British astronomers will lose access to two of the world's finest telescopes in February due to a government funding shortfall, reports the BBC.
The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which looks after UK astronomy funding, has signalled that formal notice to withdraw from the Gemini organisation - the consortium that runs two of the biggest, most-modern optical-infrared reflecting telescopes in the world - would be issued shortly, as it seeks to plug a large hole in its budget.
The STFC's problems have emerged out of the government's latest spending round, which has left the council short of £80m in the three-year budget plan to 2011.
This is an amount equivalent to just five days worth of money the government is, however, prepared to shower on the audit-failing and wasteful EU.
The result will be that British astronomers will no longer view the Northern Hemisphere sky with the largest class of telescope.
To manage its way out of this crisis, the STFC has announced its intention to close certain programmes and cut research grants. Science societies and union officials have warned the damage to UK physics and astronomy will be incalculable and will lead to hundreds of job losses.
Researchers say they are aghast at the administrators' decision.
Professor Paul Crowther from Sheffield University said: "To withdraw from the state-of-the-art Gemini facilities leaves the UK ground-based astronomy strategy in disarray - some would say deliberately sabotaged."
"This will badly affect the UK astronomical community's ability to address questions such as how galaxies form, or look for planets around other stars, or be able to adequately exploit space observatories such as the Hubble Space Telescope," explained the current chair of the UK telescope allocation committee for Gemini.
"The loss of Gemini North is particularly acute, since the majority of the UK past investment has been focused upon the Northern Hemisphere," he told BBC News.
In future, the only way British astronomers can look at the Northern Hemisphere sky with the largest class of telescope is if they are working on projects with co-researchers whose national funding agencies are sponsors of one of these facilities.
Those MPs who voted to approve the recent 63% increase in our contributions to the EU, despite no end to the EU's annual audit failures, are the ones responsible for this problem.
Doubtless the EU could live without our contributions for just five days, so we can save the £80m required and our international scientific reputation. But those politicians have now made their irresponsible and short-sighted decision to give the money to the EU instead. And we can now only cast our verdict on that decision at the ballot box, come the next general election.
Monday, 28 January 2008
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Council tax to rise by double the rate of inflation
Council tax bills in England are set to rise by about 4% on average this year, reports the BBC today.
A Local Government Association (LGA) study into 100 draft council budgets obtained by the BBC shows some councils may put bills up by nearly 5%.
The association has warned that many local authorities will still have to ration or cut services despite the increases in tax.
The chairman of the LGA, Sir Simon Milton is quoted as saying: "No-one likes paying more council tax, but this year town halls are making enormous efforts to keep bills down."
But adds that it has been impossible to avoid putting up bills because of the increasing pressure on council budgets.
"Several government departments are shifting extra costs on to councils while limiting funding from central government," Sir Simon said.
The LGA cites that councils are facing extra costs caused by increased migration, funding free travel for pensioners and the disabled, and increasing social care budgets, due to larger numbers of elderly people, and the cost of dealing with household waste.
In Hampshire, one of the councils where bills will go up by nearly 5%, the authority's leader Cllr Ken Thornberry also blames Whitehall for creating the situation.
"We are being asked to do more and more every year by central government with less and less. The system is not sustainable."
This news of another inflation-busting rise in Council Tax comes as the Government gifts a 63% increase in payments to the (audit-failing) EU, and highlights the utter irresponsibility of those MPs who recently voted to approve that deal.
Their constituents will clearly now pay the price of such completely unjustified generosity to the EU through their Council Tax bills. Read who those MPs were here.
As a result of the EU budget deal, we are now paying so much money to EU institutions every year that our new gross annual EU contribution (more than £10 billion) is now enough to cut everyone's Council Tax bill in half.
That's what those MPs could have done with the money, instead of giving it to a body whose auditors haven't been able to explain its spending for 13 years running, and which is regularly mired in reports of waste and fraud.
Coupled with the recent news that MPs want to gift themselves a nice pay rise, a large section of our political elite seem to be becoming ever more detached from financial reality ... busily feathering their own nests and unjustifiably gifting billions of pounds extra a year to unaccountable international institutions, imagining that such waste is not contributing to oppressive Council Tax rises and essential public services being cut.
The only way to wake these people up with a sharp dose of reality is now at that ballot box, the next time we get an opportunity.
A Local Government Association (LGA) study into 100 draft council budgets obtained by the BBC shows some councils may put bills up by nearly 5%.
The association has warned that many local authorities will still have to ration or cut services despite the increases in tax.
The chairman of the LGA, Sir Simon Milton is quoted as saying: "No-one likes paying more council tax, but this year town halls are making enormous efforts to keep bills down."
But adds that it has been impossible to avoid putting up bills because of the increasing pressure on council budgets.
"Several government departments are shifting extra costs on to councils while limiting funding from central government," Sir Simon said.
The LGA cites that councils are facing extra costs caused by increased migration, funding free travel for pensioners and the disabled, and increasing social care budgets, due to larger numbers of elderly people, and the cost of dealing with household waste.
In Hampshire, one of the councils where bills will go up by nearly 5%, the authority's leader Cllr Ken Thornberry also blames Whitehall for creating the situation.
"We are being asked to do more and more every year by central government with less and less. The system is not sustainable."
This news of another inflation-busting rise in Council Tax comes as the Government gifts a 63% increase in payments to the (audit-failing) EU, and highlights the utter irresponsibility of those MPs who recently voted to approve that deal.
Their constituents will clearly now pay the price of such completely unjustified generosity to the EU through their Council Tax bills. Read who those MPs were here.
As a result of the EU budget deal, we are now paying so much money to EU institutions every year that our new gross annual EU contribution (more than £10 billion) is now enough to cut everyone's Council Tax bill in half.
That's what those MPs could have done with the money, instead of giving it to a body whose auditors haven't been able to explain its spending for 13 years running, and which is regularly mired in reports of waste and fraud.
Coupled with the recent news that MPs want to gift themselves a nice pay rise, a large section of our political elite seem to be becoming ever more detached from financial reality ... busily feathering their own nests and unjustifiably gifting billions of pounds extra a year to unaccountable international institutions, imagining that such waste is not contributing to oppressive Council Tax rises and essential public services being cut.
The only way to wake these people up with a sharp dose of reality is now at that ballot box, the next time we get an opportunity.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Police in protest rally over pay
An estimated 22,500 police officers have marched in central London in a protest over pay - reports the BBC.
Police are angry that a 2.5% pay rise was only backdated to 1 December for UK officers except for those in Scotland.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would have liked to pay more but it was part of the "fight against inflation" (yet inflating our spending on the EU by £2.5bn a year - or 63% - doesn't seem to worry him!).
Police Federation chairman Jan Berry held "constructive" talks with the home secretary, but said trust between the two sides needed to be rebuilt.
Police say the rise is effectively a 1.9% annual increase - unlike that in Scotland, where it has been backdated to 1 September.
The Police Federation, which represents officers up to the rank of Chief Inspector, has applied for a judicial review of the decision by ministers.
A rally at Central Hall in Westminster, consisting of 3,500 officers, was followed by Ms Berry presenting a petition to Downing Street and meeting home secretary.
Federation members will be balloted next month on whether to campaign for the right to strike.
The Home Office said the home secretary was grateful for the vital and hard work carried out by police officers.
"However, we also have a responsibility to ensure pay settlements take into account affordability and consistency with government pay policy, including the maintenance of low inflation," a spokesman said.
Yet somehow such requirements don't apply when it comes to the EU, where giving that audit-failing organisation an extra £2.5bn a year - a 63% increase, as opposed to the 1.9% pay rise the police are complaining about - is apparently 'affordable' and consistent with the 'maintenance of low inflation'.
What does this say about the government's priorities, and those of the MPs who voted to approve such a shocking waste of even more money on the EU rather than spending it on providing quality public services?
Certainly not one of those MPs, having voted to waste so much on the EU, can also claim to be backing the police. Though that doesn't seem to stop some of the most hypocritical trying.
Police are angry that a 2.5% pay rise was only backdated to 1 December for UK officers except for those in Scotland.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would have liked to pay more but it was part of the "fight against inflation" (yet inflating our spending on the EU by £2.5bn a year - or 63% - doesn't seem to worry him!).
Police Federation chairman Jan Berry held "constructive" talks with the home secretary, but said trust between the two sides needed to be rebuilt.
Police say the rise is effectively a 1.9% annual increase - unlike that in Scotland, where it has been backdated to 1 September.
The Police Federation, which represents officers up to the rank of Chief Inspector, has applied for a judicial review of the decision by ministers.
A rally at Central Hall in Westminster, consisting of 3,500 officers, was followed by Ms Berry presenting a petition to Downing Street and meeting home secretary.
Federation members will be balloted next month on whether to campaign for the right to strike.
The Home Office said the home secretary was grateful for the vital and hard work carried out by police officers.
"However, we also have a responsibility to ensure pay settlements take into account affordability and consistency with government pay policy, including the maintenance of low inflation," a spokesman said.
Yet somehow such requirements don't apply when it comes to the EU, where giving that audit-failing organisation an extra £2.5bn a year - a 63% increase, as opposed to the 1.9% pay rise the police are complaining about - is apparently 'affordable' and consistent with the 'maintenance of low inflation'.
What does this say about the government's priorities, and those of the MPs who voted to approve such a shocking waste of even more money on the EU rather than spending it on providing quality public services?
Certainly not one of those MPs, having voted to waste so much on the EU, can also claim to be backing the police. Though that doesn't seem to stop some of the most hypocritical trying.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Warwickshire: Man in NHS battle 'to save sight'
A man has called his NHS trust "morally wrong" for refusing to fund treatment which could save his sight - reports the BBC.
Raymond Liggins, 76, from Nuneaton, lost the sight in his left eye because of wet macular degeneration and now has the condition in his right eye.
Warwickshire Primary Care Trust has said that it did not routinely fund the "sight-saving" drug Lucentis as it was not recommended in guidance to the NHS.
David Rose, chief executive of Warwickshire PCT, said this was the same as other PCTs in the West Midlands.
But Mr Liggins' case has been backed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) and the Macular Disease Society (MDS).
The RNIB said Mr Liggins had the devastating condition age-related macular degeneration (AMD) which could lead to blindness in as little as three months.
It called for Warwickshire PCT to adopt draft guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) which recommended Lucentis be made available to all patients who developed AMD.
The RNIB said rapid use of the drug was "vital" as it was able to halt the progress of the condition.
Mr Liggins, who is using his life savings to pay for private treatment, said he and other patients with the condition had been "let down" by the NHS.
"It's morally wrong to let people go blind when there are treatments available," he said.
Mr Liggins, who cares for his wife Olive who recently had a stroke, added: "My wife depends on me to help maintain her balance when we go out shopping, but I won't be able to do this if I lose my sight."
Barbara McLaughan, RNIB campaigns manager, said: "It's an absolute disgrace that he is effectively being told to pay up or go blind," she said.
She added: "The clock is literally ticking for patients like Raymond who risk losing their sight because PCTs are denying them sight-saving treatment."
Mr Rose said it was not appropriate for the PCT to comment publicly on an individual case.
He added: "The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) issues guidance to the NHS on treatments and procedures following extensive trial and review and Warwickshire PCT follows all mandatory NICE guidelines.
Raymond Liggins, 76, from Nuneaton, lost the sight in his left eye because of wet macular degeneration and now has the condition in his right eye.
Warwickshire Primary Care Trust has said that it did not routinely fund the "sight-saving" drug Lucentis as it was not recommended in guidance to the NHS.
David Rose, chief executive of Warwickshire PCT, said this was the same as other PCTs in the West Midlands.
But Mr Liggins' case has been backed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) and the Macular Disease Society (MDS).
The RNIB said Mr Liggins had the devastating condition age-related macular degeneration (AMD) which could lead to blindness in as little as three months.
It called for Warwickshire PCT to adopt draft guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) which recommended Lucentis be made available to all patients who developed AMD.
The RNIB said rapid use of the drug was "vital" as it was able to halt the progress of the condition.
Mr Liggins, who is using his life savings to pay for private treatment, said he and other patients with the condition had been "let down" by the NHS.
"It's morally wrong to let people go blind when there are treatments available," he said.
Mr Liggins, who cares for his wife Olive who recently had a stroke, added: "My wife depends on me to help maintain her balance when we go out shopping, but I won't be able to do this if I lose my sight."
Barbara McLaughan, RNIB campaigns manager, said: "It's an absolute disgrace that he is effectively being told to pay up or go blind," she said.
She added: "The clock is literally ticking for patients like Raymond who risk losing their sight because PCTs are denying them sight-saving treatment."
Mr Rose said it was not appropriate for the PCT to comment publicly on an individual case.
He added: "The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) issues guidance to the NHS on treatments and procedures following extensive trial and review and Warwickshire PCT follows all mandatory NICE guidelines.
Labels:
blindness,
lucentis,
NHS funding,
nuneaton,
warwickshire
City concern at Treasury deficit figures
City warnings that government finances are set to plunge far deeper into the red than Alistair Darling has forecast mounted yesterday, after figures were released showing that the Treasury racked up its biggest December deficit on record last month - reports The Times.
Tax receipts that were weaker than expected by the Chancellor were the driving force behind the latest sharp deterioration in the public finances, fuelling fears that government borrowing could spiral as a faltering economy further undermines revenue.
The worsening state of the Government's books was underlined by figures showing that net borrowing for the financial year to date climbed to £43.6 billion, £11.4 billion more than in the same nine months in 2006-07 and far above Mr Darling's full-year forecast of £38 billion for 2007-08.
The worse-than-expected December data released yesterday showed that the Treasury was forced to borrow a net £7.8billion last month to plug the gap between spending and the month's disappointing revenues.
Economists said that the Chancellor was on course to breach that forecast by at least £2billion or £3billion (NB: net increase in payments to the EU: £2.5bn), but could end up exceeding it by much more if inflows of revenues continued to weaken.
This news once again highlights the huge irresponsibility of those MPs who approved a lavish 63% increase in payments for the wasteful and fraud-ridden EU, at the recent Third Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Beyond such an increase being completely unjustified while auditors cannot explain where the "majority" of the EU's money goes, such extra payments are clearly just not affordable.
Yet, while the public finances take a nose-dive, post offices close and the government quibbles with the police over £30m of their pay deal (to give just two recent, practical examples of the consequences) these MPs seemed to see no problem in approving the extra £2.5bn (net) a year (on top of the £3.5bn net a year we already pay) to an organisation that has failed its audit for 13 years running.
Despite the valiant efforts of some Labour MPs, like Ian Davidson and Austin Mitchell, most of their colleagues seemed unable to distinguish between the government spin (the money is to help poorer countries in Eastern Europe) and the reality (it will be paid to EU institutions, and where the "majority" of it goes from there has long been anyone's guess!).
All the MPs who voted for this Bill either failed in their responsibility to properly scrutinise the government's actions on behalf of their constituents, or they tried but are simply not up to the job.
Either way you cut it, MPs who approved this deal are not of the calibre necessary to be making such important decisions, and have got to go.
With any problems being suffered by public services in their constituencies caused by a shortfall of public money now being their fault, and theirs alone, for voting to approve this abject waste of public cash on the EU, we can only ensure that those MPs who made such an irresponsible choice are punished by local voters at the next election.
This blog, and the DM's Hall of Hypocrisy, will continue with that goal in mind.
Tax receipts that were weaker than expected by the Chancellor were the driving force behind the latest sharp deterioration in the public finances, fuelling fears that government borrowing could spiral as a faltering economy further undermines revenue.
The worsening state of the Government's books was underlined by figures showing that net borrowing for the financial year to date climbed to £43.6 billion, £11.4 billion more than in the same nine months in 2006-07 and far above Mr Darling's full-year forecast of £38 billion for 2007-08.
The worse-than-expected December data released yesterday showed that the Treasury was forced to borrow a net £7.8billion last month to plug the gap between spending and the month's disappointing revenues.
Economists said that the Chancellor was on course to breach that forecast by at least £2billion or £3billion (NB: net increase in payments to the EU: £2.5bn), but could end up exceeding it by much more if inflows of revenues continued to weaken.
This news once again highlights the huge irresponsibility of those MPs who approved a lavish 63% increase in payments for the wasteful and fraud-ridden EU, at the recent Third Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Beyond such an increase being completely unjustified while auditors cannot explain where the "majority" of the EU's money goes, such extra payments are clearly just not affordable.
Yet, while the public finances take a nose-dive, post offices close and the government quibbles with the police over £30m of their pay deal (to give just two recent, practical examples of the consequences) these MPs seemed to see no problem in approving the extra £2.5bn (net) a year (on top of the £3.5bn net a year we already pay) to an organisation that has failed its audit for 13 years running.
Despite the valiant efforts of some Labour MPs, like Ian Davidson and Austin Mitchell, most of their colleagues seemed unable to distinguish between the government spin (the money is to help poorer countries in Eastern Europe) and the reality (it will be paid to EU institutions, and where the "majority" of it goes from there has long been anyone's guess!).
All the MPs who voted for this Bill either failed in their responsibility to properly scrutinise the government's actions on behalf of their constituents, or they tried but are simply not up to the job.
Either way you cut it, MPs who approved this deal are not of the calibre necessary to be making such important decisions, and have got to go.
With any problems being suffered by public services in their constituencies caused by a shortfall of public money now being their fault, and theirs alone, for voting to approve this abject waste of public cash on the EU, we can only ensure that those MPs who made such an irresponsible choice are punished by local voters at the next election.
This blog, and the DM's Hall of Hypocrisy, will continue with that goal in mind.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Call for hospital debt write off
A Surrey hospital trust's £56m debt should be written off to let it rebuild its reputation, a local MP has said.
According to the BBC, Reigate MP Crispin Blunt said during a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday that the size of East Surrey Hospital's debt was because of a delay in the transfer of acute services from Crawley to Redhill in 2001.
Prior to the meeting, Mr Blunt said: "Since 1998 the financial settlement for East Surrey Hospital has been the victim of government interference.
"The current deficit is over £55 million, the largest of any trust in the country" - an amount that could be wiped out with just 4 days' worth of our net contributions to the European Union's audit-failing budget, if the cash were diverted from being sent to that wasteful organisation.
Commenting on his demand that the government write off this debt, Mr Blunt added: "Only this can give the trust the financial footing on which it can begin to rebuild its quality of service and its reputation."
Health minister Dawn Primarolo said Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust was one of 17 classified as "financially challenged".
She added that measures were in place to enable the trust to restore its finances.
But maybe if Ms Primarolo and the government of which she is a part didn't condone wasting so much public money on the audit-failing EU, she wouldn't have to force East Surrey hospital to take these financial "measures" which will very likely harm provision of essential health services.
According to the BBC, Reigate MP Crispin Blunt said during a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday that the size of East Surrey Hospital's debt was because of a delay in the transfer of acute services from Crawley to Redhill in 2001.
Prior to the meeting, Mr Blunt said: "Since 1998 the financial settlement for East Surrey Hospital has been the victim of government interference.
"The current deficit is over £55 million, the largest of any trust in the country" - an amount that could be wiped out with just 4 days' worth of our net contributions to the European Union's audit-failing budget, if the cash were diverted from being sent to that wasteful organisation.
Commenting on his demand that the government write off this debt, Mr Blunt added: "Only this can give the trust the financial footing on which it can begin to rebuild its quality of service and its reputation."
Health minister Dawn Primarolo said Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust was one of 17 classified as "financially challenged".
She added that measures were in place to enable the trust to restore its finances.
But maybe if Ms Primarolo and the government of which she is a part didn't condone wasting so much public money on the audit-failing EU, she wouldn't have to force East Surrey hospital to take these financial "measures" which will very likely harm provision of essential health services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
