Why the Tories’ Californian strategy should be taken seriously

chris

Have you read Freakonomics, Fraser? It makes sense.

ID

How comforting that the Party wishes to give more money to the company that employs Rachel and thus keeps Steve in razor blades (for shaving his hair, natch), no matter how poorly this company is proven to have performed in the sector in question. No danger of any scandal here!

Marcus Cotswell

Well, California could soon provide a textbook example of how the government of a major economy can go bankrupt, so yes, perhaps we should take this seriously ...

LiverpoolTory

I've just got back from a short break in LA. Not to be negative but here are a few things the Tories should be aware of:

Widespread poverty. The State has just started issuing IOUs because the deficit is so high.

An open border with Mexico. Practically unlimited immigration has turned many areas of the big cities into slums.

Rampant gun crime.

And finally a more general American problem, no respect for pedestrians. I had to get in the car go out on the freeway just to find a place that sold ice cream.

Publius

On medical records, I don't care what info some people may decide to stick on the web. But I have no intention of doing so.

The supposed necessity of having one's medical records universally available to doctors, nurses, or curious bureaucrats at the touch of a button is overrated, in my view.

Furthermore, what is private and secure only remains that way until some government that has control of the data decides otherwise. And in the case of Google, which government would that be?

peter

This is Dave's version of Wilson's "white heat of technology".

God help us!

TGF UKIP

To get full value from this piece from Fraser it should be read not only in conjunction with his original "California Dreamin'" post ( which gave us all such fun at the time) but also with his article in the fanzine last Friday - this can be accessed via the "magazine" button above.

His fanzine piece seemed to have two purposes. Firstly the desperate one to boost the position of his client The Weasel Osborne and secondly to celebrate the permanent return to these shores from California of The Mekon.

Plainly Fraser and the other fanzine hacks are big fans but I would guess for most Tory backbenchers, and indeed for many other non-metropolitan pc Tories, Steve Hilton's return is about as welcome as the presence of Mrs Hilton would be at a Lady Sheffield anniversary party.

Now while all this gives us all so much amusement with Fraser's titbits of Dave's new Department of Social Justice and Loopy Letwin as the Cabinet Climate Change Commissar, it really does beg the question as to why Tory members and Tory backbenchers actually put up with it.

They have seen their party successfully taken over by a clique of entryists who intend to use it for their own ends just as much as The Militant Tendency intended to use the Labour Party back in the eighties.

Indeed, just as Militant despised but intended to use the ordinary members of the Labour Party, so Dave & Co barely attempt to disguise their dislike and contempt for the provincial Tories on whom they have to depend at election times.

At least back in the eighties, though, ordinary Labour members and MPs fought back and successfully resisted Miltiant's attempts at a coup, a resistance it must be said encouraged and supported by the Labour media who unlike its present day Tory counterpart never lionized or celebrated the likes of Dave Nellist or Degsy Hatton.

Now though it seems in the Tory Party that the Hilton/Cameron entryists are to go entirely unchallenged. Having been daft enough to be conned by them back in 2005, it would seem the Tories are now too supine to challenge them. Truly the Stupid Party has also become the Craven Party.

WBG

One last point.

How many of the Shadow Cabinet have managed the implementation and provision of a computer system end to end?

None I suspect. They have no idea what they are letting themselves in for (those bloody users are never happy). They know not what they do.

A better approach would just be to decide to significantly reduce the general use of IT in Government (in particular wasting money on the Internet should be banned)and keep technological development to specialist areas such as defence and medical treatment.

The reason being that the total cost of ownership of efficient IT systems (the networks, the SANS, back-up devices, the DR solution, the security upgrades, the capacity upgrades, the maintenance costs, the licence costs etc etc ad infinitum) is way above and beyond what it costs to employ what still are the best and most flexible computers there are (human beings).

After all a computer system needs to be replaced (becoming obsolete) on average every five to ten years. On the other hand, you can get 40 maybe 50 years of decent service out of a human being if you are lucky (or you used to be able to before the technological revolution).

John Bright

I have some familiarity with Anna Eshoo, the congresswoman who represents the gerrymandered congressional district which contains much of Silicon Valley. This is not a woman the Tories should seek to emulate. She is a left-winger on the wrong side of most issues. While on pending legislative issues such as patents for 'biosimilars' her position is not as anti-business as fellow leftist Democratic Californian congressman Henry Waxman, in general her policies can be summed up as tax and spend and nationalise. As is well known, California -a state which should have so much going for it- has been brought to insolvency by its political leadership. I hope the sad tale of California's budget crisis is not a harbinger of what lies ahead for America and Britain.

IdlingAway

"Websites like www.theyworkforyou.com and www.upmystreet.com have been set up to help the public scrutinise their MPs and find out more about schools, crime, etc. These are independent, organic groups....."

Yes - up to a point - upmystreet.com is part of the Uswitch group of companies and it's purpose is to attract advertisers to potential homebuyers. So, whilst some of the information might originate from government maintained records , what actually ends up on the website is dictated by the commissions paid by advertisers and the ranking in comparison tables is also potentially open to manipulation by advertiser's commissions.

So, yes, technically feasible and a good way to show information but not necessarily independent.

porkbelly

Meanwhile the real California is rapidly descending into uncontrollable fiscal chaos, out of cash, a State Legislature unable to control its insatiable appetite for new taxes, fees, commissions, marketing boards and the like. Why? Because in the last few years, instead of addressing the chronic problems faced by the state (illegal immigration, housing prices, the exodus of businesses, the unsustainable growth of the government payroll) our Governator was more concerned with global warming, public-private "green" partnerships, gay marriage and so on. While he and his cronies in the Legislature were squabbling over these inconsequential (but highly mediagenic) issues the entire lumbering hulk has run aground.

Why does this matter to the Tories? Because I don't think this "California Plan" is a clever new way to repackage and sell old but sound ideas to the electorate - I think this IS the Tories' policy - full stop - just as it is Schwarzenegger's. It is all fluff and no substance - while Dave and his ministers are posing with polar bears and aborigines nothing will really have changed from the current regime, only instead of being merely headed for the reef Britain will actually be crashing upon it. Perhaps Dave plans to surf to safety?

Scot Richards

Before anyone even thinks about handing over ANY personal information to Google you should take a few hours and read the attached terms and conditions. Google makes the KGB look like the Man from Uncle. Their entire business is all about selling your private details to advertising companies.

People are staring to wise up. There won't be a Google in 10 years.

e.g.

The reason we don't have free markets is because of a lack of market information. Governments job should be to enable availability of enough information for markets to allocate the resources. More info=better markets=better outcomes.

Fraser Nelson

TGF, that's more like it. I wasn't quite sure how to respond to your complimentary post yesterday. If your point is that there's a gap between the leadership and the parliamentary party then you're right. As I said in my piece last week. I partic like the idea that I am Osborne's client.

Peter: quite right. "White heat" is a phrase that should be deployed every time Cameron enters his "I have a dream" moments on the economy.

John Bright, it's been said that the Caifornia legislators are the most left wing group of people to have got together in America - and look at the result. Squeeze the rich and you get fewer rich people and a whole less tax revenue. I do hope Cam & Osborne take that lesson home.

Verity

Porkbelly, many thanks for that insight.

David Cameron, although he has a vapid face, is not a nice man.

Dave and the Heirites are all about themselves and their futures in that vast land of plenty, Yurrop. That is why he shows no passion regarding the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, if he shows any passion at all, it is fear of it not going through.

They far surpass, in determination, even Tony Blair.

But Tony Blair had a talent, as nauseating as most of us found him; he could present himself (to the gullible)as having wit and charm.

Grahame P

Tongue firmly in-cheek. The latest estimated cost projection for the NHS system (that I recall) is circa 40 billion. This isn't that dissimilar to the entire value of Google. If HMG purchased Google instead of trying to re-invent the wheel, they'd benefit from being able to offset the cost against the asset value so it would effectively be a zero-cost purchase. With Free Cash Flow estimated to be 8.25 billion dollars by 2012, Google dividends could also significantly offset the running costs of the NHS. Create a new Health Service Division within Google and offer hosting to other countries with centralised health services as an added-value service; then refloat Google to realise the enhanced asset value and turn a nice profit.

Should appeal to the Cameroons as well. Why try replicating Silicon Valley when you can just buy up its favourite child for less than the cost of one failed bank, and save 40 billion in the process. Should be able to save some money on spy satellites too! :-)

abraham

Wow Verity, what would we do without your opinions. David Cameron could learn a thing from your hero Sarah Palin, right?

And before you start on about who's gullible, why don't you admit you voted for him - and are one of the gullible

Mark M

I thought Cameron's answer yesterday when asked about the security of handing the data to Google or Microsoft was perfect, and is a point he needs to reiterate if he wants to make people believe in this idea. He mentioned that it is not as though government is 100% secure with data, leaving it on trains and losing it in various other ways. This is a point he needs to keep banging on about.

How many stories have you heard of Google losing data? Exactly, because if they get a reputation as a company that loses data then people will stop using them. Government, on the other hand, can lose data all it wants and you have no option but to put up with it.

John Emsley

Let's go back one move...
I live in France and I have a health card with a chip in it. I've had it for ten years. Every Doctor,Pharmacy, A and E etc in France only has to slot it into their till/computer and they have instant access to my health records. If I want to buy strong pain killers, the pharmacist won't sell them to me until he's read my file.
There you are. An up and running nationwide health database which could be running now. I reckon the French government would have accepted 10percent of what's been blown on this for the rights to the software...
DUR.........

Publius

@Mark M
The point, surely, is that there is no real need for a centralised database of one's medical records. ANY centralised data is open to abuse. It's just too easy and too tempting.

Simon Gibbs

I think the privatization of medical records is great idea - as long as one small detail is made sure of - that I get to choose between Google Health, MS Health Vault, open source solutions, and quills, parchment and horse&cart if that's what I want to choose. There should be no default except - perhaps - the existing NHS system which can be frozen as-is.

An open market for the specific service of patient medical records - not entire informatics infrastructures (whatever that is*) is not a bad thing at all.

One further detail - Web 3.0 technology will let us use a combination of more than one provider at the same time, meaning greater flexibility for me and for providers, and more competition. If Web 3.0 is too cutting edge, maybe Cameron should wait until his second term.

Simon

* I suspect it means using data about me without my consent, or is else irrelevant.

Verity

Abraham, I am baffled by your intemperate post. You'll bet I voted for Cameron? When did he run for anything (outside his own constituency)?

That error aside, why do you "bet" I voted for him? I'm intrigued by your thought process. Why do you so bet?

Out of the kindness of my heart, so you do not throw your money away on silly bets, I have loathed David Cameron's unlined, empty, smug face and patronising poses from the first time I saw his photograph. Hearing/reading his "thoughts", if such midget electrical impulses might be so defined, has done nothing but reinforce my first, instinctive, loathing of this individual. He is as hazardous to the health of our democracy as Tony Blair.

Let me know if you are still baffled, Abraham, and I will try to put it in more forthright terms.

Tiberius

TGF: mostly said with tongue in cheek, I'm sure, but Militant were moving in on a party that had been in power for most of the 15 years up to the 1979 GE (Heath's Great Gig In The Sky notwithstanding), while the Cameroons are rescuing a party that has been continuously out of office for 12 years.

You may not like Cameron and Osborne, but it is bizarre that you still refuse to acknowledge that the Old Guard had its turn at rehabilitation, and failed demonstrably.

Riccardo

There are plenty of project managers and programmers in this country who could sort out the IT debacles. Only they never get the chance because the contracts are always given to the same gang of serial-failure, often foreign-owned, IT consultants, who charge billions. Those consultants have no intention of finishing projects. Their sole aim is to spin things out and keep on writing those fat invoices. A recognition of this fact by civil servants would be a huge step forward.

I always think of Tesco. Tens of millions trust them with personal info, because they have a proven track record. Conversely, government agencies leak like sieves. So handing the job to a trusted private company would seem like a good idea. I bet Tesco's database people could have the patient record thing up and running in six months.

Verity

Tiberius - A rescue from ZanuLabour by BluLabour is no rescue. They are two fingers on the same hand. The left hand.

John Bright

The California bond rating has been downgraded to just above junk as reported today in the Financial Times.

TGF UKIP

Now then Fraser, not being mischievous or perverse are you? My post yesterday was, indeed, sincerely complimentary as I do genuinely regard you as the Tories most effective media performer. Indeed, I would dare James Forsyth to conduct a Coffee Housers poll on who would be their choice for Tory economic spokesman, you or your client The Weasel.

In this latter regard I must confess myself to be completely mystified as to how you can represent me as having portrayed you as Osborne's client. Did I get my grammatical knickers in a twist last week or have I razzed you over all these months as Boy George's very own Max Clifford to no avail.

Whatever, Fraser, even you must begin to see that he is now damaged goods beyond repair.

As to my post yesteday, I was deadly serious, Tiberius. I believe the path the Tories have allowed themselves to be put upon will lead to absolute disaster for one very good reason:

A HOUSE DIVIDED UPON ITSELF CANNOT HOLD

And has there ever been a house more politically divided upon itself than the present Tory house.

The instincts of the broad mass of Tory Party supporters can probably be best described as provincial conservative and can anything be more inimical to them than the liberal, green progressive, pc metropolitan mores of Cameron's party within the Party.

For the moment there is no rocking of the boat so there can be no allegations of sabotage, notwithstanding the Tory Left's sabotage in 2001 and 2005. After the election though, one way or another, there will be a reckoning.

As to your final para, Tiberius, as I have made plain many times before my view is that with DD as Leader consistently over the past three and half years presenting a policy of reducing public spending, debt and taxes (as well as political correctness) the Tories would have been so far ahead now they would be out of Gordon's sight. Instead of which against Dave, Labour still have everything to fight for.

PS The article that Fraser Nelson will never dare write and the fanzine never publish is exactly that: "Where would the Tories have been now with DD as Leader."

Mike MacLeod

I have lived in California's Silicon Valley for over 30 years. Its glory days are in the past, and the monies that bid up the price of small cottages to million-dollar heights have also purchased an underclass of illiterate Mexican illegal immigrants who stand sullenly on street corners looking for day work while eyeing the BMWs motoring past.

The class conflicts in California come into sharp relief as the state government's resources dry up. Long ago voters capped the property tax at historically low levels, and then crippled what was seen as a predatory legislature with a need to meet a 66% supermajority to pass new tax legislation. At the same time, spending on social programs has continued unabated (until quite recently). The governor has resorted to threatening to sell state parks, San Quentin prison, and other assets to balance the books, and it's not just scare tactics.

The Silicon Valley never really recovered from the "dot com" bust of 2000-2002. Indeed, some are convinced that government spending in the wake of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center merely postponed a withering resession forward until today. The impact of offshoring, robust technological economies elsewhere, and the recession have hollowed out the once lustrous economy here.

Verity

TGF UKIP - a truth-laden post, as always. The money quote: "I have made plain many times before my view is that with DD as Leader consistently over the past three and half years presenting a policy of reducing public spending, debt and taxes (as well as political correctness) the Tories would have been so far ahead now they would be out of Gordon's sight. Instead of which against Dave, Labour still have everything to fight for."

Indeed, indeed.

His policy of the day announcements, his jacketless meetings, his open collars where he pretends to have matily discarded his tie (I guess imagining that that's what most men do when they get to the office; maybe he thinks they only dress formally for the tube) holding a coffee cup while making important announcements because he and his people think that's what the little people do. And, as if that were not bad enough, holding the cup by the body of the cup, not the handle. Fearing to look what he thinks "the little people" see as posh ... rather than simply tidily dressed and polite, which includes holding a cup properly - not to burn their fingers, if nothing else.

The contempt this condescending attitude reveals is disgraceful. He doesn't even know that in most conservative British homes (intentional small 'c'), good manners among the family are not only observed, but insisted upon.

Labour does indeed still have everything to fight for, and I hope like hell that they win. That will at least rid us of toxic Dave. And from Dave's point of view, he can go back to wearing ties and drinking tea and coffee properly.

TGF UKIP

Bang on Verity, and perhaps the phoney matey cheeriness and holding the mug (always a mug for the photo ops) by the body not the handle might remind you of somebody.

But it goes further doesn't it? Fraser tells us that The Mekon is busy crossing out the word "provided" in speeches and inserting instead "enabled." Now what Fraser perhaps forgets, or, more likely, recalls but chooses not to remind us of, is the phrase "the enabling state." Remember that and off whose lips it tripped?

"I see myself as the Heir to Blair" is indeed the key to who and what the Silver Spoon Spiv truly is.

Tiberius

Verity: your equating of Cameron's Tories to NuLab is simply preposterous.

TGF: David Davis lost the leadership election because he was perceived as less likely to beat Labour at a GE. His histrionics since have shown he is not reliable as a front bench MP, let alone a party leader.

As for a divided party, do you really think the Tories are more divided now than during the Maastricht rebellion? Or when Mrs Thatcher was deposed? Or even at the time of Westland affair?

Verity

Tiberius writes: "Verity: your equating of Cameron's Tories to NuLab is simply preposterous."

Why? Because you say so?

I find this statement simply preposterous - and, if sincere, wilfully blind.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, DD was defeated because he was comprehensively outmanoeuvred, especially on the media front by Dave and the Mekon and their cohort of London media and PR supporters.

DD being the old trooper he is, probably appreciated with a grin that he had been "done over" and regretted that he had underestimated Dave and his mates in the London media and among the old Tory patrician left.

Dave did, however, con the poor old faithful of the Stupid Party. Not once did he indicate that what he had in mind was a policy direction entirely remote from that of mainstream British conservatism. To reinforce the con at all the hustings he lavished praise on Margaret Thatcher but as I have posted many times his real mission was to bury Thatcherism.

Dave's masterstroke, though, (and I would love to know who guided him there - was it the Mekon or someone like Hurd?) was not to work for any of the old patricians or any of the "wets" but for Lamont and Howard - men who he knew the Party would regard and as "sound" and so, he rightly guessed, make the same but false assumption about him.

As for DD, they weren't histrionics, matey, he was baleing out to preserve his powder and keep his hands clean ready for another day - your Boy Hero's day of reckoning.

As for the Tories being divided, I don't think the broad mass of the party is divided, it just so happens that at their centre they have a "foreign body" - just like a perfectly sound apple with a maggot that's wormed its way to the core.

Milton Keynes

"All written up as a new idea for a young century when it's actually the perennial Conservative mission: trusting and empowering the masses."

I think you got the words 'masses' and 'rich' confused.