Well, I’m off, off on holiday that is. I’m leaving today for Barcelona and won’t return until the night of the 19th, meaning I won’t be able to make any entries until the 20th. So, I’ll see you all then when I get back. Bye for now, and enjoy your own holiday, even if it’s simply relaxing at home.

According to The Business this morning, the growing underperformance of Britain’s weaker regions is costing the country’s economy £61 Billion per year; it states a report will be published tomorrow proving this.

The report highlights the great divide between the more affluent regions of London, the East, and the South East, when compared with the poorer and more challenged areas of the North, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It indicates also that while the South East increased output by 80 percent from 1994 to 2004, the North East only did so by 50 percent; indeed, if all areas grew at the same rate of the South East, total output would be £61 Billion higher.

The public spending-to-gross value added ratio is 61% in Northern Ireland, 54% in Wales and the North East and 47% in Scotland. It is around 29% in the South East and East and 34% in London.

London, the South East and the East have a third of the UK population, receive a third of public spending yet pay nearly a half of personal taxation. A quarter of households in Northern Ireland and the North East are on incapacity benefits, against 10% in London and 11% in the South East. And 26% of households in the North East were on family tax credits or income support, against only 16% of London and 11% of South East households.

Nick Bosanquet, a co-author of the report, said: “The heavy public spending increases of this decade have not helped the challenged regions; in fact they may have increased their dependence on Southern taxpayers and further reduced their attractiveness to talented young people.”

This is a clear problem which the British government must work towards solving, yet I fear that neither Labour nor Conservatives will come up with a feasible solution.

In the first instance, the problem as I see it isn’t so much so that the North isn’t as productive as London and the South East, but that economic development hasn’t been equal throughout Britain. In other words, the government should focus on improving prospects for businesses up in the North and in Scotland. Indeed, from the results we see that the North has become dependent on the more prosperous South, and this has created what we call the phenomenon of macrocephaly; in other words, everything is centred around London.

For businesses to increase investment in the North, we need to build the right conditions, and this means improving education, and ensuring more people have the level of education that businesses require. However, when I talk about improving education, it doesn’t mean increasing funding, it means using the funds currently available in a better way, and for the government to allow schools to teach pupils, and universities to teach students; we must remove government interference from our education system.

Businesses may also want a sort of economic advantage to moving to Liverpool, Newcastle upon Tyne, or another city in the North. This means the possibility of some sort of tax advantage or similar; indeed, I believe this is certainly what Scotland requires to improve its economy, and so it can become less dependent on England, and even become “self-sufficient” in certain terms.

Also, the local infrastructure must be right, which of course means transport. Again, to improve transport doesn’t necessarily mean to increase funding, but looking at real solutions and importantly, long-term solutions. It’s about finding what works for that area, and ensuring it’s a lasting improvement.

I believe once we have built the right conditions for business to flourish in the North, and so have equal economic development throughout Britain, we can then look at increasing this growth throughout Britain. However, will either Labour or the new Conservative Party come up with a real solution to Britain’s current regional economic problems?

It would seem that the Liberal Democrats are becoming dissatisfied with Sir Ming Campbell, and it comes as no real surprise. In the latest attack on the relatively new Liberal Democrat leader, a Welsh Assembly member calls for him to either shape up or go, saying that if things go wrong, only Campbell will be to blame.

The attack comes as the Liberal Democrats see their popularity in the polls slip to 17 percent, their lowest in recent times, while the Conservative Party is enjoying a lead of 39 percent.

Peter Black, the Welsh AM who attacked Ming Campbell, says that the party is stagnating and slipping back despite what he calls recent electoral success – However, I must say, I can’t see where the Liberal Democrats have done too well, having fewer councils, councillors, and MPs than both Labour and the Conservative Party.

As I see it, the problem with the Liberal Democrats is not knowing where to position themselves. We have Labour, traditionally socialist or at least left-wing, move themselves to the centre and even centre-right on certain issues, while the Conservative Party is moving itself slightly to the left of its current position. In essence, the only difference between both Labour and the Conservative Party would now be the management, and a difference of the Labour nanny state, and Cameron’s Conservatives apparently believing in more freedom and less bureaucracy. This means that many of the people who once supported the Liberal Democrats now feel at home with Cameron’s Conservatives.

If the Liberal Democrats do reposition themselves and propose cutting income tax or corporation tax, it would be a clear shift to the right, and show that their market liberal wing is gaining ground. However, to see whether this is the case, we must await their party conference for the voluntary party to vote on the proposals.

While Campbell’s tax cutting agenda is very much welcomed onto the political scene, I don’t believe it will be passed by the voluntary party; already it has been ridiculed by both Labour and Conservative MPs, and of course you can already hear the screams of the left-wing claiming the want to privatise the NHS.

This image, in my opinion, perfectly portrays the sort of hypocrisy being displayed by both Britain and America. While we’re supporting Israel, we’re still calling for restraint and asking them to be careful regarding their actions. However, this is in complete contrast to how we went into Iraq, having no real plan for the invasion, and no plans whatsoever to deal with the aftermath.

The death of many innocent Lebanese people may be very upsetting, however we cannot forget that the Lebanese people are supporting Hezbollah, and therefore they are aware of the consequences.

Regardless though, it’s important to remember that Israel was provoked prior to this, and that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation whose members are perfectly happy to die for their “cause”. In the end, this is a war against terrorism, and it shouldn’t be about how many Lebanese are dying today due to this, but how many Israelis, Britons, Americans, etc. will die in the future if we don’t deal with the terrorists now.

While John Reid has announced sweeping plans to reform the Home Office, we must step back and ask ourselves whether this is real reform, or simply more rhetoric. The reason for this is that despite Reid’s announcement, Labour have been in power since 1997, and to date we have seen no improvement whatsoever – regardless of department.

It goes without saying that John Reid is respected by the wider public, and seen by many to be the only “can do” minister in the Labour government, however we cannot forget what problems face the Home Office.

In addition to this, with Labour’s love of pressure groups and so forth, one cannot forget the many “civil rights” campaign groups which will block any real reform within the Home Office and our justice system – after all, these campaign groups focus on the interests’ of the criminal, and not the victim.

So… I guess in the end I’d be right in saying it’s just more rhetoric, no?