SIMON HEFFER: Ed Miliband's bid to make us pay for his party Simon fears that if Ed Miliband becomes prime minister, he will introduce state funding for political parties. But that would be an outrage There is undoubtedly a hidden agenda behind Ed Miliband's decision to try to reform the way the unions help finance Labour. It is, I fear, that if he becomes prime minister, he will introduce state funding for political parties. But that would be an outrage. For the state to divert scarce resources from hospitals or education to pay for politicians" staff, their premises and, most insidious of all, their propaganda, is simply iniquitous. The arguments for state funding may sound plausible: using taxpayers" money is less corrupt than taking money from big business or union barons, and it will stop parties "buying" elections. Such assertions are nonsense. Democracy functioned perfectly well before the advent of mass political advertising campaigns in the Sixties. In any case, if a party can't raise money, it's a clear sign that it is deeply out of touch with public opinion. The Tories, in the run-up to the 1979 General Election, and Labour, before the 1997 election, attracted huge sums because they had popular policies. But many Labour MPs are convinced that without union cash, state funding is the only way their party - with its lacklustre leader and paucity of policies - can survive. For his part, Mr Miliband, who seems to want to create a class of taxpayer-funded career politicians, has proposed a ban on MPs" outside interests and a cap on individual political donations. The result would leave state funding as the only way to top up party coffers. The truth is that such an attitude shows how out of touch he is from reality. A Commons packed with state-subsidised professional politicians all scratching each others" backs is the last thing needed to win back an already alienated electorate. Even if they stop giving millions of pounds to Labour, the unions will still use the cash to help the party's cause. For during an election campaign, they will simply spend vast sums of money on advertising campaigns calling for big investment in public services, more workers" rights, more welfare benefits - all the things that will be in Labour's manifesto. The Post Office is not a conventional nationalised industry and thus should not be privatised. Since 1660, it has been a strategic arm of the state. Its parcels business is profitable, not least thanks to Amazon. The Privatisation of the Royal Mail will fail because it is impossible to make a profit if the promise is kept to deliver more than 13 billion letters anywhere in the UK at a fixed price Privatisation will fail because it is impossible to make a profit if the promise is kept to deliver more than 13 billion letters anywhere in the UK at a fixed price. And if or when it does fail, the state would have to step in and subsidise it. Is HS2 about to hit the buffers? HS2 - the proposed £50 billion high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham - hasn't been cancelled yet, but the omens are bad. Opposition is rife among ministers, who openly ridicule the claims made about the project's ability to boost the economy. And with George Osborne insisting that deficit reduction targets have to be met, a project whose cost continues to balloon appears to be doomed. MPs of all parties want a wider range of spending on roads and existing railways. Expect Heathrow expansion to return to the agenda - not least because there would be no shortage of private funding for it. The man with no shame is right on one thing Sir David Nicholson's remarks this week about the NHS needing serious reform if it is to cope in the future were largely true Sir David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, has been utterly discredited because of his involvement in the Mid- Staffordshire NHS Trust scandal and his shameless refusal to admit error. That said, his remarks this week about the NHS needing serious reform if it is to cope in the future were largely true. It was disgraceful of the man with no shame, however, to have blamed the Mid-Staffs debacle on shortage of funds when it was poor management that allowed unacceptably low standards of care. What is true, though, is that the ageing population is putting huge extra strains on the NHS, as are new medical procedures that allow more lives to be saved and prolonged in ways not possible a few years ago. Thus Sir David is right to say politicians must not hide from addressing these problems. It hardly bears thinking about what will happen in 20 years when today's 9.5 million over-65s is predicted to become 15 million. As the NHS must concentrate its efforts on the most vulnerable, others will endure cuts. Sensible reforms would be to charge hospital patients for food, means-test prescription charges and reduce the cost of drugs by centralising buying policies. Also, tax relief should be given back to those with private health subscriptions to encourage alternatives to the NHS. A universal health service as we have known it since 1948 is on the verge of imploding. It would help if politicians admitted this and started to plan accordingly. At last, Parliament is exploring ways of ending the injustice of Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on matters that affect only England, while English MPs can't vote on issues affecting the two devolved countries. But I don't accept the suggested solutions, such as complex vetoes, grand committees or the certification of particular Bills as "English." Instead, let's have an English parliament of English MPs in the buildings at Westminster. The Scots and Welsh wanted devolution, and an English parliament must be one of its consequences. New research shows a mansion tax, so beloved of the Lib Dems, levied on houses worth £2 million or more, would cost each owner £36,000 a year. It would affect 255,000 properties, mostly in Tory constituencies. Many people with £2 million houses are pensioners who are asset rich and cash poor, and would have to sell up. Shouldn't we learn from France, where a wealth tax has driven entrepreneurs abroad and forced down property prices? Madame's so very muddled The International Monetary Fund - now under the leadership of Christine Lagarde - has shored up the euro project for political rather than economic reasons I can't take the International Monetary Fund seriously because under French leadership - first, the priapic Dominique Strauss-Kahn and now Christine Lagarde, under investigation for corruption, which she denies - it has shored up the euro project for political rather than economic reasons. This is a disgraceful breach of its rules. This week it upgraded its forecasts for UK growth - from, effectively, very pathetic to just pathetic - and told eurozone leaders to "do what it takes" to put things right in their disastrous economy. I doubt, though, that "what it takes" means several countries leaving the euro - which is the only answer to Europe's economic crisis. John Prescott wanted people to see his resignation from the Privy Council last week as an honourable decision. But it is nothing of the sort. He said his move was a protest against the council agreeing to consider what is, in fact, a perfectly sensible proposal by the newspaper industry to improve its regulatory practices through a Royal Charter. The truth is that Lord Prescott dislikes the Press mainly because it pointed out his incompetence as a minister and exposed his sordid adultery. No wonder he wants it regulated - or rather silenced - by people like him in Parliament who hate the public knowing the truth.