Devol u-turn? (Part 1)

I have long been a supporter of regional devolution, but recently, particularly in light of the problems resulting from the government's austerity policies, I have been tempted to wonder whether regional devolution might perhaps turn out to be not such a great thing for the low paid, for vulnerable members of society or for public services. The reason for my concerns is related to the new powers that the government has offered to grant to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is to be given new tax raising powers, including the power to set income tax levels. If regional devolution in England is to be fair, and particularly if it is to address the real or perceived problems resulting from the 'West Lothian question', then similar powers would eventually need to be granted to the English regional authorities. But one possible concern is that this could result in a 'race to the bottom', as competition developed between regions to attract businesses and high wage earners. Businesses would be able to use the threat of relocation to force regional authorities to cut taxes to below optimum levels - and reduced taxes could mean that help for the low paid and funding for public services would suffer.
In short, I have been wondering if devolution isn't merely a case of offering people a bigger slice of a potentially much smaller pie. Wouldn't it be better to aim for unity and solidarity, rather than fragmentation, among those bodies that are charged with raising taxes and funding public goods?
Another concern is that, while I fully understand why the people of Scotland and Wales chose a greater level of self government rather than rule from London, as a council tenant in a low paid, public sector job, I'm not sure that I really want to find myself living in a self-governing, self-funding East of England region (I am assuming that the nine existing administrative regions of England would almost certainly be the structural basis for any level of regional devolution which takes place). Politically, this region is totally dominated by the Conservative Party, who currently hold 52 of the 59 seats represented in the Westminster parliament. As someone with centre-leftish political views, I can’t help the words ‘turkey’ and ‘Christmas’ popping into my head when I think about what regional devolution, which I support in principle, could mean for the region in which I live. My fear is that, under a Conservative dominated regional authority with powers similar to those of the Scottish government, policies such as increased private sector involvement in the NHS and the slashing of public sector budgets would proliferate and those who oppose them would have very little recourse at all. While I fully support the idea of regional devolution in principle it would seem that, for pragmatic reasons, regional devolution in my neck of the woods is not something I should be hoping for any time soon – any more than a Conservative supporter living in Scotland, whatever her views on Scotland’s relationship to the rest of the UK, would have been likely to welcome the prospect of an independent, SNP dominated Scotland.
These are some of the questions and doubts I've had lately about regional devolution. In part 2 of this post I will outline my conclusions about the issues I’ve raised.

Terrorism and cars

On Saturday morning I was listening to Ken Livingstone and David Mellor on LBC radio discussing the recent shootings, apparently by Muslim extremists, at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. They were discussing the question of whether or not the security services should be given more powers and resources to counter the perceived threat of similar attacks taking place on UK soil.
One of the themes that emerged during the phone in was the idea that while there might (according to some callers) be a case for strengthening the powers of those involved in countering the threat of terrorism, another possible response to the perceived dangers would be for the police to spend less time concerning themselves with traffic related issues and more time on trying to track down would be jihadists and militant extremists. Even Ken Livingstone concurred with this view.
I beg to differ and here is why:
In the last fifteen years, 53 people have died as a result of terrorist attacks on the British mainland. They were the 52 victims of 7/7, plus Fusilier Lee Rigby (figures from Wikipedia). These were of course horrific and senseless murders and I do not wish to in any way diminish the abhorrent nature of what took place in these attacks.
However:
According to the Department of Transport's own figures, in 2013 (the lastest year for which figures are available) 1,713 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Great Britain (this is actually the lowest number of fatalities since national records began in 1926!)
Therefore:
Over 32 times as many people died on the roads in 2013 than died in terrorist attacks in Britain in the last 15 years. In light of this fact, surely it makes very good sense for the authorities to spend far more money and other resources on monitoring drivers and road traffic generally, than they do on defense against terrorism.

Today's Daily Mail headline

It's a scandal! All these foreigners coming over here, looking after us, making us better. Outrageous!

The venerable old British tradition of Black Friday

Apparently we have a tradition in this country called Black Friday. Somehow I've managed to live the first 47 years of my life without noticing it, until a couple of days ago when I started getting bombarded with texts and emails about special Black Friday offers. Then today at work nearly everyone I came across mentioned it at some point. I heard a nurse (I work in a Community Hospital) mention it to a little old lady she was pushing along in a wheelchair, who just looked confused and asked 'What's Black Friday?' That little old lady and I seemed to be the only ones who were out of the loop.
I still don't really know what it is (I thought maybe it's like Black History Month, only shorter. And with less history, obviously) but according to my wife it's something to do with Thanksgiving in America. I should have guessed.
I remember a few years ago, the sports presenters on Radio 5 started talking about the Superbowl as if it was something that had always been a big part of our sporting calendar this side of the pond. Then of course there was the subtle introduction of 'trick or treating' into our culture - something that, as a child, I'd only ever heard of via American TV shows. And when exactly was it that everyone started calling films 'movies'?
I'm going to shut up now, before I start complaining about the G.I.s

Clegg's proposed 'reforms'

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will today set out his plans to restrict the availability of both out-of-work and in-work benefits to recently arrived immigrants from other EU countries. One of his ideas is that no-one will be awarded any benefits unless they have worked in the UK for at least 6 months. Another is to bar immigrants from receiving 'in-work benefits' such as tax credits unless they are working in full time jobs.
If these restrictions are ever brought in, how long will it be, I wonder, before a right wing UK government proposes extending them to UK citizens?

PREVENT

Last Friday I attended a training session entitled PREVENT which I believe is compulsory for all 'public facing' public sector workers, ie. those who come into contact with members of the public. The object of the course is to provide public sector workers with the necessary tools to identify those members of the public, with whom they come into contact during the course of their work, who are most susceptible to possible 'radicalisation' by extremist or terrorist organisations.
I was interested to see what the training would involve and I must admit I was (and still am) sceptical and suspicious of the whole idea of getting one section of the public (workers in public sector industries) to effectively spy on other members of the public (their clients).
The training session basically involved watching a series of films about what 'radicalisation' means, how it supposedly takes place, what type of personality profile might be susceptible to the process of radicalisation and what signs to look out for that might indicate that someone is in the process of being radicalised.
After each short film the trainer engaged us in a brief discussion of its contents. The questions thrown out to us for discussion were not of her design. She was reading from course materials prepared in advance by the training designers, presumably some Civil Service department or a private company contracted by the government.
It was made very clear that the threat posed by terrorism was not specifically linked to any one ethnicity or religious group. Examples were given of past atrocities that had been committed by groups other than Islamic fundamentalists - most of them were references to Irish republican terrorism.
A clip was shown from the film 'This is England', in which a young boy whose father had been killed in the Falklands conflict is persuaded to join a far right skinhead gang by the manipulative rhetorical techniques of the gang leader. After watching this clip, we attendees were invited to discuss the factors which had led to the boy being successfully recruited by the gang, eg. his vulnerability due to his recent bereavement, his impressionable age, peer pressure from his friends who were also in the gang, the oratory skills of the gang leader etc.
'What do you notice about the surroundings', the trainer asked us and was evidently pleased when eventually someone mentioned the apparent poverty on display (the scene was set in a room where there was not much furniture, with the occupants sitting around the wall). Apparently poverty is one of the factors that make people vulnerable to radicalisation.
The whole session was predicated on the notion that those who resort to violence in order to achieve their political aims must be psychologically flawed individuals who can potentially be identified in advance, thus enabling us to ensure that they get the help they need in order to be saved from making the wrong decisions that they would otherwise have made. This may be true, but if so, some might argue that we in the 'West' are not in general particularly good at spotting such personality flaws considering some of the leaders we have elected over the last couple of decades.
After the 'This is England' clip, the main part of the session involved a film which was a case study of a young man named Andrew Ibrahim who is now in prison for terrorism related offences (I think for possessing documents likely to be of use to terrorists and for preparing to commit terrorist acts). At one point during the film, the presenter interviewed the mother of Mr Ibrahim and asked her whether there were any signs that might, had they been picked up by the authorities, have enabled her son to have been identified as a potential victim of radicalisation and thus prevented from going down the path of committing terrorist offences. The mother stated that there were signs and that the first of these was the fact that her son had been handing out leaflets at University in protest against the occupation of Iraq by troops from the US led coalition! The presenter pointed out that some people might say there is nothing wrong with this, after all we do have free speech in this country, and the mother replied that that was true but that apparently he had been visibly angry about the issue, and shouting. The presenter agreed that this incident did indeed constitute a sign that might have been picked up as evidence of Mr Ibrahim's future radicalisation.
Apparently then, passionate opposition to UK military intervention abroad is a sign of potential susceptibility to terrorist radicalisation.
All public sector staff are being encouraged to report such signs of potential radicalisation to their appointed anti-radicalisation lead (there is one for every NHS organisation, and presumably for every education department, police service, etc.)

Update: Apparently, Home Secretary Teresa May said in her speech yesterday about proposed increased anti-terrorism measures that the PREVENT programme should be bolstered. A report out today, however, into the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, said the PREVENT programme wasn't working.

Jeremy Hunt increases NHS winter fund

Saw this article today. Apparently there's to be a 75% increase in the NHS winter fund, compared with last year.
There must be a General Election coming up.