It is hard to believe that it is twenty years since the Berlin Wall came down. But its legacy can be seen throughout an Eastern Europe that has been transformed since, in no small part thanks to the openness of the European Union to countries in the region. I spent over a week in old GDR in 1985, with a Quaker group, where we combined the obligatory visits to the propaganda ministry and those implementing Dresden's ten year plan with far more enlightening evenings in the company of East German Quakers.
There was no hint then that the whole edifice of the GDR might be about to tumble. But one was struck by the appetite of those one met for the wider world. Clearly well-educated, they wanted to read and experience more than their censors would allow, and they devoured that which was permitted. A charming retired history teacher in Dresden, who proved an excellent guide to the city's splendid art collection, had managed to retain a sense of humour despite having had to teach her subject in the Nazi and Communist years. She kept her sanity listening to BBC broadcasts and watching West German news bulletins that the authorities tried to distract people from viewing by screening BBC Miss Marple episodes against them. Even then, among religious people, there were some signs of the struggles that would give birth to New Forum and the ultimately successful church-led protests that led to the fall of the Wall. But these were small scale efforts to avoid the humiliations that often came with trying to keep a faith in a society where it was officially discouraged.
Leaving the virtually deserted streets of East Berlin, with their feel of the 1950s, to take the U-bahn into West Berlin after ten days on that side of Iron Curtain was a profoundly strange feeling. Little did we know that within four years the ghastly security apparatus that divided the city would come tumbling down. Two years ago, when I took my first trip back to the city since 1985, it was great to see how much had changed, and what had not been shown on that first visit, particularly the way the TV tower shows a cross at certain times of the day that furious GDR officials had never been able to eliminate. True, there was a bit of Ostalgie in the fascinating GDR museum, but there was much more the sense of a city that is going places again, and is far more than just the political capital of a united Germany. Today's celebrations are significant not just because of what they mean to Berlin, but because of what they signify for a Europe that is no longer divided by the grotesque stitch-up that followed Yalta.
Monday, 9 November 2009
Bright Star
To see Jane Campion's new film on the last years of the poet John Keats' s life, Bright Star. Based on Andrew Motion's biography, the film tells of his love for Fanny Brawne, his neighbour's daughter in Hampstead and how that affected his life before TB took him to Italy for a forlorn cure and his untimely death. Abbie Cornish carries the film as a hugely impressive Fanny, and there is much to like in the beautiful filming and poetry recitals. But Ben Whishaw fails to spark as Keats and Bright Star suffers from a tediously ponderous first half that is not entirely mitigated by the narrative strengths of the film as events move towards their tragic conclusion.
Personal letters
There is something hugely distasteful in the Sun's exploitation of a mother's grief this morning to take a political pop at Gordon Brown. It would surely have been far easier for the PM to have topped and tailed a typewritten letter that had been properly spellchecked by his staff.
Because he has decided - honourably - to write the letters himself in a handwriting that Sun journalists and editors must know to be authentically his, down to the poor spelling, we are treated to an excrutiating example of the lobby at its worst. Gordon has never had Tony Blair's sureness of touch in dealing with such matters. But on this occasion, he was trying to do the right thing. As Iain Dale says, we should cut him a little slack for that.
Because he has decided - honourably - to write the letters himself in a handwriting that Sun journalists and editors must know to be authentically his, down to the poor spelling, we are treated to an excrutiating example of the lobby at its worst. Gordon has never had Tony Blair's sureness of touch in dealing with such matters. But on this occasion, he was trying to do the right thing. As Iain Dale says, we should cut him a little slack for that.
Friday, 6 November 2009
The Caretaker
To see a magnificent performance by Jonathan Pryce as the tramp in the Liverpool Everyman production of Pinter's The Caretaker, in Bath this week. The semi-absurdist play, apparently based on Pinter's own experiences of some neighbours in a Chiswick flat, has echoes of Beckett as the tramp and the eccentric brothers play out a series of farcical episodes after Aston, who has a history of mental illness brings home Davies to live in a dilapidated London flat with himself and his volatile brother, Mick. The resulting combination of the tramp's snoring and 'stink' combined with the odd behaviour of the two brothers combine to produce many comic moments. But behind it all are the best intentions never fulfilled - Davies always talks about going to Sidcup for his papers; Mick dreams of importing interior design into the squalid flat. It was Pinter's first big success, and is shown to great effect in this splendid revival.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Pooter Kelly is not the fount of all wisdom
I've just been wading through Sir Christopher Kelly's £339,000 examination of MPs' expenses. On most main recommendations, despite an often Pooterish pettiness, he is probably broadly right, and MPs need to bow to public opinion. But it is only when one starts to consider the detail that questions arise. That is why he should not be so arrogant as to assume that the new independent agency shouldn't look again at some of his ideas. It most certainly should.
Phasing out of mortgage subsidies is reasonable. MPs shouldn't make a profit from their London accommodation. And, a £1250 a month cap on rent works if an agency does negotiate some deals, and just about covers the costs of a furnished flat South of the river, provided, as Kelly proposes, council tax and utilities bills are treated as extra. The £120+VAT nightly cap on London hotel bills is also probably manageable. It would at least meet John Mann's Travelodge test.
But this doesn't stop some petty-minded silliness creeping in. Instead of providing an agency cleaner, perhaps supporting a fortnightly two-hour cleaning of a flat, costing around £500 a year, MPs are imperiously informed that
Kelly is right to scrap second homes for outer London MPs and those on the fringes, but with the welcome proviso that accommodation is covered for late night sittings. But here the obsession with detail becomes confused. There is a recognition that getting home in 60 minutes is about more than the train journey. The independent regulator will apparently draw up 'a definitive list of constituencies covered'. Does this mean that MPs who live elsewhere in a rural constituency - or who replace someone on the 'definitive list' should move close to the railway station to meet the regulator's requirements?
Fair enough to get MPs to publish what they spend on travel. But, it doesn't always follow that a first class rail ticket is absurdly expensive. A Sunday evening first class ticket from Bath booked in advance is far cheaper than a 2nd class open return on a Monday morning, for example. So I fail to see the point of publishing the class of ticket, apart from playing to the gallery.
There is also a curious disincentive on MPs to stand down at a general election, rather than fighting and losing their seat. An MP who is defeated can get nine months pay after two terms, but one who doesn't stand again after twenty years only gets two months. There is no good reason why someone the electors have rejected fares so much better.
And, on the bigger picture, I really don't see how he can support MPs having unlimited outside employment, but not see that employing spouses properly approved by the Commons authorities can provide better value to the taxpayer as well as better support to MPs. After all, the report itself says:
Phasing out of mortgage subsidies is reasonable. MPs shouldn't make a profit from their London accommodation. And, a £1250 a month cap on rent works if an agency does negotiate some deals, and just about covers the costs of a furnished flat South of the river, provided, as Kelly proposes, council tax and utilities bills are treated as extra. The £120+VAT nightly cap on London hotel bills is also probably manageable. It would at least meet John Mann's Travelodge test.
But this doesn't stop some petty-minded silliness creeping in. Instead of providing an agency cleaner, perhaps supporting a fortnightly two-hour cleaning of a flat, costing around £500 a year, MPs are imperiously informed that
the difficulties of maintaining a clean home while working long hours are not unique to MPs. Should MPs wish to maintain the services of cleaners the Committee does not think it unreasonable to expect them to meet these costs out of their salaries, as others do.Yet these are not their main homes, and 'others' do not generally maintain two homes, certainly not on a salary half that of many senior civil servants. Presumably those opting for hotels should deduct a sum to cover cleaning costs in their rooms? No less petty is the abolition of subsistence allowances for MPs renting rather than staying in hotels.
Kelly is right to scrap second homes for outer London MPs and those on the fringes, but with the welcome proviso that accommodation is covered for late night sittings. But here the obsession with detail becomes confused. There is a recognition that getting home in 60 minutes is about more than the train journey. The independent regulator will apparently draw up 'a definitive list of constituencies covered'. Does this mean that MPs who live elsewhere in a rural constituency - or who replace someone on the 'definitive list' should move close to the railway station to meet the regulator's requirements?
Fair enough to get MPs to publish what they spend on travel. But, it doesn't always follow that a first class rail ticket is absurdly expensive. A Sunday evening first class ticket from Bath booked in advance is far cheaper than a 2nd class open return on a Monday morning, for example. So I fail to see the point of publishing the class of ticket, apart from playing to the gallery.
There is also a curious disincentive on MPs to stand down at a general election, rather than fighting and losing their seat. An MP who is defeated can get nine months pay after two terms, but one who doesn't stand again after twenty years only gets two months. There is no good reason why someone the electors have rejected fares so much better.
And, on the bigger picture, I really don't see how he can support MPs having unlimited outside employment, but not see that employing spouses properly approved by the Commons authorities can provide better value to the taxpayer as well as better support to MPs. After all, the report itself says:
Despite the publicity that a small number of cases have received, the Committee has no evidence of abuse occurring on a significant scale through the employment of family members. On the contrary, the Committee has heard evidence that many MPs’ family members work hard and offergood value for money for taxpayers, including testimony from those who have expressed reservations about allowing the practice to continue.Kelly also gives no reason for sacking existing employee spouses apart from satisfying the mob (expressed a little more politely). Yet when it comes to paid employment outside parliament, Kelly moves from the Pooterish to the broad brush pragmatic. No rules apply here beyond the need for a declaration on an improved website.
In the Committee’s view, this is largely an issue of balance. A limited amount of time spent writing newspaper articles or other paid journalism, for example, need not be incompatible with being a fully effective MP. Nor is it unreasonable for MPs with professional qualifications to wish to maintain some element of expertise, or for others to take the view that limited direct experience of a particular issue is a good way of building up expertise which will benefit their contribution in Parliament. But if any of these activities are pursued to excess they are bound to have an impact on the MP’s effectiveness in performing their main role. The Committee takes the view that outside paid employment should not be banned, provided it is kept within fairly limited bounds and there is transparency.Fairly limited bounds? And what are they? Surely Kelly has a view? Not really -unless you are a Northern Ireland MP, of course. But this does run against the grain of a report mindboggling in its attention to detail, yet somehow completely oblivious to the lives of MPs and the true cost of doing their job, and composed in a manner that only a lifelong civil servant could. As Steve Richards argued in a forceful piece yesterday, it is ironic that civil servants invited to review politicians are themselves so lacking in accountability:
Kelly will explain his thinking at a press conference tomorrow and presumably in interviews. That will be the limit of his accountability in changing drastically not only the way MPs are paid, but in the ways they function. MPs are loathed but at least they are accountable around the clock, unlike current senior civil servants and former officials who wield immense power. If an MP throws a grenade into any saga they will be on the Today programme at ten past eight to explain what they were up to and a non-appearance would be pilloried: "We asked X to appear, but they refused to do so". Yet others who wield power without responsibility are revered even if they cause mayhem. Legg is nowhere to be seen. Kelly will return to the darkness. MPs sweat in the public eye. The more they explain the more they are loathed.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
University challenge
Following Lord Mandelson's announcements on universities today, I have written this for the Public Finance blog:
The parties are pushing any decision on increased university tuition fees until after a 2010 election. All the predictions suggest that the review will propose that fees increase from their current maximum of £3225 a year to anything between £5000 and £7000. But neither the Conservatives – who have dropped their previous opposition to fees – nor Labour are keen to advertise this before an election. Hence the cross-party agreement on a fees review – details probably next week, but heralded by today’s publication of a new higher education framework by Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, echoing a similar deal between the Tories and Labour in the Dearing review that led to the £1000 annual fee after the 1997 election.
The parties are pushing any decision on increased university tuition fees until after a 2010 election. All the predictions suggest that the review will propose that fees increase from their current maximum of £3225 a year to anything between £5000 and £7000. But neither the Conservatives – who have dropped their previous opposition to fees – nor Labour are keen to advertise this before an election. Hence the cross-party agreement on a fees review – details probably next week, but heralded by today’s publication of a new higher education framework by Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, echoing a similar deal between the Tories and Labour in the Dearing review that led to the £1000 annual fee after the 1997 election.
In some ways, it is easier now than before. The last two changes to fees had no lasting negative impact on student numbers. Indeed, the problem today is that there are too many applications for cost-limited places. And where the big concern was that a new fees system would hit social mobility – again it hasn’t, as students are cushioned by income-contingent loans repaid only on graduation - there is now just as much concern about the quality of courses and the contribution being made by employers.
Of course, efforts on social mobility need to continue and intensify, as Mandelson said today. And they need to be better targeted, with more emphasis on links at an earlier age in schools. But the new emphasis on course quality is overdue. Many students and their parents bemoan the limited teaching hours and tutorial time in too many universities. It is a complaint heard as loudly from overseas students who already pay in excess of £10,000 a year for their courses. It is evident in any reading of the. National Student Survey for individual faculties. Now there is cross-party acceptance that something must be done. And universities need to do much more to respond.
The second issue of employment links is sometimes presented as a form of philistinism. In reality, many degree courses, especially those taken by mature students, are highly employment-focused already. The issue for government – and society – is whether employers should contribute more of the cost, and do more to help shape such courses. This is about more than sponsoring individual students: it could see more degree courses delivered largely in the workplace, for example. Such developments are where the real expansion of higher education – that which is vital to the economy - might take place over the next decade, often with part-time students.
In addressing these issues head on – despite an understandable wish to leave the level of fees for later – Peter Mandelson is showing a decisiveness in higher education that seemed lacking in his more cautious predecessor, John Denham. While Denham extended grants, the cost was borne in fewer places. And he made no secret of his lack of enthusiasm for higher fees. Yet universities need the money to stay competitive. They – and employers, who have argued for the fees increase – now need to show that they can meet the higher expectations placed on them in return.
Obama's first year
When I was in Washington last month, one couldn't escape the TV ads for the Virginia gubernatorial elections taking place today. And it was pretty clear that the Republican Bob McDonnell, was wiping the floor with the Democratic candidate State Sentator Creigh Deeds. A shrewd mix of clever policies on issues like transport gridlock, combined with relentless attacks on Deeds, seemed to be getting little response from the hapless Democrat. No wonder Barack Obama passed on getting too involved in his campaign - even though it was in a state that Obama took last year. By contrast, Obama has been lending his weight - no pun intended - to Democratic Governor Jon Corzine to Republican Chris Christie. Corzine's attack ads were certainly the stronger, including dubious attacks on his opponent's girth, but faces a tough battle tonight.
If the Democrats lose both states, a lot will be written about Obama's failings. Indeed much has already appeared on these lines. And it is true that the healthcare legislation has fallen victim to a combination of sharp politics by the private healthcare industry and some pretty inept early responses by Obama and his people. Moreover, the shrillness of the Conservative Repubican media and political opposition have made it hard to become the unifier he might have been. But the reasons for defeat today may have more to do with the candidates in both states and less to do with Obama than critics allow.
No account of the first year of this President could fail to recognise how much he has tried to do, and how far things have advanced in a year domestically. The US is now far stronger on climate change than before, and is ready to accept targets, even if they are less than the Copenhagen summiteers might wish. He has successfully revived the American economy, which is now back in growth. He has embarked on ambitious and very New Democrat education reforms. And he is now within striking distance of major health reform, even if the limited public option may still limit its scope. What he has largely avoided, to his credit, is getting sidetracked by second order issues (unless declaring a brief war on Fox News counts).
Internationally, good relations have been restored with Russia - at least, to a point. He has made bold speeches in the Muslim world. Hillary Clinton's appointment has proved astute in associating his administration with important foreign policy achievements, including her Northern Ireland mission recently. His Afghan policy may not be settled, and is suffering from the large casualties recently, but he is gaining more credit for careful consideration on military numbers than criticism for dithering.
All in all, that's not a bad record for a first year. And I have never pretended I didn't have my doubts about Obama. Of course, it won't be enough this time next year, by which time healthcare must be up and running, and the economy must have been showing serious continued growth, with unemployment starting to reverse. But significant credit is still due one year on.
If the Democrats lose both states, a lot will be written about Obama's failings. Indeed much has already appeared on these lines. And it is true that the healthcare legislation has fallen victim to a combination of sharp politics by the private healthcare industry and some pretty inept early responses by Obama and his people. Moreover, the shrillness of the Conservative Repubican media and political opposition have made it hard to become the unifier he might have been. But the reasons for defeat today may have more to do with the candidates in both states and less to do with Obama than critics allow.
No account of the first year of this President could fail to recognise how much he has tried to do, and how far things have advanced in a year domestically. The US is now far stronger on climate change than before, and is ready to accept targets, even if they are less than the Copenhagen summiteers might wish. He has successfully revived the American economy, which is now back in growth. He has embarked on ambitious and very New Democrat education reforms. And he is now within striking distance of major health reform, even if the limited public option may still limit its scope. What he has largely avoided, to his credit, is getting sidetracked by second order issues (unless declaring a brief war on Fox News counts).
Internationally, good relations have been restored with Russia - at least, to a point. He has made bold speeches in the Muslim world. Hillary Clinton's appointment has proved astute in associating his administration with important foreign policy achievements, including her Northern Ireland mission recently. His Afghan policy may not be settled, and is suffering from the large casualties recently, but he is gaining more credit for careful consideration on military numbers than criticism for dithering.
All in all, that's not a bad record for a first year. And I have never pretended I didn't have my doubts about Obama. Of course, it won't be enough this time next year, by which time healthcare must be up and running, and the economy must have been showing serious continued growth, with unemployment starting to reverse. But significant credit is still due one year on.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Alan Johnson was right to sack Prof Nutt
It is a long time since I have seen Alan Johnson so angry as he was with Adam Boulton on Sky News this morning, defending his decision to sack Professor David Nutt from his position as chief drugs adviser. But he was absolutely right to do so. Professor Nutt seems surprised that the Home Secretary should take exception to his adviser publicly slagging off the government, and breezily declaring ecstasy to be less problematic than horseriding. Such spurious comparisons may have some statistical merit - for example, in preparing a new edition of Freakonomics - but they do little to advertise the seriousness of someone charged with providing advice on a subject of huge concern to millions of families across Britain.
Johnson, as the elected politician, is charged with making decisions, drawing on scientific advice but also on society's expectations. It is a calculation that seems wholly to have eluded Prof Nutt. Look by contrast at the excellent chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson, to see someone who has an understanding of the real world as well as huge skills in his specialist field. That Prof Nutt seemed so unfamiliar with that world in which a Home Secretary or Prime Minister has to operate may qualify him for a place in the ivory towers of academia. But it made him ill-suited to being a government adviser.
MONDAY 1.30pm UPDATE: Those who are defending Prof Nutt seem to suffer from two delusions. The first is that the Professor was prevented from giving advice based on his view of the evidence in public. He was not. He was sacked for actively campaigning against government policy. The second is that his view of the dangers of cannabis and ecstasy is a scientific truth, accepted by the entire scientific community. In that light, the work of Prof Robin Murray, which has shown the harmful impact of continued cannabis use on people's mental health is particularly illuminating. Indeed, if Prof Murray who also gave a fascinating and worrying interview on the World at One today is right, it would seem that some of the advice given on this subject by this 'expert' committee was not only wrong, but dangerously so.
This post has been picked up by John Rentoul and Hopi Sen.
Johnson, as the elected politician, is charged with making decisions, drawing on scientific advice but also on society's expectations. It is a calculation that seems wholly to have eluded Prof Nutt. Look by contrast at the excellent chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson, to see someone who has an understanding of the real world as well as huge skills in his specialist field. That Prof Nutt seemed so unfamiliar with that world in which a Home Secretary or Prime Minister has to operate may qualify him for a place in the ivory towers of academia. But it made him ill-suited to being a government adviser.
MONDAY 1.30pm UPDATE: Those who are defending Prof Nutt seem to suffer from two delusions. The first is that the Professor was prevented from giving advice based on his view of the evidence in public. He was not. He was sacked for actively campaigning against government policy. The second is that his view of the dangers of cannabis and ecstasy is a scientific truth, accepted by the entire scientific community. In that light, the work of Prof Robin Murray, which has shown the harmful impact of continued cannabis use on people's mental health is particularly illuminating. Indeed, if Prof Murray who also gave a fascinating and worrying interview on the World at One today is right, it would seem that some of the advice given on this subject by this 'expert' committee was not only wrong, but dangerously so.
This post has been picked up by John Rentoul and Hopi Sen.
Fair admissions are key to school choice
A plan to crack down on parents lying about their home or religious circumstances as a way of gaining an advantage in schools admission has attracted the predictable response that 'there should be more good schools' rather than fairer admissions rules. And an inquiry into school lotteries - predictably - is likely to endorse their continued use.
Of course, those who raise the mantra about good schools - like the indefatigable Sheila Lawlor on Today this morning - don't bother to look at what's actually been happening in schools over the last decade or so. There are twice as many comprehensives where 70% or more pupils achieve five good GCSEs including English and Maths, and the number where fewer than 30% do so has fallen from 1600 - half of all secondaries in 1997 - to around 250 today.
But even if the numbers of top performing schools are doubled again and no school gets below the 30% benchmark - which should be the minimum expectation for the next phase of school reform, although the Tories are curiously unwilling to explain what outcomes they expect from their proposed changes - there will still be some schools that are more popular than others. Anyone suggesting otherwise is talking rot.
So, the issue is then: what is the fairest way to allocate places where a school has more applicants than places? Good schools are encouraged to expand, but are often reluctant to do so. The number of academies, which are typically very popular with parents, is expanding rapidly. But a system will still be needed that is fair.
Since both major parties now eschew selection (apart from a limited 10% on aptitude in a handful of subjects) this boils down to a question of whether proximity to a school should trump most other criteria? For primaries, it makes sense to use this. But for urban secondaries, it does not, as the arbitrariness of distance simply drives up house prices and places some schools out of reach on financial grounds. Far fairer to use either banding or a lottery (random allocation).
But that is not enough in itself. There must also be a network of community activists trained to help less articulate parents to be as pushy as their middle class counterparts. Such choice advisers should not be local authority bureaucrats, but part-timers from the communities that need support, with credibility in those communities but the knowledge to understand the best choices for individual pupils. And the changes introduced in 2008 (following the 2006 Act), where free school transport is now linked to choice, should be extended and much better publicised so that there is subsidised transport available to a choice of schools within a reasonable distance of one's home. To pretend that choice will emerge simply because new providers are allowed is not enough. There must be active support to enable people to exercise those choices.
UPDATE: The Adjudicator's reports can be read here. Ed Balls's response is here; there is to be no wider crackdown, and a welcome endorsement of lotteries as tie-breakers. However, the response does dodge the genuine usefulness of random allocation or banding as a way of widening access to good schools. That is a debate which should not be dodged.
This post is also featured on Progress online.
Of course, those who raise the mantra about good schools - like the indefatigable Sheila Lawlor on Today this morning - don't bother to look at what's actually been happening in schools over the last decade or so. There are twice as many comprehensives where 70% or more pupils achieve five good GCSEs including English and Maths, and the number where fewer than 30% do so has fallen from 1600 - half of all secondaries in 1997 - to around 250 today.
But even if the numbers of top performing schools are doubled again and no school gets below the 30% benchmark - which should be the minimum expectation for the next phase of school reform, although the Tories are curiously unwilling to explain what outcomes they expect from their proposed changes - there will still be some schools that are more popular than others. Anyone suggesting otherwise is talking rot.
So, the issue is then: what is the fairest way to allocate places where a school has more applicants than places? Good schools are encouraged to expand, but are often reluctant to do so. The number of academies, which are typically very popular with parents, is expanding rapidly. But a system will still be needed that is fair.
Since both major parties now eschew selection (apart from a limited 10% on aptitude in a handful of subjects) this boils down to a question of whether proximity to a school should trump most other criteria? For primaries, it makes sense to use this. But for urban secondaries, it does not, as the arbitrariness of distance simply drives up house prices and places some schools out of reach on financial grounds. Far fairer to use either banding or a lottery (random allocation).
But that is not enough in itself. There must also be a network of community activists trained to help less articulate parents to be as pushy as their middle class counterparts. Such choice advisers should not be local authority bureaucrats, but part-timers from the communities that need support, with credibility in those communities but the knowledge to understand the best choices for individual pupils. And the changes introduced in 2008 (following the 2006 Act), where free school transport is now linked to choice, should be extended and much better publicised so that there is subsidised transport available to a choice of schools within a reasonable distance of one's home. To pretend that choice will emerge simply because new providers are allowed is not enough. There must be active support to enable people to exercise those choices.
UPDATE: The Adjudicator's reports can be read here. Ed Balls's response is here; there is to be no wider crackdown, and a welcome endorsement of lotteries as tie-breakers. However, the response does dodge the genuine usefulness of random allocation or banding as a way of widening access to good schools. That is a debate which should not be dodged.
This post is also featured on Progress online.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
An Education
To see An Education, last night. Nick Hornby and Lone Scherfig's rendering of Lynn Barber's autobiographical coming-of-age tale, set in early 1960s London, tells the story of 16 year-old Jenny, a bright A level student played with great panache if a little too much maturity by Carey Mulligan, hoping to get to Oxford, who lets her studies suffer as she receives the attentions of an older man, David, whose flash car owes much to his dubious business dealings. Jenny's parents are as seduced as she is by David's charm and wealth, allowing her to swap her homework for weekends in Oxford and Paris, all the time oblivious to the increasingly unpalatable truths about their daughter's 'boyfriend'. Critics have bemoaned the breeziness of the film, which splendidly evokes the good life for some in London at that time, wishing for something darker and more sordid, to go with the obvious unsuitability of the relationship. But the film's ending is hardly lacking in an appropriate lesson in morality, and the film benefits from its general breeziness - and some great acting.
Friday, 30 October 2009
What the Tory Euro row really means
Bagehot in the Economist today is spot on in explaining the real significance of this week's row over Kaminski and the odds and sods that pass for a Tory grouping in Europe.
Seeing the move as a ransom paid to his party may be the best excuse for the moral compromises and apparent political myopia it involved. The switch and the credit it earned may even make it easier for Mr Cameron to take a relatively sane position on the Lisbon treaty if, as expected, it goes into force soon. But if this interpretation—charitable but plausible—mitigates the foolishness of Mr Cameron’s past decisions, it also raises an awkward question about his future.
It is this: if this shoddy, shaming alliance is the price he was obliged to pay his party for the changes needed to make it seem modern and compassionate, what sort of party is it that Mr Cameron leads? What else will its members demand, and what else—when his popularity and authority wane—will he be obliged to give them, after he becomes prime minister.
Mrs Warren's Profession
To see a sparky Felicity Kendal in a new Theatre Royal Bath production of Shaw's once controversial comedy about prostitution, Mrs Warren's Profession, last night. The play which tells the story of an independent-minded 1890s Cambridge-educated young woman's discovery of how her largely estranged mother earns her living and has paid for her genteel upbringing, is remarkable not only for its subject matter but also for its strong feminism. Behind the comedy there is a sharp critique of the sort of jobs and wages that poorer women faced in late Victorian England. Much of the action takes place in the country, where the local vicar's background is found to have coincided a little too closely with Mrs Warren. With its principal theme, and a suggestion of incest, the play, although written in 1894, was not performed publicly until it appeared in New York in 1905. It took another 20 years before the Lord Chamberlain's officials deemed it suitable for a general British audience (though it was performed in private theatre clubs from 1902). The play's qualities shine through in this fine production from Bath. With excellent support from David Yelland, as Lord Crofts, as caddish a figure as any created by Shaw, and great acting from Lucy Briggs-Owen, as Vivie, Mrs Warren's daughter, this production is a great revival of an underperformed gem. It is touring before a West End slot in 2010.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Political pariahs?
I've written this piece at the Public Finance blog about the saga of MPs expenses:
MPs could be forgiven for thinking that they have officially been declared enemies of the people. After the public lynching engendered by the Daily Telegraph’s weeks of revelations before the summer, they now have to ensure the tortuous combination of Sir Christopher Kelly’s hairshirt and Sir Thomas Legg’s restrospective thumbscrew.
Of course, some MPs have been abusing the system, and some have claimed very little. But most have just been doing what they were told by the officials at the Fees Office that they could – and often should – do. And it is a bit much to see the rough justice where some MPs – including David Cameron, who has happily used the saga to rid himself of a few troublesome backbenchers – are able to enjoy rich pickings from property speculation whilst the Prime Minister is rapped for spending more than an abritrary £2000 a year on flat cleaning and laundry.
The reported plans by Sir Christopher to phase out mortgage subsidies make sense, as do attempts to clamp down on needless first class travel. But stopping MPs employing spouses will not produce better or less expensive offices – they are the ones most likely to work longer and mix constituency and Westminster duties better – nor will the arbitrary 60 minute travel rule enhance the quality of debate, unless Parliament moves to a 6pm curfew. Having MPs rushing for the last train is hardly the stuff of decent democracy.
All these new rules may satisfy the forces of public opinion as they are mediated by the tabloids. But they could prove costly if they confirm the public’s view that all MPs are fiddling the system.
It would be far better to make things simple. Either give MPs a rail season ticket and a choice between staying at Westminster-owned serviced apartments or a hotel with which the Palace authorities have negotiated a good deal or increase their salaries and only pay them a decent allowance for running their office. And provided they are up to the job, and do the hours, let MPs employ their spouses if they get the work done.
All this nit-picking about railway timetables and internet subsidies is as damaging to democracy as the moats and duck ponds. Many good people on both sides of the House have had their careers destroyed because of mistakes or simply assuming that the Fees Office knew what they were talking about. Creating a whole host of complex new rules will not save taxpayers much money but could make the MP a permanent pariah, which even next year’s general election could do little to change.
A simple, transparent system, which everybody can understand, and which recognises the nature of the MP’s job, is the only way to restore faith in our democracy. Sadly, neither Sir Christopher nor Sir Thomas, born bureaucrats whose civil service instincts for micro-management inform their world view, seem to grasp that basic reality.
MPs could be forgiven for thinking that they have officially been declared enemies of the people. After the public lynching engendered by the Daily Telegraph’s weeks of revelations before the summer, they now have to ensure the tortuous combination of Sir Christopher Kelly’s hairshirt and Sir Thomas Legg’s restrospective thumbscrew.
Of course, some MPs have been abusing the system, and some have claimed very little. But most have just been doing what they were told by the officials at the Fees Office that they could – and often should – do. And it is a bit much to see the rough justice where some MPs – including David Cameron, who has happily used the saga to rid himself of a few troublesome backbenchers – are able to enjoy rich pickings from property speculation whilst the Prime Minister is rapped for spending more than an abritrary £2000 a year on flat cleaning and laundry.
The reported plans by Sir Christopher to phase out mortgage subsidies make sense, as do attempts to clamp down on needless first class travel. But stopping MPs employing spouses will not produce better or less expensive offices – they are the ones most likely to work longer and mix constituency and Westminster duties better – nor will the arbitrary 60 minute travel rule enhance the quality of debate, unless Parliament moves to a 6pm curfew. Having MPs rushing for the last train is hardly the stuff of decent democracy.
All these new rules may satisfy the forces of public opinion as they are mediated by the tabloids. But they could prove costly if they confirm the public’s view that all MPs are fiddling the system.
It would be far better to make things simple. Either give MPs a rail season ticket and a choice between staying at Westminster-owned serviced apartments or a hotel with which the Palace authorities have negotiated a good deal or increase their salaries and only pay them a decent allowance for running their office. And provided they are up to the job, and do the hours, let MPs employ their spouses if they get the work done.
All this nit-picking about railway timetables and internet subsidies is as damaging to democracy as the moats and duck ponds. Many good people on both sides of the House have had their careers destroyed because of mistakes or simply assuming that the Fees Office knew what they were talking about. Creating a whole host of complex new rules will not save taxpayers much money but could make the MP a permanent pariah, which even next year’s general election could do little to change.
A simple, transparent system, which everybody can understand, and which recognises the nature of the MP’s job, is the only way to restore faith in our democracy. Sadly, neither Sir Christopher nor Sir Thomas, born bureaucrats whose civil service instincts for micro-management inform their world view, seem to grasp that basic reality.
The simple fact is that the Tories' approach to the European Parliament is quite mad
Iain Dale is demanding that those who criticise the Polish MEP Michal Kaminski should apologise because the Chief Rabbi of Poland has been prevailed upon to say that the man is not an anti-semite these days and to criticise a headline run by the New Statesman suggesting he was asking the UK Tories to ditch their alliance with him.
Yet, as Toby Helm points out, Rabbi Schudrich said in an email to the New Statesman that he has not retracted:
That some of their new allies have pretty unsavoury pasts (to quote Rabbi Schudrich "Mr Kaminski was a member of the NOP, a group that is openly far-right and neo-Nazi") adds to the oddity of it all. And no amount of huffing and puffing can detract from the sheer idiocy of such positioning, both for the Conservatives and for a Britain they hope to govern again.
Yet, as Toby Helm points out, Rabbi Schudrich said in an email to the New Statesman that he has not retracted:
"It is clear that Mr Kaminski was a member of the NOP, a group that is openly far-right and neo-Nazi...Anyone who would want to align himself with a person who was an active member of NOP and the Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne, which was established to deny historical facts of the massacre ... needs to understand with what, and by whom, he is being represented."Moreover, Helm explains that the new comments come as a result of 'enormous pressure ' - bullying in plain terms - from Kaminski's Law and Justice Party to retract, but he has not done so. As Helm says:
I suspect that if one really wants to get to the heart of what Schudrich thinks, one should stick to the statement he originally gave to the New Statesman, before the row really got going. Cut through the political mud-slinging, go back to the time when he gave an opinion under no pressure at all. Then he raised questions about Kaminski's past association with a neo-Nazi leaning party, and said people needed to think clearly before getting alongside such individuals. The Tories want to portray Schudrich as a great supporter of Kaminski because they are in a mess over their new EU allies. The truth, I reckon, is rather more complex and less helpful to David Cameron's party.However much the defenders of Cameron's mad Euro-policy may grumble, the simple fact is this: at a time when the Tories could (and if they were rational, should) have continued in the EPP, the party of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, they instead chose to ally themselves with a motley crew of fringe parties and MEPs well outside even the right-wing mainstream. They did this purely to satisfy a bunch of Eurosceptic fanatics who had backed Cameron as leader. And they were quite happy to ditch their own respected leader at Strasbourg in the process, preferring to see Kaminski as their leader.
That some of their new allies have pretty unsavoury pasts (to quote Rabbi Schudrich "Mr Kaminski was a member of the NOP, a group that is openly far-right and neo-Nazi") adds to the oddity of it all. And no amount of huffing and puffing can detract from the sheer idiocy of such positioning, both for the Conservatives and for a Britain they hope to govern again.
Universities must give students a better deal if they want higher fees
I have a piece in today's Independent, arguing that if universities want fees to rise to as much as £7,000 a year, they must provide students with a better all-round deal. And this should be an explicit part of the forthcoming fees review. Here's an extract:
In the coming weeks the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, will announce the terms of reference for a review of student fees. The cross-party investigation is likely to recommend an increase in tuition fees from £3,225 to as much as between £5,000 and £7,000 a year, increasing the proportion of courses costs paid back by students after graduation. But if universities want the right to charge higher fees, there is growing political consensus that they must also be prepared to improve greatly the experience they provide for undergraduates.
The Higher Education Policy Institute has shown that the combination of teaching and private study for undergraduates in some humanities and social science courses amounts to just 14 hours a week, though it is much higher in the more demanding universities and the average is 29 hours, including 14.5 hours' contact time. But the higher the fees become, the greater the expectation of students and their parents.
This isn't just a problem with domestic students. Overseas students, who contribute £4bn a year in fees (more than eight per cent of the total income of UK universities) already pay £10,000 to £20,000 a year for most courses. Their numbers have grown over the last decade, but there is greater competition within Europe, Australia and the United States, and Chinese and Indian students increasingly have less expensive options closer to home. Unless they feel they are getting good value for their money, they will go elsewhere.
Some universities are recognising how important it is to provide a good student experience. Lancaster, Manchester and the London School of Economics give students clearer commitments on contact time, class sizes and access to lecturers than many. Others, like Northumbria, provide substantial hands-on facilities and work experience in subjects such as law and health.
But there is still a sense among too many vice-chancellors that they should be allowed to charge higher fees without needing to improve substantially students' overall academic and pastoral experiences. That's why the terms of reference for the new review must explicitly include the issues that Mr Willetts suggested [contact hours, class sizes and employability]. It will be hard enough selling another fees increase to Middle England. Unless their anxieties about what happens at university are addressed, it may prove politically impossible. Vice-chancellors must raise their game if they want the right to raise their fees.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
A sense of proportion on MPs' expenses
The leaked version of Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals for MPs' expenses suggests a degree of compromise, but also a wish to feed the media rather than develop a rational approach to the issues.
As I have argued here before, it is right that MPs should receive money for rent or modest hotel rooms rather than mortgage subsidies: there is no justification for MPs using their living expenses to build a property empire. I still think the Parliamentary authorities should buy up some apartment blocks near Westminster, so it makes money on the deal. That way, it could provide services like dry cleaning or house cleaning on a contractual basis, making money on the flats and saving money on the services.
But on two other issues, I am less convinced. The new 60 minute commute rule is fine if it is fairly enforced. But as someone who travels from home near Bath to London a few times a month, I would never allow less than 2h 30 to reach a meeting in the centre of the city, even though Bath is a 1h 20 commute. When I lived in Mitcham in South London, using the dreadful Northern Line and walking to and from the tube stations often took 1h 15. So the debate about a 60 minute commute will be fun. Far better to set the boundaries as those of the London Underground or overground lines in Greater London. And for late sittings, the option of an overnight hotel stay must remain. Indeed, if MPs are still to be allowed to travel first class, it is often cheaper to stay over than travel to and from London (from Bath it is even true with an open 2nd class!).
And on the employment of spouses, Sir Christopher is plain wrong. A husband or wife who works for an MP is likely to be able to balance constituency and London duties far more effectively than a secretary who is wholly London or constituency-based. Those I know are harder workers and often have far more useful experience. Of course, they should have the right skills and experience, and be audited to ensure they work the hours (I suspect many work twice the hours they should). But a blanket ban on spouses shows no understanding of the nature of the MP's working life. It should be dropped.
As I have argued here before, it is right that MPs should receive money for rent or modest hotel rooms rather than mortgage subsidies: there is no justification for MPs using their living expenses to build a property empire. I still think the Parliamentary authorities should buy up some apartment blocks near Westminster, so it makes money on the deal. That way, it could provide services like dry cleaning or house cleaning on a contractual basis, making money on the flats and saving money on the services.
But on two other issues, I am less convinced. The new 60 minute commute rule is fine if it is fairly enforced. But as someone who travels from home near Bath to London a few times a month, I would never allow less than 2h 30 to reach a meeting in the centre of the city, even though Bath is a 1h 20 commute. When I lived in Mitcham in South London, using the dreadful Northern Line and walking to and from the tube stations often took 1h 15. So the debate about a 60 minute commute will be fun. Far better to set the boundaries as those of the London Underground or overground lines in Greater London. And for late sittings, the option of an overnight hotel stay must remain. Indeed, if MPs are still to be allowed to travel first class, it is often cheaper to stay over than travel to and from London (from Bath it is even true with an open 2nd class!).
And on the employment of spouses, Sir Christopher is plain wrong. A husband or wife who works for an MP is likely to be able to balance constituency and London duties far more effectively than a secretary who is wholly London or constituency-based. Those I know are harder workers and often have far more useful experience. Of course, they should have the right skills and experience, and be audited to ensure they work the hours (I suspect many work twice the hours they should). But a blanket ban on spouses shows no understanding of the nature of the MP's working life. It should be dropped.
Monday, 26 October 2009
Hague shows his immaturity in Europe
It is quite extraordinary that William Hague is going around Europe bad-mouthing our former Prime Minister in a bid to scupper his chances of becoming European President. At the same time, despite the growing criticism at home and abroad, he remains doggedly wedded to his bizarre allies in Eastern Europe and further away from ever than the Christian Democrat mainstream in the European Parliament.
The more the facts show the extremism of Kaminski or the Latvian Fatherland party, the more those who raise them find themselves smeared and attacked. No wonder an experienced hand like Michael Heseltine has warned that they will have to be ditched pronto if the Tories win power.
The idea that a would-be future foreign secretary is leading campaign on behalf of the Luxembourg prime minister ahead of one of our greatest British prime ministers suggests a startling immaturity. We are not talking Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin here, after all, but someone aspiring to a great office of state. Yet Hague puts narrow Tory sectarianism first.
I had thought that Hague had become one of the more substantial figures on David Cameron's front bench. But his antics in recent months have shown how wrong I was. He is wholly lacking in the judgment required for the job, and prone to act in ways that are utterly at odds with the British national interest. It is no wonder that so many in the US and Europe are so bemused.
The more the facts show the extremism of Kaminski or the Latvian Fatherland party, the more those who raise them find themselves smeared and attacked. No wonder an experienced hand like Michael Heseltine has warned that they will have to be ditched pronto if the Tories win power.
The idea that a would-be future foreign secretary is leading campaign on behalf of the Luxembourg prime minister ahead of one of our greatest British prime ministers suggests a startling immaturity. We are not talking Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin here, after all, but someone aspiring to a great office of state. Yet Hague puts narrow Tory sectarianism first.
I had thought that Hague had become one of the more substantial figures on David Cameron's front bench. But his antics in recent months have shown how wrong I was. He is wholly lacking in the judgment required for the job, and prone to act in ways that are utterly at odds with the British national interest. It is no wonder that so many in the US and Europe are so bemused.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Eating out in Keynsham
Living in a small town after a couple of decades in London brings with it a very different pace of life. But what we have also noticed over the last few years has been a remarkable improvement in the quality of eating out opportunities near to our Keynsham home. Since a Google search currently suggests our town to be a culinary desert, and some of its eateries are ignored by the local Venue guide to Bristol and Bath, it may be helpful for visitors to have some recommendations.
* The Old Manor House is the best restaurant in town, on the Bristol Road. Located in an atmospheric 17th century old abbot's house, its cosy bar, excellent brasserie and friendly staff offer as good an evening out as anywhere in Bristol or Bath. The food is consistently of a high standard, with a changing but imaginative menu. With a bottle of wine and three courses plus coffee, expect to pay £35-£40 a head. Sunday lunches are splendid, too. It has monthly mid-week jazz dinners and guestrooms. Booking essential.
* The Ship Inn, on Temple Street, has new management and a great new chef. It is a much nicer place to eat since the smoking ban, and is probably Keynsham's cosiest pub. Great two course Sunday lunches for £9; an excellent evening menu with good value wines; and excellent sandwiches and paninis. Expect to pay £15-£20 for three courses and wine, a little less with £12 specials on Tuesday and Wednesday. Tel: 0117 986 9841 - weekend booking a good idea.
* The Wine Bar on the High Street has now taken over the premises of what was Bar One Nine (and some time before The London Inn). It has a modest though interesting selection of good wines and fizz available both by the glass and the bottle, and has a reasonably priced lunch and dinner menu, with steak, Pieminster pies and speciality sausages among the mains. The owner-chef is seeking a home-cooking ambience, and the bar has been given a more intimate makeover which works better than the starker decor of Bar One Nine. There is free wi-fi. Lighting is a bit dim during the day, however. Expect to pay about £20-£25 for three courses and wine. Tel: 0117 914 3153.
* The Brassmill, on Avon Mill Lane, though linked to the Village Inns chain, has the feel of a good country pub. Despite its size it is cosy and homely inside. Located in the old Keynsham brassmills (which were an important industry until the 1920s), it has a good and changing menu, an excellent range of great value wines by the glass and no booking. Since it has plenty of space, you can usually get a table at weekends. It is child-friendly though is no longer the ghastly 'family pub' that once occupied the site. Expect to pay £20-£25 for three course dinner with wine. Tel 0117 986 7280
* The Lock Keeper (left) on the Bitton Road has always been good for lunch, and has expanded into providing atmospheric dinners, with fish specialities. Located by the canal, it is a particularly good place to sit out on a summer's day. Expect to pay £20-£30 for three course dinner with wine. 0117 986 2383
* The Cinnamon restaurant on the high street is a first-rate local Indian restaurant, with great specials and friendly staff. It is hugely popular locally, particularly at weekends, when booking is essential. Expect to pay £20 a head including beer, a little more with wine.
(Prices are what we expect to pay per person for three courses, sharing a bottle of wine, and with mineral water. This is an updated posting.)
* The Old Manor House is the best restaurant in town, on the Bristol Road. Located in an atmospheric 17th century old abbot's house, its cosy bar, excellent brasserie and friendly staff offer as good an evening out as anywhere in Bristol or Bath. The food is consistently of a high standard, with a changing but imaginative menu. With a bottle of wine and three courses plus coffee, expect to pay £35-£40 a head. Sunday lunches are splendid, too. It has monthly mid-week jazz dinners and guestrooms. Booking essential.* The Ship Inn, on Temple Street, has new management and a great new chef. It is a much nicer place to eat since the smoking ban, and is probably Keynsham's cosiest pub. Great two course Sunday lunches for £9; an excellent evening menu with good value wines; and excellent sandwiches and paninis. Expect to pay £15-£20 for three courses and wine, a little less with £12 specials on Tuesday and Wednesday. Tel: 0117 986 9841 - weekend booking a good idea.
* The Wine Bar on the High Street has now taken over the premises of what was Bar One Nine (and some time before The London Inn). It has a modest though interesting selection of good wines and fizz available both by the glass and the bottle, and has a reasonably priced lunch and dinner menu, with steak, Pieminster pies and speciality sausages among the mains. The owner-chef is seeking a home-cooking ambience, and the bar has been given a more intimate makeover which works better than the starker decor of Bar One Nine. There is free wi-fi. Lighting is a bit dim during the day, however. Expect to pay about £20-£25 for three courses and wine. Tel: 0117 914 3153.
* The Brassmill, on Avon Mill Lane, though linked to the Village Inns chain, has the feel of a good country pub. Despite its size it is cosy and homely inside. Located in the old Keynsham brassmills (which were an important industry until the 1920s), it has a good and changing menu, an excellent range of great value wines by the glass and no booking. Since it has plenty of space, you can usually get a table at weekends. It is child-friendly though is no longer the ghastly 'family pub' that once occupied the site. Expect to pay £20-£25 for three course dinner with wine. Tel 0117 986 7280
* The Lock Keeper (left) on the Bitton Road has always been good for lunch, and has expanded into providing atmospheric dinners, with fish specialities. Located by the canal, it is a particularly good place to sit out on a summer's day. Expect to pay £20-£30 for three course dinner with wine. 0117 986 2383
* The Cinnamon restaurant on the high street is a first-rate local Indian restaurant, with great specials and friendly staff. It is hugely popular locally, particularly at weekends, when booking is essential. Expect to pay £20 a head including beer, a little more with wine.
(Prices are what we expect to pay per person for three courses, sharing a bottle of wine, and with mineral water. This is an updated posting.)
Saturday, 24 October 2009
The BBC's boost for the BNP
I had deliberately avoided saying much about the Nick Griffin show before Question Time was broadcast, and only caught up with the whole thing last night on the Virgin + player. Having seen the resulting car crash, I am now firmly with Peter Hain in his view that this charade should never have been broadcast.
Of course, the BBC should give the minimum airtime required by statute to the BNP and their loathsome leader on news programmes. But this need not extend to Question Time, and it was utterly crass and self-defeating to turn the whole thing into a forum where an admittedly poorly prepared, ignorant and sweaty Griffin was made to seem like the victim of a liberal elite ambush.
This was the BBC at its absolute worst. First, it generates oceans of publicity to swell interest in the BNP and attract eight million viewers. Then, instead of either running a normal version of Question Time where the BNP leader's mediocrity might shine through without any semblance of victimhood, or introducing a savvy comedian to prick his pompous self-regard, the programme deliberately sought an unrepresentative audience and handpicked questions guaranteed to elevate the third-rate Griffin to martyrdom among a significant portion of the audience. [The idea that the producers don't decide in advance what questions they want is laughably absurd.]
It was frankly the worst of all worlds. When Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand engaged in their mindless antics with Andrew Sachs, they were penalised for their stupid stunt. The controller of BBC Radio 2 was forced to resign. But this exercise has been far more damaging as a vehicle for publicity for a racist and evil organisation than makes hundreds of thousands of minority community lives a misery. Who will take responsibility for that?
Of course, the BBC should give the minimum airtime required by statute to the BNP and their loathsome leader on news programmes. But this need not extend to Question Time, and it was utterly crass and self-defeating to turn the whole thing into a forum where an admittedly poorly prepared, ignorant and sweaty Griffin was made to seem like the victim of a liberal elite ambush.
This was the BBC at its absolute worst. First, it generates oceans of publicity to swell interest in the BNP and attract eight million viewers. Then, instead of either running a normal version of Question Time where the BNP leader's mediocrity might shine through without any semblance of victimhood, or introducing a savvy comedian to prick his pompous self-regard, the programme deliberately sought an unrepresentative audience and handpicked questions guaranteed to elevate the third-rate Griffin to martyrdom among a significant portion of the audience. [The idea that the producers don't decide in advance what questions they want is laughably absurd.]
It was frankly the worst of all worlds. When Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand engaged in their mindless antics with Andrew Sachs, they were penalised for their stupid stunt. The controller of BBC Radio 2 was forced to resign. But this exercise has been far more damaging as a vehicle for publicity for a racist and evil organisation than makes hundreds of thousands of minority community lives a misery. Who will take responsibility for that?
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Persistent truancy is falling - but not fast enough
The headline figure for 'unauthorised absence' is at its highest level, even if the increase is marginal. But since a government clampdown on term-time holidays, with heads refusing to back bargain autumn breaks to Spain, that number is not really the one that matters. More significant is the figure for 'persistent truancy': these are the hard-core truants, the ones who are really missing out by not being at school. And the good news is that these figures are starting to fall significantly. This is where we started to focus resources four years ago, on schools with significant problems of persistent truancy, and the signs are that it is beginning to work.
But the fall in those missing at least one day a week from 273,000 to 241,000 pupils, a drop of over 10%, though good news, is not yet good enough. That's 241,000 pupils still missing some 40 days a year of lesons or more. There must be a singular focus on that group, with government resources transferred from pointless lectures about family holidays (as well, perhaps, as some of the money spent in bureaucratic Every Child Matters committees) and a relentless implementation of what successful schools have already done.
I notice that shadow schools spokesman Nick Gibb is criticising the government for the truancy figures: if he is serious about addressing the problem, he must recognise that this is one area where Government can make a difference with the right focus and the right target. The evidence is finally there of what works. It needs to be followed up.
But the fall in those missing at least one day a week from 273,000 to 241,000 pupils, a drop of over 10%, though good news, is not yet good enough. That's 241,000 pupils still missing some 40 days a year of lesons or more. There must be a singular focus on that group, with government resources transferred from pointless lectures about family holidays (as well, perhaps, as some of the money spent in bureaucratic Every Child Matters committees) and a relentless implementation of what successful schools have already done.
I notice that shadow schools spokesman Nick Gibb is criticising the government for the truancy figures: if he is serious about addressing the problem, he must recognise that this is one area where Government can make a difference with the right focus and the right target. The evidence is finally there of what works. It needs to be followed up.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Change and continuity in academies
Labour's academies policy looks safer with the Conservatives now that people like the former Schools Commissioner Sir Bruce Liddington are on board with the New Schools Network, a quasi-independent organisation set up by shadow schools secretary Michael Gove to help him realise his policy of creating more independent state schools.
Of course, I hope that Labour can win the next election. But if, as the polls suggest, the Tories do win through, it is vital that there is continuity as much as change in what happens in the education system. In 1997, Labour took this view not only with testing and inspection, but also with the introduction of foundation schools and grammar school ballots.
Even so, it is going to be a tall order seeing the large number of new schools that the Conservatives envisage being delivered quickly and, more importantly, successfully. I am quoted elsewhere warning that 'cults and sects' may be the first to embrace any laxness in the safeguards for new schools, and that the realisable demand from groups of parents directly may be more limited than is assumed. There may also be justifiable demand from mainstream Muslims and Catholics, but the Government will need to balance demand with fair safeguards, if their policy is not to be hijacked, and while this is something Gove realises, it may not be as straightforward as the Opposition think.
But this doesn't mean they should be unambitious. However, there are two issues that the Tories need to address if they are to make a success of their plans. What I also told the TES is that pressure from faiths or sects means the Tories will need to have a much more hands-on position driving and encouraging secular demand, for example by developing the sort of school chains that are envisaged also by Ed Balls in his recent schools white paper. This is where the new network could be useful in opposition, though in government the Tories need to work more closely with established and trusted organisations that have helped deliver trusts and academies in practice. Whether they need to introduce profit-making is a moot point: Swedish and American profit-making entrepreneurs say they do. But Gove may find it far harder to sell his plans politically in the UK environment, with a strong tradition of not-for-profit independent schools than in Sweden, where there was no such tradition. And many American states prohibit profit in charter schools.
The second issue is difficult for any opposition: to recognise where and how Labour's reforms have succeeded. There have been substantial and genuine improvements in some inner city areas since 1997, as a direct result of a much more business-like and qualifications-focused attitude in schools - and a big improvement in the quality of teachers. Of course, too many targets can create their own problems. But the combination of floor targets - like the 30% minimum five goood GCSEs in the National Challenge - and tough internal targets within schools has driven substantial improvement where English and Maths are included. Unless the Conservatives expect similar ambition with their academies, they will not achieve the further boost in improvement they need.
And that may mean spending a bit more time getting it right rather than focusing on the numbers of new schools, especially when replacing failing schools or supporting new parent-led alternatives. Equally, those trusted organisations will need to help sell the benefits of being an academy to good maintained schools, especially if money is tight and there are no incentives. Similar strictures apply in primaries, more so given their size, where the majority of any new schools will be established, and the Tories need to be more vocal in resisting the efforts of some academics to return them to the secret garden of differential expectations and limited focus on the basics that too often prevailed in the seventies and eighties.
Despite all the hoopla in the press, most of whose editors have little idea what is really happening in most state schools and don't report real improvements when they occur, Gove's policy is far more a continuation of Tony Blair's and Labour's reforms (which in turn embraced many of Ken Baker's reforms) than either party would care to admit. (True, academies have lost some freedoms under Balls, but the fundamentals are still there.) And that continuity would be a good thing for schools and their students.
5pm UPDATE: I've also blogged on this theme at the Progress website.
Of course, I hope that Labour can win the next election. But if, as the polls suggest, the Tories do win through, it is vital that there is continuity as much as change in what happens in the education system. In 1997, Labour took this view not only with testing and inspection, but also with the introduction of foundation schools and grammar school ballots.
Even so, it is going to be a tall order seeing the large number of new schools that the Conservatives envisage being delivered quickly and, more importantly, successfully. I am quoted elsewhere warning that 'cults and sects' may be the first to embrace any laxness in the safeguards for new schools, and that the realisable demand from groups of parents directly may be more limited than is assumed. There may also be justifiable demand from mainstream Muslims and Catholics, but the Government will need to balance demand with fair safeguards, if their policy is not to be hijacked, and while this is something Gove realises, it may not be as straightforward as the Opposition think.
But this doesn't mean they should be unambitious. However, there are two issues that the Tories need to address if they are to make a success of their plans. What I also told the TES is that pressure from faiths or sects means the Tories will need to have a much more hands-on position driving and encouraging secular demand, for example by developing the sort of school chains that are envisaged also by Ed Balls in his recent schools white paper. This is where the new network could be useful in opposition, though in government the Tories need to work more closely with established and trusted organisations that have helped deliver trusts and academies in practice. Whether they need to introduce profit-making is a moot point: Swedish and American profit-making entrepreneurs say they do. But Gove may find it far harder to sell his plans politically in the UK environment, with a strong tradition of not-for-profit independent schools than in Sweden, where there was no such tradition. And many American states prohibit profit in charter schools.
The second issue is difficult for any opposition: to recognise where and how Labour's reforms have succeeded. There have been substantial and genuine improvements in some inner city areas since 1997, as a direct result of a much more business-like and qualifications-focused attitude in schools - and a big improvement in the quality of teachers. Of course, too many targets can create their own problems. But the combination of floor targets - like the 30% minimum five goood GCSEs in the National Challenge - and tough internal targets within schools has driven substantial improvement where English and Maths are included. Unless the Conservatives expect similar ambition with their academies, they will not achieve the further boost in improvement they need.
And that may mean spending a bit more time getting it right rather than focusing on the numbers of new schools, especially when replacing failing schools or supporting new parent-led alternatives. Equally, those trusted organisations will need to help sell the benefits of being an academy to good maintained schools, especially if money is tight and there are no incentives. Similar strictures apply in primaries, more so given their size, where the majority of any new schools will be established, and the Tories need to be more vocal in resisting the efforts of some academics to return them to the secret garden of differential expectations and limited focus on the basics that too often prevailed in the seventies and eighties.
Despite all the hoopla in the press, most of whose editors have little idea what is really happening in most state schools and don't report real improvements when they occur, Gove's policy is far more a continuation of Tony Blair's and Labour's reforms (which in turn embraced many of Ken Baker's reforms) than either party would care to admit. (True, academies have lost some freedoms under Balls, but the fundamentals are still there.) And that continuity would be a good thing for schools and their students.
5pm UPDATE: I've also blogged on this theme at the Progress website.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Give me Billy Hayes over Alex Salmond any day
Both Billy Hayes from the Communication Workers Union and Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland, graced both the Andrew Marr Show on BBC 1 and Sky's Sunday with Adam Boulton. Where Hayes came across as a moderate, conciliatory figure - whatever the rights and wrongs of his dispute with the Royal Mail - Salmond appeared as even more a posturing bully than ever. If I were the CWU, I would make every effort to get Hayes to put the postal workers case as much as possible. Despite the ludicrous comparisons in some newspapers, he is no Arthur Scargill.
Salmond wanted a hung parliament so he could bully a UK government into supporting his demands. But he was 'willing' to see a third option on Scottish ballot papers. If the SNP wants to ensure that there is no hung parliament then they should certainly let Salmond puts his case on TV in England as much as possible. But if he does want a referendum on Scottish independence, perhaps we could insist that Scottish voters are reminded on the ballot paper what it would mean to each one of them individually to lose the Barnett formula and to pay UK taxpayers back for the cost of bailing out the Edinburgh banking industry, notably HBOS and RBS?
Salmond wanted a hung parliament so he could bully a UK government into supporting his demands. But he was 'willing' to see a third option on Scottish ballot papers. If the SNP wants to ensure that there is no hung parliament then they should certainly let Salmond puts his case on TV in England as much as possible. But if he does want a referendum on Scottish independence, perhaps we could insist that Scottish voters are reminded on the ballot paper what it would mean to each one of them individually to lose the Barnett formula and to pay UK taxpayers back for the cost of bailing out the Edinburgh banking industry, notably HBOS and RBS?
Friday, 16 October 2009
Too much, too young?
It is a bit rich for Prof Robin Alexander and his cohorts on the self-styled 'biggest review of primary education in 40 years' to accuse politicians of ideological interference in schools when they have just presided over a review which has always has at its core an ideological opposition to national testing. So, nobody can be surprised at its best publicised conclusions, that national tests should be scrapped and 'formal learning' should start later.
Yet for a study apperently groaning under the weight of '4,000 pieces of evidence', it is fascinating that it takes a practitioner to explain what nonsense underlies the suggestion that five year-olds are being subjected to rote learning of the sort that a Victorian would recognise - a claim inevitably treated with reverence on the BBC this morning.
In fact, there is not a great deal of difference between what is taught in pre-school in most other countries with a later starting age and what actually happens here. Nor is there a lot of difference between the extent to which some youngsters are taught well at home and others need schools to make up for a lack of home support (as a conversation with any Helsinki primary teacher will attest).
As Liz Steele, a not untypical English primary headteacher writes in the Times today:
"Give us back our schools," is the TES headline to its story about the report. And that just about sums up the reasoning behind the desire to scrap tests. For those who object most to national testing are not a generation of youngsters obessesed by competitive computer games but some of their teachers and rather more of those running the teaching unions, who still haven't got used to the idea that schools are not run for the comfort of the staff but in the interests of the pupils; and as taxpayers we have a right to look occasionally at how they perform. Those who regard this as "Stalinism" clearly forget that when the first tests were taken in 1995, less than half of eleven year olds reached a standard that 70-80% reach today.
The primary purpose of primary schools must be to develop literacy and numeracy to a reasonable level in all their pupils, as well as providing a broad curriculum. I would have no argument with stripping back the compulsory curriculum to enable this to happen, and to allow 50% of the day to be decided at school level provided that children were taught to read, write and do arithmetic. I also happen to agree with the suggestion that there should be more specialist teachers in primary school. One of the benefits of the numeracy strategy was that it provided teachers with an understanding of a subject where many lacked confidence, and for which initial teacher education had left them ill-prepared.
But to imagine that children will be better off with less focus on English and Maths, and no proper independent school-level accountability is bizarre. We tried that before the mid-1990s and it didn't work. The only surprise about the Alexander report is that it took so long for them to reach the conclusions they had intended to reach from the start.
I've also blogged on this subject at Public Finance and John Rentoul has picked up this posting in a strong piece for his blog.
Yet for a study apperently groaning under the weight of '4,000 pieces of evidence', it is fascinating that it takes a practitioner to explain what nonsense underlies the suggestion that five year-olds are being subjected to rote learning of the sort that a Victorian would recognise - a claim inevitably treated with reverence on the BBC this morning.
In fact, there is not a great deal of difference between what is taught in pre-school in most other countries with a later starting age and what actually happens here. Nor is there a lot of difference between the extent to which some youngsters are taught well at home and others need schools to make up for a lack of home support (as a conversation with any Helsinki primary teacher will attest).
As Liz Steele, a not untypical English primary headteacher writes in the Times today:
It is not the middle classes who would lose out by the change proposed by the Alexander review, but those from backgrounds where there is too little support and stimulation at home. They are starting to fall behind by age three and will fall much further behind if they are denied the sort of purposefulness that is offered in thousands of primaries like that led by Ms Steele. Indeed the Alexander notion that because some parents won't read with their children at home - the main 'homework' expected in primaries - schools should not expect it to happen is defeatism of the highest order.Children starting reception class at 4 or 5 are not made to sit in serried ranks and chant times tables. They play, run around outside and often barely notice the transition from pre-school — except that they stay all day instead of just for the morning. While they are gardening, cooking and role-playing they learn about sounds and how to recognise letters.
But it is not a rigid curriculum, it’s learning through experience. For some pupils — who would otherwise not get these opportunities — the chance to interact is crucial to their development. They thrive and grow by being around adults who are trained in how to engage them and by playing alongside other children. Their speech improves and they are supported in a community rather than being taken to towns and clinics where their background and family are unknown.If the environment is right, with learning experiences and good role models in the classroom, then it is best for some children to start school as soon as possible. Their breadth of knowledge increases and their basic skills improve. They are initially quite ired but we don’t see children falling asleep in corners and they soon become used to it and are quite lively.
"Give us back our schools," is the TES headline to its story about the report. And that just about sums up the reasoning behind the desire to scrap tests. For those who object most to national testing are not a generation of youngsters obessesed by competitive computer games but some of their teachers and rather more of those running the teaching unions, who still haven't got used to the idea that schools are not run for the comfort of the staff but in the interests of the pupils; and as taxpayers we have a right to look occasionally at how they perform. Those who regard this as "Stalinism" clearly forget that when the first tests were taken in 1995, less than half of eleven year olds reached a standard that 70-80% reach today.
The primary purpose of primary schools must be to develop literacy and numeracy to a reasonable level in all their pupils, as well as providing a broad curriculum. I would have no argument with stripping back the compulsory curriculum to enable this to happen, and to allow 50% of the day to be decided at school level provided that children were taught to read, write and do arithmetic. I also happen to agree with the suggestion that there should be more specialist teachers in primary school. One of the benefits of the numeracy strategy was that it provided teachers with an understanding of a subject where many lacked confidence, and for which initial teacher education had left them ill-prepared.
But to imagine that children will be better off with less focus on English and Maths, and no proper independent school-level accountability is bizarre. We tried that before the mid-1990s and it didn't work. The only surprise about the Alexander report is that it took so long for them to reach the conclusions they had intended to reach from the start.
I've also blogged on this subject at Public Finance and John Rentoul has picked up this posting in a strong piece for his blog.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
These are genuinely good GCSE results
That half of all 15-year old students now get five good GCSEs including English and Maths - a 2.1% point increase on last year - should be a huge boost for the Government's secondary school reform programme.
To put that in some context, it means that 50% more pupils reach this standard - a much tougher one than the 5 GCSEs in any subject that nearly 70% now get - when it includes both English and Maths - than did so in 1997. If you doubt this is a tough target, look at the separate data for each of those basic subjects. It particularly reflects the strength of two key Government reform programmes, Academies and the National Challenge (together with earlier floor targets), but can also be attributed to the school-level targets associated with virtually all secondaries becoming specialist schools.
Traditionalists might reflect that with O levels, barely a quarter of pupils reached this standard and both English and Maths were not required in the measure. And the Conservatives should understand that their independent schools programme will not succeed in achieving a similar uplift unless it is accompanied by a tough accountability regime, where schools set challenging internal targets and the Government has minimum expectations like the National Challenge.
Today's results are a reflection of the genuine transformation for the better that has occurred in secondary schools and their culture. It should be a cause for celebration. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
To put that in some context, it means that 50% more pupils reach this standard - a much tougher one than the 5 GCSEs in any subject that nearly 70% now get - when it includes both English and Maths - than did so in 1997. If you doubt this is a tough target, look at the separate data for each of those basic subjects. It particularly reflects the strength of two key Government reform programmes, Academies and the National Challenge (together with earlier floor targets), but can also be attributed to the school-level targets associated with virtually all secondaries becoming specialist schools.
Traditionalists might reflect that with O levels, barely a quarter of pupils reached this standard and both English and Maths were not required in the measure. And the Conservatives should understand that their independent schools programme will not succeed in achieving a similar uplift unless it is accompanied by a tough accountability regime, where schools set challenging internal targets and the Government has minimum expectations like the National Challenge.
Today's results are a reflection of the genuine transformation for the better that has occurred in secondary schools and their culture. It should be a cause for celebration. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Good foundations
Good news from the Government's much-maligned 'nappy curriculum' today - or more properly, the Early Years Foundation Stage - which seeks to ensure that toddlers know their ABC, can count and have gained a range of important social skills by the age of six.
Critics who believe that only middle class children have the right to these skills at an early age - before it is too late - argue that it is far too early to expect (working class) children to learn the alphabet or count: far better to wait until they are seven or eight, and illiterate. Their own kids have already learnt these skills at home, of course.
So I was riveted to read an account in the Daily Telegraph which mentions in passing the fact that 23,000 more children are reaching a good level of development than prior to the introduction of the EYFS in September 2008 but complains instead that
An explanation is then offered by Sue Palmer, who doesn't think children should do anything but play until well into primary school:
So, let me get this clear. Some boys don't know their alphabet or can't count because they aren't in the playground enough and are being forced to recite the alphabet by nasty nursery teachers. And the fact that despite the gap, a growing number of boys as well as girls can do these things satisfactorily hasn't anything at all to do with the fact that they are now being taught them more effectively in nursery school.
Critics who believe that only middle class children have the right to these skills at an early age - before it is too late - argue that it is far too early to expect (working class) children to learn the alphabet or count: far better to wait until they are seven or eight, and illiterate. Their own kids have already learnt these skills at home, of course.
So I was riveted to read an account in the Daily Telegraph which mentions in passing the fact that 23,000 more children are reaching a good level of development than prior to the introduction of the EYFS in September 2008 but complains instead that
More than one-in-six boys cannot write their own name or other simple words such as “mum”, “dad” and “cat” after a year of school – double the number among girls.
They are also much less likely to know the alphabet, count to 10, sing simple nursery rhymes from memory, dress themselves and work well with other children in class.
An explanation is then offered by Sue Palmer, who doesn't think children should do anything but play until well into primary school:
[She] said boys were developmentally behind at birth and needed time to “run
about and play, which is what they need to catch up”.
So, let me get this clear. Some boys don't know their alphabet or can't count because they aren't in the playground enough and are being forced to recite the alphabet by nasty nursery teachers. And the fact that despite the gap, a growing number of boys as well as girls can do these things satisfactorily hasn't anything at all to do with the fact that they are now being taught them more effectively in nursery school.
Expenses and allowances
It is plainly absurd to fine MPs retrospectively for expenses that were approved in good faith years ago, and if Sir Thomas Legg thinks it is reasonable to do so merely to satisfy the voices of the mob, then he has a very odd sense of natural justice. Natural justice is not what appears in a Telegraph or Mail editorial. But those who can afford £1.3 million flats in central London clearly don't need to worry about trifles like expenses.
And the real reason why these allowances have been allowed to grow as they have is in danger of being forgotten in the ensuing controversy. MPs allowances - as with those for peers incidentally - have always been intended to supplement their salaries (or substitute for them) by covering all the additional costs they incur as a result of living in London as an MP in addition to any constituency home (until 2004, ministers were required to designate London their first home, a fact conveneniently forgotten is the attacks on Jacqui Smith).
That's why many tended to claim close to the full housing allowance, even if it involved mortgage interest subsidies. In that context, the Legg letters may politically require paybacks, but far more important is the establishment of a much clearer system of MPs pay and expenses (which are not the same thing as allowances).
So, MPs should have an overnight accommodation and subsistence allowance - say £200 on days that Parliament sits - that would allow them to stay at a reasonable 3* or 4* hotel in central London - the Commons can block book rooms to get good deals - or accommodation in apartment blocks wholly leased by the Palace of Westminster. The hotel/subsistence allowance should not exceed £200 a day. Mortgage costs would not be paid.
Any cleaning or other such costs would not be handled by MPs but dealt with by officials (or covered in hotel bills). Train fares (normally second class) should be paid with rail warrants and mileage costs covered for constituency business. Otherwise any expenses would be directly related to official business and suitably receipted.
The sooner such a system gets established the better for MPs and the better for their reputation.
And the real reason why these allowances have been allowed to grow as they have is in danger of being forgotten in the ensuing controversy. MPs allowances - as with those for peers incidentally - have always been intended to supplement their salaries (or substitute for them) by covering all the additional costs they incur as a result of living in London as an MP in addition to any constituency home (until 2004, ministers were required to designate London their first home, a fact conveneniently forgotten is the attacks on Jacqui Smith).
That's why many tended to claim close to the full housing allowance, even if it involved mortgage interest subsidies. In that context, the Legg letters may politically require paybacks, but far more important is the establishment of a much clearer system of MPs pay and expenses (which are not the same thing as allowances).
So, MPs should have an overnight accommodation and subsistence allowance - say £200 on days that Parliament sits - that would allow them to stay at a reasonable 3* or 4* hotel in central London - the Commons can block book rooms to get good deals - or accommodation in apartment blocks wholly leased by the Palace of Westminster. The hotel/subsistence allowance should not exceed £200 a day. Mortgage costs would not be paid.
Any cleaning or other such costs would not be handled by MPs but dealt with by officials (or covered in hotel bills). Train fares (normally second class) should be paid with rail warrants and mileage costs covered for constituency business. Otherwise any expenses would be directly related to official business and suitably receipted.
The sooner such a system gets established the better for MPs and the better for their reputation.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Education savings
I have written an analysis of the potential for savings in the schools' budget in this week's Public Finance, to protect frontline services. You can read the piece here.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
American history trail
PHILADELPHIA - Spending a week in the States has given us the opportunity to see a lot of great American historical sights. We spent the last few days in Washington DC, before taking the train up here today. The walk from the Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol, past the various veteran's memorials, is pretty stunning. The White House is fairly well hidden from the front, with two closed off streets, but offers better views round back.
The Presidential portraits in the National Portrait Gallery are impressive, but the current exhibition of portraits from the American West is fascinating, as are some of the pictures from Lincoln's inauguration. A newer museum that is particularly fascinating is the Newseum, where they have an amazing collection of newspaper front pages, as well as lots of broadcast history. The modern building, which only opened last year, is currently hosting a fascinating exhibit on coverage of a divided Berlin, complete with pieces of the Wall.
We stayed at the Fairmont, a great base for nearby Georgetown as well as walking downtown. There was plenty of good food, but we particularly enjoyed a jazz brunch on Sunday at Georgia Brown's, an excellent Italian supper at Cafe Milano and a great breakfast at Afterwords in Dupont Circle. Taxis seemed particularly good value compared with London.
Today in Philadelphia we had the chance to walk around the historical district in Independence National Park, seeing the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, Carpenters' Hall and the Franklin Court museum. Philadelphia is justly proud of its central role in the story of independence, federalism and the Constitution. The historic buildings sit uneasily cheek by jowl with modern buildings, but exude a real sense of history. All in all, a great four day history lesson.
The Presidential portraits in the National Portrait Gallery are impressive, but the current exhibition of portraits from the American West is fascinating, as are some of the pictures from Lincoln's inauguration. A newer museum that is particularly fascinating is the Newseum, where they have an amazing collection of newspaper front pages, as well as lots of broadcast history. The modern building, which only opened last year, is currently hosting a fascinating exhibit on coverage of a divided Berlin, complete with pieces of the Wall.
We stayed at the Fairmont, a great base for nearby Georgetown as well as walking downtown. There was plenty of good food, but we particularly enjoyed a jazz brunch on Sunday at Georgia Brown's, an excellent Italian supper at Cafe Milano and a great breakfast at Afterwords in Dupont Circle. Taxis seemed particularly good value compared with London.
Today in Philadelphia we had the chance to walk around the historical district in Independence National Park, seeing the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, Carpenters' Hall and the Franklin Court museum. Philadelphia is justly proud of its central role in the story of independence, federalism and the Constitution. The historic buildings sit uneasily cheek by jowl with modern buildings, but exude a real sense of history. All in all, a great four day history lesson.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Ireland votes Yes
Ireland seems to have voted decisively in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, an unwelcome gift to David Cameron at the start of the Conservative conference. It is now time for Cameron and William Hague to explain to their deluded delegates that there will now be no referendum on Lisbon in Britain. If Cameron is the plain speaker he tells us he is, the voters expect honesty on this subject. Perhaps Andrew Marr could concentrate on getting answers to that question tomorrow morning, instead of worrying about the internet rumour mill.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
In America
I'm off the Washington tomorrow for the first time to see the sights. Blogging may be a bit lighter over the next week.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Through the media lens
Of course, it matters that Labour will not have the backing of the Sun at the next general election - even if their 'verdict' is based on a wilful distortion of Labour's record. (100,000 more primary pupils each year get good reading or maths scores, for example, and the proportion gaining five good GCSEs including English and Maths is a third up on 1997. And since those improvements reflect differential improvements in different social classes, ethnic groups and schools, they cannot be lazily attributed to 'grade inflation'.)
But it is also the case that the support of the paper has been lukewarm since the 2005 poll and virtually non-existent since Tony Blair stepped down. But what is perhaps as interesting is to see the reaction that ordinary people who actually watched Gordon Brown's speech yesterday had to it, before they were told what to think by their newspapers.
YouGov have been doing some interesting conference polling, and they found a remarkably strong instant reaction among those who saw the speech. 63% of those who watched it rated it a 'good' or 'excellent' speech. 50% of people thought the PM was doing well as PM and 51% rated him a capable leader. This shows how important it is that Gordon Brown and his ministers find more ways to get their message across to voters through live broadcast events, unmediated by the commentariat. Cue lots of TV debates, then.
But it is also the case that the support of the paper has been lukewarm since the 2005 poll and virtually non-existent since Tony Blair stepped down. But what is perhaps as interesting is to see the reaction that ordinary people who actually watched Gordon Brown's speech yesterday had to it, before they were told what to think by their newspapers.
YouGov have been doing some interesting conference polling, and they found a remarkably strong instant reaction among those who saw the speech. 63% of those who watched it rated it a 'good' or 'excellent' speech. 50% of people thought the PM was doing well as PM and 51% rated him a capable leader. This shows how important it is that Gordon Brown and his ministers find more ways to get their message across to voters through live broadcast events, unmediated by the commentariat. Cue lots of TV debates, then.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Gordon draws the election battle lines
Gordon Brown had to give it his all in today's Labour conference speech. He was much more relaxed than he has been for several years, and his speech had a thematic fluency and flow that has too often been lacking in Brown speeches of late.
Starting with a well-paced reminder of Labour's greatest hits, he posited the challenges and choices that face him and the country in an unusually long attack on the Tories. "Times of great challenge mean choices of great consequence," was a good line, and helps underline exactly how he dealt with the economic crisis in ways that the Tories would not have done. He also made a good effort to link the ideology of the collapse to that of the Conservatives. This was a sharp and fierce attack on the judgments of David Cameron and his front bench team, and sets the scene for a strong counterattack in the months ahead.
But what is more important to voters is knowing what Labour would do in the next five years, if it were re-elected. And the idea that this would be the first Labour government of the post-recession age was a good one. Linking himself to British innovation and a green economy helped give that legs (even with a crowd-pleasing nod to the Post Office). Pledging to increase school spending brought clarity after Ed Balls's recent announcement, which was always about recycling existing funds.
But it was his plans for tough love and an attack on anti-social behaviour that could make most difference. State homes for single mums and the new family intervention project with 50,000 families could, if it is allowed to work, make a huge difference to crime, education and welfare bills, and the evidence from Dundee is compelling. Both cancer test maximum waits and more personal care were both provide strong vote-winning policies.
Brown's embrace of alternative voting is welcome and long overdue, and making a commitment to a referendum in the next parliament could put Cameron on the spot. With plans for further Lords reform and parliamentary recalls, there is real substance on the political reform agenda.
Overall, a clearer embrace of the mainstream majority is welcome. It needs to be followed through in a new language from all ministers, so that voters see very clearly the choices on offer at the next election. There needs to be a much sharper link to public service reform in the months ahead - but reform which recognises that minimum standards and choice go together.
In the end, this was a well-judged speech by Brown which laid out the choices better than he has done before and which showed how wrong the commentariat are to write him off. He may be criticised for too many spending pledges, but provided they are matched by genuine savings elsewhere, they will have credibility. By giving the level of detail he has on policy, he also presents a challenge to Cameron next week to do the same. The speech was never going to be a game-changer. But there is more than enough here to start making the battle a serious contest again. And that's as much as could expect.
Starting with a well-paced reminder of Labour's greatest hits, he posited the challenges and choices that face him and the country in an unusually long attack on the Tories. "Times of great challenge mean choices of great consequence," was a good line, and helps underline exactly how he dealt with the economic crisis in ways that the Tories would not have done. He also made a good effort to link the ideology of the collapse to that of the Conservatives. This was a sharp and fierce attack on the judgments of David Cameron and his front bench team, and sets the scene for a strong counterattack in the months ahead.
But what is more important to voters is knowing what Labour would do in the next five years, if it were re-elected. And the idea that this would be the first Labour government of the post-recession age was a good one. Linking himself to British innovation and a green economy helped give that legs (even with a crowd-pleasing nod to the Post Office). Pledging to increase school spending brought clarity after Ed Balls's recent announcement, which was always about recycling existing funds.
But it was his plans for tough love and an attack on anti-social behaviour that could make most difference. State homes for single mums and the new family intervention project with 50,000 families could, if it is allowed to work, make a huge difference to crime, education and welfare bills, and the evidence from Dundee is compelling. Both cancer test maximum waits and more personal care were both provide strong vote-winning policies.
Brown's embrace of alternative voting is welcome and long overdue, and making a commitment to a referendum in the next parliament could put Cameron on the spot. With plans for further Lords reform and parliamentary recalls, there is real substance on the political reform agenda.
Overall, a clearer embrace of the mainstream majority is welcome. It needs to be followed through in a new language from all ministers, so that voters see very clearly the choices on offer at the next election. There needs to be a much sharper link to public service reform in the months ahead - but reform which recognises that minimum standards and choice go together.
In the end, this was a well-judged speech by Brown which laid out the choices better than he has done before and which showed how wrong the commentariat are to write him off. He may be criticised for too many spending pledges, but provided they are matched by genuine savings elsewhere, they will have credibility. By giving the level of detail he has on policy, he also presents a challenge to Cameron next week to do the same. The speech was never going to be a game-changer. But there is more than enough here to start making the battle a serious contest again. And that's as much as could expect.
Poll position?
The BBC has been reporting an Ipsos-Mori poll showing Labour lagging the Liberal Democrats on the 25-27 September, not for the first time, as Anthony Wells points out. I have no wish to underestimate the challenge facing the party, but why did it not also report a more recent daily tracking poll from YouGov conducted on 27-28 September suggesting Labour is ten points ahead of the LibDems, having risen five points at the start of the conference? The BBC should either resume their former habit of ignoring polls, or avoid picking and choosing the ones that suit their narrative.
Germans and Irish give Cameron a conference headache
In a week which started with the re-election of a conservative giant, Angela Merkel, and which seems set to finish with a Yes vote in the Irish Lisbon Treaty referendum, David Cameron's Conservatives will go into their party conference with their European policy in tatters.
The re-election of a leading Christian Democrat like Angela Merkel ought to have been a cause for celebration for the Conservatives. Instead, having exiled their own moderates, they are stuck in the European Parliament with a ragbag of Nazi-commemorating Latvians and Polish homophobes, trying to discover the cigarette paper that separates them from the golfclub bores of UKIP.
Meanwhile, assisted by a mad combination of Nigel Farage, Sinn Fein and far-right anti-abortionists, Ireland looks likely to vote Yes to Europe. As Peter Preston pointed out yesterday, Euroscepticism is not the default position in the Republic, and last year's No vote reflected a combination of misinformation by No campaigners and poor presentation by the Yes side.
All of which threatens to expose the loopiness of Cameron's position just as he starts his party conference. He can no longer go on wishing that the Treaty will fall - the likelihood is that the Czechs will sign by Christmas. As David Aaronovitch says this morning, the German courts have already somehow failed to live up to their allotted role in this regard.
So, can we now look forward to a revival of John Major's greatest hits as Cameron and William Hague have to explain how they will de-ratify a Treaty that has been ratified - or, more likely, explain to the wide-eyed Europhobes who have been holding their tongue until now that the game is up? I do hope Kenneth Clarke is around to help explain it all to us next week.
The re-election of a leading Christian Democrat like Angela Merkel ought to have been a cause for celebration for the Conservatives. Instead, having exiled their own moderates, they are stuck in the European Parliament with a ragbag of Nazi-commemorating Latvians and Polish homophobes, trying to discover the cigarette paper that separates them from the golfclub bores of UKIP.
Meanwhile, assisted by a mad combination of Nigel Farage, Sinn Fein and far-right anti-abortionists, Ireland looks likely to vote Yes to Europe. As Peter Preston pointed out yesterday, Euroscepticism is not the default position in the Republic, and last year's No vote reflected a combination of misinformation by No campaigners and poor presentation by the Yes side.
All of which threatens to expose the loopiness of Cameron's position just as he starts his party conference. He can no longer go on wishing that the Treaty will fall - the likelihood is that the Czechs will sign by Christmas. As David Aaronovitch says this morning, the German courts have already somehow failed to live up to their allotted role in this regard.
So, can we now look forward to a revival of John Major's greatest hits as Cameron and William Hague have to explain how they will de-ratify a Treaty that has been ratified - or, more likely, explain to the wide-eyed Europhobes who have been holding their tongue until now that the game is up? I do hope Kenneth Clarke is around to help explain it all to us next week.
Monday, 28 September 2009
The Labour Party has learned to love Peter
Peter Mandelson received a well-deserved ovation from the party conference this afternoon for a brilliant morale-boosting speech. I first worked with Peter back in the 1987 election, when I was a press office during the campaign, and have always being impressed by his skill and political judgment. Today's speech was just what the party needed to hear in the midst of a media narrative that has written the party off for next year's election. We need to set a clear sense of what a Labour government would do for the future, as well as showing where we have delivered in the past. As the BBC reports, he said:
"You win elections on the future not the past. This will be a change election. Either we offer it or the British public will turn to others who say they do." The new Labour project, which Lord Mandelson helped devise in the early 1990s, was "far from complete", he insisted. He said Labour needed to "explain with confidence, clarity and conviction" the differences between it and the Conservatives, saying the election was "still up for grabs".....Labour would win the next election if "we show the British people that we have not lost the fighting spirit and appetite for change".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
