NHS Independence

Criticising Conservative proposals to make the NHS independent, Health Minister Ben Bradshaw says, "It is simply wrong to suggest that taxpayers should invest £90bn in the NHS but there should be no political accountability for how that money is spent."

Indeed! In truth, what is wrong is that the Government should throw so much of taxpayers' money at the NHS but without giving the medical professionals the freedom they need to look after their patients properly. Since we learnt about the death of ninety patients from C.difficile at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, I have heard two first-hand stories revealing a life-threatening lack of care and attention to detail.

The first went in to have a kidney out. When asked to sign the paperwork authorising the operation, my lawyer friend decided to read the details of what he was about to authorise. Noticing that it stated the left kidney was to be removed, he queried surely it was his right kidney that was the problem. His question was dismissed but when he persisted, a check was made. Sure enough, they had been about to operate on the wrong kidney ... a minor detail.

The second, just a couple of days ago, was to undergo a minor procedure but was turned away because he has MRSA — something that was detected and recorded in his medical records while he was in for a hernia operation earlier in the year but was left untreated with the patient, unaware of being a carrier, discharged into the community. Again ... a minor detail.

This is what the government healthcare watchdog means when it criticised the trust for "focusing too much on balancing the books and meeting waiting-time targets, at the expense of patient care and infection control." This is the consequence of Government targets, unprecedented cuts in the number of acute hospital beds, and a shortage of nursing staff.

It is time the NHS was freed from political tinkering. Let us hope that Gordon Brown is still happy to adopt Conservative proposals as he formulates his "vision" and that the Conservatives' draft NHS (Autonomy and Accountability) Bill becomes Government policy.

From Rhetoric To Democracy

"To counter public cynicism about political institutions and low levels of turnout in elections, we have to find new ways to engage citizens in the political process. More devolution of power and the active involvement of local communities in decision-making are essential if we are to rebuild confidence in our democracy locally and nationally."

So says former Labour local government minister Nick Raynsford following the publication of a report by an informal grouping of peers and MPs known as the Chamberlain Group calling for central government to give local authorities more freedom to respond to local needs.

Coming a day after the Local Government Association demanded an extra £250m a year for councils to deal with the impact of migration on public services, the cross-party report says local councils should be given more freedom to run their budgets, perhaps including the ability to issue their own bonds (just as Mayor Ken Livingstone has been allowed to do in London to help fund investment in the city's transport network) or to take a share of national taxes such as income tax or vehicle excise duty.

Given that all three major political parties claim to believe in more localism, as one of the most centralised states in Europe, perhaps it is not unreasonable to hope that some of their rhetoric will now be translated into a genuine restoration of local democracy.

Marriage Best For Kids

In the latest Government U-turn and adoption of Conservative Party policy, Andy Burnham, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has told the Daily Telegraph, "I think marriage is best for kids. It’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise commitment and marriage."

While on the one hand delighted that New NuLabour appears to be accepting the error of its ways, I can but refer you to my comments from earlier this week, on the need for a coherent vision for the country, and my follow-up post on the role of the extended family in society.

Extended Family Care

In Labour's first term, the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care called for all personal social care to be made free to the patient. Eight years on, the state only pays for the care of people with assets less than £12,000, with many elderly people having to sell their homes to pay for care.

Given the observations made by David Willetts a month ago about intergenerational solidarity and older people being reluctant to borrow against their accumulated wealth, perhaps it is a good thing that people should need to liquidise some of their assets in retirement. After all, we do not want the state merely to take on more financial responsibility for our care, unnecessarily increasing the burden placed on the tax-payer, do we?

And yet, if we continue to develop our political vision (or "big idea" as the BBC chose to call it this morning) that values the family, perhaps we should welcome government proposals to scrap means-testing for long term care of elderly and disabled people as long overdue. For, the present system is clearly unsustainable, overly-complex and unfair. However, once again, this is not simply a question of economics but also social capital. Figures published last month by the University of Leeds for Carers UK value the unpaid support provided by carers at £87 billion a year — more than the annual total spent on the NHS and more than four times the amount spent on social care services by local authorities each year. This sum represents a vast network of extended family relationships and other friendships that would be lost if the state made any attempt to assume the same responsibility for care.

I remember when my parents moved a few years ago to be closer to my sister and her family, they attempted to arrange for my great-aunt to be moved to a care home nearer to their new home. However, they were told they would be required to pay the difference in the residential care funding provided by the two counties' social services as the county where my aunt had previously paid council tax would be responsible for funding her care but that their level of provision was lower than where my parents wished to move her. As a consequence, rather than living close to her extended family, with all the benefits that would bring such as more frequent visits from her family, my aunt lives two hours from the rest of us.

Given the rising challenge posed by our changing demographics and ageing population, surely government should be encouraging families, even through tax breaks or tax credits, to stay together and should be looking to maximise independence and choice for people being cared for and their carers.

Pick'n'mix Politics

Having forced the Conservatives to reveal some of their trump cards last week (in readiness for the election that never was), the Government is being accused after today's pre-budget report and comprehensive spending review statement of "stealing" Conservative and LibDem policies — notably, on raising the inheritance tax threshold for married couples and those in civil partnerships, on reforming aviation duty so it is paid per plane rather than per passenger, and on reviewing loopholes for non-domiciled tax payers. However, if all our elected representatives have our best interests in mind, then surely we want the Government of the day to draw upon the best ideas from across the political spectrum and it doesn't matter who gets to implement them?

Except that "pick'n'mix" politics is unlikely to result in a stable economy and strong society. In order to achieve that, one needs a coherent vision and clear objectives. Only once core values have been identified and principles and beliefs clearly defined, is anyone in a position to evaluate how effectively any given policy fits into the overall scheme for the nation and what contribution any particular set of policies might make towards stated goals.

So, if your vision recognises marriage and the family as a means of fostering strong local communities and family-based support networks, it makes sense to introduce transferable tax allowances between spouses — on income tax, not just inheritance tax. However, it would also make sense to exempt the main family home from inheritance tax — and makes no sense to have a conflicting tax credit system that penalises couples who want to get together or who are struggling financially and want to stay together!

The reason I supported David Cameron in the leadership contest two years ago is that, whenever he spoke, he appeared to be presenting an overall vision for the country rather than piecemeal policies. He has spent the last two years first defining the aims and values of his party (in "Built to Last") and then conducting wide-ranging policy reviews. Now that each of the policy groups has reported, the Conservative leader is in a position to evaluate their many proposals against his broader vision for society.

In contrast, Gordon Brown repeatedly tells us that he has a vision but has so far failed to tell us what that vision is, which begs the question as to whether he really has one — or even understands the need for one. Ultimately, it is this that means Labour's "plagiarism politics" will fail to transform the breakdown in society and the slowdown in the economy — and why, to coin a phrase, it is time for change. Sadly, it seems we're going to have to wait two or three years more until we are given the opportunity to effect that change.

George Hits Home

Raising the threshold for paying inheritance tax to £1000000 - now that's what the Party's been wanting to hear and was received with a huge cheer. But has it come too late?

Policy Blizzard's First Flurry

Talk of a "blizzard of conference policy announcements" has begun the "Cameron fight back" with what must surely rank as highly attractive, family-friendly changes to the tax and welfare system: the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers on homes worth up to £250,000 and an increase in working tax credit paid to two-parent families (worth up to £2,000 a year for 1.8 million families with children), funded by a crackdown on "work-shy" benefits claimants, including "aggressive" penalties for those who turn down jobs.

Whether it and the flurry of other manifesto suggestions to be rolled out this week are seen to bring together and build upon the many recent policy group reports and whether they will prove sufficiently appealing to close the double-figure poll lead that Gordon Brown now enjoys remains to be seen...

If you want a reminder of the policies that you, The Difference readers, said you would most like to see the Party put forward, when David Cameron first suggested a blizzard of policy ideas, visit Your Policy Ideas Results.

Fill Up This Weekend!

Don't forget to save yourself some money and fill up with petrol this weekend, before the Chancellor puts the price of petrol up by 2.35p per litre on Monday! Does anyone still believe that road users need to be hit by yet more green taxes?

Blueprint for a Green Economy

"If we are to create a way of living that we can sustain, then water, waste, transport and energy, as well as farming, food, fishing and the built environment, have to be thought of as a whole."

Launching the Conservatives' Quality of Life Policy Group report, a day after the price of crude oil reached a record $80, former Environment Secretary John Gummer is surely right to place the emphasis on sustainability.

At the end of the day, for all the uncertain predictions about an imminent big freeze or, conversely, a global heatwave and for all the questions about the extent to which man has exacerbated the planet's natural cycles of climate change, one thing is certain: the world's reserves of fossil fuels will one day run out. Whether we make them last 50 years or 100 years, or even 200 years, won't ultimately affect mankind's carbon footprint. What our rate of fossil fuel use will affect is the timeframe available in which we can invest in the research and development of renewable sources of energy — during which we can answer the really big question: How can we sustain life and civilisation as we know it? Or, as the report puts it, given that there are plenty of other symptoms of the damage wrought by humans' modern lifestyles — such as desertification, soil erosion, and the destruction of forests — can we continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one?

Does the report provide a satisfactory answer that is "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? The introduction notes that "Instead of wanting the State to intervene and control, Conservatives seek only to ensure that the market framework is capable of delivering the nation’s requirements and that people, communities, and organisations, whether for profit or not, are empowered and trusted to play their proper and fullest role." Yet, about aviation, it complains:

"Growth in demand is heavily concentrated in short-haul leisure flights taken by UK residents. Between 1994 and 2004, 70% of the additional international trips that occurred were UK residents going abroad for leisure. From the perspective of the UK economy, this is arguably the wrong sort of growth. Shorthaul leisure flights exacerbate the country’s tourism deficit – the difference between what overseas visitors spend in the UK and what British citizens spend abroad – which already stands at around £15 billion. Today, over half of all air trips arriving or departing UK airports are UK residents travelling for leisure, and this proportion is set to increase." (p.355)

Thus, some of what are already its most criticised recommendations, such as no further airport expansions, rethinking Heathrow's proposed runway, and no new runways at Gatwick or Stansted, seem to burst with big state interventionism. The authors argue that "Scaling back airport expansion plans would lead to more efficient use of existing capacity, and accelerate the allocation of flight slots to parts of the market that value them most" and that this "does not mean that there would be a diminution in the cheap flights already available," but it is hard to see how such an approach could not but damage Britain's economy and international competitiveness.

I am happy to accept the premise that no government can be neutral in matters of wellbeing and we should therefore shift taxation policy towards the taxation of pollution — from 'pay as you earn' to 'pay as you burn.' However, if the shift is to be managed in an orderly manner, the Government will need to ensure that the alternatives that it wishes us to embrace are adequate. There is no point trying to tax us from flying if the rail network doesn't have the capacity to cope with the additional passenger loads. I would probably even be willing to accept that the best way of retuning growth to take account of environmental health is "by pricing carbon into the equation as the most effective surrogate for environmental cost" — so long as this genuinely is not used as a means to increase the total tax burden.

I agree that "It is time to debunk the myth that we must choose between the environment and the economy. In truth there is no either/or between environmental protection, social stability and sustainable economic growth." So, its discussions about energy efficiency — for instance in the context of the household sector discussed earlier in the week by Zac Goldsmith, which include the rejection of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) regime — are to be welcomed. In the related context of planning and also of rural life and Defra, its recommendation that "the localism agenda be used to empower the very lowest of levels of government, nearest to the people whose lives they affect" is also strongly welcome. This also applies to the subsequent discussions about reform of Europe's infamous Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, "to shift the CAP across Europe from production-related subsidies (Pillar 1) to a system of paying farmers for the public goods and services they provide (Pillar 2)." As it says, "The more complex the world gets, the more globalisation seems to remove power from people, politicians, and even nations, and the more it is important that individuals feel they have a real say about the future of their own community." It is high time that this process should be reversed.

Given that I also believe we should "tilt the balance back from ‘economy-friendly families to family-friendly economies,’" I would also not oppose the suggestion for the planning system to "prioritise the protection and enhancement of ‘town centres’ and ‘local neighbourhood shopping centres’ over and above out of town/edge of town retail development." If we wish to strengthen our local communities, then it seems vital that we maintain the economic and social viability of our towns. I expect that some of you might disagree, but I think this is an area where Margaret Thatcher's "Never call me laissez-faire" quote is probably relevant: "Government must be strong to do those things which only government can do."

Lastly, back on transport, I was pleased to see the call for increased carriage of freight by inland waterways and, in relation to proposed national road user charging, the willingness to "seek simple and transparent ways to achieve our ends and avoid grandiose schemes that rely on unproven technology and huge investment."

In conclusion, does the report tell us how we can continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one in a way "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? Given that these are merely proposals that will all go into the melting pot containing the many recommendations from each of the other policy group reports, then I believe we have to conclude that it does as least help illuminate the way forwards. The next challenge will be for the Party to compile a coherent manifesto around a single Conservative vision for the twenty-first century...

Freeing Britain to Compete

How do we summarise the Economic Competitiveness Policy Group report, given that it has already been drip-fed to the media for almost a week? Rather than listing specific proposals, such as the abolition of inheritance tax, perhaps we should simply quote John Redwood's co-author, the chief executive of Next, Simon Wolfson, who says the two most significant messages are:

1. Regulate both the private and public sector less, and
2. Invest in British infrastructure.

Alternatively, we could just go with Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, who declared on the Today programme that once again it is now OK to admit "I'm a Conservative who believes in lower taxes."

Download the full report from Stand Up, Speak Up

Labour Wreaks Happy Families

"I cannot see how 'Dave' offering my £1000 a year to vote Conservative would influence me to get married if I wasn't already going to do it. All it is, in my view, is a cynical attempt to buy votes from those who are already married."

Thus opined Norfolk Blogger about Iain Duncan Smith's Social Justice Policy Group proposals earlier this week. He clearly misses the point that for many who are struggling to makes ends meet, the Government's present perverse policies DO result in families breaking up around the country who would otherwise seek to provide their children with the stability they need and most benefit from. The News of the World carries the story of a married couple who have chosen to split up purely because Gordon Brown's tax and benefits system encourages them to do so:

A MARRIED couple revealed how they split up —because under Britain's crazy benefit system they are BETTER OFF living apart.

Sean Ash and wife Chloe agreed to break up after realising they would lose out even MORE when he takes a new job.

They spoke in the wake of a major political row this week, sparked by Tory leader David Cameron's tax-break pledge to give married couples an extra £20 a week.

Sean and Chloe, who have both been on benefits, explained why they decided to join what Mr Cameron called "our broken society".

As a couple, they had a joint net income of £1,702 a month. But after the split, Sean now gets £1,184 and Chloe £1,396—making a total of £2,580.

That means they are £878 a month in benefits better off leading separate lives.

Highlights From Breakthrough Britain

Writing in the overview to the Social Justice Policy Group's report, Breakthrough Britain, Iain Duncan Smith says, "Breakthrough Britain advocates a new approach to welfare in the 21st century. We believe that, in order to reverse social breakdown, we need to start reinforcing the Welfare Society. The Welfare Society is that which delivers welfare beyond the State." He identifies two specific areas why their approach is unique: "Firstly, we have recommended a range of policies which are designed to break the cycle of disadvantage in the early years of a child’s life. Secondly, we wish to strengthen families by removing the perverse disincentives in the fiscal system which are an obstacle to stable families."

It is understandable that media coverage has so far focused on the group's marriage and tax-related suggestions. After all, the Government has spent ten years creating a tax and benefits system that perversely penalises married couples, perpetuating poverty for the 76% of children who live in couple households. However, any attempt to heal our broken society will need to change more than just the tax system. Duncan Smith explains the significance of the five pathways to poverty identified by the Group:

"Our approach is based on the belief that people must take responsibility for their own choices but that government has a responsibility to help people make the right choices. Government must therefore value and support positive life choices. At the heart of this approach is support for the role of marriage and initiatives to help people to live free of debt and addiction. Government has to be committed to providing every child with the best possible education and giving the most vulnerable people the necessary support to enter active employment. The problems of family breakdown, drug and alcohol addiction, failed education, debt and worklessness and dependency affect us all, either directly or indirectly, as Breakdown Britain showed."

The Difference offers the following list of highlights from the report that it is hoped will receive due attention in the coming hours, days, and weeks:

Family Breakdown

• Relationship education in schools
• Creative ways for delivering more respite care
• Targeted assistance for parents who currently struggle to nurture their children, rather than steering them towards local authority childcare
• Removal of the bias towards state-provided childcare.
• A review of family law conducted by a dedicated independent commission
• Reinstatement of the use of ‘marital status’ in government forms and statements

Economic Dependency

• Clear work expectations must be attached to the receipt of benefits for people who can work
• Back-to-work services should be state determined but not state delivered
• A serious and thorough review of the Housing Benefit system is needed
• Parents should be given the opportunity to front-load child benefit

Educational Failure

• £500 p.a. educational credits for disadvantaged children to fund supplementary educational services such as a year’s extra maths tuition, six months intensive literacy support and a year’s group music lessons
• An end to bureaucratic overload
• ‘Booster classes’ for pupils falling behind
• More alternative provision to pupil referral units

Addiction

• An integrated addiction policy to replace the separate drugs and alcohol treatment
• A devolved responsibility to local Addiction Action Centres
• An expansion of third sector proven provision of ‘holistic’, value added, abstinence-based treatment

Serious Personal Debt

• UK credit unions should be strengthened, supported and expanded
• Local community based debt advice should be supported
• The benefits system and Social Fund should be reviewed in detail
• Education in personal finance should be improved

Third Sector

• Gift Aid should be made easier to claim
• Introduce Charitable Remainder Trusts as tax-efficient vehicles for planned giving
• Launch a 'V Card' reward scheme to boost volunteering
• Greater third sector delivery of public services
• Less bureaucratic and prescriptive Government funding
• Introduce voucher schemes to empower users of government-funded services
• Enhance the third sector's voice in Cabinet and Parliament
• Create a level playing field for faith based organisations

Yes, all this will come with a cost. But, as the report also notes, social breakdown presently costs the UK £102,000,000,000 per year, or around £3500 per taxpayer — that's a lot of money that could be better invested.

Substance With Style

Today's much anticipated report, Breakthrough Britain, from the Conservatives' Social Justice Policy Group, headed by Iain Duncan Smith, is the result of 18 months work of consultation with over 800 experts, organisations and charities, the policy proposals will propose a completely fresh approach to tackling poverty in the UK.

Having previously identified the five interlinked "pathways to poverty" — family breakdown, education failure, welfare dependency, debt, and addiction — today's proposals, if adopted by the Conservative Party will "reset the balance" that currently makes it advantageous for couples to break up, or to pretend to be "living apart together" — a term referring to the 200,000 more people claiming benefits for lone parents than there truly are lone parents in the country.

The Conservatives are not proposing a return to the married person's tax allowance, which Duncan Smith accepts had flaws. Neither are they suggesting that lone parents should have less money. Instead, married couples would qualify for a £20-a-week tax break and receive higher benefit payments of £32-a-week, bringing the benefits awarded to married couples into line with those currently awarded to single parents. This will be paid for through welfare reform targetted to encourage recipients off one of the five "paths to poverty".

Labour is already trying to claim that these proposals would be unfair on the children of single parents or those whose parents choose not to marry. However, there is nothing unfair about levelling the playing field. Indeed, one could argue that such an egalitarian approach achieves what socialism has always failed to deliver: social justice.

The Elderly - Who Cares?

The NHS Blog Doctor has a brilliant dissection of today's Times article, Who cares? Both the article and the good doctor's response are rather long, but here's his conclusion:

The NHS was set up and funded to deal with illness, not old age. The problem in the UK is that the Welfare State mentality has turned us into a nation of welfare payment scroungers. Why do families in this country not take responsibility for their own elderly? Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for the social care of elderly, wealthy businessmen?

Why do we not care for our own elderly relatives? It can be done. Some British families do it. Families of Indian and Pakistani origin. I have never, in all the time I have been practising medicine, heard an Indian or Pakistani say “We cannot look after mother because we have jobs and families of our own” Somehow, they manage.

My practice looks after three large old people’s homes and an EMI [Elderly Mental Illness] unit.

There is not a single patient of Indian or Pakistani origin in any of the old peoples’ homes. There is one hopelessly demented elderly Pakistani lady in the EMI unit. She probably gets more visits than the rest of the patients put together.

There must be moral in this.

Value For Money

The Royal Family cost the taxpayer just 62p per person last year — less than the price of two first class stamps ... If only the government delivered such impressive value for money from all our taxes!

With yet another report confirming today the extent of social divisions in our country, revealing that the top 20% of our secondary schools are effectively closed to those from non-privileged backgrounds, I can but note as I did yesterday that our tax burden must be decreased if our public services are to see the fundamental changes they require and the national decline in social mobility is to be reversed.

New Government Priorities

Standing on the steps of Number Ten, the new Prime Minister promised "a new government with new priorities." He would do well to heed the latest report from Reform, Key policy lessons of the "Blair years" for future governments. Damningly, it concludes:

"Left untouched, the Blairite policy legacy would not lead to economic collapse. But it would lead to slower growth and deeper social division. Better-off people would take a stronger grip on private schools and good state schools. Social mobility would fall. The tax burden on young people would rise. The regional divide would worsen. The Government’s basic objective – economic efficiency and social justice – would recede."

Among the reforms necessary, it recommends:

• Aiming to reduce public-spending-to-GDP from the current level of 43 per cent of GDP to the levels of Ireland and Australia (around 35 per cent) in two Parliaments;
• Introducing a phased programme of tax reductions to increase incentives, to give individuals room to invest in themselves and to foster the economic contribution of young people.

One of the report's authors, Reform's Director Andrew Haldenby, observed, "Perhaps the key lesson of the 'Blair years' is that the personal force of a Prime Minister with landslide majorities and unrivalled communication skills is no substitute for structural reform. It now falls to his successors to make the necessary, fundamental changes to public services; their task is unfortunately harder because of the huge cost and spending increases of the last decade. They must also reverse the rising tax burden because, above all else, it is private initiative that has driven the country's advance in the last ten years."

Given that Gordon Brown has been the principal man responsible for raising our tax burden so high, I fear that we will have to wait until yet another party leader has been invited to form a new government before we really see the fundamental changes that the country needs. Nevertheless, like all those in the country who hope for better days ahead, I eagerly look for the new Prime Minister to deliver on his promise of "change in our NHS, change in our schools, change with affordable housing, change to build trust in government, change to protect and extend the British way of life."

Brown's Britain

Sceptic is right to note that Britain's carbon dioxide emissions are now at their highest level since Labour came to power. Today's Independent has an interesting analysis as to why, despite government targets and Tony Blair's apparent convictions about the threat posed by global warming, our greenhouse gas emissions are soaring:

Mr Blair has not been in charge of British domestic policy for the past 10 years. The man who has been in charge is Gordon Brown (a fact startlingly confirmed in a devastatingly frank interview earlier this month by Mr Brown's one-time top official, Lord Turnbull).

Over his 11 Budgets, Mr Brown could have brought in many more, and more radical, measures to tackle climate change than he has. He has in fact done very little. Most of his green taxes have pretended to change behaviour, but in reality merely raise revenue; many simple but effective measures have never been considered.

To take just one example: in his recent budget, Mr Brown said he would apply to the EU for VAT on energy-saving materials to be reduced from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent. Cue applause. But the Association for the Conservation of Energy has been calling for this since at least 1989.

Brown's Reverse Robin Hood Budget

Gordon appears to have misread Robin Hood. As a good socialist, he was supposed to tax the rich and give their money away to the poor. Instead, as even MPs in his own party have pointed out, by abolishing the 10p tax rate, he is effectively taxing the poor (especially those without children) to keep those on middle incomes happy (especially those with children). The rich will probably be unaffected either way by today's spectacle. Furthermore, he's also taxing small businesses to the profit of big businesses.

Maybe the great leader-in-waiting has simply lost the plot...

Conservative Green Tax Plans

So, we're all to be allowed one short-haul flight a year at the standard rate of tax but penalised for any further flights at a higher rate.

The trouble is Oxford University research published a month ago showed that green taxes fail to curb growth in greenhouse gas emissions from travel because high-income groups absorb any price increase rather than change their travel habits.

The reality is, even though George Osbourne says he doesn't want to "tax people out of their one foreign holiday a year," it is those in low and middle income groups who would pay the price by being deprived the opportunity to travel - some of whom would be denied the chance to visit immediate relatives living abroad or to cultivate important international business relationships.

For all the criticism that environmentalists have directed at America in recent years, perhaps Conservative MP Tim Yeo was closer to the mark with his private members bill at the end of January proposing that we move our clocks forward by one hour, as demand falls for electricity in the evening if it is still light. For America has today switched to daylight saving time three weeks earlier than usual in order to cut fuel consumption. Their summer time will also last a week longer into the autumn than it has previously. Overall, this move is expected to save $4.4bn in energy bills by 2020 and avoid the need to build more than three large electric power plants – and all without penalising individuals or damaging the economy.