Let's embrace Diversity. When it suits us.

Last week  there was a big get together of the great and the good in broadcasting.  At least they thought they were the great and the good.   

The occasion was the biennial Royal Television Society Cambridge convention.  Its aim?  To tackle the main issues facing the industry.   

You would have thought they would have a lot to talk about, not least the falling standards of impartiality we see every night on our TV screens.  Was that one of the key things they were talking about?  Er, no.  The key theme was Diversity.  They love diversity.  All shades.  All opinions. All….  Except.  They don’t like diversity when it comes to leaving the EU.   

When Alastair Campbell, best known for his work as Tony Blair's spokesman and campaign director, asked the room to put up their hands if they voted to leave the European Union, no one did.  Which is odd.  On one hand they want to seek to be representative of the diversity of the nation.  Yet on the other hand, they are the most un diverse grouping you could think of.   

If they had been representative of the people of the UK, 52% of them would have put their hands up.

The whole shebang.

If we voted today to join the EU we would have to join the whole shebang.  No soft or hard entry.  No negotiations.  Just entry.  Take it or leave it. 

Leaving the EU is leaving the whole shebang.  No soft or hard exit.  Just exit from everything we would have joined.  What bit of that do Remainers not understand?

He lives in a different world.

Remember the good old days?  When we had discussions about the EU and what its real plans were?  When we were assured by the Remain camp that staying in the European Union would allow us to influence and bring about change and stop the ever increasing power grab that the European Commission is undertaking?   

Well, I am afraid those who were a little sceptical that the UK could do any such thing, based on the evidence that Prime Minister Cameron virtually begged the leaders in the EU to give him even just a few crumbs of hope to itself, were right.    But we knew all along the EU had an agenda.

Today Mr Junker set out in as clear a way as it was possible that the EU really is going forward to build a super state.  Its own President.  Its own chancellor of the exchequer.  Its own army.  And so it went on.  Reform the EU?  Even the most ardent Remainer tonight will be listening to Mr Junker and wondering, didn’t he learn anything form the UK vote?   

Apparently not.

After 44 years Parliament is back in business.

Early this morning the House of Commons voted.  Nothing remarkable about the House voting.  Nor that it was late at night.  They do that on occasion.  Not even the subject of the vote, the Bill that will transfer all existing EU legislation in the UK statute book.   What was remarkable was it was the first time Parliament has acted as the legislature of a sovereign country since we signed up to joining what was then the EEC.   One of the best speaches was from Caroline Flint (Lab, Don Valley). She voted Remain.  But she is a democrat.

There was lots of bluster.  Daniel Zeichner (Lab, Cambridge) declared: “We should not be withdrawing from the European Union at all”.  I could have understood if he had said “I don’t think we should be withdrawing from the European Union at all”.  But, no, in the vein of many Remainers who spoke, their view was to be more important than that of the democratic majority.   

What is quite amusing, though equally sad, is to hear people like Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda) lecture the nation from the green benches: “This Bill is utterly pernicious…fundamentally un-British…has at its heart a lie.” Oliver Letwin (Con, West Dorset) rose, cited provisions in the Bill which contradict Bryant’s claim that it will allow legislation by ministerial fiat, and invited him to withdraw that claim.   Bryant responded by saying, “I’m not going to give way to him again,” and ended: “Do not sell your birthright for a mess of pottage. Vote against the Bill.”   

So when the facts go against you, shut down the debate.  Perhaps one of the most unusual of speeches was made by Sir Ed Davey (Lib Dem, Kingston & Surbiton) who claimed “this Bill is undermining parliamentary sovereignty more than the EU ever did”, for it “doesn’t give control back to Parliament. It gives control back to ministers.”   Bit of an odd arguement that one given 20,000 laws were brought in to UK law without a single debate in parliament.

Perhaps it is not surprising for Sir Ed to have a bind spot given his party believes that the EU is virtually the Messiah.  And perhaps he is forgetting the thousands of thing in our laws in the UK which were never debated on the floor of the House he was speaking in.  These instruments of legislation had no parliamentary scrutiny.   

But now, as we did early this morning when we began the process of bringing all these instruments of legislation under the control of the people we elect, we are indeed restoring parliamentary democracy.  

That the Liberal Democrats and others don’t see this and would rather we continued to have our laws made elsewhere and automatically imposed on us, makes you wonder why they bother adding Democrats to their name.   

And here is the rub.  What the Lib Dems and others seem to miss, although the Bill last night passed this hurdle by the relatively comfortable margin of 326 votes to 290, a hard process of legislative scrutiny lies ahead.  Parliament is restored.   

It is now doing exactly what it is supposed to do, and couldn’t do in the years we were enslaved by the European Court of Justice, act as the legislature of a sovereign country.

If you recieve this by email.....

If you get your View From The Doorstep  by email, don't forget, you can see all blogs by clicking on the heading.  That will take you to the website where you can see all the blogs.  Go on, do it now.   

It’s not a military Coup d'état that’s going on. It’s worse than that.

Should the United Kingdom become a member of the European Union or remain outside the European Union?  That is a simple question.  We understand it. It using the exact same formula of words that the Electoral Commission agreed would be put to us in June 2016 on the opposite question, should we leave.

We would all know what that question meant.  If we voted yes we would be joining the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.  We would be joining the Single Market.  We would be joining up to freedom of movement and the Schengen principles.  And we would be joining up to the Single Currency.

And we would all accept the outcome.  That’s Democracy.

I am not sure if, once we had voted to join, people like Blair, Starmer, Ashdown, Clark, Soubry, Sturgeon, et al would be saying, yes but we don’t want it to be “hard” Entry.  People would rightly laugh at them.  We voted to join.  What’s wrong with you?  

In June last year the Electoral Commission approved the wording for the referendum question and everyone agreed it was good.  Indeed, everyone agreed we should abide by the result, with hard core Remainers like Mr Ashdown being at the front of the charge.  Perhaps that is because they thought they would win.

How un-democratic are these people who now say “but we didn’t mean hard Brexit”.  It’s simple, we voted to leave the EU; just the same as I hypothesised that we would join at the top of the article. 

All this has cost the nation a lot of money.  So it seems logical to me that all those MPs and Peers who in any way vote to stop us leaving the EU in its entirety are seeking to overturn the democratic wishes of the people expressed thought a vote approved by the Electoral Commission.  

They should be individually surcharged the whole cost incurred since the referendum was first announced.  Cost would include all the costs associated with parliament sitting, MPs and Peers time, the time of the civil servants involved, court costs, the cost of the the referendum itself, the costs of the campaign before the vote, (with the Leave side getting all their money back).  

It’s not a military Coup d'état that’s going on.  It’s worse than that.  It’s a Coup d'état by democratic people who now don’t like the idea that democracy means they might lose.

100,000 new jobs. Because of BREXIT.

The odd thing about those who seek to undermine the will of the people of the UK by trying all they can to get a bad deal when leaving the EU so they can say ‘we told you so’, they really don’t look at the evidence.   

For example, a conservative estimate is that almost 100,000 jobs will be created in the food and drink sector over the next five years.  Why will this happen?  Simple.  In business people will trade where the conditions are good.  And as UK firms look at the competitive exchange rate, guess what, exports will be on the rise.   

How can we say that for sure?  Well, it is based on research published today in the The Food and Drink Report 2017, from Lloyds Commercial Banking (back in April 2016 it wasn’t so cheerful with the bank warning that a vote to leave the EU would cause economic uncertainty and potential volatility). Now it has found that the proportion of manufacturers investing to secure new international customers has risen from 55% to 69% over the past year. And more than a quarter of food and drink firms said they planned to export for the first time in the next five years.   A report with similar conclusions has been published by BDO.

So why are food and drinks firms as positive in spite of BREXIT as BDO and Main Stream Media would put it?   

Again, it’s simple, it’s not in spite of BREXIT that they forecast this massive improvement.  It’s because of BREXIT.   

The Unions will be happy as workers in the sector will be pleased that 48% of firms expect wage costs to rise.  Just as Sir Stuart Rose predicted about wages rising if we voted to leave the EU.

Under which judicial system do people live?

Apparently the EU is not pleased with the Home Office plans to introduce a ‘Britain first’ immigration policy which is much the same as Australia has.   “Toxic” one person said.  And as is the way with the EU bullies these days, threatened the UK. Implementing controls on our borders would have serious consequences for future EU-UK relations.  Well, I am so scared!

A Mr Brok (an MEP who clearly thinks he has something to add to the debate) added: “The British proposal is that EU citizens’ rights should be enforced purely in British law, but this kind of thinking gives us no confidence that British legislature won’t change three years after Brexit. The confidence [in the UK] is not there.”  

So, let me get this straight, if an EU citizen (for that is what they are now rather than French or German) chose to live in the USA, the EC thinks that the USA will not be the one and only law that will be enforced?   

Do they seriously think the USA would say, ok, let’s have both our judicial systems in play?    I’ve heard of some odd things from the EU, but this really shows they don’t get it.   

We’re leaving.  We want to be part of a global community, not a charade that is little more than a fixed market.

A view from outside the EU. Wealthy Iceland.

If you were munching your cornflakes at ten past seven this morning and listening to Today on BBC Radio 4, you would have heard the simplest reasoning I’ve hear why leaving the EU is good.  

John Humphries wondered why Iceland isn’t joining the EU.  To paraphrase, the reply from Iceland’s Foreign Minister, Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, "why would we want to join the EU, it’s nothing to do with trade, it’s a political union".  And he is right.   

Breezily Iceland’s foreign minister went on “Everyone" wants to strike a free trade deal with the UK. “You’re the fifth largest economy in the world. Everyone wants to sell you goods and services. It’s just as simple as that.”   

So, from a neutral outsiders point of view, the cliff edge is simply the place to have the vantage point for all the opportunities that await a re-invigorated UK once we have left the European Union.  

Back in April, Mr Thordarson warned that erecting trade barriers after Brexit would “simply mean that the politicians in the remaining 27 EU countries will have to explain to the people who could lose their jobs, that they are doing it because they are so 'tough' on the Brits.” 

Why does the BBC give precedence to a foreign non-elected person over an elected UK government minister?

"No decisive progress" on Brexit – Barnier.   

So shrieks the headline on the British Broadcasting Corporation News web site today.  Mr Barnier also said said negotiations are still "quite far" away from being in a position to begin talks on future trade arrangements.  He also said there were issues of "trust" between the two sides.  So there you have it.   

Given most people read just headline unless they are interested in the story, readers will have been left with the impression things are not going well for the British.   

But reported at the bottom, UK Brexit Secretary David Davis is quoted as urging the EU to be "more imaginative and flexible" in its approach.   

So why are the words of the UK Cabinet Minister not given priority over that of a person representing an organisation that most rational people believe is clearly trying to undermine the UK position as much as it can?  Postcards to the BBC.  

The editorial staff are giving lots of free ammunition for the future to people who want to cut the BBC down to size. 

And on the performance of their web site, that’s exactly what the BBC deserves.

No sign up, no entry. No ambiguity there. Is there?

If we were seeking to join the EU we would be told that joining would mean we had to sign up to a number of things. No sign up, no entry. 

These include freedom of movement, giving up freedom to negotiate trade deals, having your national parliament subject to the rulings of the ECJ, and now joining the European single currency.  I think we all understand that. It’s simple.   So leaving the EU means leaving all these.  So simple.   

What bit don't hard line Remainers understand we voted for?  And what does an exceedingly clever chap like Keir Starmer think he is doing with all this nonsense he is now spouting?  He must know it sounds utterly stupid.   

As Mark Wallace says “Keir Starmer absolutely, clearly, and unambiguously declares war on Brexit ambiguity.  Sort of.”

Michel Barnier knows, and he knows we know.

You know the European Union is running on empty when you hear the statements from its head negotiator.  The EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has expressed concern about progress so far, as the third round of Brexit talks gets under way.  Time after time he says the UK are not doing enough.    

But he knows, and he knows we know, what he really means is the UK are simply not playing ball with the EU and their rather ridiculous demands and posture.  His warning that UK "ambiguity" must be removed and progress on "separation" issues made before any talks on the future EU-UK relationship is hype.  It is said to try and worry the people of the UK.     

David Davis could of course cheapen himself and respond in kind and say something like, “the EU are just prevaricating and we know it!”  But he doesn’t.   

What is clear is UK and European businesses really want the whole thing settled and settled quickly.  They are not interested in the politics of the un elected European Commission. They are interested in buying and selling goods.   

And has been said time and time again, even if the EU refuse to do a deal, businesses will continue to trade across La Manche.   

All that will happen is the EU will effectively be taken out of the trade loop as the UK will simply operate under WTO rules as we already do with the rest of the planet.   

And Michel Barnier knows that.

Not all Economists toe the Remainers line, for good reason.

Economists for Free Trade was re-launched this week by 16 of Britain’s leading economists to promote the case for true free trade, with zero tariff and non-tariff barriers (note this doesn’t mean zero standards) on imports, in the wake of Brexit.    

Yip, there is indeed a body of serious economists who don’t go with the line pedalled that there is only one view you should consider or you are stupid.   So here are 10 reasons from them why true free trade is the key to making Brexit a great success:     

1. The government, opposition and most of the media still don’t “get it” with regard to the purpose of trade policy. The ultimate aim of all economic activity is consumption. The number one priority of trade policy should be the consumer, and the benefit they could receive from lower prices.   

2. The lesson of economic history is that true free trade significantly lowers the prices consumers’ pay in the short term, and drives up productivity and incomes for producers and consumers in the long term, due to the effect of intensified global competition. Economists for Free Trade estimate that international liberalisation and intensified competition at home – from removing onerous regulation – could raise GDP by £135bn. Let’s not get too hung up on the precise number. The key point is that it is big. Project fear would be replaced by project prosperity.     

3. Trade policy is being formulated with all eyes on the producer not the consumer. The Holy Grail of Brexit for Whitehall is zero tariffs on UK exports to the EU, not zero tariffs on UK imports from everywhere.     

4. We have to get out of the EU Customs Union, which surrounds the UK (and the EU) with a protectionist wall. Economic modelling suggests that the short term gains to consumers from lower prices would be seven times the cost to producers. Exiting the Customs Union would free us to negotiate independent free trade agreements across the globe.    

5. We also have to get out of the Single Market. This surprises people until they realise we need to put “skin in the game” with regard to non tariff barriers in future trade negotiations. Being part of the Single Market’s single regulatory regime would greatly hinder future trade negotiations with the rest of the world.    

6. Only six per cent of UK companies do business with the rest of the EU, but 100 per cent of UK companies are subject to Single Market rules. Moreover, even the European Commission’s own studies are lukewarm towards the gains which have actually been achieved by the Single Market.

In any case, the EU is under a legal obligation to enter into mutual recognition of standards agreements where our goods substantially comply with EU regulation – which of course they already do.     

7. There are numerous examples of non-EU countries whose exports to the EU have grown faster than EU countries exports to the rest of the EU have. We need to have more self-confidence. Presently 194 countries and territories successfully trade in the Single Market – without being a member of it.     

8. The UK could become a global cheerleader for true free trade. We’ve done it before – with the abolition of the Corns Laws in 1846 – and we could do it again. If we want to help poorer countries, the best way is to open up our markets to them, not send them a cheque from HM Government for 0.7 per cent of GDP.    

 9. True free trade is based on a counter intuitive truth, that selfless behaviour –opening up your markets to more intensified global competition – is the best policy to boost long-term prosperity.     

10. True free trade is entirely within our sovereign power. No negotiation is required, we just lodge a zero tariff schedule with the WTO. The UK would be free to improve its own regulatory regime, negotiate better bilateral deals and help improve the global rules on trade.   

Easy.  Let’s Just Do It!

The world is about to end.....

Remember Project Fear?  The world is about to end if we vote to leave the European Union?  It seems a long time ago.  Many economists, but by no means all, were lining up to tell us what a disaster it would all be. If we voted Leave it would be fiscal and social disaster.
 

But it hasn’t turned out that way.  We didn’t end up in recession by last Christmas as they forecast.  Indeed, the reverse was true.

Ah, “it will still be a disaster” they mourn.  It may just take longer.  And of course, they may be right.  That’s the thing about economics.  

But you would have thought that those who predicted gloom and disaster, which hasn’t happened, would be a bit more circumspect when it came to putting their collective heads above the parapet again.  But no.  

This time they have rounded on the idea of unilaterally introducing zero tariffs.  To put this in a bit of context the EU’s Common External Tariff comprises 12,651 different taxes and quotas imposed on goods from the rest of the world. So the Customs Union that they proudly support is, in effect, a protectionist barrier to free trade with the 162 countries outside the EU. Those who say that the EU reduces trade barriers are, to put it mildly, being somewhat disingenuous.

Again, to add some sort of context, British exporters manage to trade with most of the world already without State negotiated trade deals.   It's how the world works.  That is the existing position with most of the world, Brexit or no Brexit.  Trade happens.  It happens without international agreements or harmonised regulations. And you know what, that won’t change one iota the day Britain leaves the EU.

Let’s look at the worlds as it is, not as the EU would like it to be.

The UK has no trade deal with the USA.  So does that hinder us?  Nope.  Ask Jaguar Landrover and Rolls Royce.  Does it hinder the USA? Nope.  Teslas are flooding to our shores.   And amazingly, both UK and USA cars are sold in the different countries with the steering wheel on the correct side for the country of use.  Well well.  

Goods and services are sent all over the world from the UK in a format that is appropriate to the market it will be used in.  Manufacturers cope.  Traders localise their products without regulatory prompting if they want to make a profit. And they do.  When the EU and its Regulatory systems operate barriers don’t halt trade, that is true.  But they sure complicate it. 

For centuries, businesses have traded the world.  And they will for centuries more.   

Long after the EU has evaporated.

Well done Lidl.

This is an odd one.  Lidl has beaten Waitrose to become the UK's seventh largest supermarket chain, according to latest grocery market share figures.

Well done Lidl we all say.  How has it achieved this?  By focusing on customer demand.  It really is that simple. So why is it odd?   

It is odd because when we voted to leave the European Union there were cries that businesses like Lidl and Aldi who are based in the EU would pull up sticks and abandon the UK.  A lost cause. What happpend was the total opposite.  Lidl and Aldi commited massive investment into the UK.  But of course, what the EU forgets is that businesses are not like the EU. Businesses seek opportunity.  The EU closes it down unless it’s on their terms.

And this is why the EU way of doing things will eventually lead to its collapse.  They simply cannot accept or believe that trade can happen very happily without them.

Take the export of 90 iconic red London buses to Mexico as export finance worth £1.7 billion enables buoyant Brexit Britain to break free into global markets.   Or how about Norton Motorcycle, an iconic British motorcycle brand, selling 1000 bikes a year to Australia, North America, Japan and Europe.  Or Design and Projects, a Hampshire-based engineering company, exporting €12 million of rail equipment for a metro line in Bangkok.  Or BurntIsland Fabrications Ltd winning a £100 million contract to support an offshore wind farm.  Or Distinction winning a $7 million contract to supply the Palm Jumeriah hotel in Dubai with luxury furniture.  I could go on.

These are not household names.  But they are blazing a trial for what the UK has always been good at.  

Selling around the world.

Charge one, you have to charge them all.

So the police are considering that it may be appropriate to talk about Corporate Manslaughter charges against the Council and operators of Grenfell tower.  

Can we assume that similar charges of Attempted Corporate Manslaughter will be brought to the organisations responsible for the other 82 towers identified in what would appear to be an identical state of construction and cladding?

The only difference is, by good fortune, they didn’t go up in flames. 

Funny that, continued.

“This is a huge statement of intent from the …. government and an example of how we’re likely to see exponential change in the coming years as governments grapple with the necessary changes we have to make for air quality and our climate… These moves should be heeded by other governments and industry, who need to act to protect us from air pollution in our towns and cities and help mitigate climate change.”   

What a statement by ClientEarth CEO James Thornton.  Except of course, it wasn’t about London but France.   Which again is odd that the same environmental lawyers ClientEarth called the UK government’s virtually identical statement as a “diversionary tactic”:    

“The 2040 diesel and petrol ban, while important is a diversionary tactic and doesn’t deal with the public health emergency caused by illegally polluted air, now.”   

And our friends at Greenpeace.  They too used emotive language rather than fight the case the stand for.  Which much of the time is indeed worth fighting for.  But they do themselves and their cause no good when they come away with condemning the UK government’s proposals as “headline-grabbing” and “redundant”:   

“5 things the government doesn’t want you to know about their headline-grabbing petrol and diesel ban… It could be far too late — and end up redundant…”    

But when the French instituted the same ban, Greenpeace criticised the UK government for “stalling” and not introducing it sooner:    

“The move away from fossil fuel powered cars towards electric is inevitable, and picking up speed fast. First Volvo, now France, yet the UK government is still stalling.”   

Turns out the UK government are doing exactly what Greenpeace wanted them to do, if their reaction to the French announcement is anything to go by.

Petrol and Diesel free by 2040.

In its drive for us to be petrol and diesel free by 2040 only three things should guide the Governments thinking.   
1) Zero emissions at the time you drive;  
2) All parts of a vehicle should be recyclable and their manufacture should be environmentally neutral; 
3) There should be zero emissions in the generation of whatever fuel will power vehicles.   

The one thing the Government must avoid is telling manufacturers it should be electric vehicles.  To legislate so would simply stifle innovation.   Instead, give the challenge. I am sure the creative engineering and scientific talent in the UK will work together and come up with competitive workable solutions.    

Not surprisingly there has been reaction to the government’s thoughts.    

Let’s look at London mayor Sadiq Khan, who instantly reacted to the policy as soon as it was announced:  

“I welcome the strong leadership the ….. government has shown by making the decision to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040.”   

Actually, he didn’t say that.  He said that when the French announced an identical policy last month.   What he actually said about the UK policy was:   

“A half-hearted commitment from Government simply isn’t good enough…  The commitment to phase out sales of new diesel cars is welcome, but Londoners suffering right now simply can’t afford to wait until 2040.”   

He’s changed his tune. Funny that.

Mob rule. That's what has become of Grenfell.

Last night the former High Court judge “lost the room” because, according to Mr Joe Delaney of the Grenfell Action Group, Sir Martin Moore-Bick “couldn't even control the crowd and hold them. I have heard public speakers who can shut up a stadium full of thousands of people. This man couldn't hold a room with 200 or so people.”  This shows a bit of a misunderstanding of what Sir Martin there to do.   Find the facts, not be a public speaker.

Another resident Melvyn Akins, said there was "frustration, anger and confusion" in the meeting, and that Sir Martin told those gathered that he could not start work on the enquiry until his terms of reference were established.  I’m sorry; on what planet did he think he was on assuming that he could start without the terms being set?  It's like going on a football field before someone has decided what the size of the pitch should be. Why had his expectations been set to assume that?  And on a more sinister vein, who gave him the impression that it could be started without terms of reference being set?

Then there was the comment, “People firmly believe that arrests should be made as a result of the outcome of all of this. If arrests are not made, people are going to feel justice may not be being done.”

Arresting people for what? It’s depressing that with so many dead those affected are being encouraged to believe that they are somehow to be treated in a special way, doing away with the legal framework and close enquiry that is required for a Public Enquiry. There is also a criminal investigation going on.  Surely she is not suggesting that it should be rushed though without collecting of evidence and going through all the proper processes.

Sir Martin told those at the meeting: “I can't do more than assure you that I know what it is to be impartial.  I've been a judge for 20 years, and I give you my word that I will look into this matter to the very best of my ability and find the facts as I see them from the evidence.”

I would have thought that what Sir Martin is saying is exactly what the Grenfell Action Group would want to hear.  Apparently not.

In what may have been on a note of  frustration Sir Martin concluded, “That's my job, that's my training, and that's what I intend to do. Now if I can't satisfy you because you have some preconception about me as a person that's up to you.”

And there lies the problem.  Corbyns Labour has already set the scene.  They are deliberately confusing what a Public Enquiry is for.  They are allowing that confusion to turn to anger.  Mr Delaney suggested in an interview with the BBC that “Attention (was) focused on things that will keep May in Downing St”.  Ah, politics is in there after all Mr Delaney.

And ultimately he will seek to blame the government for lack of progress.

Mob rule.

The NHS. A financial black hole in need of rescue.

1,014.  Remember that figure. 

People keep saying our NHS needs more money.  Buckets more.  And maybe it does.  But the problem is, the bigger the NHS juggernaut becomes, the more it appears to be incapable of managing itself and allowing itself to be truly innovative.

This was demonstrated by the story of David and his mum Rebecca Loo.  After a fairly catastrophic encounter with the NHS she decided to do something.  And she did.  And she saved the NHS £22m as a result of her efforts. 

My question is, why did it take a mum to come up with a better method than all the expensive brains in the NHS.  And save the NHS £22m.  Or more accurately, save the Taxpayer £22m.   Or allow that £22m to be used for something else, like 1,014 new nurses. 

The answer is of course, culture.  Until that changes at both political level and at operational level, the NHS is going only one place. Downhill into a black hole of fiscal disaster.

What is the purpose of a Public Inquiry?

After the tragedy comes the Public Inquiry.  Its aim?  To get to the truth.  There is only one real question. And it needs to be asked over and over again.  And then some more.  The question?  Why. Why, if true:

·      Why was a fridge allowed in a residential building when the fridge was perhaps not safe?

·      Why did the London Fire Brigade leave the locus of the fire after tacking an initial fire relating to the fridge?  

·      Why did they assume that it would not have spread?

·      Why did the fire spread?

·      Why did the cladding not protect? 

·      Why did the design effectively mean it was a chimney in waiting? 

·      Why were fire baffles not in place at each floor?

·      Why were lead contractors allowed to bid for work that would appear to give them no profit? 

·      Why are these contractors then able to push the prices their sub-contractors down? 

·      Why are sub-contractors then effectively forced to choose cheaper materials in order to make some sort of margin? 

·      Why are lead contractors so slow at paying their sub-contractors?

·      Why were tenants allowed to sub-let or run homes of multiple occupancy against the council rules?

And so it goes on.  I am sure you could add many many more Why questions to my meagre list.

The reality is we won’t know if we don’t keep asking Why.

So it is disturbing that the local MP is whipping up feeling against the proposed Chair of the Grenfell Tower inquiry.  Labour MP Emma Dent Coad said Sir Martin was “a technocrat” who lacked “credibility” with the families.

On the BBC Today programme this morning she continued: “I have been talking to hundreds of people who have been affected.  They need somebody they can talk to, somebody with a bit of a human face.  I don't think he should do it. I don't think there will be any credibility".

On a rater more sinister vein she claimed, “Some people are saying they are not going to co-operate with it, so it's not going to work.”

They have also been angered, she claimed, by his decision to allow Kensington Council (which was criticised by some for its apparent slow and ineffective response to the disaster) to contribute to the inquiry.  Is she really saying the most important witness should be excluded?  And for what reason would she not want the democratically elected council to be part of the process?  The answer to that is, of course, Labours view of what is democratic doesn’t match with that of every other political party in the UK.  Think Animal Farm.

If we want the answers to the Why question, one would have thought that Kensington Council would be first in the witness box, not excluded from it.

Which very sadly lead me to the conclusion that Corbyns Labour party really doesn’t want answers?  They want scapegoats.  And a Chair appointed by a conservative Prime Minister will be their first target.

Actually, I would rather have a technocrat, a professional, a thorough person, a dispassionate person leading the Inquiry than some cuddly person who goes and “stands by the residents”, whatever that vacuous notion may mean.

Only then we may start getting to the truth of what were the circumstances that gave rise to the tower that was Grenfell.  And the truth of the scandal that appears to blight hundreds of other housing blocks around the country, like in Labour controlled Camden, which could have so easily been the ones that were destroyed along with countless lives.

Sadly Labours contempt for anyone that is not of their narrow-minded view may ruin what may well be the most important Public Inquiry since Piper Alpha.