Van disappoints his Bristol fans

To see Van Morrison at the Colston Hall in Bristol last night. It was a much slicker and more professional concert than the previous time I had seen him at this venue. He had a superb band backing him. He promised 90 minutes, and did that; no more, no less. There was a mix of the familiar and less so, with the inevitable Gloria as a slightly truncated finale. But the promoters had also spent a fair bit of effort suggesting that the Man would do some of his celebrated Astral Weeks album, which had gained accolades at the Hollywood Bowl and the Albert Hall. He didn't.

Back in the early 80s, when Bob Dylan was at his most contrary, I joined 60,000 others at his big concert at Slane Castle in Ireland. Needless to say, he was the headline act. And most people wanted to hear his great hits from the sixties. But Dylan was having none of it. He launched into an utterly obscure and unrecognisable mix of new songs and rearrangements of older ones. As tens of thousands of fans started to leave, he changed tune. Literally. And the very recognisable Blowing in the Wind cascaded across the midsummer night at Slane, encouraging the crowd to wait a bit before heading for the buses back to Dublin.

There were an awful lot of mightily teed off people in Bristol last night. And their temper wasn't eased by Van's insistence that the bars be shut for the evening too. What is it about big rock stars that they think they can so easily dismiss their fans - who had paid £45-£90 a head last night - and not give them at least some of what they came for?

Why John Bercow should be the Commons speaker

The vitriol being heaped on Conservative MP John Bercow in his bid to become Commons Speaker would be enough to win my vote (if I had one). But there is another good reason to vote for him: with the possible exception of Parmjit Dhanda, the amiable Gloucester MP who doesn't seem to be among the frontrunners, he is the only candidate for the Speakership who is proposing serious modernisation of the institution and its attitudes.

Obviously, like his many Labour supporters, I hold no brief for Mr Bercow's past in the Monday Club or the Federation of Conservative Students. But he has changed, just as Margaret Beckett has abadoned her early eighties Bennism. And the issue should be: what will he do as Speaker in 2009 and beyond? As today's New Statesman puts it

The backbencher, who in 2002 told his own party it was “racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-youth”, has proved himself the most independent-minded of all the ten candidates.

Margaret Beckett has been a loyal cabinet minister, though it is hard to recall anything innovative that happened on her watch. Most recently, she sidelined radical reform of housing policy. She was always seen as a safe pair of hands on the Today programme, and that is why she is gaining support in the Commons, including from many Conservatives who see Bercow as too liberal. She should have been made Minister for the Today Programme again. But this should not be her consolation prize for not getting the appointment.

But if MPs can't see after the last six weeks that they need a fresh face and a fresh approach, then they have only themselves to blame if they sink further in the court of public opinion. Indeed, the distasteful Tory campaign against Bercow shows politics at its absolute worst - and is a timely warning of what the Tories may be like in power again. As Steve Richards put it:

Instead of scheming pointlessly MPs should ask a single question. Which of the candidates will speak up most effectively and personify change for the Commons at a point when Britain's anti-politics culture is rabid?

A few weeks ago, I argued that we needed either Frank Field or John Bercow as speaker. Since Frank Field has chosen not to stand, John Bercow it must be.

Why are the Tories abandoning primary school accountability?

The Conservatives' plan to drop externally marked national tests for 11 year-olds from the end of primary school in favour of teacher assessment at the start of secondary school may reduce duplication given that many secondaries use CAT tests, but it could seriously reduce the accountability for primary schools that is so important in improving standards in the basics of English and Maths.

With their policy of greater autonomy for primary schools, through more independent state-funded primaries, it is more important than ever that there should be independent and reliable external scrutiny and accountability.

Shadow schools secretary Michael Gove says that they would aggregate the results of the tests to publish data on primary school performance. In that case, given the importance of the results to analysis of primary school success and parental choices, it is hard to see how external validation and appeals could be avoided.

After all, there is a real incentive for secondary schools to mark the results down so that they can claim to be making more improvement than they have actually made. It will be primary schools that will be putting on the pressure for such validation.

More to the point, the claim that this measure would 'free up' primary schools in their final year seems misplaced. Good schools already strike a sensible balance, but see the tests as an opportunity for valuable pre-secondary school revision in the basics. This would probably not change.

But those schools that over-prepare for the tests are hardly likely to reduce this just because tests that inform league tables are to take place in September rather than May or June. More likely, they will extend the preparation period up to mid-July and organise summer schools to support catch-up. And if the more pushy parents realise the tests are to be used for setting and streaming, those who can do so will step up their use of tutors. The transition period between primary and secondary - already a stressful time for pupils - could become a lot more so.

So I wonder whether Michael Gove has really thought through the consequences of his proposal. It would be shameful if he had reduced effective primary school accountability in favour of a cheap headline and the transient praise of the teaching unions.

This posting has been picked up by the Bickerstaffe Record blog.

How WH Smith is conspiring to spoil our holidays

Forgive me if I tune out from the Saturday interviews with Peter Mandelson and David Miliband. But the really outrageous news of the day is that WH Smith, which has a monopoly in many rail stations and airports, has decided to bar sales of the excellent Time Out guides, which have helped me navigate not only many cities but their restaurants and jazz clubs, and the usually reliable Lonely Planet in favour of the ghastly insipid alternatives produced by Penguin, including Dorling Kindersley.

It is like they decided the only newspaper they would sell in future is the Daily Mail or the only magazine on offer would be Hello. This is an utterly disgraceful abuse of monopoly power, and the British Guild of Travel Writers is absolutely right to draw it to our attention with their demand for a boycott of WH Smith.

As Jolyon Attwool highlights in the Daily Telegraph, the excuse offered is pathetic.

And WH Smith, in one of the most weasel-worded justifications heard for a long time, claims that the customer is its main concern: "We are trying to simplify our range…so it is easier for customers to find a suitable product."

What might be even more effective than a boycott would be an investigation by the Competition Commission. If they think it an outrage that BAA is allowed to run so many airports, it is just as scandalous that tourists and travellers are forced to rely on the dreadfully inspipid Dorling Kindersley guides or the passe Rough Guides rather than Time Out. This is a sure way to spoil people's holidays and it must be stopped. Now.

The next year for Labour

The leadership crisis seems to be settled. Gordon Brown has reasserted his authority on the parliamentary party. He now faces the bigger challenge of reconnecting with erstwhile Labour supporters who deserted the party in droves last week.

Today's announcements on constitutional reform are a start, and the Tories are being churlish to argue that electoral reform shouldn't be debated. But we need more than debate at this stage: we need action. So, Brown should pledge a referendum on the alternative vote - which would ensure that MPs enjoyed at least the partial support of 50% of their constituents - or a variation which provided some proportional top-up. That referendum should take place on the same day as the next general election, or it is meaningless. At the same time, the Government needs to ensure that all the expenses issues are quickly resolved.

And Brown is right to say that his other two priorities are the economy and public services. On the economy, there are signs that the measures which he and Alastair Darling took last year are starting to pay off. The UK economy is in much better shape than the German one. Banks are starting to pay back their Government loans. Manufacturing output is improving. Sterling is back up to over $1.60. Whether the government gets any credit for this will depend on unemployment starting to level off and fall, and the extent to which public service cuts are needed in the future. And on the latter point, we need some candour about the tightness of the public finances and their likely impact.

On the public services, he needs to renew the reform agenda. Health policy remains strong, and Andy Burnham should continue to deliver it. He must also sell what the Government is doing much better, and explain the importance of lower waiting times and what the Tory abandonment of them would really mean. On education, the government has a good story to tell on schools which it has obscured since Andrew Adonis was moved to transport. The new schools minister Vernon Coaker has a chance to make the academies programme and other aspects of school diversity, including the specialist schools lauded in a PwC analysis yesterday, a central part of the government's story, and stop ceding ground to the Tories. A major rethink is also needed on the bureaucracy surrounding Every Child Matters, with a focus on common sense solutions rather than the endless meetings forced on the system. And in both cases, Labour must show clearly how it is on the side of patients and parents (and children or pupils) once again.

Whether it is too late for all this to have any impact remains to be seen. Despite the dismal results, there are two reasons to think that it might. The first is that the voters are very volatile, and have not yet fallen for the charms of Cameron, such as they are. 28% for the Tories in the Euro poll is hardly landslide territory. The second is that the Tories' policies are remarkably poorly thought through, as BMA/Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley's bluster on Today this morning demonstrated, and once the media finally starts to scrutinise them, their lack of preparation may start to show.

But above all, the public needs to see a much more straight-talking group of ministers who are ready to level with them and to engage with them in a very different way. That is the biggest challenge facing Gordon Brown and the true test of whether MPs were right to give him the reprieve that he has won.

What's up with the BBC's coverage of the European elections in Ireland?

In the midst of last night's BBC European election coverage, which was typically light on factual information particularly outside the UK, the Irish results got a brief mention.

Having miscalculated support for Declan Ganley, setting up a live feed from Castlebar in Co Mayo, they were bit bereft when he seemed unlikely to win a seat in Ireland North West. So, the programme presented an utterly absurd graphic of what was happening in the Republic's elections. A similar graphic has graced the BBC website for the best part of the last day.

If one is to believe the BBC, the following has happened:

* Fianna Fail has gained three seats, as its Liberal grouping is shown doing just that. Now it is true that FF is joining that grouping after these elections, so I suppose that's a gain. In fact Fianna Fail has lost one of its seats and 5.4% of its vote. However, Marian Harkin, an Independent in Ireland North West who sits with the Liberal group is also likely to hold her seat in spite of Ganley, so the Liberals will probably have four Irish seats.

* Fine Gael has lost 8% of the vote, as the EPP is shown doing that. In fact, its support in Europe is a little up on what it was last time, at 29%.

* The socialists are shown as having a gain of one seat. That is likely to happen with Nessa Childers in Ireland East, though Labour is still just ahead as counting continues for the third seat in Ireland South, so two gains are still possible.

* The Left is shown as having two seats. Joe Higgins in Dublin is certainly a gain for his Socialist Party. But since Sinn Fein lost their seat to him, the Left still has only one seat (if Labour doesn't take the third seat in Ireland South, Sinn Fein might do so, giving the Left two seats, though it is the less likely result).

For the record, the final result based on the latest counts is now likely to be as follows

Fine Gael/EPP 4 seats (-1)
Lab/Soc 3 seats (+2)
FF/Ind/Lib 4 seats (-1)
SP/Left 1 seat (nc)
Ind/Dem group 0 seats (-1)

I do wonder about the rest of the election material on the BBC's wizzo website?

9pm UPDATE: Labour's Alan Kelly has taken that seat in Ireland South, so my earlier projection was correct.

A bad day for mainstream democratic politics, but especially for Labour

The UK European election results are undoubtedly dire for Labour, especially those in Wales and the South of England. But they are not a good day for any of the three mainstream political parties either. For the Tories to get just 28% and the Lib Dems to do even worse than Labour at a time of such unprecedented unpopularity for Labour suggests a real anti-politics mood among the people. If David Cameron thinks his party were the 'clear winners' last night, he needs his head examined.

That the odious BNP now have two seats is bad. That the only slightly less extreme UKIP have increased their representation to come second is almost as bad. A quarter of people voted for far right wing anti-immigrant parties in Britain. The anti-politics fostered by the expenses saga has made this nearly as much a crisis for mainstream politics as it is for Labour. All the main parties have a duty to win these people back.

That said, Labour are undoubtedly the biggest losers and must find a way to reconnect. After all, the economy is starting to recover thanks to the measures taken by Alastair Darling and Gordon Brown. And Brown is right to say that any reconnection depends on the economy, democratic reform and the public services. But the party must realise that the shambolic disunity that has gripped Labour in recent weeks is as much a cause of decline as a product of it.

That is why Barry Sheerman is right to suggest that the leadership issue needs to be settled one way or another in the next week or so. And a secret ballot of the entire PLP is the best way to do it, given that no cabinet member is prepared to put themselves forward for a contest. Once that vote has been taken, there should either be a leadership election involving the whole party if the PM does not enjoy strong support among MPs or an end to the clamour for leadership change if he does. If he wins, Brown must have an absolutely clear strategy for the next year - based on the principles he set out at his Friday press conference - and get on with delivering it with the full support of the parliamentary party.

If we don't get a grip now, Labour will be the agents of our own destruction.

Some good news in Ireland's polls

With more depressing election news in Britain, as the European election results are declared, the Irish elections provide some good news both for Labour supporters and supporters of Europe. Declan Ganley looks likely to lose out in his bid for a seat for his Libertas party in Ireland North West (as Irish polls suggest that a second referendum will see Ireland accepting the Lisbon Treaty). And Labour looks likely to pick up a seat in the Ireland East, and has polled well in Ireland South. In Dublin, Sinn Fein seem set to lose a seat to a Trotskyist, Joe Higgins, depriving Fianna Fail of a seat in the capital. In council elections held on Thursday, Labour has consolidated its urban support, and is the largest party across Dublin and in Cork City. Fianna Fail has had its worst ever results, and its Green coalition partners have been virtually annihilated from local government.

This posting was picked up by the Guardian politics blog.

The short and pointless life of DIUS

Amongst the results of yesterday's reshuffle was the abolition of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). The functions of the department, created a mere 23 months ago, have been merged into Peter Mandelson's burgeoning empire, and may be the better for it. But the rapid demise of a department created merely to allow Ed Balls to absorb a host of other departments' children's issues into his Department for Children, Schools and Families illustrates the sheer pointlessness of departmental restructuring.

The truth is that the Department for Education and Skills - which covered schools, nurseries, colleges, universities and training - was a perfectly coherent department, and one of the most successful in Whitehall, before the decision was made to split its functions into two departments and add a lot of non-educational functions to the new DCSF. Splitting the two made little sense - even if it brought science and innovation alongside further and higher education, as this blog made clear at the time, not least because further education faced dealing with two masters, but also because it made a nonsense of a vision for lifelong learning that had hitherto been a mainstay of government policy.

To be fair to John Denham, he has been a good secretary of state, and his promotion to communities secretary is deserved, even if his department has with the help of the Learning and Skills Council, presided over some very messy college funding crises. But by splitting the departments, Gordon Brown actually weakened the voice of universities and colleges in government. At least that weakness should be remedied with Lord Mandelson in charge. But wouldn't it have been a lot easier to have recreated, dare one say it, a Department for Education?

Andrew Adonis is good news for transport

One truly bright light in the reshuffle is the promotion of Andrew Adonis to the position of transport secretary. In just over a year as the rail minister, he has advanced the transport agenda more than any other minister in the last two decades (privatisation hardly counts). Andrew is keen to see huge improvements to the rail network, building on the best international experience, and has already made a big start. His promotion is richly deserved.

This post has been picked up by the Railwayscene blog.

A sustainable reshuffle?

The big challenge of the reshuffle is its sustainability. It is certainly better for keeping Alastair Darling at the Treasury and promoting Alan Johnson to the Home Office. I am sceptical of the Sir Alan Sugar promotion, and fear it may be as lasting as that of Digby Jones, though it brings star quality to the line-up.

But it is weakened by keeping Ed Balls at schools - where the Department has drifted under his leadership with its attempts to cover the gamut of children's policy at the expense of schools - and by the hugely important loss of some excellent ministers including James Purnell, John Hutton and Beverley Hughes (the children's minister).

The fact that several of those identified as Blairites retain positions of power helps, with Andy Burnham promoted to health. But I do wonder whether Barry Sheerman was not right in offering Gordon Brown a way settling the leadership question once and for all. Without a vote of confidence from his MPs, the doubts may simply remain.

A reshuffle is not enough of itself. The Government now needs to show vision, strategy and a sense of purpose over the next ten months. This is important not just on the economy and democratic reform, but across the public services. If Ed Balls is staying at schools, he needs to stop allowing the Tories to wrap themselves in the mantle of Labour academies. Andy Burnham has some genuine dividing lines with the Tories on health, and it is vital that Yvette Cooper doesn't allow the excellent work of James Purnell at work and pensions to drift. There must also be renewed vigour from Alan Johnson at the Home Office on crime and policing. There must also be some candour on public expenditure.

Most ministers have decided to stick with Gordon Brown, and it is highly unlikely that there will be any change at the top between now and the general election. Every minister has a clear duty to show why it matters that Labour is in power - and what the tough decisions are that need to be made. That is their challenge for the months ahead. The future of the Labour Party is in their hands.

A version of this appears on the Progress website.

Vote Labour today

A good performance from Gordon at PMQs

If ever there was a day when Gordon Brown needed a good performance at PMQs, this was it. And he delivered against a relatively lacklustre David Cameron.

Whether he survives the coming days remains to be seen, given talk of a backbench campaign to promote Alan Johnson. The resignation of Hazel Blears is a loss to his cabinet, despite the likelihood that she would have been moved. However, the PM also has rather more room for manoeouvre in a reshuffle than he had before, and if he uses it wisely, he could come through all this. But if he doesn't, the pressure will increase.

But Brown is right to highlight the absence of any policy from the Tories. Whatever happens, this failure of substance needs to be corrected before any general election. We need to know what the Tories plan to do - and how - on many policy areas. If they don't address this deficit, the Tories will find this becomes a serious issue after the agenda moves on from the expenses saga.

Is this man really up to being Home Secretary?

The papers are full of sour assessments of Jacqui Smith's tenure at the Home Office. Yet her handling of the only major security crisis i her tenure was exemplary. And despite having half her department taken over by Jack Straw, she more than held her own in dealing with the day-to-day crises that overpower home secretaries. Where she was let down was in being forced by Downing Street to rerun the 42-day detention saga, without the necessary support, and in a failure to engage with the unelected pundits who decide whether you're any good or not. In her ten years as a minister, her talents shone through to those who saw her in action (as in dealing with the 2005 Schools Bill) but she was dealt a difficult hand with a castrated Home Office that always made her task that bit harder.

But I defy anyone who criticises Jacqui Smith to explain how her Conservative alternative, Chris Grayling, would be an improvement. Where David Davis set the standard for opposition, and Dominic Grieve had at least a decent pedigree in human rights, Chris Grayling's dull ineptitude is another indictment of David Cameron's personnel judgment. Can anyone think of a single thing Grayling has said of note since he took on the job? Grayling's inability to string a few gracious words together yesterday - in contrast to his Lib Dem opposite number - beyond the patronising repetition of Smith being 'a woman' sits ill with anyone who has hopes of high office. How, exactly, is this man supposed to think on his feet in a post that moves from crisis to crisis with unerring regularity?

The idea that he might be our Home Secretary is truly shocking.

MPs wanted: no human beings need apply

It may not be fashionable to say so, but the news that Jacqui Smith and Alastair Darling are likely to be out of the cabinet as a result of the never-ending expenses saga is a cause for concern rather than rejoicing. I have known both for a long time, and I know both to be able, dedicated, honest people, who came into politics to make a difference and have been talented ministers in their time with the Labour government - I know in particular how much difference Jacqui made on schools policy, and her talents are sorely missed at education these days. But Jacqui has stronger support in Redditch than people think, as her result in 2005 (where there was no swing against Labour) showed and I hope she can keep her seat.

But there is a wider point here. The BBC poll today tells us that half the public thinks that at least half of MPs' are 'corrupt'. And there is no doubt that the last month has been a positive boon for the white van man/saloon bar world view, harnessed by the BNP/UKIP axis no doubt to shocking proportions this Thursday.

In the process, nobody wants to stand up for politicians. Of course, there are a few who have milked the system shamelessly and they deserve whatever they get. (I don't believe that includes either Darling or Smith - as both got caught out primarily because of a 2004 rule change affecting ministers and their designation of second home). Most MPs claimed allowances to which they were told they were entitled, and were not trying to milk the system.

And the Telegraph coverage has now lost all sense of proportion: listening to Frank Cook's apology for a claim (that was rejected) for a £5 church donation ending up in the Fees Office did not suggest someone trying to fiddle the system but an MP whose office has patently made a silly mistake. He did not deserve to see his 26 years in parliament turned into a piece of faux Sunday newspaper outrage. Was this really Sunday's biggest news?

Fewer and fewer people were willing to enter politics for the money, even with the allowances as they were. Most of those across all parties have worked for years, often at considerable personal cost, building up local support to become an MP because they believe in democratic politics and the contribution they might make to their community or causes.

They work incredibly hard in their constituencies dealing with expectations that have grown as their collective reputation has declined. As David Aaronovitch says today, if they are guilty of anything, it is not realising the impact of what John Keane calls 'monitory democracy' - the onslaught of Freedom of Information, the Internet, 24 hour news and new technology. Few of the political giants of the past would stand a day's scrutiny under this system, let alone years of it.

So, there will be changes to the systems of expenses, and there may be some democratic reforms too - though they should be done with cross-party support, not the shameless self-interest of some party leaders. But in the end we still need people to want to become MPs because we need people who are willing to make huge sacrifices to their personal life (and for most, becoming an MP means you have little time for much else) to do so.

What we are now likely to get as a result of the relentless assault of the last month are humourless self-righteous sorts who are, of course, incapable of making the slightest mistake. In such circumstances, the only person who would want to be an MP is someone with no hinterland or human frailties, or an egomaniac extremist who plays to the populist mood.

If people don't think much of our current MPs, just wait until they see what comes next.

This post was picked up by the Local Democracy blog.

Gordon was very good, but is it too late?

The Gordon Brown we saw on this morning's Andrew Marr programme was the leader we have long been promised by his supporters, but the one we too seldom see. He was concise, passionate and forceful in setting out what needs to be done on expenses and what he believes needs to happen on democratic reform. By contrast, David Cameron delivered a below par performance on Sky minutes later.

But with polls variously putting Labour on 16% in the European elections and 22% in national rankings, it all has a bit of a feel of too little, too late. Obviously, I hope Labour does better than the polls suggest on Thursday, and on Europe the expenses saga has utterly obscured the extremism of the Tories (in their plans to hop into bed with Europe's looniest parties rather than the moderate Christian Democrats) and the utter barminess of UKIP, a party which knows a thing or two about fiddling expenses. But the truth on Friday is that the party will be facing a huge electoral headache.

At that stage, Labour will need to decide what it does next. I am sceptical of a reshuffle whose central feature is installing Ed Balls as Chancellor, though I tend to believe little of what I read on the front page of the Sunday Times. But Brown's hint of a more bipartisan approach to government in this morning's Marr interview was more promising and is much more the direction people want after the last few weeks. He should be braver on electoral as well as democratic reform too: Cameron's cretinous suggestion that putting a new electoral system to the voters in a referendum is somehow anti-democratic exposes his plans (to cut the number of Labour MPs)in all their partisan vacuousness; Brown should be braver and openly less partisan.

It is a shame we have seen so little of the Gordon Brown we saw this morning over the last two years. But if it is a signal of a new way of doing things, it may offer a chance of some recovery after Thursday. Otherwise, there may well need to be bigger and tougher decisions made about the future leadership of the party. But it would be best for Labour and for the stability of the economy as we try to recover from the recession if we didn't need to reach that point ahead of the next election.

Bluegrass magic

We spent a wonderful (if slightly muggy) evening listening to brilliant bluegrass as part of the Bath Music Festival last night. The star turn was the sprightly 82-year old Dr Ralph Stanley, whose music made the Coen Brothers' O Brother Where Art Thou? so memorable. Accompanied by a fine group of musicians in his Clinch Mountain Boys, Stanley provided memorable renditions of his own music, gospel standards (including a haunting rendering of Amazing Grace) finishing after a standing ovation with the O Brother favourite Man of Constant Sorrow. Support was provided by two shorter sets from the excellent Charlie Parr and the storytelling Jerry Harmon. A great evening of music all round.

Would Cameron really let go in No 10?

Surely one of the funniest notions to emerge from the whole expenses crisis is the image of David Cameron as the man who wants to become Prime Minister only to hand what limited power he has in Number 10 over to backbenchers and local authorities.

Yet this is what we were expected to believe from his speech yesterday (although he was quick to reject the one thing that might demonstrate that he really would give up some power - proportional representation). Sure, I can see that he might want to cut the number of (Labour) MPs and pretend this is a selfless gesture. And he might even want to improve select committees (though they are a lot more powerful now than in the 1990s).

But are we really expected to believe that when Cameron finally works out what he wants to do as Prime Minister, he will let opposition backbenchers and his own councillors who oppose his plans for Swedish-style schools tear it all up to make a constitutional point. Helpfully, Anne McElvoy has dispelled any such notions in a great piece in tonight's London Evening Standard which explains just how much of a control freak Democratic Dave really is. Referring to his handling of recalcitrant MPs, she tells us how the sight of his former PPS Andrew McKay 'prattling' on TV was enough for Dave to hang him out to dry and asks:

What does all this tell us about his way of running things? For one thing, that he enjoys wielding authority and can wear it without strain. He still relies on a small group of insiders in times of trouble - the attack on "sofa government" in yesterday's speech might be deemed a bit rich coming from a man whose inner team practically inhabit his office sofa.

She goes on to point out that

A consistent faultline in Project Cameron is that it is both devolving and centralising at the same time, and often on the same issues. The present mood has tipped the balance - without an assessment of the impact of how it fits with other Conservative goals. That's evident when the shadow education spokesman waxes Govishly about devolving power one day - and then starts insisting on traditional subjects and uniform practices across the board the next.

It is said that Tony Blair talked constitutional reform in opposition but didn't deliver in Government. Ignoring devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, an overhaul of the House of Lords, PR in non-Westminster elections and Freedom of Information, this is what passes for informed comment among political pundits. Blair introduced huge constitutional reforms with lasting impact (as MPs shamed over expenses know). But what he also recognised was that sometimes being Prime Minister required leadership from the centre; without it, reform rarely happened and was often stymied.

The problem for Cameron is that he has been making his limited proposals sound more impressive than they are. And when it comes to delivering reforms - such as those on schools - which are disliked by a professional establishment that includes many of his own agents of localism (that's Tory councillors in old money) he'll find (should he win an election) that he'll want to use any real levers available to him as a Prime Minister to get his reforms through.

Of course, by then, yesterday's speech will be ancient history.

Johnson is right on PR

Alan Johnson's article in today's Times rightly makes the case for the sort of fundamental political reform casually dismissed with typical selflessness by David Cameron as an 'irrelevance'. The AV-plus system recommended by the Jenkins commission would give voters a much greater connection with their MPs - as they must amass 50 per cent of the constituency votes after transfers - and the chance to register a protest vote whilst also backing a potential governing party.

It is an elegant solution to the crisis facing our democracy and one which deserves the support of Gordon Brown. That Alan Johnson, whose tenure at health has been an unsung success, may see this as part of his post-election bid for the leadership makes it no less worthy. Labour has been playing second fiddle to Cameron's breathtakingly self-interested use of the expenses crisis for weeks now. This is the sort of measure that could both restore the party's reformist credentials - and put it back on the front foot in the political debate.

Political parties are better for us than Esther Rantzen

As the drip-drip of Telegraph revelations continues, the cry goes up that we need an early general election to 'clear the air.' But this would be a big mistake. It would simply produce a parliament of extremists and policy-free independents. While the odd Martin Bell may be good for politics, a collection of people elected purely because of who they are not would be damaging to good governance.

The truth is that despite the fashion for extreme cynicism, politicians who stand on a platform tend to work towards achieving it, in areas as diverse as education, health, the economy and transport. Labour achieved over 80% of its manifesto commitments in its first term. The Tories with an alternative platform - given the time to formulate it - would work towards their alternative, as would the Liberal Democrats. But making politics a policyfree zone as a revenge for the moats and duck islands would lead to a lack of any such sense of purpose, substituting an ill-defined anger with politicians for the purpose of political parties. As Janice Turner puts it (pretty pointedly) about Esther Rantzen in an excellent piece in today's Times:

Do years uncommitted to a party make a celebrity admirably independent or mean that she simply couldn't subsume her ego to anything bigger than herself?

So, it would be folly to call an election at a time when perspective is so skewed. Instead, the parties should clean up politics, and consider other reforms which could improve confidence in MPs (such as an alternative vote or PR allowing both protests and effective votes). At the same time, all the parties must find the space to remake the case for party politics.

It is a lot stronger than the case for Esther Rantzen.

The truth behind the Iraqi surge

I've been reading Thomas Hicks's excellent account of the military surge in Iraq after 2006. The Gamble which is told largely from the perspective of General Petraeus is a fascinating look at how Petraeus and his small number of allies in the US military changed the course of the US intervention in Iraq by using soldiers in a way that brought them closer to the Iraqi people, and which successfully bought off many Iraqi extremists. What is fascinating in an account by one of the sternest critics of the war (his Fiasco is much cited by antiwar activists) is how the malign influence of Donald Rumsfeld was supported by many at the top of the US military, and it was only when Petraeus and his allies reached Bush after Rumsfeld's departure that the horrific monthly death toll started to fall and people in the main cities could start to live a life approaching normality. The counterinsurgency techniques described by Hicks will be relevant in Afghanistan - and in Sri Lanka for that matter - but the book also explains why an American military presence is likely to remain in Iraq for many years too, even if Obama reduces the 'combat troops'. I was a supporter of the Iraq invasion because of Saddam's malign record in his country and the region, but not the ill-prepared aftermath. The shame is that Petraeus was not there from the outset.

Field or Bercow: Make a maverick moderniser Speaker

Michael Martin's resignation had become inevitable after his failure to set his own departure date yesterday. And despite his lack of verbal dexterity, it is worth recognising the tremendous personal feat he achieved in becoming Speaker from such humble beginnings - and that he was the first Catholic Speaker since the Reformation.

Now the Commons must find the right replacement. Talk of a stopgap Speaker to take the Commons only to the next election is ridiculous. They need someone who can carry the House through the next parliament who can command support across the House. More importantly, they need someone who can oversee the overhaul of an institution that has not only lost touch on expenses, but which too often places procedure and historical precedent above the needs and expectations of a modern democracy.

That suggests that we need a Speaker who is willing to be a reformer, rather than somebody who has become too comfortable with Commons traditions. We need someone who is not afraid to shake up the establishment but has the respect of significant numbers of MPs in all parties. And we need someone who can restore public faith in parliament at the same time.

Of course, some say it should be the Tories' turn. But are Sir Alan Haslehurst or Sir George Young really the right people for the change needed? If we want a person who commands such respect, Labour MP Frank Field and Tory MP John Bercow must be strong candidates. These two maverick MPs would each show that the Commons really does mean it when it says that it wants to restore faith in democracy.

Field would not be top of Gordon Brown's list, of course, given that he was effectively sacked for his radicalism on welfare at Brown's behest, and he has often upset his fellow Labour MPs by appearing too close to the Tories on some issues. Bercow has moved considerably leftwards since his student days and has been used by Labour to work on some education issues. But it is precisely their cross-party respect and their willingness to tilt against their own party establisments - so much so that each has been the subject of speculation about the possibility that they might cross the floor - that makes them so potentially appealing.

This post has been picked up by Iain Dale and the Guardian website.

A good time to bury Tory U-turns

With the news dominated by moats and house-flipping, not to mention David Cameron's selfless spin on the subject, the Tories have been quietly performing a big policy U-turn. Regular readers of this blog will know my views about BMA spokesman Andrew Lansley, who has an occasional sideline as Cameron's health secretary in waiting. While Labour - with Alan Johnson - has been pursuing a resolutely patient-focused health agenda, Lansley has shown as much disdain for patients as the haughtiest consultant.

So, it is a pleasant surprise to see the Tories finally admitting that they got it wrong over polyclinics, Labour's plans to improve patient services by locating a range of GPs and specialists under one roof. Needless to say it has been left to an underling, Mark Simmonds, to admit that when Lansley and his protector Cameron claimed a year ago that one in five surgeries would close as a result of the new centres opening, they were talking utter rubbish.

Perhaps the perceptive Mr Simmonds could turn his attention to his bosses' belief that patients' interests would be well served by scrapping maximum waiting times and bringing back eighties-style waiting lists?

This post has been picked up by John Rentoul and Liberal Conspiracy.

The speaker must go

I don't often agree with Nick Clegg. But he is right when he says that Speaker Michael Martin must step down. There has been a lot of nasty class-based criticism of Martin over the years, and that has been as distasteful as it has been unfair. But this is not the issue of the moment. The fact is that Martin has been in effective charge of the expenses regime that has become so discredited. He has also failed to prepare the ground for the inevitable publication of expense claims, preferring instead an ultimately futile battle in the courts. A radical overhaul of the system is urgently needed, along lines discussed earlier on this blog. Michael Martin cannot be the person to see it implemented.

Sir Christopher Kelly must report quickly

I hold no particular brief for Clare Short (quite the contrary given her erratic political behaviour) but the attempt by the Daily Telegraph to make something of her claim for full rather than interest-only mortgage payments, which she repaid three years ago when the Fees Office pointed out her error, shows how the paper is mixing the serious - as with Elliott Morley and the McKay-Kirkbride couple - with the rest to create an atmosphere that 'they're all it'; one which would justify voters in supporting mad and bad political parties like UKIP and the BNP.

Aside from the more egregious examples, what we have is the following:
* Some relatively minor examples of expenses and allowances which the Fees Office should not have permitted - presumably this was supposed to be the job of the trusted employee who was too busy selling the information to the Telegraph for a six-figure sum; and cases where MPs submitted longer receipts apparently to cover some allowable items on them, a distinction ignored by the Telegraph to produce more salacious headlines.
* A system where a reluctance to pay MPs a better salary has led to a sense of entitlement over allowances and expenses, leading some to claim the maximum allowance, which seems to have been actively encouraged by the fees office.
* A pig-headed attitude of some MPs which delayed necessary reforms, and which seems to have found expression in the Speaker, whose time is clearly up
* An opposition which is successfully obscuring its nakedly partisan demands for an end to the communications allowance (perhaps we could reduce opposition Short payments to an inflation-uprated equivalent of what Labour worked with pre-97 too? No, I didn't think so) and a reduction in (Labour) MPs as an act of pure selflessness.
* A government party which has lost the ability to communicate its message effectively, which has meant that it has appeared to be playing 'second fiddle' to the Tories even though its proposals have been far more sensible - and that includes the much scorned £150 daily attendance allowance - the cost of a moderate London hotel room - as an alternative to second home allowances.
* A public distaste for the main parties which is likely to see support for UKIP and the BNP increase at the local and European elections (incidentally, if Tory support falls below 30%, there is surely a real crisis for Cameron there) and which has licensed saloon bar loutishness as an 'expression of public anger.'

That seems to me to be where we are. And it needs urgent action: the three main political parties must now get their act together to agree a way forward that cleans up politics - and its appearance - in a root and branch way.

If Sir Christopher Kelly is to present the solution, he must pull his finger out. Politics can't afford a vacuum, as Sir Christopher acts as if he has been given a commission for a long-term academic research report. There is frankly no reason why he should not report well before the summer recess. Doing so is vital to restoring faith in democratic politics - and the elected politicians who, for all their faults, are vital to its operation.

Keep tests and tables

I have a column in today's Independent arguing the case for keeping primary school tests and the importance of those results continuing to be published nationally. You can read it here.

Full disclosure

Well done to George Foulkes for his pricking the pomposity of BBC interviewers in this gem from News 24. MPs earn £64,000 a year; but News 24 presenters get £92,000, reveals Carrie Gracie. She will be popular in the BBC News canteen.

A conspiracy of conspiracy theorists

I have just finished reading David Aaronovitch's brilliant demolition of conspiracy theorists, Voodoo Histories, and it is one of the most entertaining books I've read in ages. Aaronovitch shows us how the Protocols of Zion were a poor copy of a mid-19th century French novel; reminds us of western gullibility over the Stalin show trials; and moves contemporaneously to bien pensant beliefs in the 'murder' of Hilda Murrell and David Kelly (his demolition of the sanctimonious Lib Dem MP, Norman Baker is particularly powerful). Aaronovitch shows how those who think Roosevelt sat back while Pearl Harbour was bombed are as likely to think that 9/11 was a huge CIA plot. And he shows the absurdity of the beliefs in conspiracies around the deaths of JFK (I hadn't known that Oswald had tried assassination previously), Princess Di and Marilyn Monroe.

Conspiracy theorists tend to produce books full of apparently credible references, but the sources tend either to be other conspiracy theorists or chance media reports that have later been updated. Many theories are harmless and wacky; but beliefs in conspiracies can have hugely harmful effects, as with the Protocols (that fed Hitler's anti-semitism) and the acceptance of the Stalinist show trials by Western Communists or McCarthyism. As Aaronovitch says, the book is a brilliant antidote to the pub or dinner party bore who claims to have 'irrefutable proof' of a conspiracy. Thanks to his work, it is possible to retort credibly that 'stuff happens'. Do read it.

Pay more, end expenses

Gordon Brown is right to join David Cameron in apologising over expenses. But I see little point in adding to the synthetic outrage of newspapers over the whole saga. I trust no journalist who has written or pontificated on the issue has ever fiddled their expenses (and, in consequence, the taxman) in the past, and that the proprietors of newspapers filling acres of space on the subject wouldn't dream of finding ways to avoid paying taxes in the UK.

That said, the whole thing is an utter mess for MPs and very bad for the image of parliamentary politics. Like state funding of political parties, it is an example of where fear of a day or two's bad headlines has led politicians foolishly to opt for the worst possible solutions. MPs should be better paid - £100,000 a year, fully taxed, would be about what a GP earns - and get no living expenses beyond travel costs (through a railcard for all).

Political parties, already heavily funded by the taxpayer, should be largely funded by them with donations above £1000 banned. Those two simple measures might cause a day or two of synthetic outrage. But it would do more to clean up politics - and its public image - than any of the absurdly complicated alternatives being bandied about at the moment.

A good idea from the assessment experts on transition

The expert group on assessment has plenty of sensible recommendations in their report, including on the importance of keeping English and Maths tests at 11. But one that may get overlooked amidst the understandable focus on testing is their idea that schools should do an extended study which pupils would start at primary school and complete in secondary school. Transition is a difficult time for many pupils, and they often fall back after starting in the more impersonal secondary school environment. This study would not only provide a bridge between the two; it would also provide opportunities for the broader education that the unions complain is being lost by the tests. The idea has already been tried in some London schools, and should be tried more widely.

A reasonable way forward on testing?

Reports about the likely recommendations of the expert group on testing have focused on the plans to replace the Key Stage 2 science tests with assessment. Since this blog recommended this as a way forward - and it has been welcomed by the science teachers' association - this is a sensible way of reducing the amount of testing whilst focusing on the basics.

Of course, it is the primary responsibility of primary schools to ensure that children know how to read, write and add up properly by the age of eleven. And the state has a duty to parents and taxpayers to make sure that they are doing so. Of course, there may be different ways of doing this - and the expert group seems wisely to be urging more piloting of the so-called progress tests that pupils would take as they are ready - but such tests must be externally set and marked. And they should be taken at least once by every pupil in every primary school.

Of course, the NAHT and NUT don't like this. But the NAHT general secretary - fresh from trumpeting his dodgy 'poll of parents' - told Today this morning that the scrapping of science 'narrows the curriculum too much'. So, he is no longer concerned to reduce the 'burden of testing'? Logically, then children should be tested in every subject, not none, as Mr Brookes admits that the presence of tests concentrates teachers' minds on getting children to pass them.

In truth, the revision that pupils do for tests in English and Maths can and should be a time to ensure that they have learnt how to read and write, and that they know their grammar, spelling, punctuation and mathematical rules. How does Mr Brookes imagine these children will get on in secondary school if they can't?If there is too much pressure on pupils, that is the fault of schools and parents, and not the tests.

But there is one respect where the expert group and those teachers' leaders who oppose a boycott may be being disingenuous, if advance reports are right: with respect to the publication of results. As a general principle in a society where freedom of information is the norm, it would be intolerable not to publish the test results. So, the results would appear in school report cards. Fine.

But there is a suggestion that the government might stop publishing the results on the same day, to avoid newspapers compiling league tables. We did, in fact, leave publication to individual local authorities in 1998 precisely for this reason, and apart from inconveniencing the education correspondents, it made no difference. The Press Association had to work a bit harder. There was less celebration of good and improving schools. So we returned to national publication.

With report cards, the newspapers will still publish the results. Surely, the DCSF must continue to make it easy for parents and others to search for any school's results on its website?

Of course, the real reason why these unions don't want the tests is not that they really think they 'damage' children. It is that they don't like the scrutiny that their publication brings. But such scrutiny has spurred so many of them to improve in recent years. The tests should stay; and their results should remain easily accessible to all.

Gordon brings some coherence to the Government's schools policy

Today's education speech by the Prime Minister was talked up as part of the fightback against his Bank Holiday critics. The Liberal Democrats predictably sneered at it in advance (bizarrely imagining that their own feeble education policy offers a credible alternative). But whatever its genesis, that was a good speech on education by Gordon Brown that offered a sense of where the government is going on the issue that has been sadly lacking in too much of what has emerged from the 'children's, schools and families' department in recent months.

It was particularly good because it was about education and schools in particular. And once it moved from the obligatory global justifications, it got down to brass tacks in a credible way. By dividing itself into themes related to leadership, teaching and the role of parents, it provide a valuable vehicle for a good number of worthwhile announcements (and justifiable reannouncements). It was, as a result, far chunkier than the advance billing.

There is to be much stronger action on failing primary schools (though the Prime Minister needlessly stops at federations for their governance). Chains of schools - already developing through academies - are to be given greater encouragement. Online reporting by schools to parents of children's progress will become the norm from 2010 in secondaries and 2012 in primaries. The importance of external primary tests was reaffirmed, along with plans for a new Report Card. Local authorities will be expected to become more the commissioners envisaged by Tony Blair in his 2005 White Paper than the managers of schools and to be responsive to parents both where they want to set up new schools and where they want new provision.

There is a much greater coherence in this menu than has been evident not only in government speeches on education of late but than there is in the Opposition's still very sketchy proposals for free schools. But there are still areas where the Government could and should go further when it finally publishes its White Paper on schools next month.

First, the academies programme and academy freedoms should be available to federations of primary schools including weaker ones (this is not actually what the Tories are proposing, and would provide a constructive contrast to their plans).

Second, although most parents may not want to set up their own schools, the Government should make sure the powers in the 2006 legislation can be used by those who do and significant parent promoters not only get local authority support to develop their plans, but they are linked to others who might be willing to take up their ideas. The extra costs need only arise with the capital proposals that are the Achilles heel of the Tory plans.

Third, if local authorities are to be expected to act in parents' interests, there must be someone with the statutory authority to force them to do so. This should be an explicit responsibility of the School Adjudicator, who already has a number of similar roles.

In the current climate, it may be that Brown's measures are treated as trivial or repetitive. And the Prime Minister could have done a little more to remind people how much has already been achieved, not least with academies. But by giving coherence to an approach to education that has recently felt haphazard, the PM has made a valiant attempt to recover the Labour initiative in this subject.

I've also written on the speech for the Progress website.

The NAHT 'poll' that shows why we need independent testing in primary schools

I listened to NAHT general secretary Mick Brookes telling us this morning that we could trust his members to do their own assessments of how good their own schools were, without any need for troublesome tests or pesky performance tables.

In the midst of the discussion, Mr Brookes informed us that his stance enjoyed the overwhelming backing of parents, according to an opinion poll that his union had done. Given that an independent Ipsos MORI survey for the DCSF showed a rather different result - and it was conducted using a representative sample of parents by a reputable polling company - I thought this a bit fishy.

So I checked the NAHT's website for more details of this 'poll.' In fact, there is no independent opinion poll. Instead, the NAHT has pulled together a self-selecting 'sample' of parents' views collected by NAHT members and collated with no attempt at weighting.

The press release issued in February even suggests that embarrassed NAHT press officers know the whole thing is a crock. "Whilst we recognise that this is not an independent survey, it represents a substantial body of opinion," they plead.

So, let's get this straight. The union which tells us that we can trust its members to tell parents exactly how well their child's school is doing in English and maths without independent national tests or published results is quite happy to defy the rules of statistics to get the data it wants, and to pretend that its data is of some value even though it shows results exactly the opposite of properly conducted independent research.

And we are supposed then to take their word that we don't need any independent look at how primary schools run by its members are performing?

Boycotting tests would be a slap in the face to taxpayers and parents

The fairly predictable decision of the National Association of Head Teachers to ballot its membership on a boycott of national tests for eleven year-olds is nothing to do with the absurd notion that a single set of externally marked and set tests in the first fifteen years of a young person's life is 'damaging' and everything to do with the view of some professionals that it is impertinent of parents and taxpayers to wish to have a degree of accountability that is independent of individual schools. After all, it is up to individual NAHT members to decide how much they want to 'pressure' their pupils, and to pretend this is all the fault of the tests is not only disingenuous but is disproved by the many successful schools that manage to get the balance right.

The issue here is not whether the existing tests might be improved; they can. The Government is already reviewing them, and it is likely that the conclusion will be more tightly focused English and Maths tests. There is also merit in doing much of the testing online. Rather it is the growing view that professionals should be accountable to nobody but themselves, despite the fact that the taxpayer foots the bill (the Tories have already swallowed this view in their plans to leave doctors free of any patient-focused targets).

Having seen what happens with excessively light-touch regulation in the private sector, it is extraordinary that public servants should demand the same for themselves. Politicians of all parties should make clear that anybody boycotting the tests is in breach of their legal obligations and their duty to parents; they should do so quickly and without equivocation, and explain the consequences. Otherwise, all the gains in openness in our schools system over the last two decades will be endangered, and parents will once more find themselves excluded from a secret garden in which their enquiries are unwelcome and there is no external check on the assessments being made by teachers about their child's progress before GCSEs.

The government's worst week...since the last worst week

Tony Blair used to joke in weeks filled with bad news that this was the Government's worst week since the last worst week. And it is always good to bring perspective in the midst of the sort of media frenzy around the Government at the moment. There is no doubt that ministers got the national mood wrong over the Gurkhas (though I still haven't heard David Cameron or Nick Clegg providing the costings for what they propose).

As for the MPs expenses saga, Gordon Brown may not have got second homes reform, but he has got big changes to London MPs' and ministers' claims; if anyone has looked bad in this saga, it is the MPs themselves. Moreover, his proposal for a flat rate linked to attendance is far more likely to work in practice than anything else I've heard, even if it upsets newspaper editors who may find themselves bereft of 'snouts in trough' copy. Brown did well with his Pakistan agenda. Britain is leaving Basra in a stronger economic position than before, a fact reported prominently in BBC coverage. And on the flu pandemic, ministers look prepared and ready, so much so that even the tabloids can't find anything to criticise beyond the delayed launch of a 'flu line.'

But much of this is beside the point. The week's events give a feeling that the Government is drifting, and this sense of drift which started with the dismal McBride antics and continued through the Budget, shows no sign of coming to an end. Charles Clarke and Bob Marshall-Andrews weighing into the PM in his time of trouble are no great surprise. But the PM would do well to heed some of the things being said by my ex-boss David Blunkett in a speech today.

Part of the speech is classic David: a plea for new localism and modern forms of self-help through micro-credit, and consumer rather than producer-based approaches, all of which could help government reconnect with people. But he is also warning against ‘turning the clock back’ and the “siren voices” who want to re-run the modernisation debates which took place in the Labour Party in the 1990s. “The old battles are over and the need for visionary action is self-evident. So talk of going back to the past, of wiping out the last two decades, is dangerous," he says.

David is right. The government needs to craft a strong message which explains the huge differences that have already been made to the public services, but shows that when it comes to ensuring the people have the choices and standards they expect, it is better placed to deliver even in a time of austerity than the Conservatives. Labour must show that it is still the party of modernisation. Next week, when Gordon Brown speaks on education, would be a good time to start getting that message across.