Money pits and poison pills.

It was the Times that broke the story, in their 'Politics' section with the headline "Labour hid ‘scorched earth’ debts worth billions".

Billions of pounds in public money was committed in the run-up to the election campaign in a deliberate strategy to boost Labour’s chances at the ballot box and sabotage the next government.

One former Labour minister told The Sunday Times: “There was collusion between ministers and civil servants to get as many contracts signed off as possible before the election was called.”

One former adviser to the schools department said there was a deliberate policy of “scorched earth”. “The atmosphere was ‘pull up all the railways, burn the grain stores, leave nothing for the Tories’,” he added.

Nothing, so far, in the Telegraph, the Sun, Express, Mail, Mirror, Guardian/Observer, Star, Independent, but today NoTW carries "What a mess they’ve left behind" and the issue has been vaguely covered by the BBC report on Mr Cameron's 'Andrew Marr' interview

Okay, so what's the point in Mrs R saying anything at all about this when there are others with both more financial acumen and better political knowledge who can do better? Well, there are lots of things Mrs Rigby isn't, and she hopes that one of those things isn't nasty. She hopes she's seen by some as being 'concerned' by some of the cheap political tricks that might now be being uncovered - cheap tricks that aren't even new and that have, in the past, been akin to sleight of hand or even gerrymandering. Tricks that hurt ordinary people, people who deserve so much more.

Rigby Town is fairly close to a 'Big City' whose seats were quite narrowly won by Labour, and last week she had cause to go to a fairly deprived part of that Big City. Whilst she was there she met some local people who were absolutely delighted that, at long last, some of their community buildings will be upgraded - including demolition of leaky-roofed old ones. These, they said, are to be replaced with state of the art, brand new buildings - that will be built 'on that bit of waste ground, over there'.

At the time Mrs R's heart sank, because she was fairly sure she'd seen, read, and heard about this sort of thing before. But she didn't say anything, it was neither the right time nor the right place.

Mrs R was shown the plans and the artist's impression - which looked fantastic, a truly wonderful thing for this area, where people have to live with the bird-scarers, several stories up in their tower blocks. She was told the "money has been guaranteed" - they were sure of that.

Then Mrs R was told it was a bit of a last-minute decision that happened not long before the election, even though it was something local groups have been campaigning for for years and years. They've been campaigning because the existing buildings were falling apart, with some sections cordoned off as being unusable and unsafe.

So, let's backtrack a bit, because Mrs R recalls, a year or so ago, how some colleges found themselves in a bit of a muddle. These places had been 'given' money to expand, had demolished old buildings and had barely started construction when they were told they weren't going to get any money after all, even though the building programmes had been approved and all the right forms had been signed - including the PFI loans.

They were told they'd been silly to build, or start building, on a promise, rather than waiting until they had their cash in their hands. It was, Mrs R thinks, Mr Balls who told them off - so she's looked it up. Here's the BBC report, 16 July 2009.

MPs have condemned the "catastrophic mismanagement" of a college building scheme in England which could cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

The Learning and Skills Council, which ran the scheme, and the government are criticised in a report by the committee which deals with further education.

The LSC encouraged colleges to bid for funds and approved projects it did not have money for, their report says.

All this was, it seems, allowed to happen because LSC was to vanish. Maybe they thought the loans/debts would also vanish?

The MPs said that at the time building projects were being approved, the body had been preparing to be disbanded and "wanted to go out with a bang", and had encouraged colleges to "big up" their plans.

But there was no process for prioritising bids and by last November, when the alarm was finally raised, 144 colleges had together invested tens of millions of pounds in preparing bids and getting approval from the LSC.

Recently, it was announced only 13 of those projects would go ahead this year.

Committee chairman Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat MP, said: "It really beggars belief that such an excellent programme which had showed real success in transforming the further education experience for students was mismanaged into virtual extinction.

"Warning signs were missed and even worse, ignored. LSC didn't notice as the total value of the projects it was considering began to overshoot the budget and a review which could have prompted action was shunted around committees and policy groups."

It would seem that this gung-ho approach to finance might have continued right to the end of Labour's time in office. Get people/schools/businesses/local groups to spend their money putting together the right sort of funding claim, which put money into consultants pockets and, in these instances, took it away from education - where it was most needed.

Money was there 'for the bidding', and promises were made, but nobody seems to have taken the time to sit down and add all the numbers together - but it didn't matter too much, because somebody else's name would soon be on the office door, somebody else could deal with the mess. And nobody had thought it might have been wiser to spend some of the consultation money on renovation and extension - because they were told things had to be new.

That, to Mrs Rigby, epitomises what Labour has done to Britain. It promised, and failed to deliver. It raised hopes, then secretly withdrew promises. It told people they were silly when they were upset, that it was their own stupid fault when things went wrong.

Nobody in government ever put up their hand and admitted they were wrong, nobody ever admitted a scheme or policy was flawed - the most that happened was that 'flagships' were quietly disappeared, and replaced by a distractingly shiny new one, in the hope that nobody would notice.

The Labour government spent millions on putting together plans that were never brought to fruition, they spent millions on rebranding departments and creating pretty logos that, ultimately, only led to public confusion over who had responsibility for what 'thing' - because they even changed the names of the 'things' so we didn't know what they were talking about.

And in the meantime the coffers were running on empty and, because they were all scurrying around thinking up new ideas, neither Government nor Unions seemed too bothered, not really, that Cadbury's was being sold, nobody seemed too bothered that Corus was bought by some Asian chaps, nobody seemed too worried about the demise of Jaguar - none of it mattered because the redundant and unemployed would be able to claim benefits.

There was never a consideration that every single penny of the money to pay those benefits originated within the private sector, which was rapidly disappearing, and no consideration that some people prefer to go to work, and not be dependent on state handouts.

And, nobody seems to have cared much about the community in 'Big City', who have patiently waited, for almost the whole term of the last government, for their building to be either renovated or replaced - because they believed their MP. This community's high hopes may be dashed because his last minute promises of funding for their sparkling new building are likely to have been empty promises, that would have vanished even had Labour been returned to office - because that's the way they were, building castles in the air. People didn't count, just politically expedient promises to ensure personal advancement and a seat in Westminster.

....

ISA and the horns of a dilemma

.
Thanks to the implementation of new legislation that will be enforced by the ISA (Independent Safeguarding Authority) any adult who makes a formal arrangement to have any contact whatsoever with children will be required to undergo CRB checks, and have their information stored in a database. It will cost each individual £64. There's more information in the Telegraph.

There have been cries in the media and around the blogosphere that this is "unreasonable", that it "goes too far".

Chris Grayling has said

"We all understand the need for proper protection of our children but this new regime has the potential to be a real disaster for activities involving young people in the UK.

“We are going to drive away volunteers, we'll see clubs and activities close down and we'll end up with more bored young people on our streets.”

Chris Huhne has also condemned the legislation

“Children’s safety is paramount but we are in danger of creating a world in which we think every adult who approaches children means to do them harm.

“The creation of the world’s biggest checking system is a disproportionate response to the problem it is trying to solve.”

The Telegraph points out that

David Green, director of the think-tank Civitas, warned it may even make employers complacent and rely too much on the system instead doing their own “due diligence”.

But, of course, a Home Office spokesman is sure it's a good idea and said

... he rules for parents were "a commonsense approach", adding: "The UK already has one of the most advanced systems in the world for carrying out checks on all those who work in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults.

"Set up in the wake of the Soham murders, the new Vetting and Barring Scheme will, from October this year, ensure these regulations are even more rigorous."

Mrs R recalls that Huntley was already on a database, but it referred to the wrong area, and he was not working in the school attended by the girls he killed. She wonders if they would have been protected had he been registered with ISA?

On balance she thinks probably not - because a database is only ever as useful as those refer to it; only as accurate as those who input the data and, sadly, there are always those who are willing to amend data for one reason or another - usually to do with malice, humour or money.

So let's see where this new regulation leaves us ordinary mortals who will have to live with the rules.

Mrs Rigby does a bit of voluntary work for a charitable organisation and can sometimes come into contact with children. These children are never at any time separated from their parents. It also only happens if it's been pre-arranged, because it's not normally part of the "job".

She thinks this legislation would apply to her - if she were to continue to offer to do "work" that involved pre-arranged contact with under-16s. She believes it would not apply if she no longer offered to do this sort of work, and left it to somebody else.

Mrs R is, however, concerned that if she doesn't take the initiative to register - an apparently one-of action - she could, to quote the Telegraph, face

a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

She believes the charity could also face prosecution for failing to ensure Mrs Rigby was registered and cleared as a not being a criminal.

The bleeding-heart brigade would tell Mrs R that if she's nothing to hide she's got nothing to fear, and she should go ahead and register and have her background fully checked.

But, umm, why?

Mrs Rigby knows she's never broken the law; she knows she has never been prosecuted; she knows she has no criminal record and she also knows it would never cross her mind to harm another person, let alone a child. So why, in order to be able to do her little bit of very enjoyable charitable work, should she have to fork out what is effectively a tax of £64 to get somebody else, probably on minimum wage to look through court records prove that what she says is true - especially if they could make a mistake and report that she's a hardened criminal?

Mrs Rigby would willingly, and very happily, swear an affidavit before a lawyer to say she is law-abiding.

Making such a declaration would also keep her name off the database and exempt her from what will no doubt in time be costly annual re-registration and re-checking ... because the unelected ISA will realise very soon that once isn't often enough, because people can change and turn into criminals overnight. That, after all, is one reason why the Police would like our DNA on record - because they're so sure we're all potential criminals.

On balance Mrs R doesn't think she should have to prove to anybody that she isn't a criminal, so she will no longer be offering her services at venues where there may be children. That means the charity will lose out. She wonders if this is what government intended - probably not, but they don't always think everything through to all possible outcomes, unless there's a political motive which brings me to the next point.

Mrs Rigby wonders how the Tories, Liberals or other political groups will be able to repeal, alter, or water down this legislation if and when they come into power and form a government. Simple answer is that they can't.

Why?

Because all it would take would be one single instance of a child being hurt by a nasty paedo who slipped through the net, as did Huntley, and they would be condemned forever for allowing kiddy-fiddlers to have access to children.

Mrs R believes that this is precisely why Labour has passed this poison-pill legislation.

They know they are likely to lose the next election, but they want to maintain control and know all too well that their successors will find themselves finely balanced on the horns of a dilemma - they will be damned if they attempt to repeal or alter the rules, and damned by the public for continuing to encourage the Big Brother State if they don't.
.