Vote Labour Today

Delivery issues

I have written this piece for today's Independent on the parties' education policies:

When the Tory leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter, warned that the Conservatives' free schools policy threatened funding for local authorities and other schools, he had a rare success highlighting a hidden truth behind the parties' education policies: they are making promises in today's election that they can't really keep.

Free schools are affected by a black hole in Tory school funding. The Liberal Democrats can't guarantee lower class sizes, and Labour has published pupils' and parents' guarantees with no real means of enforcement. Michael Gove tried to bat off suggestions on Radio 4 last week that there was no money to fund his flagship policy. But while the Conservatives have said that they would raid Labour's school building fund to pay for capital costs for parent-led schools, they have not said how they would cover extra day-to-day costs.

Instead, as Mr Carter rightly recognised, they have promised to top-slice local authority budgets to fund pupils at the new schools. However, there would be costs in maintaining surplus school places to increase choice and in continuing to fund local authority schools functions, such as admissions, school buses, truancy wardens and special needs. Gove is likely to need £1bn a year for revenue costs extra if his policy is to succeed.

All three parties propose some form of pupil premium which would give schools extra money for pupils from poorer backgrounds. At present, many schools get more money in deprived areas, but good schools in more affluent areas get little extra to attract poorer pupils. The pupil premium would overcome this. However, as it will effectively provide new subsidies to schools in the suburbs and shires, the Liberal Democrats have said it will cost £2.5bn a year, and they have suggested ways they might fund it.

The Tories have given no details of how they would fund their premium. With the free schools shortfall this means there is likely to be a £3.5bn black hole that Gove says will come from cuts in areas not part of the schools budgets. While some may come from axing quangos like the curriculum authority, it could also mean cuts in youth services, education maintenance allowances for sixth formers, the teachers' pension fund and teacher training budgets if there is to be no new money for the education department.

But the other two parties have their own credibility gaps too. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, insists that his party will cut class sizes and introduce one-to-one tuition for struggling pupils. He has described it as one of his top priorities. What he really means is that his £2.5bn pupil premium, once it is distributed to schools, could be used for these purposes. Or it might not: it may instead be used to prevent cuts in basic staff budgets at a time of increasing austerity.As the Liberal Democrats have an aversion to central prescription, they have no idea what the money will actually be used for. The Scottish Nationalist Party promised to cut infant class sizes to 18 in 2007. As good localists, they gave the money to local authorities with few strings. The result was that councils spent the money elsewhere, teacher numbers fell and there was no improvement in infant class sizes. The minister responsible was demoted.

Labour has suffered from the opposite problem. It has adopted a more centralised approach to schools of which the pupil and parent guarantees are its flagship manifesto commitment. Intended to support parent power, the guarantees on everything from pupil detention rules to one-to-one teaching were included in Labour's last schools bill but ran out of time in the Lords once the election was called. But the schools department had already issued an 80-page blueprint, the detail of which had spread alarm among head teachers who have grown used to growing autonomy. In reality, the guarantees are more likely to frustrate parents as there is little indication of how any of their new commitments can be enforced: they are unlikely to stand up in court.

The parties' problematic promises owe a lot to two factors that will affect the direction of education policy, whoever wins today. The first is that budgets will inevitably be much tighter as public spending is cut to rebalance the books. And the second is that all three parties support school structures – including academies – where heads and governors call the shots rather than ministers or councils. These are the realities that will really decide schools policy over the next four or five years

No spin from us, honestly (isn't that right, Andy?)

David Cameron on Marr this morning was a taste of things to come, if the polls are right. When asked where he would find the £50 billion of cuts that the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies has said that he must find, he tells us that he and his cabinet will take pay cuts, saving a few thousand quid a year. When honesty is called for - and at least Gordon Brown has promised to halve the deficit in a clear timescale, even if that too may not be enough - all we seem to get from the man who could be PM is populist spin. Then the ex-spin doctor tells us that he will be ignoring the 24-hour news cycle to pursue 'quiet effectiveness' if he gets to No 10 as he rolls up his sleeves. Even though his special advisers and spin doctors will be concentrated in his Downing Street bunker to a greater extent than ever. Expect plenty of flying pigs too.

The real question for Gove: where will the axe fall?

The Conservative leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter, is absolutely right to worry about the funding for his party’s free schools policy. The truth is that it there is a black hole at the heart of both this policy and the party’s commitment to a pupil premium. And every time he is asked to fill it, the shadow schools secretary Michael Gove manages to dodge the question.

John Humphrys once again generated plenty of heat, but little forensic light, when he quizzed Gove on the Today programme this morning. By focusing on the principle of free schools – which are different only in potential scale to Labour’s academies programme and parent-led schools already running – he allowed Gove to skirt the practicalities of how they will be afforded. And he didn't even ask Gove how he plans to pay for a pupil premium that the Liberal Democrats have, probably conservatively, costed at £2.5 billion a year in their own programme.

There are plenty of Tories in local government who question the principle of free schools, among them the Birmingham education chair. But Carter seems to recognise that free schools won’t be free to the taxpayer. Because they will require surplus places in other schools at a time of falling rolls, they will cost at least £1 billion a year in revenue costs over and above their capital costs. And Gove has already made clear that he will raid the Building Schools for the Future budget to pay capital costs (something the Swedish schools wisely do not provide). So, with the pupil premium, the real question for the Tories is this: where will the £3.5 billion come from?

And if you say, as Gove does this morning, that it will come from waste in the DCSF budget, which programmes will be cut to cover that sum? Gove claimed on Today that 'only £32m' of the £62m resource budget for DCSF went to schools, implying the rest was used wastefully. Well a look at Annex A in the DCSF Departmental Report.

It is true this includes money for programmes like the National Challenge or for teacher recruitment and training, but much of this programme money is used directly in schools. Again they should be told which ones are to go. An additional £1.7 billon goes to early years and childcare, which Gove erroneously included in the schools budget. £11 billion goes on teachers' pensions, which may be a target for cuts, but shouldn't teachers be told? Nearly £6 billion is spent on education maintenance allowances and other youth services. Again, a probable target but shouldn't we be told? And £1.5 billion goes on safeguarding, careers advice and parenting programmes described as 'support for children and families'. Perhaps this is to be cut, but shouldn't we be told? It is time for Gove to spell out where his axe is most likely to fall.

This posting has been picked up on Left Foot Forward, New Statesman, Stumbling and Mumbling and Hopi Sen.

Creative boycott

Following my posting on the test boycott, I have received the following interesting email from an East London primary schoolteacher explaining the approach of one school to the boycott:

You might be interested to hear how the SATs 'boycott' is being interpreted in our school. I wonder how many other schools are following a similar approach? Our Year 6 will be sitting SATs tests under full exam conditions. But they will be the 2009 tests, not this year's' The raw results won't be reported to the borough, but they will be used - informed and modified, where appropriate, by teacher assessment - to give parents an overall level which the school thinks the child has reached at the end of primary school. If the borough asks, I imagine the same overall level will be reported to them. I think this is a sensible response to the situation we find ourselves in. I for one don't have a problem with SATs. The powers that be at my school have a similar view. The classroom reality is that we've been building the kids up towards the exams all year, and we can't tell them now: 'Sorry, all that work's been wasted. We won't be doing SATs.' Colleagues say 'It's the league tables we object to.' I happen to think that SATs should continue - though my experience, with children now beginning secondary school, is that secondary schools largely discount them. From a professional point of view, I think teachers are in severe danger of landing themselves with something far, far worse, in terms of workload, if APP is to become the alternative.

Testing times

I've written this post on the NUT/NAHT test boycott for the Public Finance blog:

News that the National Association of Head Teachers and the National Union of Teachers plan a boycott of the tests for 11 year-olds in English and Maths may be cause for immediate celebration on the part of some pupils and teachers. But it should worry the rest of us – and any teachers genuinely concerned with improving standards.

The unions say the tests require excessive workload and force teachers to drill pupils in English and Maths when they could be doing other things. Yet, independent experts found the tests to be ‘educationally beneficial’ while reminding teachers that they could teach the basics more effectively through good teaching rather than drilling for tests. Since there is still a 22 point gap between the achievements of poor and better off children, the boycott will have a disproportionate effect on the disadvantaged, those who were failed most by schools before the increase in accountability in the nineties that included testing and performance tables. National test data are vital in raising teacher expectations as well as revealing where primary schools need to improve.

It was interesting to note the lack of enthusiasm even among the unions’ own members for this boycott (which is opposed by other unions). Most members of both unions chose not to vote in the ballot, which meant that only a third of NAHT members and a quarter of NUT members actually voted in favour of this action. This may make it a lot harder to enforce the boycott.

Of course, there is room to reform the tests. But it is absurd to suggest that a single set of tests in English and Maths at the end of primary school – the only independent measure of primary schools – is excessive. Equally, at a time when we have seen the adverse effects of self-regulation in parliament and banking, it is untenable to suggest that teachers should mark themselves. Whatever happens, it is vital that whoever becomes education secretary after the election makes clear that testing is here to stay.

Cameron's failure and Clegg's surge

The unpredictability of the current political climate makes analysis a foolhardy enterprise. Yet there is one thing that seems clear from the surge in support for Nick Clegg and the decline in support for David Cameron since last Thursday's debate: it is a sign of Cameron's failure to follow the logic of his initial attempts to modernise the Conservative Party. Support for the Tories has always seemed tentative over the last year, rarely topping 40% in opinion polls. It was a reluctant support that quickly crumbled when an alternative seemed available. Yet whatever policy criticisms may justifiably be levelled at Clegg and the Liberal Democrats could equally be laid at Cameron's door. He simply didn't do his homework.

There is a myth that the Labour government came to power in 1997 unprepared for what faced it. And it is true that the party had not yet developed its theories of public service reform to the extent that Blair wanted, and it took until the late second and third terms for that to be fully articulated. But a huge amount of groundwork had been done, and it has been very apparent to me over the last year that little such effort has been going on in terms either of policy or reshaping the Conservatives with the present Opposition, even if shadow ministers have been having lots of chats with civil servants. And that is Cameron's big failing.

Take education. We are told by uber-cheerleaders like the Spectator editor Fraser Nelson that there has been huge preparation in this policy area. And I have no doubt that Michael Gove is both the most personable and best informed education spokesman the party has had (save, perhaps, David Willetts) since 1997. Yet there are huge glaring gaps in policy. There is no money for pupil premiums - something the Lib Dems have at least costed at £2.5 billion - and there is a foolish pretence surrounding the free schools policy that it will be cost neutral, when the truth is that if it succeeds it will cost between £1-2 billion a year. There have been daft inconsistencies, such as a flirtation with worker co-ops and threats to scrap Key Stage 2 tests. And there is a conceit that the schools will largely be parent-led (which is backfiring badly on the doorsteps) when the reality is that they are more likely to be run by academy-style sponsors and chains. Compared with the huge detail and costing of Labour education policy pre-1997, this is very much policy lite.

And on other areas, the party is in a much worse state. Plans for US-style elected sheriffs have been attacked by the police, with justification. Health policy is thoroughly regressive for patients and lacks any reforming zeal. Economic policy has seemed dangerously half-baked, with the National Insurance wheeze only the latest example, and George Osborne has lacked the gravitas of a would-be Chancellor. But over-riding all this is something that the voters have noticed: despite a few high profile efforts to promote women and minority candidates, the Tory party itself seems relatively unchanged on the ground. There has been no Clause 4 moment: even on grammar schools, a shibboleth if ever there was one, a quick retreat took place. While Labour always had its internal battles, there were many new Labour members in the party in 1997 in constituencies like the one I chaired; the Cameroons seem like a small elite without any roots. The change was far too superficial, unlike the change effected by Blair from 1994-7. Voters see this locally.

So, the fact has always been that the Cameron project was far less solidly built than the Blair project, and far more likely to crumble in the face of a plausible alternative. Once Cameron had conceded equal billing to Clegg in the TV debates, he sealed his own fate. Of course, it is not good for Labour if its support falls below 30% or leaves it in third place, though a Lib-Lab government seems a real prospect, though there is still a chance that Lib Dem support will fall back as their policies are scrutinised more. But the Tories should never have allowed themselves to be in this situation. And for not taking his project forward properly, Cameron has only himself to blame.

Election fun with Jacob Rees-Mogg

In my North East Somerset constituency, where our excellent three term Labour MP Dan Norris is defending a majority truncated by boundary changes to around 150, we are blessed in the Tory candidate, the extraordinary Jacob Rees-Mogg. Last week, the Sunday Times devoted nearly a whole page to an attempt by Camille Long to track the elusive candidate down. Now Mogg has shown his brilliance in campaigning by starting a row in the Bath Chronicle about a quite funny spoof website that a local university student has set up. Instead of ignoring this bit of fun, the son of Lord Rees-Mogg has cleverly decided that the site should have loads of publicity, so he has threatened legal action. See the site here.

Hanging in the Balance

I have written about hung parliaments for this week's Public Finance:

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said last Sunday that a narrow victory for either Labour or the Conservatives could create ‘social unrest’. And the opinion polls still suggest that the Conservatives will find it difficult to secure an overall majority on May 6.

Media and City pundits tell us we are ‘in danger’ of having a hung Parliament. Yet if that’s what our democracy produces, why should we be so afraid of such an outcome?

Clegg might be mixing disingenuousness with party advantage: he refuses to say who he would favour in a hung Parliament, yet clearly wants one to give the LibDems the upper hand. Even so, in the current economic circumstances, such a result could be better not only for the country but also for the main party leaders than a narrow majority for either of their parties.

Indeed, a weekend poll for the Independent on Sunday showed that Labour could benefit most from talk of a hung Parliament: 51% of voters want the party to be in power either on its own or as part of an alliance with the LibDems (with 26% favouring a Lib-Lab alliance and 25% a majority Labour government) against 49% saying the same about the Conservatives (split 29-20).

Yet saying so is heretical for Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron, even if LibDem voters are actively courted by the likes of Transport Secretary Lord Adonis. But across Europe, coalitions are the norm. In part, that’s the result of their more proportional electoral systems: governments need more than 40% of the popular vote. It is also often the result of a political system that is rather more honest with the voters than ours.

Here, po-faced hedge fund managers tell us that a hung Parliament would cause a run on the pound. They seem to forget that British political parties are broad, often disunited coalitions. Labour’s rebellions have reflected strong differences between Left-wing radicals and a centrist leadership. In Germany and Scandinavia, such views are represented by several different parties.

Similarly, John Major’s Conservative government in the 1990s struggled as Eurosceptic and Europhile MPs constantly bickered. In a Cameron-led government, there would likely be big differences with those who favour a return to Thatcherite certainties, as rows over grammar schools have shown.

In truth, there is more uniting the mainstream leadership of the three main parties – on issues such as policing, education and the need for spending cuts – than they might care to admit or than this week’s manifestos might suggest.

But Clegg’s strongest point was about the difficulties involved in making public service cuts or raising VAT, decisions a new government will have to make. Chancellor Alistair Darling has already said that the cuts will be deeper than anything experienced in the Thatcher years and his Tory counterpart George Osborne is keen to be seen as an even more fervent cost-cutter.

These cuts will be deeply unpopular. One only has to look at Ireland for a flavour of what might lie in store: higher staff contributions to public sector pensions, big public sector staff and pay cuts, major reductions in public spending. The idea that a party with less than 40% of the popular vote would be better able to withstand this than a government with the combined support of say, 55% or 60% of voters, is fanciful. Whether this involves a formal coalition or agreement to support a minority administration, it would still potentially be stronger than one party governing with a slim majority.

Of course, all this presents a real dilemma for the LibDems. It was easier in Scotland, where they happily supported Labour. That is, as Adonis mischievously pointed out last week, where their activists see their natural allies. Indeed, Clegg’s reluctance suggests that he and his allies feel closer to the Conservatives.

The LibDems need to tell voters where they would stand if no party won an outright majority. In Germany, federal voters knew that the liberal Free Democratic Party would back Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats in last September’s elections even if the details had later to be agreed.

But whatever happens, we shouldn’t buy the myth that what might result would be any less stable for the country than a single party government with a tiny majority. It might be just what the economy needs.

The power of debate

There is nothing the media likes more than stories about itself. So to be able to have not one, but three TV debates has meant a positive orgy of excitement on the broadcasts, as they salivate at the prospect of their being centre-stage with the three party leaders playing their assigned walk-on parts. That said, it is good that the debates are happening: they provide some focus to an otherwise tedious national campaign. There is plenty being said about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the leaders on TV. But let's not beat about the bush on this ahead of tonight's first debate. Nick Clegg is already a winner, simply by being there. David Cameron should walk the contest between himself and Brown: he can only lose if he allows his smug arrogant side to come across too obviously, and he imagines his sneering PMQs tone will work here. But as a consummate PR man who knows - and exudes - the value of style over substance, I would be astonished if he allows that to happen. Brown has the most to gain, and to lose. The campaign is being more closely fought than the heirs apparent at Millbank Tower assumed, and a strong performance would defy expectations though it is still unlikely to be a game-changer. With just 60 seconds to make points, this is a format for those who are better at mastering shallow soundbites rather than detailed debate. It will be an uphill struggle for the PM to gain the advantage in those circumstances. But while the significance of these debates is not nearly as great as the media self-obsessives would have us believe (TV was still relatively new during Kennedy-Nixon, after all) it is still an important step forward for British elections.

The limitations of 'people power'

I'm all in favour of parents being helped to start their own schools. Indeed, I helped develop legislation under Labour that would make it easier for them to do so, and I would support its liberalisation. A few have done so successfully,and doubtless the Tories have a few more lined up, but it never felt like the groundswell - faith schools aside - that would make a significant difference to the school system. The truth is that the Conservatives - who made 'people power' their manifesto theme today - will rely on extending the role of the sort of organisations that are already engaged in academies to develop their Swedish schools, rather than a rush of parent power or even workers co-ops. And for them to pretend otherwise is disingenous and a tad deceitful.

Equally, it may be that there is a huge groundswell of untapped voluntarism just waiting for the chance to become the new government. If there is, I'll be the first to applaud. But there is simply no evidence that there is. Of course, there are plenty of volunteers around and their work is to be applauded and encouraged. But the idea that they can take over the bulk of the public services - and improve them - is fanciful. Improving public services demands good leadership, skilled professional staff, clear measurable goals (particularly minimum standards) and strong accountability. External drive from the private or voluntary sector can also make a big difference, as in academies and some health services, but not without the combination of other facets in place too. Because the Conservatives have chosen to lie about the extent of progress in the public services since 1997, they have chosen to ignore the importance of all these factors in combination. And that is the big flaw in their odd document today.

By all means, let's get more people engaged in government and public services. But by pretending that this is the solution to society's ills, the Tories are either hopelessly naive or unforgivably cynical. Sure, their media cheerleaders who don't visit state schools or wait in A&E will cheer their prescription. But when it comes to putting all this into action - should they get into power - let's see how much genuine people power takes off. I won't be holding my breath.

Cartoon manifesto

This is a great sales pitch, and there is plenty of meat in the new Labour manifesto itself.

Health improvements at risk

Today's report from the Kings Fund highlighting the extent to which there have been real improvements in access and speed in the NHS under Labour shows what is being put at risk if the Tories scrap the patient guarantees that have helped deliver these improvements. Isn't about time these issues were debated in this election campaign and that the BMA spokesman and Tory would-be health secretary Andrew Lansley was asked to explain the full effect of his returning the health service to the state in which the Tories left it in 1997?

Citizens' Service (Mark 2?)

David Cameron says he wants a national voluntary citizens' service scheme. Apart from its focus on 16 year olds alone, the voluntary nature of the scheme makes this little different from the Millennium Volunteers scheme launched by David Blunkett in 1998 when he was education and employment secretary. It is now called v-involved. But its voluntary nature meant it was never going to be a universal scheme. Cameron's scheme is destined to be no different.

Dumbing down

I've always been a bit concerned about dumbing down, especially on Channel 4's evening schedule or the BBC News (which has become a version of Hello! at 6pm). But I thought some things would be immune. Until now.

Politics must be an election winner

That the election that we now know will take place on May 6^th is competitive at all is remarkable in itself. And the fact that there is any doubt about the result owes much to the weaknesses of David Cameron and the strengths of Gordon Brown. The extent to which Cameron overcomes his weaknesses and Brown plays to his strengths will determine the outcome of the election. But this must also be an election where politicians show that politics matters again, after the recent expenses scandals.

The opinion polls give a mixed picture: Labour stalwarts may prefer ICM’s 4-point Tory lead in the Guardian to YouGov’s 10-point advantage in The Sun. But both suggest a tighter result than the 15-20 point lead of polls last year. Cameron lost ground by retreating to his Tory comfort zone when he should have stuck with his initial instincts to regain the centreground won by Tony Blair in the last three elections. The result was that – with the possible exception of last week’s national insurance battle – a Tory policy blitz promised for after Christmas proved a damp squib. Meanwhile, despite a depleted party budget, Labour proved a sharper than expected campaigner and has played well to the economic strengths of the Brown-Darling team (so much so that Brown has said that in the – still unlikely – result of a Labour victory, Darling would remain as Chancellor).

But all that could change in the next four weeks. The novelty of the TV debates could be a game changer in three ways. First, if Cameron allows the sneering petulance that has occasionally reared its ugly head at PMQs to come through, he will turn off middle ground voters. Second, if Brown doesn’t manage to mix his undoubted gravitas with a lighter touch, he will lose to Cameron and Clegg. And, finally if Nick Clegg does as well as Vince Cable in the Chancellors’ debate, he could affect the result in some marginals to the detriment of the two larger parties.

For the two main parties, however, this will be an inauspicious election, as the combination of Westminster expenses and economic uncertainty could drive record numbers of voters either to abstain or to vote for fringe parties and independents. It is that as much as the polls that suggests a hung parliament remains the most likely result. And the big challenge for all the parties in the weeks ahead is to make people realise that politics matters and makes a difference to their lives. Whatever the result, this election campaign can only be judged a success if it switches people back to politics.

This post first appeared on the Public Finance blog today.

Inside North Korea

Cruising the Nile, I have been reading Barbara Demick's superb and disturbing account of life in North Korea, Nothing to Envy. Demick, an LA Times reporter who has covered Korea and China, uses the stories of six very different defectors to give an extraordinary account inside the world's most secretive country. She describes the brainwashing from birth and the absence of external information that combined to produce a zealous devotion (at least outwardly) to the Dear Leader, with people whose fortitude and reilience was extraordinary. People's lives are regulated in extraordinary detail. There are (at least in the early stages) none of the Soviet queues here as the state provides an allocation of food every fortnight and even haircuts are provided by an assembly line of hairdresssers (men one side, women the other) by the Orwellian Convenience Bureau.

Demick's witnesses move from various degrees of loyalty to varying degrees of disillusion as the Soviet Union's collapse prompts a horrendous famine that drives people to sell their meagre goods to buy from a newly emerging black market (often filled with Western aid produce) or to cook grass instead of rice. One of her witnesses, a doctor, is confronted with the disappearance of basic supplies and an expectation that she add to her 12 hour day with time picking herbs for medicine in the mountains. Electricity - the spread of which was a genuine advance in North Korea - is rationed to an hour a day. Big Brother meanwhile starts a campaign to spread a message extolling the delights of 'two meals a day' instead of three, though getting one is a challenge even for the starving children at the infant school.

All the while the propaganda is strengthened about the evils of South Korea (for whom some rumours suggest the state is stockpiling food to feed its 'starving people' after reunification) and the USA. Some brave souls manage (at huge personal risk - state police can visit at any hour) to listen to South Korean radio, adjusting blocks on their sets to do so. Mrs Song, the once loyal party apparatchik, has her faith in the Leader dimmed by a request to provoke critiques of the regime - something likely to result in years in a labour camp with 200,000 other unfortunates - from her neighbours who turn silent in her presence. Gradually, we see people escaping into China - where they can be turned back by the Chinese - in a bid either to fly to Seoul on a false passport or to go by land to Mongolia where the country is more tolerant and will deport them to South rather than North Korea. Even reaching South Korea has its own difficulties as fraudsters find ways to relieve them of their $20,000 welcome money and adjusting to such a different world is difficult. There is also the guilt of leaving family behind to their unpleasant fate as unwitting relatives of defectors. This is a story that deserves the widest possible airing. Barbara Demick's book is as important in telling the personal story of North Korea as Jung Chang's was in taking us through the Chinese Cultural Revolution. It is a chilling, but essential read.

Lessons from Egypt

ASWAN - From today's Egyptian Gazette, an English-language daily in operation for 130 years, I bring news of how not to behave when the education minister pays a visit. Apparently, Zaki Badr, the education minister decided to pop in to a model school, El-Khulafaa el-Rashiudun preparatory school in Helwan, on Monday to see how things were going in the school recommended by his ministry. Finding the school empty of students and teachers, Mr Badr promptly ordered the staff to be transferred to 'remote educational facilities' accusing them of 'laxity and incompetence'. Now the 93 staff are staging a strike in protest at this 'humiliating decree'. Principal El-Khuli told the Gazette that he had been late himself because he had to attend a physiotherapy session, and complained that he had been given no money by the ministry. But Egyptian cynics say the minister should not have been surprised to find no learning going on in Halwen: Mohammed Amin of Al-Wafd said that most youngsters were now educated in privatre tuition centres (where parents pay the teachers to do the job that they should be doing in the state-funded schools!).

The wonder of Abu Simbel

ASWAN - To visit one of the most remarkable sites in the world today - the temples built to Rameses II at Abu Simbel, in Southern Egypt, close to the Sudanese border. The sheer size of the temples is remarkable, as is the preservation of the art inside. Rameses was a narcissistic sort, as we had already seen on a two-day visit to Cairo, which included Memphis. He was also a great spin doctor, turning treaties that followed unwon wars into great victories over his enemies, illustrated on the walls of these great temples. Perhaps no less remarkable than their survival since the thirteenth century BC is the way the temples were transplanted whole to their present site to make way for the flooding that created Lake Nasser. Visiting the site involves a convoy of buses and cars with military escort, departing Aswan just twice in the morning, at 4am and 11am, and a 600km round trip with a couple of hours at the site. But it is a great experience, and a clear highlight of our trip to Egypt so far.

Is truancy really rising?

Today's 'record' figures for truancy show that the proportion of school sessionss missed through unauthorised absence has risen slightly to 1.05%. "Truancy" is on the rise, say the reports, and doubtless this will feature in pieces on "Labour's failure" tomorrow. Much is made of the comparisons with 1997 when 0.7% of sessions were missed. At the same time, the Government reports that days lost through 'authorised absence' are falling rapidly. The two figures are related. When the Government decided to clamp down on term-time holidays and visits to the dentist or on Christmas shopping trips, they created a rod for their own back.

Schools are reluctant to grant permission for such occasions that they might previously have granted, hence the rise in unauthorised absence. Unauthorised family holidays now account for 11% of all unauthorised absences. This has little to do with what might normally be regarded as 'truancy', pupils skipping school on a regular basis often without the knowledge of their parents. And a look at the detailed statistics suggests a more balanced picture.

• First, since 1996/7, the proportion of sessions lost due to all absence has fallen in primary schools from 6.06% to 5.30% - in other words pupils are at school for an average of 1.4 days more than they were when Labour took office. In secondary schools, the improvement is even better, with a fall from 9.06% to 7.25%, suggesting pupils are at school an average of 3.4 days more than in 1997. However, within those figures there have been increases in unauthorised absence that have offset some of the improvements in authorised absence. (Table 2.1)
• Second, the number of pupils defined as persisent absentees - missing over 32 days a year - has fallen from 272,950 in 2006/7 to 208,380 in 2008/9 as a direct result of a programme targeted at this group and the schools where the problem was greatest. This 24% reduction is a remarkable result for an intervention programme and is far more significant than the small rise in overall unauthorised absence. Indeed, persistent absentees are now responsible for 43.4% of unauthorised absence compared with 51.8% in 2006/07. (Table 1.2)
• Third, there has been an 18% drop in persistence absence in academies (from 8.00% to 6.50%) over the last year and an 8.5% reduction in unauthorised absence, again suggesting that targeted intervention does work. (Table 6.1)

None of this is to suggest that there is not a real problem with truancy. Clearly far too many pupils are still absent for too long and more work needs to be done. But if the targeted schools and the academies have been able to make a difference where previous intervention programmes have failed, it would be rather more useful to learn their lessons and share them rather than assuming nothing can be done.

A very political budget

Alastair Darling has grown greatly in Chancellor, and he was in full command of his brief today. By being able to highlight better than expected tax receipts and lower borrowing, he was on strong ground arguing that the Government's approach to the economy has been showing signs of success. His announcement on a stamp duty holiday for first time buyers up to £250,000 cleverly linked its funding to a higher duty on homes worth over £1 million. He wisely focused a range of new tax reliefs on entrepreneurs, innovation and business investment, with a new national investment bank to support green transport and energy. And he made much of contrasting Labour and Tory approaches to public service guarantees, employment training and high speed rail. His plans to clamp down on tax avoidance in Grenada, Dominica and Belize were a masterstroke, showing a mischievous sense of humour. Given the perceived limits on his room for manouevre, this was a sensible package that put Labour in a stronger position than before. Gordon Brown should make clear that in the still limited chance that he should win the election, he will retain the experienced reassurance of Alastair Darling at the Treasury. Being able to draw a sharp contrast with the woeful George Osborne would be a vote-winner.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

To see the Swedish film adaptation of Steig Larsson's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Män som hatar kvinnor) last night. Noomi Rapace is brilliant as Lisbeth Salandar, the troubled tattoed cybersleuth who joins crusading journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist)in a bid to uncover an increasingly disturbing mystery surrounding the disappearance of a young woman forty years earlier. The story introduces Swedish Nazis and plenty of grisly revelations along the way. This is not a film for the faint-hearted any more than the book - and its theme of 'men who hate women' has attracted plenty of controversy - but it is still at heart a tale of good and evil. It is also a cracking thriller which despite its 2h 45 it rattles along with pace, ditching extraneous aspects of the book and focusing on the principal plotlines. I read the thriller at Christmas, and the film is as faithful an adaptation as is possible, capturing the characters and landscape as one imagines it. It deserves a better critical reception than it has received.

Obama's healthcare victory

It would be unwise to underestimate the significance of Obama's victory on healthcare last night. However narrow the vote in favour, it marks the beginning of a new phase of his presidency. That he has had to win without Republican support is the result of the absurd extremism of the contemporary Republican party and its media cheerleaders, rather than a sign of the President's having shifted to the left. Had he allowed their wrecking tactics to prevail, he would have destroyed his own Presidency as well as any hope of healthcare reform. Now he needs to set a clear path of other domestic and international policy issues - he is already well advanced on education with little fanfare - including climate change and Middle East policy. But after a rocky start to 2010, the President should be able to regain the confidence of his early months and give the Democrats a stronger chance than they had before today in the November mid-terms.

Haunted

To see the touring production of Edna O'Brien's Haunted at the Bath Theatre Royal last night. Brenda Blethyn and Niall Buggy put in fine performances as the ageing couple whose lives are haunted by a lost child, and whose lost romance is crystallised in his infatuation with a young and bewitching woman, Hazel, an affair with its own sorry but predictable conclusion. The acting is superb, and there's a great set, but one is left with one question, for all the Shakespearean allegory, poetic quotation and Biblical allusion: is that it?

Toddlers or students: where to invest?

Today's Times bemoans the Government's protection of Sure Start spending on children's centres at a time when university spending is being cut. It also complains that spending on the under-5s has risen more rapidly under Labour than that on higher education. It questions whether this is the right prioritisation to achieve social mobility. Of course, there may be more that Sure Start can do to improve outcomes, though recent evaluations have been better than earlier ones, but the answer is most definitely Yes. All the evidence suggests that inequalities set in before the age of five. Unless they are addressed at that stage - including through effective social skills and reading programmes - the chance of improving mobility later are greatly reduced. The universities should have access to higher fees, but it is absurd to suggest they should have a greater call on limited resources over early years education.

Clegg could destroy the Liberal Democrats

Nick Clegg's conceit in pretending that the Liberal Democrats are not thinking about what might happen if - as seems increasingly likely - there is a hung parliament after the general election will fool nobody. But Andrew Adonis was right yesterday (on this, as on the BA strike) in pointing out just how damaging an alliance with the Conservatives would be to the Liberal Democrats.

Their trouble is that, even if their voters are split in their second choice between the Tories and Labour, most of their own members are instinctively opposed to the Tories, and would find themselves to the left of Labour on a range of issues. Education is a good example. David Laws, their intelligent schools spokesman, has to tie himself in knots in a bid to embrace a position that he clearly supports - the development of academies and Tory-style free schools - whilst satisfying the traditionalists in the party by promising a strong role for local authorities and claiming to back 'academies for all' (a position which would probably mean no improvement in the weaker schools that academies largely embrace). Equally tortuous is their continued promise to get rid of university tuition fees, a position that has no intellectual coherence at a time when their finance spokesman Vince Cable is demanding public spending restraint.

These disingenuous compromises don't come in for a great deal of scrutiny when the party is unlikely to be in government, and Clegg has cleverly put forward his bottom lines on issues like education - where he promises to scrap the child trust fund to pay for a pupil premium - and voting reform, knowing that these are issues on which he can carry his party. But what if Clegg takes his party into a coalition, or more probably, props up a minority Conservative government? Unless Clegg calls a conference to ratify his decision, something he seems reluctant to do, he will destroy all the gains that his party has made since 1997. Minority parties can gain all the blame from the voters in such circumstances with little credit for the 'stability' or 'responsibility' that may also have resulted, or indeed for the policies they have successfully had introduced. So Clegg may be the kingmaker after the election, but if he gets it wrong, he may also be the author of his own party's downfall.

Cameron's indecision

David Cameron has apparently told Trevor MacDonald in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow night that he has told George Osborne that he might sack him from his role as Shadow Chancellor. Given Osborne's track record - had we taken his advice on the banks, many of us would have had our savings wiped out - why the delay?

Conservative contradictions

I have written this post for the Public Finance blog:

The Conservatives’ shadow schools secretary is finding himself in an increasing muddle as he starts to put flesh on his schools’ policy. One day Michael Gove is extolling the virtues of free schools, liberated from the shackles of Whitehall, with the touchy-feely charms of Goldie Hawn jostling alongside Swedish companies to deliver. Days later he is laying down the level of detailed knowledge that every youngster should have of their kings and queens, their classical poetry by heart and their algebra under the tutelage of the Tories’ Maths mistress Carol Vorderman.

Gove’s confusion on education policy, one of the few areas where the Tories have at least done some homework, seems to mirror his party’s wider confusion as it wobbles in the polls. This is exemplified in planning, where Gove has pledged to railroad through new local school plans in Whitehall regardless of local objections while his shadow cabinet colleague Theresa Villiers apparently wants every parish council to have its say on any high speed rail link.

Meanwhile, the funding problems that I outlined last month in Public Finance have been exacerbated by a report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which suggests that a £2.5 billion pupil premium would only have a modest impact on social mobility, and even then the sums involved – about £2500 a pupil – would be similar to the extra £2460-£3370 which the IFS says are already spent on such pupils by the Labour government. Even Ed Balls has started to detail £500 million in cuts for his department, yet Gove has £3.5 billion of unfunded spending commitments, including funding the pupil premium without reducing existing school spending.

Gove has also pledged to introduce some symbolic legislation within days of a Tory government winning an election, whch would apparently give greater freedoms to academies and introduce further changes to the frequency and scope of Ofsted inspections. Even here there is confusion: Gove’s colleagues maintain that they would enforce their traditional curriculum in ‘free schools’ through Ofsted, yet outstanding schools are to exempted from such inspections (even though a significant minority of schools fall back over time).

And whether Gove needs primary legislation to introduce either change is a moot point: much legislation is done for political show, and this looks like no exception. Indeed he might be better spending his time resolving the built-in contradictions that are growing more apparent the more he tells us about his policies, explaining what parts of the curriculum would be compulsory and how he would fund his ambitions. Unless he gets this right, there will be a lot of confused heads and teachers if he gets the chance to implement his blueprint.

"Due diligence" and the Tories

That the Electoral Commission - despite a disgraceful boycott of their requests to interview senior Tories - has ruled that Lord Ashcroft's Bearwood company is entitled to pour money into buying the election in marginal constituencies does not absolve the party from the questions that arise after William Hague's astonishing admission on BBC Radio last night.

Hague effectively admitted that Lord Ashcroft had misled him - to put it politely - about his tax status. As Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary, has indicated, ignorance is no defence when Hague had given clear undertakings as a condition of Ashcroft's peerage. The Electoral Commission maintains - despite their boycott of its interviewers - that the Tories had in all probability done their 'due diligence' over the Bearwood donations. Yet since Lord Turnbull is quite clear that Hague had not done his 'due diligence' with respect to Ashcroft's supposed willingness to pay his taxes as a UK resident, it is hard to see on what basis the Electoral Commission has decided to give his party colleagues the benefit of the doubt.

The facts appear to be these. Lord Ashcroft led Hague to believe that he would pay "tens of millions of pounds a year" in taxes if he entered the House of Lords. Ashcroft intended to do no such thing, preferring the congenial Belizean tax regime, and throwing a few quid to the Revenue as a non-dom instead. James Arbuthnot, a Tory chief whip, reached some side deal with Sir Hayden Philips, according to the Cabinet Office, that allowed Ashcroft to be declared a 'long-term' rather than 'permanent' resident, allowing his congenial Belizean tax regime to continue for most of Ashcroft's income. He presumably didn't feel it necessary to tell William Hague. As a result, Hague misled both Tony Blair and the Cabinet Secretary. And until a few months ago, neither Hague nor presumably David Cameron could be arsed to check what had gone one.

Of course, Ashcroft should be required to relinquish his role in the Tory party and his peerage. But isn't there also a big question over the judgment and competence of William Hague, and his ability to be Foreign Secretary if the Tories win the election, when he may be required to agree treaties and other matters with other countries? Presumably he won't be too bothered to check up on whether they keep their promises.

And I do so look forward to hearing David Cameron pontificating about cleaning up politics again.

Michael Foot 1913-2010

Michael Foot was a great journalist, fine orator, a brilliant writer and a giant of the Labour movement. His life from the Spanish Civil War and the founding of Tribune through to his less happy time employment secretary and Labour leader saw him play a big part in the great events of the 20th century. He was a towering intellectual and a believer in ideas, someone whose convictions fitted their times, but whose actions were characterised by courtesy and statesmanship in expressing those ideas. His time as leader was not a happy time for the party, and he didn't deserve the personal abuse he suffered in those times, even though he was not the best person to do that job. The death of Michael Foot is also the death of an era of politicians of a pre-television age. May he rest in peace.

Ashcroft tax bombshell makes case for party funding

Today's news that William Hague misled Tony Blair about Lord Ashcroft's willingness to pay 'millions' in taxes is a further example of the effects of relying on large private donations to fund our political parties. I've also just been reading Peter Watt's Inside Out and the thing that comes out clearly there is the absurd extent to which the Labour Party had to rely on a small number of private donors - and its impact on one of our great political parties - as well as some equally preening trade union leaders for its survival over several years. Such funding is unhealthy for democracy, and a distraction from the proper business of politics. Given that the state already funds political parties to a substantial extent - £4.8 million a year to the Tories and £1.7 million to the LibDems - it is hardly a great leap to increase that funding. There are several options. First, ban large costly political posters. Second, restrict funding and spending to £15 million a year. Third, allow small donations of up to £500 a year for individuals, and match fund them to encourage such participation. And fourth, provide a basic allowance for all parties, including the governing party, to allow them to maintain a reasonable structure, with the level of funding dependent on their votes in the previous general election, with a minimum threshold for funding within each UK nation. The idea that it is better for politics to have the pantomime of Hague's Ashcroft porkies or 'cash for honours' than to bite the bullet of state funding is simply laughable.

Gove's welcome willingness to perform U-turns

Michael Gove was complaining during his many valiant - but unsuccessful - attempts to defend Lord Ashcroft on his taxes last night that the Tories were somehow being held to a higher standard than Labour over non-Doms. Michael White explains why this is not so with Ashcroft. But there is another area where the Tories are being allowed to get away with murder: their ability to perform U-turns unnoticed (unless they break their sacred marriage vows with the Daily Mail).

The latest came yesterday, barely noted in the Independent and ignored elsewhere. Alongside an announcement on Ofsted that I have detailed earlier, Gove declared that the story that dominated the news a few months ago - that he would have secondary teachers marking primary pupils' test results at the start of Year 7 - was just an idea he was floating. All those headlines may have come in handy highlighting the party's flexibility to grumpy teachers and giving the impression of new policy in a generally policy-lite party. But now it had served its purpose, it could go. According to the excellent Richard Garner, the last remaining truly experienced education correspondent in the national press:

he appeared to back-track from a plan to transfer tests for 11-year-olds to the first term of secondary schooling – a move designed to reduce teaching to the test in the last year of primary schooling....He said he had only “floated” the idea and could see arguments both for and against it. “We do need to maintain objective testing to discover the level at which children are working,” he added. “There is no way that we will get rid of end of primary testing..."

This is a welcome U-turn, if that is what it is. And I reported in Public Finance last summer that Gove was already having his doubts about letting secondary teachers mark primary tests. But surely it deserves the same celebratory scrutiny that normally accompanies major political U-turns - at least when they come from Labour ministers?

Making admissions a lottery

My former no 10 colleague, Phil Collins has a great piece in The Times today rehearsing his old argument in favour of lotteries for school admissions. If the Tories are serious about opening up the school system and doing so with fair admissions, then they must encourage lotteries or banding in the cities. As Phil argues:

Ten more years of reform would certainly mean that the second best schools would be a lot better than they are. But even that wouldn’t solve the problem entirely. There is no admissions system within the wit of man that will avoid the best schools being over-subscribed. Even in the utopia of universal greatness it will still be rational for parents to choose the best school they can. Therefore, it is crucial to find a fair way of distinguishing between applicants.....There is one decisive political objection to the lottery scheme: it means that, all of a sudden, access to a good school cannot be purchased via the housing market. In politics, the complaints of those who lose will always drown out the muted thanks of those who gain. It will be hard to do but it is only when we have enough good schools and a fair way of selecting children that parental choice will become really meaningful.

Not inspecting outstanding schools would be a big mistake

In between his shaky defences of Lord Ashcroft, Michael Gove announced yesterday that outstanding schools - so deemed by Ofsted - would not be inspected ever again under a Conservative government. This could be a big mistake, for two reasons. It would make it harder to define other schools as outstanding without inspectors having visited the gold standard, and harder for Ofsted to spread the secrets of their success. An inspection in an outstanding school is rarely the burden it is for others, rather a chance to show how its done. And secondly - and perhaps more importantly - schools designated outstanding now could quite easily lose their high standing without some pressure to maintain it. A change of head or a new curriculum could make the difference. And while a school may continue to show good exam results for a time, the failure to have regular inspections could disguise a dip until pupils had fallen behind. To be fair, Gove no longer plans to abandon testing in primary schools, so there would be some independent evidence of progress. But a school could still coast for years before parents or other concerned parties trigger an inspection. By all means, have a lighter touch system for the best schools, keeping their inspections on a six year cycle, or the threat of lightning sampler inspections, but don't abandon all inspections of schools that are great today. Because they may not be tomorrow.

Labour must articulate its vision as Tory arrogance cuts their poll lead

I have no idea whether or not yesterday's Sunday Times poll is the game changer it purports to be, though it is interesting to see how the underlying questions suggest that the David Cameron and George Osborne - especially, I suspect, the latter - have lost ground on confidence issues that had propelled them into double-digit leads just a few months ago. But the biggest problem the Tories face was exemplified in Cameron's lacklustre speech yesterday: he all but declared that people had a 'patriotic duty' to vote Conservative. No, they haven't, and it is the height of arrogance to suggest they do. Indeed, had we listened to Osborne on the banks, many of us would be as poor as Argentinians were after their banks collapsed at the turn of the Millennium, as their savings turned to dust. Some patriotic duty.

With signs of recovery, people are right to be distrustful of Osborne's medicine now. Equally, the Tories continue to leave the BMA spokesman Andrew Lansley in charge of health policies that will increase inefficiency in the NHS while greatly reducing patient care, and Cameron says that this man knows more about the NHS than anyone else alive. If he does, one only wonders why he has been keeping it to himself all this time. The list goes on: Theresa Villiers trying to wreck plans for high-speed rail and sideline our most important airport; Jeremy Hunt, the media spokesman set on wrecking the BBC. Add to that the preening arrogance of young Tory wannabees who loudly declare in bars near Millbank and Westminster the jobs that they will have in a new Government - to sharp intakes of breath from non-partisan folk nearby - and the renewed sense of entitlement being displayed in Tory-Labour marginals like mine, and you can see why the polls are narrowing.

That's not to say that Labour has been getting it right: too many of our policies remain unfocused, and we have not found a way either to articulate the progress and vision in our public services, especially education. The Budget must not shirk from an honest assessment of what the economy needs and what it will require to halve the deficit over four years. But we now have a chance to start winning these arguments, as swing voters think twice about the Tories. It is a small window, and it is vital that ministers and those in no 10 grab it while they have the chance.