Tonight:
5°c
Tomorrow's Budget is going to be the sort that most chancellors would prefer not to deliver: a combination of bad news and poor forecasts and austerity measures to deal with them. Very different, then, from the giveaway budgets that Gordon Brown presented as Chancellor, which, arguably, created at least part of our present problems.
But ahead of the inevitable public spending cuts, the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, has advertised the sweeteners in his pill: a billion-pound boost to the housing sector. Some of the measures build on those already announced last September. The reduction of stamp duty to zero will be extended to the end of the year, which may give a fillip to the cautious growth in the housing market. The Government will intervene to help private developers struggling to complete projects. This will include bearing the cost of infrastructure that is normally borne by the private sector, including road building. There will be a new spate of council house building and there will be further support in the benefit system for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages.
Some of these measures are welcome: certainly, the help for mortgage payers who suffer a sudden loss in income should help reduce the number of repossessions. And the council housing sector has been marginalised for far too long. But it is open to question whether the construction industry, which is indeed very big, deserves greater support than other parts of the economy, including what remains of the manufacturing sector. The new measures are meant to help the Government achieve its target of 240,000 new houses a year by 2016. Right now, it may be more advisable to reconsider if that objective is desirable. Help for housing is always going to be politically popular but the Budget must realistically focus on cutting, not spending. Tomorrow, the Chancellor's options are very limited indeed.
CIA on trial
President Obama has attracted inevitable criticism for his decision to release information on the extent to which the CIA used the technique of waterboarding — or simulated drowning — on Al Qaeda suspects in order to extract information. According to the former vice-president, Dick Cheney, those techniques were very effective in achieving their objectives and he says that fact should also be made public.
It may be that methods of this kind do achieve results but they also diminish the moral standing of the country that employs them. Mr Obama made that point well when he told the CIA that a willingness to acknowledge mistakes like these was precisely one of the things that distinguishes the United States from its adversaries. Human rights groups have questioned whether Mr Obama is right to grant immunity from prosecution to CIA operatives who used these techniques but it should at least be acknowledged that he has made real progress in restoring the standing of the US by renouncing methods which are tantamount to torture. For that, America's allies, including us, should be grateful.
Stop speeding
Speed kills. There is little doubt that if motorists slow down, especially on A-roads and in built-up areas, fatalities decrease. So there is sense in the Government's attempts to reduce the limits on many rural single-carriage roads to 50mph. It also seeks to encourage councils to reduce limits to 20mph in urban areas and certainly, there is a good case for a 20mph limit around schools. But in London at least, it would be unrealistic to impose a blanket 20mph limit, though even that is admittedly beyond motorists in congested parts of the capital. An unduly low limit would penalise drivers who found themselves only a little above it and it would do little to make pedestrians safer. Far better to enforce properly the existing 30mph limit than to reduce it still further.
Reader views (1)
Slowing urban road speeds still further is absurd. We already are burdened with limits that were mainly designed in the 60s to reflect the top speed of the average car. A Morris Minor would struggle to exceed 70mph and a 100mph top speed was a fantasy figure for most people. The cars had little braking ability either. To say that what was safe in the cars of the 1960s is now dangerous beggars belief. I assume the authorities will only be satisfied when the man with a red flag is re-introduced. What about increased driver training, sensible policing and, yes, zealous policing of the existing or hopefully increased limits? On most motorways the outside lane moves at around 85mph. Any law that is routinely disobeyed by a majority of otherwise law-abiding citizens must be wrong surely?
- Johnfaganwilliams, London, 21/04/2009 13:12
Report abuse
