Dear Editor ,

Doubtless hundreds of Echo readers will have, like
hundreds of thousands of others across the country, epressed anger and
dismay at the announcement by EDF Energy that they are increasing
energy prices by 10.7%.
By way of explanation EDF argue that wholesale costs
have gone up by 4% and that they are having to provide free insulation
etc for may homes. They also contest the rise is a result of the
government forcing them to subsidize renewable energy.
Considering the numbers, 4% of a wholesale unit
price will, I am sure, be signficantly less than 4% of a retail unit
price. The energy saving assistance EDF and friends are supposed to be
providing plainly is not free if the consumer ultimately covers their
costs, so why are we forced to acccept such unreasonable increases?
The attitude towards customers of the energy
companies is a perfect example of why profit seeking private companies
have no place in public infrastructue and services. Privatization does
not do exactly what it says on the tin! Competition, efficiency and
lower prices are not what we now reap as a result of selling off
assets which took years and billions of pounds of taxpayers money to
develop. The inescapable fact is, these companies exist to make profit
for shareholders and institutionalised investors who then take that
profit out of the real economy to be hoarded abroad, after paying
minimal if any tax on it! As far as their customers are concerned, the
mantra is simple...if you can afford it, you can have it!
Had electricity, oil and gas remained in the public
sector, profits could have been enjoyed by us all, keeping prices down
and allowing a level of investment in renewable energy and energy
saving that would benefit all both in the present and for generations
to come.
Our government in response to the news, and
typically reluctant to leap to the defence of the electorate, meekly
calls the rise "disappointing". Mr Cameron would have us believe that
he is our champion as he calls for simplified and automatic cheapest
tarrif defaults. All well and good Prime Minister but that's cold
comfort to the low paid, pensioner, disabled customers whose lowest
tarrif bill informs them the price just went up another 10%!

Obesity in children , response to a local initiative

Dear Editor,

Your article concerning fast food and the increasing numbers of children (Echo 20-26th Sept) who are considered to be clinically obese or overweight should be of concern to the overwhelming majority of readers. In your article Cllr Chris Brewis disparagingly berates parents as "child abusers" for taking them to such outlets. His remarks demonstrate an understanding of the underlying causes of obesity in our society that lacks both knowledge and depth. Doubtless some ingredients do contribute to acts of anti-social behaviour, and teaching our children domestic science skills would improve their understanding of nutritious food and a healthier lifestyle but subjecting children to "weigh-ins" is draconian, counter productive and a poor use of resources.

Another contributor, Wayne Casement, made the point that "We live in a fast paced world now and it's the way life is" and it is our way of life now that Cllr Brewis would do well to investigate further. I make 3 points for consideration:

In our consumer based, advertisement-driven society we are constantly being sold "lifestyle choices", the underlying message being that to obtain social status one has to own this or that, drink this coffee that soft drink, shop there, buy that phone, the list is endless. Well for those of us who want but can't have those lifestyle choices, there's the opportunity to join in, treat yourself and supress the disappointment by eating fast foods that deliver the feel good factor. After all, it's fairly cheap, some might even argue it tastes good. It is this sense of belonging that marketing exploits and sells. Combined with certain ingredients in the food itself, for regular consumers the result, however brief, is their "happiness hit" and kids who can share in an exclusive "lifestyle" just like those in the adverts.

My second point is that society needs to readjust to accomodate what it means to be a human being. There will always be exceptions but as a rule human beings are social creatures. We thrive on love and relationships and interactions with others that include being valued and respected.

Obesity used to be the rich man's disorder, not so anymore. We live in a society where people are judged by what they own as opposed to what they do, so-called celebrities excepted. With many families, constrained by stagnating wages, battling the constant economic pressures of a consumer based society, junk, fast or comfort food, call it what you will, is increasingly relied on as a coping mechanism.

Thirdly, since it rests with the councils to allow such outlets to operate, surely it is within their power to limit the number of those that do so? Rather than directing unhelpful vitriole at parents, Cllr Brewis might achieve more success, by encouraging fellow councillors to act to prevent our shopping centres and high streets offering little more to citizens than an array of saturated fats supplied in various guises.

I base my arguments on a widely researched body of evidence that is gaining increasing support both nationally and internationally. Life doesn't have to be this way. Frankly, it's high time we moved towards a society that embraces and nutures as many of us as possible instead of one in which a few thrive whilst most survive.

Housing benefits

Dear Editor,

               David Cameron proposes scrapping housing benefit for under
25's. He says he wants to discourage the feeling of entitlement and a
"something for nothing culture". Our Prime Minister shows he has neither
compassion for those affected, nor understanding of the consequences of his
economic policies.
               Housing and other benefits aren't "entitlements", they are
first aid! Proof is available in stone that wealth inequalty is increasing.
The wealthiest get richer whilst the wages of the majority have stagnated
for years. Nobody working full time should need benefits and if social
housing programmes hadn't been scrapped, few would be at the mercy of
unscrupulous landlords.
               The government have imposed austerity measures insisting that
there is no alternative to the cuts. Yet the head of the "millionaire's
cabinet" and his chancellor have made it easier for the wealthiest to avoid
taxes, for corporations to evade taxes and amass even greater profit, and
for the financial sector to walk away from the damage it has caused without
penalty or regulatory reform.
               Our country continues to follow an economic model which rewards
the wealthiest by focussing on what the financial sector refers to as
"shareholder value".
Companies must perform to provide profit for shareholders, the
overwhelming majority of
whom, take that profit and move onto the next "investment" demanding short
term dividends which are achieved through job losses, low wages and more
difficult working conditions.
               Through regulation of such predatory activity, government
must support business to enable it to refocus on stakeholder value whereby
companies are able act in a manner which consider not just shareholders but
employers, employees, suppliers, customers, the community and
environment in which it
operates.
               Shareholders must be told that they can no longer contribute
nothing of substance and demand change for the sake of a quick profit. They
are not entitled to destroy jobs, families and communities in order to
swell their offshore accounts. The real wealth of this country is created
by those who live, earn and spend it here. Low wages and fewer jobs means less
tax paid, less spending, less growth, less profit !
              If there is a "something for nothing culture", it is the
preserve of the wealthy.

High stakes chess, round 1

          Interesting times in the world of politics at the moment. Those of us who protest the injustice of tax evasion and avoidance seem to have found ourselves with a most unlikely ally in the proprietor of The Sun and The Times, namely one Mr Rupert Murdoch. Whilst he doubtless expects to curry no favour with those of us who expect tax dodgers to pay up, through News International, the man from the land down under is out for revenge.
          The Murdochs are big corporate players, unused to being humiliated at the hands of politicians they used to manipulate like marionettes. So often courted by successive Prime Ministers in their quests for high office, Murdoch, summoned to the Leveson Inquiry, was abandoned by his puppets to answer questions about his empire, family members and employees culminating in a private meeting with the family of Milly Dowler and a statement of regret read out in front of the press. Mr Murdoch has chosen his weapon well, tax avoidance will have the stamina of M.P's expenses thrice over and his quarry are upto their necks in it. Pawn Jimmy Carr found himself in the limelight as Murdoch's opening move. David Cameron, maybe thinking he was one step ahead of RM looked to block condemning the comedian's apparent greed. In The Sun an editorial piece pointed the finger of blame at politicians unwilling to address the issue and so the clocks are running. Already the Prime Minister has, having declared tax avoidance schemes morally reprehensible, faltered having back tracked on his initial call for the tax affairs of his ministers to be made public. A round the world cruise, let alone parliament's summer holidays won't be long enough for this one to die down.

My reply to a small business representative in local pressto

Dear Editor

                 I was concerned to read the first person article by Mr Michael Self in the Echo 7/6 - 13/6. Small business has a massive part to play in the economic recovery and  growth of our country yet his views are utterly at odds with evidence which now stares us all in the face. Mr Self argues initially that the only way to repair the situation"...was to slash government spending and increase taxation."

                 In following paragraphs he concedes that this "tough medicine" has not worked before advocating further cuts and a lowering of taxes.

                 The government introduced the latter, cutting the 50p rate for instance, but only to the benefit of the wealthiest in society. Instituting a financial transaction tax, wholly justified, and increasing taxation would have helped, if tax increases had been deemed necessary after a concerted effort to collect it from those who methodically evade and avoid paying their share year after year.

                 The cuts the coalition have forced upon us have seen public services and a variety of benefits cut including child tax and working tax credits. If employers paid reasonable wages in the first place such tax credits would be unnecessary. Despite this borrowing, as Mr Self rightly states, has actually gone up not down.

                 Mr Self, quite justifiably, berates the government for money created through quantitative easing being handed to those banks, who, when they do agree to lend, do so with high interest rates attached. With Mr Osbourne announcing a further cash injection, would it not be more helpful to cut out the middleman and lend direct to small businesses with a nominal interest charge? This will not happen of course because, as Mr Self and others know, successive governments since Mrs Thatcher first entered Downing St have all pursued economic policies which favour the financial sector over manufacturing.

                 Mr Self's assertion that economic stimulation will be aided by creating a more "...flexible labour force.." beggars belief. Whilst I would agree some aspects of employment law could do with an injection of common sense, the notion that removing employee protections will help small businesses thrive is a nonsense. A low paid, timid, through lack of security, workforce bereft of loyalty commitment and drive, because that's the kind of workforce Mr Self and his kind will create, does not help develop a successful business. One might assume that Mr Self represents businesses which rely solely on unskilled labour since it would be senseless to invest in training a "throwaway" labour force which has no interest in the success of its employers. Furthermore, does he really believe that workers, constantly in fear of losing their jobs are going to spend what little disposable income they will have left over on expensive goods which may require loans or credit to finance? And who will extend credit to a worker with little or no job security? If our fast moving consumer based economy is to help any business grow, it must have a ready supply of people with money to spend! 

                 Respectfully I modify the quote Mr Self both opened and closed his piece with and hope that he will perhaps reflect that in fact, "It's the economic model stupid."

My Green Party

         It's a stressful game is politics and manys the time I curse myself for getting involved. It would be so much easier to ignore what's going on around me and concentrate on favoured pastimes in my down time. Heaven knows, as an NHS employee working for a trust hell bent on meltdown I need some respite!Trouble is, the more I've learnt about the causes and consequences of where our society is at, the less inclined I am to bury my head.
       So here I am, frustrated by intransigence, angry at injustice and motivated against greed. Despite this I have become determined and optimistic for two good reasons and one for which I have high hopes.
       The first explains the why. My 8 year old daughter, pure and simple. I must contribute to ensuring I leave her a safe sustainable and just society to live in. It's not enough to help her develop life skills and provide funds to aid her education. I have learnt that our neoliberal consumer driven economy is causing far more harm than good. As the wealth inequality gap grows and resources are plundered mercilessly in pursuit of a non existent growth driven utopia constantly moved out of reach by the advertisers of dissatisfaction, all of us suffer.
        The second reason is the one that gives me determination and optimism. Understanding causes and consequences is one part of the equation, the other is recognizing that there is a solution. Logical rational  reforms of the banking and tax systems. Implementation of an economic model that supports the development of renewable energy sources and moves to curtail the influence of consumerism over our lives.
         As for high hopes, I've pinned mine to the mast of the Green Party flagpole. I've read the manifesto online and was encouraged to find that they are a party I can align myself with. I also believe that, as much as I applaud, support and respect the work of certain pressure groups economists and political commentators, I am certain of one thing. Truly lasting change that will serve all in society will not be achieved from the fringes of the political system. There needs to be a cultural change in society which can only be led and driven from a position of power. This isn't to suggest we need a dictatorship, far from it. What's required is a government with the strength of character to implement reforms that create possibilities. Possibilities for us all to prosper, to be involved in society and to feel equally valued. Do that and the British people will, I believe, start making choices that will lead to a safer more sustainable society less addicted to the illusion of consumerism.
        But my optimism has to be matched, and here I have concerns. Last week, the latest Yougov poll was released and the results weren't encouraging. Now I don't know how The Green Party stands currently with the electorate but if that poll was accurate, we have a mountain to climb because we weren't even mentioned! UKIP sat 4th with 8%. Whatever the excuses are for voter apathy, we aren't even getting our message across to those who do care enough to vote.The Green Party isn't here waiting for its chance to play it's version of  consumer led capitalism. I hope we are here to lead change and reform because we understand that the earth's resources cannot sustain our current rate of exploitation. We are here to address the problems of climate change because, plainly, nobody else will despite time and opportunities running out. We are here to encourage the electorate, for the sake of us all, to make independent choices to reject consumerism and the laissez-faire approach of the markets. The Green Party's members do care but must become more assertive. We need to get loud and get involved everywhere, making our position known. There are several million voters who need to know we are here, who are starved of an alternative but aren't yet aware of what is possible. There are dozens of political pressure groups whose support we could welcome. They have goals which have a kinship with our own. Not to reach out to them and support to their protests will be a wasted opportunity. The next two general elections will make or break our society. For the sake of our children I'll do my level best to help it be the former !
   

Kensal Library closure

        Yesterday for me was a coalition landmark and a day of reaffirmation. Opening a tweet from UKUncut, I learnt that council workers accompanied by police, though nowadays they are employed more as government forces than officers of the law, proceeded at 2am to return to the Kensal library and empty it of all remaining books.
         The Deputy Prime Minister, a title worth less every day, Nick Clegg, a man worth less every day speaks of supporting social mobility one day and being subjected to " bullying" the next. Indeed sir ?? , well poor little you! Removing avenues of learning, support and information from the less well off in our society hardly encourages opportunities for social mobility. Evidence has shown, it does exactly the reverse. No wonder your leader, for Mr Cameron isn't ours, he's just a pillaging stooge of the corporate elite taking advantage of his position, wisely stays quiet on the subject. He plainly has no time for such fanciful ideas as social mobility, better that the public hear lame baseless explanations from Clegg, the fall guy, the meek mouthpiece of mediation.
         This after a weekend when UK uncutters and other anti-cuts activists in several towns and cities across the country held Great British Street parties, peacefully protesting against the continued slashing of the austerity axe. The Sheffield event, which all reports say passed off peacefully, was held outside Mr Clegg's current constituency home. Come the following day a disgruntled Mr Clegg bleated to the press about unfairness and bullying tactics. Indeed sir ??, well poor you. In fact, how bloody dare you complain, what about the tens, no , hundreds of thousands of children you are pushing into poverty? What about the disabled people who are being  assessed as fit to work when quite clearly they are not? What about all the young unemployed and all those being forced to work for their benefits for companies that rake in profits quarter after quarter? If you want to know about bullying Mr Clegg, talk to some of the people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by policies that you have meekly stood by and watched wreak havoc in your leader's Big bloody Society. Guilt by association in this case is an inescapable fact. You, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, have supported the implementation of these austerity measures which affect those most blameless whilst the guilty walk free with not punishment but encouragement.
          Forget red,blue, yellow has destroyed itself !,  left right or any other convenient label, the only two groups that will count are the have everythings and the have nothings!
          What is happening now in our country will have consequences for future generations which is why thousands of British citizens are angry. We refuse to have our children and love ones suffer the coalition"dream", because in truth this is all about neoliberal economics isn't it, and we will not go away.
         

Worldwide Poverty

Is it any wonder people are getting more and more angry at global financial injustice . Our Prime Minister David Cameron would rather see children die in 3rd world countries, our elderly and special needs children suffer at home than risk offending the corporate elites who take far more from society than they ver give. Please take a moment to take a look at this worldwide map. It;s nothing but pure greed that makes this situation a reality :

http://t.co/bHlm0Ww0

Cameron, a "World Leader"

 20th May 2012     

 David Cameron, our illustrious "world leader" Prime Minister flies off to hob nob with the rest of the ineffectual G8 club in America. The bankers and financial gamblers who are wholly responsible for the lion's share of our deficit can rest easy knowing that, in their corner sits an ally who will do everything he can to help them avoid having to contribute a single penny, euro, cent or yen to deficit reduction. Far easier for him to turn his back on the British people, the hard working taxpayers and those for whom our welfare state proudly struggles to take care of than take the "tough choice" and demand the bankers et al contribute just a fraction of their immense wealth!

      Public services are being systematically starved of funding and charities are being crippled deliberately. Mr Osbourne tightens the purse strings whilst thoroughly cruel policies are being implemented by the likes of Andrew Lansley and Ian Duncan Smith.

      Our public services are being bankrupted to the point where they become ineffectual to those who need them. It will be at that point when a bright new dawn shall be promised and public services will be opened up to private business because, we will be assured, they can ensure the survival of those services. This will happen, and remember, private business is in it for profit for it's shareholders and its shareholders alone despite what spin it might feed the public. It's worth pointing out that, as a result of the introduction of Private Finance Initiatives under Labour which were supposed to provide better services cheaper as in " good value for taxpayers money" , British Taxpayers are forking out £275m a year in interest payments to those PFI agreements. We simply must not let this happen!

 Andrew Lansley, Secretary of State for Health, has this week yet again , despite being directed by the courts, refused to release the findings of The NHS  Risk Register. Why?, because, he says in spite of his and this government's commitment to transparency, the electorate should be denied access to all the evidence because we might misinterpret the words used.

      Anyone with an ounce of grey matter should be outraged. The Secretary of State not only ignores the law, he deliberately prevents evidence being brought into any open debate. It would seem reasonable therefore to assume that he knows his reforms are detrimental to the public good. The coalition have no mandate to break up our NHS for the benefit of private profit and are demonstrating a complete lack of concern for the most vulnerable in society.

Variable pay rates for NHS staff

 Before I offer my thoughts for your readers consideration, I should declare my interest. I am an NHS employee who will, I have no doubt, qualify for a Lansley pay cut. Naturally I'm not happy at the prospect given that I am now into a third consecutive year without a payrise and having to cope with the same increased living costs as other readers. 
                        Since the late 70's successive governments have employed divide and conquer tactics as a means of imposing economic policy on UK citizens, have Echo readers considered who might be in the firing line after healthcare staff? What about Teachers, Police, Fire and Ambulance workers? Why shouldn't all public sector workers be paid less than their counterparts in the south of the country? 
                        If the coalition, and frankly anyone, believes such a move will help our nation tackle the deficit they are gravely mistaken.
                        I suggest that, if imposed, several thousand public sector workers in our regoin will be earning less and therefore paying less tax because, despite what government ministers would have people believe, public sector workers, like most of us, pay taxes. Those same people will have less money to spend in the local economy, possibly causing job losses. That's possibly less money spent locally on leisure activities, luxury items, eating out etc. Unless of course they increase personal debt by using credit cards in which case even more money deserts the local economy because credit accrues interest which has to be paid for with real money from a real wage to financial institutions who take that money, their profits, offshore to avoid paying tax.
                         Perhaps private firms might want to move into the area. After all, the average wage will be lower than elsewhere so labour must be cheaper to come by and employers can pay workers even less. Lower paid jobs are on offer then but those workers still can't get on the property ladder or afford little luxuries between paydays, they still have bills to pay which account for a larger chunk of a smaller wage. Even less money in the local economy then, maybe even more job losses? Why give workers a raise? The public sector workers don't get one! Still there's always credit cards...... you know where I'm going with this!
                         The notion that regional pay rates will help our economy is false. This policy will serve only to make our local economy weaker, increase the wealth inequality gap and exacerbate the problems that already exist because of it.
                          The Health Secretary has already said that only those appointed to implement his health reforms will be exempt from pay cuts. I wonder, in Mr Cameron's "Big Society", as "We're all in this together", will our local Conservative M.P's and the great and good of the public sector be taking a pay cut too ?

Voter Apathy, I love writing letters !

Dear Editor,
         In the wake of last week's local and mayoral elections both Messrs Cameron and Miliband must be delighted with the results. Whilst Labour may have won the numbers game, 65% of the eligible electorate chose not to vote, thus providing the coalition a mandate to continue with it's program of cuts. The Labour leadership must also be heartened that so many of us have forgiven them their part in our current situation or that they have failed to promise to reverse cuts to public services.         

         Commentators call it "voter apathy"  whilst individuals will cite a lack of trust of politicians or choice and any number of reasons not to exercise their right. Whatever the "excuses", for that is all they are, politicians and their corporate masters will continue in the same vein until we the people vote when we can and show them that we will hold them to account for their actions.         To complain that nothing will change is a groundless argument. Tax evasion and avoidance issues are still making news because activists and campaigners against wealth inequality continue to demand change. Two recent cases were highlighted where HMRC denied rebate claims from participants in tax avoidance schemes that it considered illegitimate. Only this week shareholders at Aviva and Astrazeneca voted against excessive pay deals for their executives.          

          In Australia voting is compulsory. Considering the bravery we witnessed of citizens demanding democratic freedoms in last years "Arab Spring" it seems ludicrous, if not shameful that we should need to consider such a policy. Naturally parliament's current incumbents would resist such a move and it would be speak volumes about our society if we had to introduce it here.         If our country is to grow and develop for the good of all it's citizens, we all need to accept our shared responsibility to, whatever our views, be aware of what is done in our name and have our say whenever the opportunity arises.

Another letter

Sir,                  

                 As imposed cuts bite harder and newly announced ones line up to diminish funding of public services and assets further, politicians on all sides are clamouring to score points in the taxation debate. 

                 With skillful spin, expressing outrage and injustice, calls for wealth, tycoon and mansion taxes are argued for and against. Arguments though prejudicial they are convince many yet serve to reaffirm only one fact. Political cowardice is as rife in this government as it was in the last when it comes to addressing taxation. Two points. First, it is reasonable to expect that everyone liable for tax, individual or company, pays their fair share, no more no less. Secondly, through taxation, we the electorate charge our government with responsible stewardship of a range of public services and infrastructure that are integral to a stable, inclusive and caring society. Politicians of the major parties purposely muddy the waters arousing envy across society, creating a smokescreen for the real issue, corporate tax evasion. According to the taxman, HMRC, annual corporate tax evasion costs our country £70bn. Employing armies of accountants and lawyers, corporations use offshore tax havens to hide vast profits and evade taxes due to the Exchequer. A practice the coalition showed, in this budget, it encourages, appeasing corporate greed whilst simultaneously betraying the British people and its hard won public services.

                  The politicians won't challenge them. Why ?, because they say, corporations provide jobs, stability and wealth! Really?, consider Arcadia, owners of Topshop and Boots among others. Last autumn they announced plans to shed upto 3,000 jobs over the next 2 years. Why, explained Arcadia's head Sir Philip Green, a legendary tax dodger in his own right, because profits were down to just £132m and shareholders demand profit. So, his organization's contribution to our economic recovery is to sack the very people who earnt him that profit. That's upto 3,000 people not paying tax and many of whom will need a period of welfare support to which the government's corporate chums will contribute little or nothing whatsoever.

                  The financial services sector, unsurprisingly, opposes imposition of the "Robin Hood" or Financial Transaction Tax, irrespective of the fact that they can easily afford it  and bear a considerable responsibility for our current difficulties. Mr Cameron, in true "world leader" fashion, supports their resistance arguing that even if Europe were to implement the tax the rest of the world would not. The coalition argues that the financial sector would desert the city though that is questionable. Whilst the financial services sector contributes between £20-25bn pa in taxes, we the British taxpayer in turn, by underwriting loans for the banks, effectively provides an annual subsidy of around £100bn. They used to call us a nation of shopkeepers, perhaps it's time we called their bluff and became a nation of small businesses once again.

A letter

Sir,

          I read with interest the article by Mr John Sharman of Unison, Letters and Opinion Lincolnshire Echo 15-21st March and offer the following thoughts. The Neo-Liberal model of economics which now blights the world economy was unleashed proper with the arrival of Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister in our country and Ronald Reagan to the presidency of the United States. As national assets were sold off into private ownership, proponents of neo-liberalism argued that government "interference" of any kind was harmful and that free unregulated markets are natural, fluid and would bring about a natural order.

          From the late 90's on, Messr's Bush and Blair stoked the fires of neo-liberalsim encouraging the illusion of wealth through credit debt. U.S, lobbyists spent billions of dollars encouraging politicians to do their bidding whilst at home"Quangos", remember that term? commissioned by the government, paid for by the taxpayer, and headed by businessmen whose sole aim was to de-regulate in favour of their own business interests, fed off the public purse whilst trying to help themselves to the family silver.

          At this juncture I have to disagree with Mr Sharman, he is wrong to argue that it is the capitalist system not its operators who are at fault. That is akin to suggesting that because a car can be driven wrecklessly, it's not the driver's fault if it crashes. Following the financial crisis of 2008, it was widely anticipated that lessons would be learned and new regulation would prevent such a repeat. Clearly they haven't, nothing has changed significantly, the bankers and corporate elite get richer and have continued to manipulate the world's economy to suit their own ends galloping along in denial of the suffering and hardship they have brought about.

          I state the obvious, businesses of this nature exist to make profit for shareholders and shareholders demand profit.Whilst free markets do have a role to play in our economic growth and development there are areas of modern society in which profit driven performance has no place. Health and social care, education and the rule of law are of prime concern and must be protected by government. Health and social care because, and don't confuse this with the desire to be effective and efficient, caring for our sick and needy should not be compromised by economically driven targets. Education because it is through the guarantee of an equal opportunity to learn that we all grow, develop and are valued as members of a society in which our involvement is positively encouraged. The law must remain free of private interests because if government cannot guarantee that citizens are treated equally regardless of their financial wealth and social position we should be concerned that civil unrest such as that witnessed last summer will likely become more commonplace.

          Last week it was disclosed that Devon NHS Trust has put its children's services out to private tender. Can any right thinking person truly believe that young people trying to cope with varying degrees of personal trauma will be best served by a target and profit driven company. The NHS isn't perfect, it's a massive and expensive organization but it does pay its way, it's ours, it does work and it's a world envied national asset. If it wasn't any good why would private business want to be involved?