Image by gazzat via Flickr

Are there really going to be 40,000 homes in the South Somerset area?

I was recently contacted by a constituent who was very concerned about this issue. Like me, he wants more housing so that there is a good stock of housing available of all sorts of shapes and sizes.

However, like me, he knows that what is likely to be built is low grade, low design quality housing built at the lowest possible rate and in the most advantageous and cheap places.

When the Government building programmers were announced it appeared that South Somerset were going to get just under 12,000 new homes. That figure then rose to 24,000 and now we are at the 40,000 mark.

Providing the current economic downturn does not mean the plans are pointless then what are my objections? Well, I am very concerned where you are going to put what amounts to a town the size of Yeovil. There is certainly not enough brown field (already used) land available, so it is almost certain that we will see green fields being built on.

But equally, will they be built without the services that are so important for the needs of a community. Schools, health facilities, drainage, water purification, transport etc. While some of these do get considered we know that many of them do not.

Nothing less than the future of our green and pleasant land is at stake.

You cannot be but impressed by the degree of activity that is taking place on this site. Drawing students of all ages from all over South Somerset and West Dorset there is a real sense of calm and desire to learn amngst the students I saw.

They also have big plans for the future- a £60m scheme to rebuild much of the College campus. Controversially they have become entangled in the possible development of the Yeovil Sports Zone but have a very clear position that they require new sports facilities and have a duty to explore with the Council whether the Council is serious about the Sports Zone or whether the College will have to build their own on their current site.

Now for a bit of publicity. Fancy a facial, a haircut or a silver service meal, the Yeovil College might well be the place to go? I was very impressed by the activities they are undertaking to give their students the experience of contact with real clients. I am going to give it a go - so should you.

Image via Wikipedia

Ed Balls has made the following pronouncement on the criticisms of his Governments silly proposals on knife crime.

"I think politicians who say their judgement
is better than judges' are playing fast and loose with the liberal
principles of our society."

Is this the same Balls who now wants to lock up suspects for 42 days?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Teachers to get powers to search pupils for drugs and alcohol

For some years after Labour came to
power even I, as someone who feels no empathy with Labour, could
admit that there was a clear set of policies at work in public
services. Put simply it was about structural change linked to
massively greater spending (or as Labour termed it “investment”).
The reality is that in those early years there were many, even on the
right, who were prepared to give this an experimental attempt.

Of course, what Labour did was link to
that investment targets, as many in the city do. What they did not
link that investment to was any form of efficiency, so as the
spending and the staffing increased the efficiency gains were lost in
what they hoped would be a flurry of improved services.

But the results have not been good.

Education has seen increased exam
results, but as we have heard recently, even the higher education
sector believes that is more about academics fiddling the systems to
please managers than it is about brighter children. The produce state
in education has ensured that more and more children continue their
education into their early twenties but are then tied to student
loans well into their 30's. I was more than a little shocked to hear
it said last week that there will be 2,000,000 people taking their
university finals this year.

In health we have seen a lot of
building, but even more system change, as Labour has fought to find a
way to manage the producer from the centre. We now have the NHS, one
of the biggest employers in the world, controlled almost like the
former soviet state controlled Russian industries of the past.

We have recently heard that there will
be an almost three-fold increasing in health funding by the year 2012
– in comparison with 1997 and providing the economy does not
totally collapse. Whilst this is to be welcome there is no doubt
going to be much debate as to where that money has gone. It must be
the case that in this there are huge inefficiencies. I wandered a
hospital recently and could not believe the state of wards and
waiting rooms. It is clear that money has not been spent where the
patient can see it.

It did not have to be this way. I
recently sat in on a presentation from Tim O'Toole (MD of London
Underground) who is clear that the investment of the past ten years
has been about hidden infrastructure and that only in the next few
years will London Underground passengers see visible benefits for
this investment. I can understand this argument in that tracks and
signals being renewed do not automatically register as investment by
train passengers. In education and health I am not sure the
investment can be hidden and although we hear a lot about increased
patient numbers and aging populations many of our hospitals look as
old and shabby as they did in the 1960's.

But where does this go now? Is the UK
coming full circle and returning, as we did towards the end of the
last Labour Government, to a period of roaring inflation, high oil
prices and strikes? Will economic failure lead to a decline in
available resources for both schools, public transport and hospitals?
If we are, what do we, as Conservatives - pledged to support these
services - do about this?

Given that a failing economy is as much
about human sentiment towards the economic future, as it is about
real numbers, will the public buy the idea of savings through
efficiencies, rather than cuts. Is it too simplistic to suggest that
we will spend the same just differently – or will Labour try and
dress that as cuts?

The fact is in a declining economy tax
receipts will fall and the funding difference will need to be made up
if Labour is to go into the next election on the basis of its current
funding commitments. Conservatives should be looking now at how we
can maintain the priority for our election commitments, as well as
reduce the overall burden on very hard pressed tax payers. Without
looking backwards maybe now, more than ever, we need the types of
review undertaken by both Gershon and James prior to the last General
Election?

It is of course true that this might well be a reason however, might it equally be likely that the increased rate of immigration, possibly from countries without a vaccination program, might also be a major contributor.

My original view on this, and other education issues, is here.

I was therefore very interested to read that Adnrew Adonis, Labour
Schools Minister, is advocating having all-through secondary schools. Click here for the article.

The basic premise is that chldren stay in the same school from 5 to 18
and therefore do not have the disruptive change of school at 11. It
also means that there are wider opportunities for educating those under
11 in what are called minority subjects.

I believe this is an excellent idea but it has one flaw. In urban areas
you need to find the land to build these schools on. The fact is our
traditional system of schooling, especially where the middle school
still exists, are going to find this sort of change very challenging.

I have been keeping an eye on this contract, and wrote to the department of health, having been alerted to some real concerns about its future by a local interested party.

What I am now seeking from the DOH is an assurance that South West residents will not suffer in this mess.

However, you cannot help but think that this is yet another Government IT disaster where the contract has failed because of mission creep by the client.

I
am flabbergasted that when other European countries have such lower
rates than ours we are still continuing with late term abortions. The
fact is surely saving just one life is enough justification to bring
about this change. I do not say this as a religious person but as a
human and a parent.

• In Germany they have a 12 week limit unless there are serious medical issues.
• In
  Sweden they have 18 weeks which can be increased to 22 in exceptional
  medical circumstances and with permission from the authorities.
• In France they 10 weeks unless there is a serious medical defect that has been ratified by a special diagnostic centre.
• In Italy you have 90 days (although I accept there is intense religious pressure in this country). 
• In Japan it is still only allowed under special circumstances.
• In
  New Zealand it is only allowed on medical grounds and no social reasons
  and only allowed after 20 weeks if it is to save the mother's life.

What
is equally baffling is the fact that this comes at a time when public
opinion is so behind such a reduction in time. Just look at these
figures (Wikipedia)

2005 YouGov/Daily Telegraph poll

According to an August 2005 YouGov/Daily Telegraph survey, Britons' feelings toward abortion by gestational age are:

• 30% would back a measure to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks
• 25% support maintaining the current limit of 24 weeks
• 19% support a limit of 12 weeks
• 9% support a limit of fewer than 12 weeks
• 6% responded that abortion should never be allowed
• 2% said it should be permitted throughout pregnancy

2006 MORI poll

According to the survey:

• 42% of British men and women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut (i.e abortion more restricted).
  • 47% of British women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut
  • 36% of British men believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut
• 10% of British women believe that abortion should be "outlawed altogether"

This is a very complex issues and I am sure there were many MP's who did not understand the science of this issue - although they will have been well aware of the fears that this issue creates.

My view is that this this is just the sort of legislation that ought to be subject to a sunset clause. This clause would mean that the legislation would need to be re-examined after a set number of years to discover whether this legislation has done what it is claimed it will do. Has it advanced science as fast as scientists claim it would? In fact, a sunset clause would repeal the law unless the Commons specifically votes to keep it in place.

Of more concern for me is the issue of saviour siblings. I am against this proposal. Selecting embryos because they can become a donor to an already born sibling is something that concerns me. Whilst I understand the desire to save a life, creating another life to do so can create all sorts of psychological harm to the saviour sibling. What happens in later life, when the elder sibling then contracts another illness that the saviour sibling can help. Is the Saviour sibling obliged, by conscience, to donate again? This is a very messy piece of law and it concerns me what this means.

Embryo research bill: Q & A - Telegraph

However, the detail of this debate has become somewhat clouded as both sides trade arguments. I have found this Guardian piece very accessible.

Q&A: Hybrid embryos | Science | guardian.co.uk