Since Mr Blair feels that HE Funding is in crisis, can anybody tell me why funding should not be directed away from the following degrees (seen in today’s Indy UCAS Extra supplement), and towards degrees which directly lead to essential public service provision: Knowledge representation; Ornamental fish; Tree protection; Vibration. Why is taxpayers money being directed towards people who want to have a degree in ornametal fish, of all things? I’ve tried to find more about this particular degree, but Manchester Metropolitan University appear to have chosen not to list it in their online prospectus. So if there is any value, they’re not allowing me to see it.

The Tories essentially want to return to the leader selection process they had before Iain Duncan Smith was elected. Actually, it’s not a bad idea, and the original changes were a bit silly. But the changes do give less point to being a party member, so expect to see lots of concessions to get the party at large on-side. And expect some political flack for going back in time – even though it seems a good thing for our political leaders to recognise, admit, and correct their mistakes.

Well, it had to happen some time. Despite the rather dodgy scanning (why can’t I find a cover shot when I want one?), the zoomed version clearly shows that I was featured on the front page of today’s Independent for supporting their voting reform campaign, which I mentioned here back on Thursday.

Over 4000 people have already signed their petition, and I strongly encourage you to do the same. If only to get them to accept that Labour won the election, and get back to reporting real news.

Today, The Indy have officially launched their ‘Campaign for Democracy’. Whilst I’m not wild about the name of the campaign, and I’m a little bored of their continual front pages and leaders about the story, I am in general agreement that this country is in need of some form of electoral reform, and would encourage you to sign their petition. Even if it only stimulates debate about which direction our voting system should be taking, then it will have been worth the effort. So give it a click, and fill in the form.

Ms Hewitt’s spell of virtual insanity continues, with her now announcing that she wants to make those who spread MRSA criminals:

Private cleaning contractors, managers and even visitors could face criminal liability for spreading the hospital superbug MRSA in the NHS.

Presumably, these people would then be forced to wear the uniforms proposed by her Crazy Cabinet colleague, Hazel Blears.

But, seriously, what does Ms Hewitt hope to acheive by making spreading MRSA a crime? To do so would mean that doctors would have to take every possible step to avoid litigation – is she seriously suggesting that all doctors should have a full surgical scrub before seeing every patient? That would more than triple the length of the average consultation, so I hope she’s got some money squirrelled away for lots of extra doctors. And what about the emergency situation? Are we all to completely scrub up before performing emergency procedures? A few more deaths might well be occuring if that’s expected.

MRSA will only be brought under control with sensible steps to educate medical staff and the public about prevention, and the necessary funding to keep hygeine standards up. If the funding had been available to put alcohol gel next to every bed five or six years ago – instead of only just getting round to it – then MRSA wouldn’t be such a big a problem now. Threatening people with litigation is simply absurd, and deeply unhelpful. And if she’s going to start slapping fines on cleaning companies, standards are unlikely to improve much but costs will sky-rocket. So I hope there’s lots of money available for the government to pay its own fines, too.

Update: Typo corrected

Reacting to the news that Andrew Marr is joining the other political resignees, The Independent today has something which closely resembles an obituary for him. He is a good political editor, but I’ve always preferred Mark Mardell’s reports to Marr’s. What is it with political reporters and names beginning with M?

Given that Mr Marr has chosen to leave, and that the BBC are likely to try and poach Mr Robinson from ITN, it seems probable that the three biggest political posts in British TV are going to be contested over the next few months. It’ll certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out.

And Marr should, perhaps, worry that his picture (above) reminds me very much of ‘Come Hither Bill’. Even the Independent says he has “the perfect face for radio”.

This mildly absurd plan made me smile this evening:

The health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, today signalled that NHS hospitals face the possibility of closure if they fail to attract sufficient numbers of patients.

Speaking at the International Convention Centre in Birmingham in her first public address as the newly appointed health secretary, Ms Hewitt echoed her predecessor, John Reid, by saying it was possible that some services could close if patients deserted them.

So any departments that don’t attract a critical number of patients will be closed? Surely this means that there will no longer be treatment available on the NHS for anything rare…

“Hi doc, I think I was bitten by a deadly spider on my holidays, and now I’ve turned a perculiar colour and my heart is failing”
“Sorry, can’t help, not enough people have that problem”

And will we see doctors inflicting obscure injuries, in order that their speciality be saved?

Another ill-thought out plan…

Fears around NHS service closures circle around the introduction of a new NHS funding system, Payment by Results, whose roll out coincides with the expansion of patient choice. Under the new financial arrangements, money follows patients more directly, with treatments paid to hospitals – whether in the NHS or the private sector – according to a set of national tariffs (standard price).

This means that if far fewer patients choose a certain hospital, an NHS trust could face a dramatic loss of funds, leading to possible closure.

So a minor surgery clinic, specialising in ingrowing toenails which presumably get only a small tariff will no longer have the funding to hire a receptionist and have the heating on in the winter, because it doesn’t attract the huge money that goes to the big transplant centre down the road.

Whilst clearly batty, Patricia Hewitt does fit rather more comfortably in the role of Health Secretary than did John Reid. At least now you can have a concerned looking softly spoken minister saying “I’m terribly sorry, we can’t do that for you” instead of a rather less comforting man yelling “No, I won’t fix you, and there was no need to ask me in that tone of voice.”

All we need now is an appropriate and competent minister. When’s the next election?

The Indy produced this rather striking graphic today, along with an accompanying article telling us – once again – why we are in desperate need of electoral reform. They repeat once again the Mail claim which may well haunt Labour’s third term:

The Tories gained 50,000 more votes than Labour in England but got 92 fewer English seats.

As much as it’s talked up over the next few weeks, I highly doubt any major reforms of the electoral system will happen in this Parliament, not least because such reforms would seriously damage Labour’s chances of a fourth term. Or am I being too cynical?

The problem of electoral reform is a particularly tricky one, because I’m not aware of any suggestions that produce a truly fair and democratic electoral system. Having said that, I’m obviously not an expert in the field, and I may be missing something fairly obivous. But there’s no easy solution screaming out at me, like there is with so much other stuff that needs changing.

There was somewhere in particular that I intended to take this post, but it’s several hours since I started writing it (it’s been very much a bitty affair), and I’ve fogotten where that place was. I’m now faced with the decision of just giving up, or publishing this little bit. So I might as well just publish what I’ve written, even though there seems to be little point to it, and it doesn’t read very well. If you’ll forgive those points, I’ll consider writing something more sane tomorrow. But now I’m tired and have a killer headache.

There’s much more interesting stuff being written about this election now it’s done with.

Colombia’s El Tiempo (via Harry Hutton) has praised Britain’s tedious elections, observing that this probably indicates social well-being, and that we should be celebrating the dullness. I’m not sure that’s actually true, but it’s certainly a different take on things.

At the same time, the Sunday Herald has come over all Kevin: “THE MOST UNFAIR ELECTION IN BRITISH HISTORY”. They have some reasonable points, but am I supposed to take them seriously under that headline?

PressEsc accuses Jack Straw of meddling in the inquiry into Labour’s rigging of votes. I wouldn’t worry too much about that – the worst case scenario would be for Tony Blair to fire him, and rehire him a couple of months later. That’s the Labour definition of ‘taking responsiblity’.

The Daily Mail appears to have got to Nosemonkey, by pointing out that Labour got 60,000 fewer votes than the Conservatives in England. I haven’t seen the Mail in a while, but I’m feeling a burst of desperation following their effectively defeated campaign.

All of the newspapers, including The Observer, report the meaningless non-story that Tony Blair has announced he’s not going to quit. Meaningless mainly because it’s not really his decision to make, as much as he’d like to think it is.

The Times is happy with the outcome, claiming it to be a ‘Miracle of democracy’. What has happened to the Times? It’s quite depressing.

I’m sure I’ll come across lots more on the election in the coming days, so stay tuned.

The Sindie says Michael Howard reneged on a secret deal by announcing that he was to stand down as leader of the Conservative Party.

Funny old world, politics: One leader reneges on a secret deal by staying on, another does so by refusing to stay on. And people say politicians are all the same.