Politics

Well, sort of. Today’s offerings in the Times are as disappointing as yesterday’s. Mandelson adds to the croaking New Labour chorus that there was no deal at Granita. Blair and Brown, barely on speaking on terms in the run up to the 2005 election, cut a deal in 2004 to ease the succession.  Later, Brown and Blair re-opened hostilities over the EU Presidency, but that was already known, or at least expected. Mandelson’s adoption of the terms of corruption has ceased to shock – New Labour’s personal history has long since been prejudiced by perpetual briefing and counter-briefing, and 24 hour news. However, hacks are pouring over the memoir, fresh

Much ado about the Office for Budget Responsibility’s growth predictions in the Treasury Select Committee earlier, especially as an OBR official admitted that the cuts and tax hikes in the Budget could conceivably tip us into a double-dip recession. So are the OBR’s official forecasts too optimistic, as some are now claiming? Only time will tell, but we can get a decent sense of things by comparing them with the independent forecasts that the Treasury collect here. And this is the result: In other words, the OBR growth forecasts stick pretty closely to the average independent forecast, although they are a touch more optimistic. Admittedly, these independent forecasts were collected

As I wrote earlier, a large proportion of Andrew Lansley’s white paper had to be devoted to accountability. Much of it is, but little is explained. Patients are central. The creation of GP consortia is for their benefit and they will hold the consortia to account by excercising choice (4:21). Choice is the tyrannical panacea that does not exist. A patient can only improve a treatment if they are given it; and many GPs are closer to Doctor In the House rather than Dr.House. GPs are independent practitioners working within the NHS framework. For example, it is impossible for the patient to make recommendations about unavailable cancer drugs. In addition

Let’s dwell on the Labour leadership contest a second longer, to point its participants in the direction of John Rentoul’s column today.  Its central point – that Labour should “leave a door ajar” for Nick Clegg – should be self-evident to a party which has been forced out of power by a coalition.  But, in reality, Labour seems eager to ignore it.  At best, there’s a lazy assumption that the Lib Dems will one day divorce the Tories and quite naturally shack up with the lady in red.  At worst, there’s outright hostility to Clegg and his fellow, ahem, “collaborators”.  Neither approach will do much to break the ties that