not to use language such as “stitch up the market”.

Ah, you say, surely we don't need to worry because we've got a regulator to safeguard us against any possible abuses. Well, yes, except that as the Commons Committee points out today, "Ofgem’s terms of reference suggest it may pay relatively little attention to the wholesale markets".

Now in truth, taxpayers should not want the government to own an electricity generator, and we support a sale. We're just worried that our fumbling government will be bounced into yet another giveaway, either in terms of the sale price, or in terms of the longer term erosion of competition in the wholesale electricity market. To summarise:

• EDF is currently the only bidder, RWE and others having reportedly declined to bid (Centrica may take a minority stake, but that's not a competitive bid)
• The government is desperate for cash
• The government is also desperate to get the new nukes built, having faffed around for a decade
• The government has a dire record on asset sales

In the circumstances, EDF has every incentive to play hardball. And this morning we hear that's precisely what they're doing. They're sticking at a price that's way below what the government and the BE Board thinks it's worth (reports suggest the gap is at least 10%), and they're offering precisely the same deal to taxpayers that we got back in 2002 - ie a further payment sometime in the future, conditional on future revenues.

It's called an "earn-out", and the FT Lex column is scathing:

"Earn-outs are normally seen in creative and knowledge-intensive industries such as technology and pharmaceuticals, where there may be genuine differences of opinion over the value of the intellectual capital the seller is bringing to the table. Here, there are hard (albeit ageing) assets in the form of eight nuclear plants, sites for a lot more, and a tangible trading history...

If a structure emerges as reported, it will reflect a cash-strapped Treasury’s determination to keep buyers onside... As long as an earn-out lets a value discrepancy stand between buyer and seller, both sides are forestalling the inevitable. As with the consumer credit bubble, somebody will win eventually and somebody will lose." (HTP Joan W)

Given that future earn-out revenues will depend principally on future energy prices, and given that energy prices are currently at an all-time peak, there are no prizes whatsoever for guessing who would be the loser.

£1.5 BILLION: THE TAX ON HOLIDAYS

Download the full report (PDF).

New research from the TaxPayers' Alliance reveals the true cost of taxes on holidays abroad. With hard-working people saving all year round for a well-deserved break, few of us are aware of just how much of our holiday money goes straight into the Treasury's coffers.

Most simple but important purchases made inside Britain before going on a holiday, such as clothes for adults or hair cuts for all the family, are subject to VAT, while travel insurance purchases are hit by Insurance Premium Tax and budget flights by Air Passenger Duty. As the summer holiday season draws near, new calculations by the TaxPayers’ Alliance reveal just how heavy a burden the taxman places on rest and relaxation. Click here for the full report (PDF).

Key findings:

• The total tax bill on Britons holidaying abroad is almost £1.5 billion, or over £30 for each of the 45 million holidays abroad taken by British residents each year (based on a representative basket of goods typically purchased). This is equivalent to the cost of a return flight to Europe for every holidaymaker.
• A family of four travelling to Florida this summer will face an average tax bill of over £200 on their flights and holiday purchases. That is equivalent to the cost of having to take an extra child along.

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“The credit crunch and soaring food and fuel costs are making it harder than ever for people to afford a well-deserved summer holiday abroad. Instead of hiking taxes on flying, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling should give us all a tax break.”

Tax charged on some examples of holiday essentials:

• Economy flight to Florida: £40.00
• Budget flight to Malaga: £10.00
• Budget family travel insurance: £4.23
• £20 bottle of aftershave/perfume: £2.98
• Hair cut: £2.23
• Summer dress from Primark: £1.79

These are only some examples of the holiday purchases used in our calculations - for a complete list please see the full report (PDF).

Non-job of the week

This week reveals a steady – and welcome – decline in public sector recruitment.  As you’ll see on the right, this is the second week that there are fewer jobs on offer in local government, saving you and me money. 

Sadly, there’s always one too many and you’ll see what I mean when you have a look at our non-job of the week.

Essex County Council have become a pain when it comes to squandering taxpayers’ money.  They’re very good at it.  During the last run of The Apprentice on the BBC, Essex CC announced they would give the runner up a job at Essex CC.  They didn’t say what the job would involve, but that they would be willing to spend taxpayers’ money on employing a ‘celebrity’ to do God knows what.  With a record like that it isn’t surprising to see this job advertised at Essex CC:

“Public Arts Officer
£17,100 to £25,000 pro rata

Tremendous opportunity exists for integrating Public Art into the structures and the functioning of new developments in Essex.

We have a longstanding commitment to the commissioning of public art as part of our Capital Development Programme. Our strategy is to improve the image of the County of Essex nationally and internationally, as an exciting, forward-looking and developing location.

We are looking for an organised and enthusiastic individual with excellent interpersonal skills to join the Public Art Team to implement this work.

You will administer, co-ordinate and deliver a range of public art projects funded from the ECC Capital programme. You will be working in a fast paced and creative environment, with a strong reputation in design.

You will be educated to first degree standard or equivalent; with a sound working knowledge and experience in the field of public art as an organiser and fundraiser of public art projects. You will also have experience of organising events and budget management skills.

The duties of this job require the postholder to travel throughout an operational area, therefore a valid driving licence and use of car is required unless the role can be undertaken effectively by other alternative transport arrangements.

For applicants with a disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act, the scope for reasonable adjustments will be explored with them as part of the selection process.

Contract: Fixed-term till 31 March 2010

22.2 hours per week

Closing date: 8 August 2008.

For informal enquiries, please contact Gavin Hodson on 01245 436553 or email gavin.hodson@essex.gov.uk”

Why doesn’t Essex CC invite Banksy to do up some of their buildings.  I know it would be a damn sight cheaper for the taxpayer.

Welfare Reform

One small step

On the face of it taxpayers should join the Tories in welcoming the welfare reforms announced yesterday by James Purnell. The headline reforms are:

• Incapacity benefit to be scrapped... well, actually, it's not being scrapped, it's just being renamed to the Employment and Support Allowance. But as we've blogged before, recipients will need to have tough new government "fit for work" assessments, with "the expectation" that "all but those with the most severe disabilities" will be required to get back to work
• Jobseekers Allowance - after a year out of work, the able-bodied unemployed will be handed over to private sector contractors, who will have to power to make them work on community or other projects. If still unemployed after two years, they will be put to full-time work on collecting litter etc.
• Migrants - including those from the EU - will not be eligible for incapacity benefit until they've worked here for at least 6 months
• Private sector workfare contractors - as recommended in the Freud Report, commercial and voluntary job brokers will be paid by results to get people back to work.

It all sounds a step in the right direction.

But as others have pointed out, headline announcements are one thing, action is quite another. And reading the Green Paper, we can see that several of the key changes are not even planned to come in for years (and safely past the next election).

Take, for example, those private sector workfare contractors, who right now are everyone's Great Idea. Unfortunately, as we've blogged before, there's an awful lot of devil in their detail (eg see here). For example, how will the contractors be remunerated? How much? How much should fees be back-loaded to incentivise sustained employment? How will the contracts avoid cream skimming (ie the private contractor simply picking the easy cases)? And how on earth will the Simple Shopper manage all that, and still hire competent suppliers (cf the SATs fiasco)?

So what does the Green Paper say?

"The contracts with providers will be underpinned by a new and innovative financing arrangement between the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury, which will allow the Department to directly capture the benefit savings, out of which providers will be paid, but offset by increased obligations." (para 3.27)

New and innovative financing arrangements? From the Shopper? Sounds very scary. No wonder the Green Paper says it will run a handful of pilot projects first, and that the scheme will not be "rolled out" nationally before 2013-14 at the earliest (para 3.28). A small detail that somehow didn't make it into the headlines.

And remember: all the billions that Labour has already spent on workfare - its New Deal programmes - have cost taxpayers more than we've saved in lower benefits payments and higher tax receipts. Yes that's right - they've actually cost us more money than we were spending already (see this blog on the Public Accounts Committee probe).

The redoubtable Frank Field is unimpressed:

"The first part of any serious reform should have been to create a single rate of benefit for all claimants of working age, thus taking away the perverse incentive to join the ranks of the officially long-term sick. Claimants with a disability would still be able to claim the disability living allowance - which all disabled people can receive, regardless of whether they are in work or not."

Spot on: as always, follow the money, especially when it comes to personal incentives. As for those new and supposedly tougher medical tests for getting onto IB, Field says:

"The Government may think that its new test is on a par with the Enigma Codes, but past experience shows that the best schemes that the Department for Work and Pensions can devise are quickly broken by groups of highly talented code-breaking claimants."

So the overall score?

Purnell has certainly moved in the right direction (and has got the headlines to prove it). But the details are still flakey, and what he's not done is to copy the highly successful US innovations in time limiting benefits. Yesterday a BBC reporter opined that was because UK public opinion is softer than US public opinion, and we would never condone such harsh measures.

To which we say, it's never been offered.

PS There's little doubt that our existing benefits system is widely abused. It's even spawned a whole new service industry: just last week we learned of website Benefits and Work which for £95 reportedly gives advice on "how to milk the benefits system. Tips include making sure walking sticks look well used and ensuring people arrive at benefits hearings in a taxi, so it looks like they are too unwell to take the bus". Mind you, the DWP's own Jobcentres do a pretty good job on that score. An acquaintance of your correspondent's unexpectedly found herself back in the job market in her mid-fifties. She naturally went to the local Jobcentre and, while they had absolutely nothing in terms of suitable work, they were able to get her some superb advice on milking the benefits system. She was so shocked at just how much she could get, she marched straight out and found herself a job within a couple of days.

The Money Belongs To Us

Fiscal Götterdämmerung - but the fat lady hasn't quite sung yet

As we've noted more than once, back on the doorsteps in 2005 the proposition that tax was too high just didn't land. You couldn't give it away. In those dark days, the tax and spend consensus seemed all-powerful, especially once David Cameron had taken charge of the Tories. The supporters of lower tax and smaller government gritted their teeth for a long hard slog, with nothing to offer but blood sweat and tears.

And then, wow! Just three short years later, we've suddenly burst into the sunlight. That all-powerful consensus seems to have crumbled at the first serious assault. The tax and spend game's up, and politicos of all colours are running for cover.

Last week we had the high tax Lib Dems promising tax cuts - tax cuts! - and on Saturday Chancellor Darling told us:

"There are a lot of people in this country who feel they work hard, they make their contribution and they’re feeling squeezed. People will accept that they have got to pay for the schools for their children and for the hospitals in case they get ill, but they want to make sure the Government is fair about taxation. Every Chancellor has to be very conscious that there is a balance to be struck between how much you can spend and how much people will say, ‘OK if you’ ve got another pound to spend remember me as well’.”

Ah, well... hmm... OK, maybe the battle's not quite over. Maybe the fat lady hasn't quite sung yet. "Fair about taxation" doesn't exactly sound like the clarion for lower taxes.

And just note the way Darling talks about whose money he's spending. Do taxpayers really say to him "if you’ ve got another pound to spend remember me as well"? If they do, they need some serious re-education. These aren't Darling's pounds to spend, they're OURS. Every single penny he spends, he's taken from us, the people who've earned it. He's the one who should be asking us for money, not the other way round. Is that so hard to understand?

If so, may we suggest repeating to yourself 500 times:

THE MONEY BELONGS TO US!

IT'S OUR MONEY!

And where's Mr Cameron on this? Last week he talked depressingly of the possible need to increase taxes when he gets in.

He may be right. There is a suspicion that lame duck Labour will go for fiscal Götterdämmerung between now and 2010, in a last desperate bid to cling on. The carnage will be stomach churning, and not for the first time a Tory government will have to clear up.

But the short-term need to clear up the immediate mess should not detract us from asking for more detail on Mr Osborne's longer-term fiscal rules. It's good news that they'll be independently monitored, but "sharing the proceeds of growth" remains far too vague - especially in a world where growth may be much harder to come by.

PS That Lib Dem pledge to cut taxes? It's contingent on finding £20bn of "efficiency savings" - ie it's to be funded painlessly so far as most taxpayers are concerned. Sadly, experience in the real Yes Minister world, tells us such "efficiency savings" never ever materialise. As regular readers will know, the massively hyped Gershon exercise turned into an expensive joke, which actually increased spending in some areas. The only sure way of making savings is to close down activities altogether (eg the useless Regional Development Agencies, or the equally useless British Council... there, we've just saved £3bn pa).

Non-job of the week

Today 600,000 local government workers go on strike.  It’s quite an apt day seeing as we publish the non-job of the week.  As you’ll see from the bar on the right, there’s fewer jobs on offer this week, but still it's a staggering to see the public sector recruiting at such a rate given these tough economic times.

One thing to note before we unveil the non-job of the week is to issue some clarification over the ‘none specified’ salary category.  It’s come to my notice that Councils are beginning to advertise for Chief Executives, and other well known high earners, without disclosing the salary on offer.  For instance in this week’s ‘none specified’ category there are a smattering directorships at local councils, heads of service and other positions that we know offer six figure salaries, but the actual remuneration isn’t disclosed.  It’s something to bear in mind when looking at the data.

Now to the main event – the non-job of the week.  This week’s non-job comes from Oldham Council.  Oldham Council was one of the few in the UK to cut its Council Tax last year, but only by 0.8% (how generous of them).  The point I want to make with this non-job is that, if you’re going to cut Council Tax by a fraction of a percent, there’s scope for further cuts if you erase the non-jobbers from the Town Halls.  From Oldham Council:

“Principal Officer (Communities)
£32,436 - £34,991

To lead work to develop a strong voluntary, community and faith sector in Oldham, and to strengthen mechanisms for engagement of communities with the Council and other organisations, and interaction within and between communities. To support the Council’s work in building community cohesion and developing approaches neighbourhood management.

You can find the rest of the job description here.”

These backroom non-jobbers don’t clean the bins, sweep the streets or keep us safe, so what service is there that taxpayers are involuntarily funding?  They’re there to appease the politically correct, the do-gooders who believe government is the miraculous solution to all our woes.  In the good times, the political classes saw enough spare cash – and public indifference – to splash out on these jobs in local government.  Now we’re all feeling the pinch, these jobs are an extravagance, one we can ill afford.  Even though Oldham Council cut its tax, it clearly could have gone further had it not had to bankroll the non-jobbers clogging Town Halls.

Non-job of the week

A new feature to the non-job of the week – which you can see on the right – is that I’ll be listing the number of jobs and salary bands each week so you can see the scale of jobs advertised for local and central government that all come out of the taxpayer purse.  Hopefully it will put the problem into perspective. 

In 2009 local government in certain areas of the country will be transformed.  Some will see new super-councils, with county councils becoming unitary councils and the abolition of smaller districts.  What I’ve also started to notice is, unsurprisingly, these new councils are seeking new staff, at a whopping great cost to the taxpayer.  You’ll know that each year we produce a Town Hall Rich List, detailing the officials earning over £100,000 in each Council.  These new councils will undoubtedly make the list twice as long, and you’ll see why with these jobs from the new Central Bedfordshire Council:

“Director of Children, Families and Learning; Director of Adults, Health and Housing; Director of Corporate Resources

Central Bedfordshire Council

All jobs up to £140k

Our journey's just begun

Bedfordshire is changing. Formerly run by a single county council, from 2009 it will be under the stewardship of two new, all-purpose unitary councils - Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council. Together, they're embarking on a new journey - one that will bring tangible improvements to services and substantial housing and population growth. To spearhead this exciting transformation, we're looking to fill the following senior roles.

All roles require relevant, senior level public sector experience.

For further information and details on how to apply for all posts, please visit http://www.resourcingmicrosites.com/ourjourneysjustbegun”

Almost half-a-million pounds for only 3 jobs that you’re paying for.  Astonishing.

THE COST OF BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT

With the by-election in Haltemprice and Howden scheduled for 10 July, civil liberties and the way in which the Government is tackling the terrorist threat are central issues.  Politicians on both sides of the debate have argued that their policies best represent the interests of taxpayers.  Whatever one’s views on the merits of 42 days’ detention, where do the interests of taxpayers really lie?  This research note analyses the cost and effectiveness of the different measures the Government has used to combat the terrorist threat to Britain, which some would argue have amounted to a new “Big Brother Government”.  The key findings of the report are:

Download the full report (PDF)

The total cost of Big Brother Government is almost £20 billion (not an annual cost). This works out at almost £800 per household.  This includes spending on the following measures:

Despite the enormous cost of these measures, the Government has been soft on the preachers of hate and other extremists who pose a real threat to the safety of British citizens:

• Abu Hamza, despite being convicted of a number of charges in the UK in 2006, has still not been deported to the US, who first requested extradition in 2004 on terror charges.  The total cost to taxpayers to date of welfare benefits, council housing, NHS treatment, trials, legal appeals and incarceration is £2.75 million. 
• Abu Qatada, a preacher who has openly advocated the murder of non-Muslims and who is known as Osama Bin Laden’s “right-hand man” in Europe, has not been deported to Jordan to face terror charges because of human rights legislation.  The total cost to taxpayers to date of welfare benefits, incarceration, legal appeals and police monitoring is almost £1.5 million.

Unfortunately Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada are not isolated examples of the Government’s failure to deal effectively with extremists.  This report gives details of a number of similar cases, together with the costs to taxpayers, which total over £5 million.

A real boost to counter-terrorism efforts could be made by spending a fraction of the £20 billion currently spent on Big Brother Government on schemes that would have real, tangible benefits at little or no cost to taxpayers:

• Introduce a national border police force that would record when people enter and leave the country.  The Government has estimated that it would cost £104 million a year to provide 24-hour cover at all ports of entry to the UK.
• Replace CCTV with improved street lighting.  This could be funded entirely from the savings made by reducing the number of CCTV cameras.
• Allow intercept evidence in court.  This would represent a negligible cost. 
• Better enforce existing legislation.  This would also be a negligible cost.
• Pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights.  This would not represent an extra burden on the taxpayer.
• Ban Hizb ut Tahrir.  The Government itself has promised to do this, but has so far failed to carry it out.

Glyn Gaskarth, Policy Analyst for the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“The Government’s £20 billion Big Brother measures are a costly way of making us less free but no more secure.  The Government should target the real extremists rather than eroding the civil liberties of ordinary, law-abiding people, and in the process, wasting billions of pounds of our money.”

Queen's Pawn Disobeys Orders

All pieces must obey my orders!

For someone educated at an expensive private school, and the universities of Oxford and Harvard, Ed Balls is a bit of let-down. With a top-flight education like that you'd sort of hope that somewhere along the line he'd have twigged that the real world is slightly more complex than a game of chess. After all, his subject was economics, one of whose towering giants wrote:

"The man of system is apt to be very wise in his own conceit, and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests or the strong prejudices which may oppose it: he seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board; he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it".

Maybe Mr Balls reckoned a 200 year old text would offer nothing to a man steeped in the very latest white-hot techniques of post-modernist endogenous tractor production.

Today he's throwing a fit about the way those idiot state school teachers have chosen to implement the Commissariat's SATs tests. He's amazed and appalled that schools are giving children and parents advance notice of the tests:

“I cannot believe they are doing that. They should not be doing that. The best head teachers will ensure that no six or seven-year-old knows they are doing SATs. If you are telling pupils in Year 2 that they are doing SATs then that’s the wrong thing. You should not be stressing the children."

Where has he been? He seems to imagine state mandated SATs are about the children.

They're not. They're about command and control from the top. And they're about schools and teachers finding coping strategies: the Commissars' production targets must be met at all costs. At all costs!

As we've blogged many times (eg here and here), for teachers and schools, SATs are "high stakes tests". They and all the other key stage tests and exams are The Big Measuring Stick with which underperforming schools know they will get beaten. Everything else becomes secondary. You bet they take them seriously.

Which is why schools teach to the test, why they practise "triage" (focusing all their resources on the kids just below the pass mark who can hopefully be tipped over), and why they obviously tell parents the date of the tests so they can get the kids properly rested, breakfasted, and generally gee'd up.

Mr Balls inhabits a fantasy world in which he and his fellow grandmasters consider all known facts and move the chess pieces accordingly. The pieces do exactly as they're told, because, you see, they have no minds of their own. There will be no unintended consequences.

We have another excellent example of this nonsense today. As we know, the Commissars long ago decided the police were racist, homophobic, and far too harsh. So they imposed new requirements on police managers and gave new rights to the rank and file.

Result? Police sergeants have stopped enforcing discipline on their PCs because they're worried about being accused of bullying. A chief superintendent says:

"The sergeants do not have the necessary fibre to challenge the constables. This is due to the culture of counter-bullying, where constables who are challenged take a grievance out against the sergeant who challenged them, stating they have been bullied in the workplace."

A sergeant complains: "I am fed up with the amount of times I have to justify myself to PCs when I've given them a lawful order."

Of course, we don't know whether the counter-bullying rules are actually causing a problem among useless bolshie PCs, or it's just that they give useless scardy-cat sergeants something to shelter behind while not doing their jobs properly. But whatever, those unintended consequences have well and truly crocked the cops (and this is on top of all that box-ticking paperwork we hear so much about).

Other examples? Where do we start? Ending child poverty by paying single teenage girls to have kids, promoting dental health by paying NHS dentists not to carry out treatments, promoting quality family health services by paying GPs not to open their surgeries, increasing the number of graduates by shredding exam standards... no, I can't go on.

PS The Commissars are really going for Doctor Crippen and his pals. This morning Health Minister Ben Bradshaw tells us GPs are operating a "gentlemens' agreement" whereby they won't compete for each other's customers. But surely, we say, surely under our brilliant fit-for-purpose GPs payment system, GPs have a strong financial incentive to compete for new customers. Ah, no. GPs get a guaranteed minumum income from the NHS whether or not they have lots of patients. According to Bradshaw, there's at least one GP practice that gets paid a good income for having just 2 patients. So who on earth cooked up such a crackpot system in the first place?